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 →

[–]SnowAssMan 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (38 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 -  (37 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 -  (36 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.

[–]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.

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Can you be more specific? The first paper clearly says:

Gender role changes were reported in 56–63% of cases with 5α-RD-2 and 39–64% of cases with 17β-HSD-3 who were raised as girls. The changes were usually made in adolescence and early adulthood.

I guess you may be refering to this part:

In these two syndromes, the degree of external genital masculinization at birth does not seem to be related to gender role changes in a systematic way.

But I said nothing about the phenotype at birth of males with 5a-RD-2 raised as girls. I said many of them adopt a male identity after their bodies get virilized at puberty.

[–]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.