QT: How is the concept of a "gender identity" not sexist?

submitted by Penultimate_Penance from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (81 children)

So it seems you are indeed saying that everyone has a "gender identity."

I disagree with this. I don't have a "gender identity." Nor do most people.

I also disagree with your contention that

practically everything is socially determined.

Yes, people who grew up in the same household will usually have the same accent. But they also will have different & separate bodies, entirely different personalities & POVs, & different experiences and perceptions. They will remember the same exact events in totally different ways. If children's innate temperaments didn't matter, we'd all be just like our siblings and our parents. And our own kids would be like one another and ourselves.

I don't understand your distinction between "social identity" and "personal identity." We all develop our sense of self within a social context. And in the material world of flesh and blood physicality and objective, observable facts too. We all have bodies that we can misperceive and disassociate from, but never can escape until we die. Even when we are asleep or in a coma, our bodies exist in material reality.

The idea that all people have a "personal identity" and/or "gender identity" that can be entirely of our choosing & invention that we then attempt to impose on the world by publicly announcing "this is how I identify" and "these are my labels/pronouns" and expecting or demanding that everyone else play along is entirely new. And to me, it's silly & daft.

[–]SnowAssMan 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (80 children)

Of course everyone is an individual, but culture exists. Not everyone who shares a culture is the same, but they all share a culture in common. Gender identity is like culture. Saying you don't have a gender identity, is like saying you don't have a culture. There is no such thing as a human being without a culture (except for a feral child maybe, or a recluse, or a child who travelled a lot with international parents).

Sexism is an ism because it's systemic. We all have the same biases, including parents. Parents know their child's sex & are biased accordingly. It colours their upbringing style. For instance, parents are more critical of their female infants' crawling abilities than their male ones. There are countless things like that which will obviously affect the child, especially when half the population is treated one way & the other half another way.

If we were all unique individuals then a series like Harry Potter would only appeal to 1 person, not en masse (with mostly female hardcore fans).

The same way you can't choose your culture is the same way you can't choose your gender identity. Cross-gender self-identification doesn't undo socialisation, otherwise all the transgender sex offenders would be female instead of male.

[–]BiologyIsReal 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (39 children)

You're the only who I've seen defining "gender identity" this way. Usually, QT defines "gender identity" as how someone perceives themself or how well they align with societal expectations for their sex. That is why they really can't explain it without rely on sexist stereotypes.

I don't believe in this stuff, therefore I don't have a "gender identity". I don't identify as a woman, but I know I'm one. How much I live up (or not) to the feminine ideals in my culture doesn't change my sex.

[–]SnowAssMan 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (38 children)

It's just the nurture half of the nature vs. nurture debate. I didn't make it up. See my citations.

The trans cult's modus operandi is to appropriate terms & change all their definitions to: cross-gender self-identification. Gender, gender identity, boy, girl, man, woman, even male & female have all be appropriated & re-defined as all referring to cross-gender self-identification. 'Sex' will probably be next.

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But nature vs. nuture is entirely different to the blank slate theory you've espoused.

[–]SnowAssMan 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's a debate. The nurture side of the debate sides with blank slate theory.

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

Yeah, appropriation is TRA's modus operandi, but I don't think that is the case for the term "gender identity". If I'm not mistaken it was the infamous John Money who coined this term to explain transsexualism and justify the "sex change" of babies with certain DSDs. And I've only seen the term "gender identity" in the contex of intersex and transgenderism/transsexualism. I think Money said that everyone have a "gender identity", but most people through the world and human history didn't/don't think about this stuff that much. We have known we have a sex for millennia and humans have prescribed certain roles for each sex, but it's only recently that some are saying that sex is a spectrum, that you can change sex or that "gender identity" should be prioritized over sex. Until some year ago, for me gender only belonged to grammar. "Gender identity" is a transgenderism specific concept that cannot be scientifically proved, so I've no desire to start using it.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The term "gender identity" & the ideas behind it were coined by US psychiatrist Robert Stoller. He was a sexologist who did a lot of work on "transsexualism" & published influential books on the topics of masculinity, femininity & "gender identity" in the 1960s & 70s. He and John Money were colleagues, albeit at different institutions in the US. Stoller was at UCLA; Money at Johns Hopkins.

Stoller came up with "gender identity" in treating adult patients. Money used the idea to justify experimenting on children.

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I see. Thanks for the correction! Though, that means that "gender identity" was indeed associated with transsexualism from the beginning.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's really hard to say exactly. Because these guys were communicating with one another, traveling back & forth to give lectures, writing papers & books, and reading & editing each other's work over a long, indeterminate period of time before their ideas were published in journals or as books with publication dates/time stamps on them.

Moreover, back then everything had to written out & typed up on paper & manuscripts had to be mailed or handed out, then edited or commented on, also on paper, & sent back to the sender. Which meant the back & forth between scholars was very different to today. And it all took a lot more time. In the case of male scholars, there was often an additional delay coz most of them couldn't type - and so they relied on women to take their handwritten works & neatly type them out so they would be legible to others.

Moreover, there used to be quite a long lag between the time an academic paper or book was finished by the author and when it was finally published. Even in commercial book publishing, it used to take - and still often takes - at least a year between the time an author hands in the work and when it's published.

Also, my sense has always been that before a neologism or novel concept first appears in printed work and is said to have been invented, it's often been in use in verbal communications more informally for quite a while.

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

The trans cult says the opposite. They reject John Money for being an espouser of the socialisation of gender identity. He is infamous for trying to re-socialise Reimer. They believe his failure to re-socialise Reimer proves gender identity is innate, when the real reason he failed is because he just sexually abused a 2 year old under the guise of female socialisation.

Boys who have been socialised as girls from birth almost always continue identifying as women even after the truth is known to them.

I've known about gender identity since before the trans thing blew up, so it doesn't stem from them & it's not a synonym for 'feminine essence theory'. They just want their dumb biologically-determined hypothesis to sound more legitimate by appropriating the term for the socially-determined theory.

[–]MarkTwainiac 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Boys who have been socialised as girls from birth almost always continue identifying as women even after the truth is known to them.

Really? I thought that the research on males with DSDs around the world shows the exact opposite. For example, in a wide variety of cultures most males with 5-ARD - the male DSD that Caster Semenya has - who have been raised as girls decide to adopt a male "gender identity" during or after the puberty of adolescence. I think what you say only applies to those with CAIS.

[–]SnowAssMan 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I cited my source. It's the last link in the top comment.

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

Just because TRA have adapted the concept more to their liking, it doesn't change the fact that it was John Money who coined the term "gender identity". Tough, if you know of someone who used the term before him, I'd be interested to hear about it.

Even putting aside the medical and sexual abuse of David Reimer, Money's experiment was bound to fail. First of all, an experiment with a sample of just one person has very low statistic value even if you're using his twin as control. Also, he was bound to find the truth sooner or later. He should notice eventually that he was not like other girls. Like, for example, how would he explain his lack of menarch and his parent's lack of worry about it?

Boys who have been socialised as girls from birth almost always continue identifying as women even after the truth is known to them.

I'm not sure if that is the case. As far as I read about peopple with DSDs, it seems like their self-identification is usually consistent with their phenotype. For example, males with CAIS view themselves as women. Males with PAIS tend to report more unsatisfying experiences whether they are raised as girls or as boys. Males with 5 alfa reductase deficience tend to view temselves as men; even more, many of the males who are mistaken and raised as girls adopt a male identity at puberty when their bodies get virilized by the increase in testosterone.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Just because TRA have adapted the concept more to their liking, it doesn't change the fact that it was John Money who coined the term "gender identity". Tough, if you know of someone who used the term before him, I'd be interested to hear about it.

Robert Stoller.

[–]SnowAssMan 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (23 children)

My understanding of gender identity comes from sociology, specifically social identity theory, however, John Money's gender identity is consistent with sociology's. Feminine essence theory (what TRAs actually men when they say gender identity) & gender identity are opposites. One is the nature side of the debate, the other is the nurture side.

Money's experiment was bound to fail

Why? It's been done since, properly, & hasn't failed.

For example, males with CAIS view themselves as women

OMFG, that's perfectly consistent with what I'm saying though. They look female & as a result were brought up that way. I cited my source in my first comment here. I'm unaware of a source that contradicts it.

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

I already explained why. It's not technoligically possible to change someone's sex. Body changes caused by exogenous hormones and surgeries are merely cosmetic rather than an actual sex change. As such, children who are raised as the opposite sex will eventually wonder why they are diferent from other children or why they need to take hormones. I did included examples of genetical males whith DSDs that are often raised as girls. You focused on males with CAIS while ignoring males with 5 alfa reductase deficience. Here are some relevant links (disclaimer: I don't endorse the authors of the second link's suggestion of using "puberty blockers"):

Gender Change in 46,XY Persons with 5α-Reductase-2Deficiency and 17β-HydroxysteroidDehydrogenase-3 Deficiency

Gender identity, gender assignment and reassignment in individuals with disorders of sex development: a major of dilemma

Gender identity disorder (GID) in adolescents and adults with differences of sex development (DSD): A systematic review and meta-analysis

[–]SnowAssMan 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

This first link says the opposite of what you're claiming it says.

[–]worried19 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Boys who have been socialised as girls from birth almost always continue identifying as women even after the truth is known to them.

The Guevedoces in the Dominican Republic are kind of the opposite.

Imperato-McGinley's thorough medical investigations showed that in most cases their new, male equipment seems to work fine and that most Guevedoces live out their lives as men, though some go through an operation and remain female.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34290981

Although I wonder how much their choice is influenced by the higher status that men obviously have. Still if you look like a man and have male equipment, what would keep any of them identifying as female beyond mere familiarity?

[–]SnowAssMan 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

They are biologically unique, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that they are culturally unique too.

[–]worried19 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm sure culture has a big influence. I think I did read somewhere that several of the other boys who suffered the same forced sex reassignment as David Reimer stayed with their female identification. I wonder if there are recent follow ups on them and if the trans wave has affected them at all.

[–]MarkTwainiac 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (39 children)

Not everyone who shares a culture is the same, but they all share a culture in common. Gender identity is like culture. Saying you don't have a gender identity, is like saying you don't have a culture.

This is nonsense. We are not all just sponges for culture. Some people absorb all the cultural messages they are exposed to without questioning them; other people question from an early age.

Moreover, not all cultures are monocultures. Most are not. Yet even in monocultures there is not necessarily total uniformity, conformity & sameness from house to house, or from one region to the next.

The cultural milieu I was raised in was Roman Catholic. I went to Catholic school, was fed a daily diet of dogma. I didn't believe in most of the dogma as a kid even when it was being shoved down my throat. I don't believe in it now. None of my siblings and viritually none of the kids I attended Catholic school with grew up to be devout practicing Catholics.

The cultural milieu I was raised in was also multifaceted. Staying on the religion angle only: Although I was raised Roman Catholic, and my parents were both observant RCs, I grew up with many friends and family friends of different religions. One of my uncles had studied to become a Catholic priest but later went to SE Asia, converted to Buddhism & married a Buddhist woman. Another uncle who was basically my second father was an atheist. Growing up, I spent a lot of time hanging out with and often in the homes of Jewish & Protestant friends. Some of my Jewish friends were extremely religious, kept kosher, strictly observed the sabbath; others were far less observant. Also knew some Hindus. The next door neighbors on side of my childhood home were of eastern European Jewish ethnic heritage but were prominent atheists who were also socialists and raised their kids to be "red diaper babies."

The long and short of it is, although the culture I was raised in was strictly Roman Catholic at the very same time it was characterized by pluralism, tolerance and diversity. Even thought my parents were strict RCs, they also were intellectuals who disagreed with one another on many topics and encouraged critical thought in their kids. In my family, arguing over religion, politics & all sorts of cultural matters was part of everyday life. I learned from an early age that different families have different beliefs/cultures, eat different foods, go about things in different ways, etc - and that within each family or household individual members will have different beliefs to one another.

We all have the same biases, including parents. Parents know their child's sex & are biased accordingly.

No, not all people have the same biases. All people are not equally sexist. Parents are not all equally into imposing sex stereotypes on their children. The people who live in the next house or apartment to yours might have very different views.

Families can act as conduits for the larger culture, or bulwarks against it.

Some people respond to sexism and sexist stereotypes by embracing and eroticizing them. Some people respond to sexism & sex stereotyping by challenging & rejecting them. There are many posters on this very sub whose responses to the sexism we/they were exposed to growing up & face every day are totally different.

Moreover, as people age and they get more life experience, our views and beliefs often change too. Some people become more sexist with age, some people less so.

The same way you can't choose your culture is the same way you can't choose your gender identity.

I am not saying that we can choose the culture we grow up in or live in. I am saying that a) not everyone lives in a monoculture and b) not everyone is a passive recipient of culture who simply swallows all the beliefs & biases fed to them. Cultures are multifaceted, multi-dimensional, often full of contradictions and given to change over time. Even in places where there's a state religion and culture is imposed from on high, like in Iran, you will find that in the privacy of people's homes there is diversity of opinion and customs.

you can't choose your gender identity.

Please stop telling me that I have a gender identity and that I cannot say or choose otherwise. That's not debating. That's dictating to me that because you believe in something, then I must believe in it too.

[–]SnowAssMan 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (38 children)

How does any of that erase culture? Gender identity is like cultural identity, except it isn't as multi-dimensional, because there are only two options with varying degrees of emphasis on conformity to them. Why is it that girls do better on maths exams if, shortly before it starts, they are introduced to a female mathematician? How can she act as a better role model for girls, than a male one could?

It's called implicit bias for a reason. We're all sexist, only different in degrees of sexism. We don't notice our sexist tendencies. That's why a lot of studies on sexist implicit bias have to be double-blind studies in order to actually record the bias accurately, because the examiners share the implicit biases with the participants!

If I said you have a cultural identity, I doubt you'd vigorously dispute it. What's the difference between cultural identity & gender identity that makes gender identity so implausible to you? Actually, ... thinking about it, you probably would argue that you don't have a cultural identity.

If you're a young, budding director in the US, people tell you that you'll be the next Spielberg (the hack lol), while in France the same talent in a young person would be likened to Goddard (someone who pushed the boundaries). French directors end up being more creative than directors from other cultures, because they had a superior role model.

[–]BiologyIsReal 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

Honestly, the more I read you, the more I think you're mixing up or maybe combining the TRA's concept of "gender identity" with the feminist's concept of gender.

[–]SnowAssMan 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

Gender is masculinity & femininity. Gender identity is what Simone de Beauvoir was talking about when she said "one is not born but becomes a woman":

"That formula [one is not born but made a woman] is the basis of all my theories & it’s meaning is very simple: that being a woman is not a natural fact. It’s a result of a certain history. There is no biological or psychological destiny that defines a woman as such. She is the product of a history, of civilisation, first of all, which has resulted in her current status. And secondary for each individual woman of her personal history in particular, that of her childhood. This determines her as a woman, creates in her something which is not at all innate, or an essence, something which has been called the “eternal feminine”, or femininity. The more we study the psychology of children the deeper we delve, the more evident it becomes that baby girls are manufactured to become women […] Long before a child is conscious, the way it is breastfed, or held, or rocked etc. inscribes in its body what might later appear a destiny”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3u1A0Mrjjw

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Gender is masculinity & femininity. Gender identity is what Simone de Beauvoir was talking about when she said "one is not born but becomes a woman":

There's the sleight of hand. You start off speaking of gender in your first sentence. And in that sentence you describe it accurately. But in the next breath you suddenly leap to gender identity.

What I & others are trying to tell you is that not everyone raised according to norms & codes of masculinity & femininity - gender - has a gender identity the way you keep insisting everyone does.

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The reply you're replying to was to BiologyIsReal who said:

Honestly, the more I read you, the more I think you're mixing up or maybe combining the TRA's concept of "gender identity" with the feminist's concept of gender.

So, I was explaining what I understood as the difference between gender & gender identity to be, in order to prove that I understand the difference. No sleight of hand. Gender is masculinity & femininity. Gender identity is determined by gendered socialisation. I don't believe that gendered behavioural trends are biologically determined. Do you?

[–]Juniperius 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

This quote means that femininity - womanhood, in the terminology she uses - is a trauma, a stunting, not an identity. Making a girl into a woman is like making a tree into a bonsai. Does a bonsai tree have an identity as a bonsai? No, it has just been tortured all its life to shape it into what somebody with power over it thinks is beautiful.

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

Even when she said "Long before a child is conscious, the way it is breastfed, or held, or rocked etc. inscribes in its body what might later appear a destiny" – because it sound awfully like she is talking about gendered socialisation here.

Gender identity is only an identity insofar as ethnic or national identities are identities. It's not something that can be consented to. It's also not something you can change.

We shouldn't allow the trans cult to hijack it's meaning so that they have a valid-sounding term for their feminine essence theory.

[–]BiologyIsReal 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

It seems like you're using "gender identity" as a shorthand for gendered socialization, but I've not seen anyone else calling such socialization as "gender identity". And it certainly this is not how TRA defines the term. They can keep the term for what I care. Honestly, I don't even like the word gender because it has only made things more confusing as everyone mean something different by it.

[–]SnowAssMan 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (23 children)

It seems like you're using "gender identity" as a shorthand for gendered socialization

What else determines a social identity other than socialisation? What are you using it as a shorthand for?

but I've not seen anyone else calling such socialization as "gender identity".

Yes, you have. Check the top comment again, or do a Google Scholar search for gender identity, you probably have to exclude 'trans' & 'dysphoria' from the search to reduce the amount of trans spam in your results. You'll get hundreds of thousands of results.

And it certainly this is not how TRA defines the term.

They use all terms incorrectly. Every term they use is in reference to & reverence of their feminine essence theory.

They can keep the term for what I care.

Then they should keep woman too. They can also keep Beauvoir's quote that Jenner appropriated & the feminist movement as a whole, as well. Who cares what they erase in order to define their gender spirits into existence.

Honestly, I don't even like the word gender because it has only made things more confusing as everyone mean something different by it.

Really? Is "unisex" also "confusing" to you, since "everyone means something different by it"? Unisex toilets means toilets for both sexes, while unisex clothing means clothing that is neither masculine nor feminine. So confusing & deserving of being disliked as a result. What about the word feminine? You can have feminine features, or a feminine figure – but those things aren't construct! That's biology! How cOnFuSiNg. If only exceptions never existed! If only context never mattered!

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Did Simone de Beauvoir ever used the term "gender identity"? I'll confess I'm not well-read in feminist theory or philosophy, which is why I usually stick to biology. However, to me in this paragraph she is talking about gender roles, not "gender identity". It's late here, so I'll watch the video later.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You don't address any of the issues I have raised. You just keep moving the goal posts and introducing new topics.

I've never suggested humans don't have a culture or that we aren't products of culture! I have objected to your simplistic portrayals of all cultures as equally, uniformly sexist monocultures with no nuance, gradations or contradictions. I have questioned your insistence on the much-debunked idea that all human beings are "blank slates." And I have objected to your portrayal of all people as nothing but passive absorbers of the culture they were raised with & live in, and your view that all parents are equally sexist authoritarians whose main goal is raising their own kids according to sex stereotypes & inculcating them with sexist beliefs.

What's the difference between cultural identity & gender identity that makes gender identity so implausible to you? Actually, ... thinking about it, you probably would argue that you don't have a cultural identity.

Please don't put words in my mouth. You are coming off as incredibly arrogant. You can't read my mind. I am perfectly willing to discuss such topics as cultural identity, ethnic identity, national identity, religious identity, regional identity, class identity and so on. But those are very different topics to gender identity. And gender identity is the topic here.

[–]SnowAssMan 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You keep reinterpreting what I'm saying, by removing any nuance to make me sound ridiculous. I specifically said:

We're all sexist, only different in degrees of sexism

& this:

Gender identity is like cultural identity, except it isn't as multi-dimensional, because there are only two options with varying degrees of emphasis on conformity to them.

Your response:

I have objected to your simplistic portrayals of all cultures as equally, uniformly sexist monocultures with no nuance, gradations or contradictions.

Do you honestly think that yours is a fair representation of what I've been saying? "Degrees" is a synonym of "gradations".

I am perfectly willing to discuss such topics as cultural identity, ethnic identity, national identity, religious identity, regional identity, class identity and so on. But those are very different topics to gender identity.

I can only repeat myself. Gender identity is just like cultural identity, except there's only two of them. How can class identify be a thing, but somehow gender identity isn't? That seems totally inconsistent. What is stopping gender identity from being like class, nationality, ethnicity identities?

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What is stopping gender identity from being like class, nationality, ethnicity identities?

Everyone has a socioeconomic status based on their own or their family or household income, level of wealth & accumulated assets, or lack thereof. Everyone was born in a place on earth that can be found on a map and is legally defined as a nation or territory. Some people end up stateless, but even they were born in a land/on land that exists in material fact and the precise spot can be located by longitude & latitude. Everyone has parents and a family lineage and ancestors who started out in one part of the world or another & whose genes & customs have been passed on, and therefore an ethnicity.

But not everyone has a gender identity!

Gender identity is like religion. Just because many people believe in religion & have a religious identity doesn't mean everyone does.

Last year or so, Ray Blanchard - or maybe it was Ken Zucker - pointed out on Twitter that most "normal" people do not have a gender identity. We have an awareness that we are male or female, but this is just one of the many facts & beliefs about ourselves that is incorporated into our overall concept of self. It's not the linchpin of our entire sense of self. The only people who've traditionally had a gender identity are those who have an issue with their sex and wish they were the opposite sex, or of no sex.

But nowadays, a psychological phenomenon once seen in a teensy-tiny proportion of the population is being assumed to be universal amongst all humans. I have no problem with you & others saying you/they have a gender identity. My issue is with you & others insisting that everyone has one. And with you telling me I have a gender identity whether I like it or not, and that I have no choice in the matter.

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Your socioeconomic status is the catalyst of your class identity, just as your sex is the catalyst of your gender identity. Most people aren't even aware of their class, especially if they're American, so not being aware of your gender identity doesn't dispute its existence. If everyone has a socioeconomic status then everyone has a class identity, if everyone has a sex then everyone has a gender identity.

You never bothered explaining how all these other identities can exist, but randomly when it comes to gender, no such identity exists.

The only people who've traditionally had a gender identity are those who have an issue with their sex and wish they were the opposite sex, or of no sex.

That's called cross-gender identification: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22cross+gender+identification%22&btnG=

vs. gender identity: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22gender+identity%22+-trans+-dysphoria+&btnG=

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You never bothered explaining how all these other identities can exist, but randomly when it comes to gender, no such identity exists.

I did not say "all these other identities" exist. I said certain facts about each of us exist. Nowhere did I mention the word "identity":

Everyone has a socioeconomic status based on their own or their family or household income, level of wealth & accumulated assets, or lack thereof. Everyone was born in a place on earth that can be found on a map and is legally defined as a nation or territory. Some people end up stateless, but even they were born in a land/on land that exists in material fact and the precise spot can be located by longitude & latitude. Everyone has parents and a family lineage and ancestors who started out in one part of the world or another & whose genes & customs have been passed on, and therefore an ethnicity.

The extent to which people emphasize elements like class/wealth, nationality/place of origin, ethnicity in their self-concepts varies greatly across cultures and historical periods and amongst individuals in the same culture and period. Not everyone constructs their sense of self out of "identities" or identity labels in the way you keep insisting.

I have a sex, but I do not have a gender identity. Just like I have an age, but not an age identity.

Gender = sex stereotypes of masculinity/femininity. Gender is not a lens through which I see myself, nor a scale via which I appraise myself.

[–]SnowAssMan 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I did not say "all these other identities" exist. I said certain facts about each of us exist. Nowhere did I mention the word "identity":

Bloody hell. I asked you: what is stopping gender identity from being like class, nationality, ethnicity identities? To which you said all this:

Everyone has a socioeconomic status based on their own or their family or household income, level of wealth & accumulated assets, or lack thereof. Everyone was born in a place on earth that can be found on a map and is legally defined as a nation or territory. Some people end up stateless, but even they were born in a land/on land that exists in material fact and the precise spot can be located by longitude & latitude. Everyone has parents and a family lineage and ancestors who started out in one part of the world or another & whose genes & customs have been passed on, and therefore an ethnicity.

You've also said this, after I suggested that you probably don't believe in cultural identity:

Please don't put words in my mouth. You are coming off as incredibly arrogant. You can't read my mind. I am perfectly willing to discuss such topics as cultural identity, ethnic identity, national identity, religious identity, regional identity, class identity and so on. But those are very different topics to gender identity. And gender identity is the topic here.

So which is it? Does cultural identity exist, or not? You seem to be having trouble deciding. And if cultural identity exists, insofar as, we are, in your words: "products of culture", then how is it that we all have cultural identities, but not gender identities?

I have a sex, but I do not have a gender identity. Just like I have an age, but not an age identity.

False equivalence, your age keeps changing. Do you think you have no social identities (identities you share with others)?

Not everyone constructs their sense of self out of "identities" or identity labels in the way you keep insisting.

Then how come female role models will improve girl's performance, while male role models fail to do the same? It's obviously something we are unconsciously aware of.

What accounts for men & women's gendered behavioural trends? Why are there certain behaviours & interests generally shared by women, but not by men? Are these differences biologically determined? Please don misinterpret that as meaning that all women are uniform & opposite to all men. I'm talking about patterns again, you know, patterns? You know, like trends. Like fashion. Today, women wear those hideous high-waisted trousers/skirts/bottoms – it's a fashion trend. Do they all wear it all the time? Seemingly yes, but exceptions still exist. But remember, exceptions don't disqualify trends in any way.