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 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 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

You can quit your condescending tone, dude. I insist, they can keep the term "gender identity", which was associated with transsexualism from the beginning. Why would I want to reclaim a term made up by sexist men like Robert Stoller and/or John Money?

This wikipedia article you linked talks about gendered socialization and it says that this socialization creates the "gender identity" of an individual. "Gender identity" is defined as this:

By the time children reach the age of three, many will have acquired a firm sense of themselves as male or female, a gender identity that remains throughout life. In addition, many pre-schoolers develop a firm awareness of gender stereotypes, insisting that certain activities or items of clothing are not for girls and others not for boys. Yet gender identity does not automatically follow from biological sex.

This sounds a lot like what TRAs say to me... The only difference being that these scholars don't think "gender identity" is innate.

As for my dislike of the word gender, it's not that I personally find the term confusing, but TRA are taking full advantage of the confusion caused by people meaning different things by it. For feminists gender is about the societal expectations of each sex, for TRA is "gender identity", for linguists and speakers of gendered languages is a grammar category, and for many other people is the biological category of sex. Moreover, I think talking about gender helps to hide the fact that sexism and misogyny are sex based. For that reaon, I prefer talking about sex roles or sex stereotypes. Also, I really don't understand English speakers's aversion to the word sex. In Spanish, sexo (sex) means both the biological category and the sexual act too and nobody have a problem with it.

By the way, are you going to say anything about the fact you lied about the paper about 5α-reductase-2 deficiency and 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency that I posted yesterday? Or are you going to pretend these guys don't exist because they challenge your theory?

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Wait, you found something on Wikipedia that sounds like TRA ideology? Shocking! Anyway, what you found doesn't even affirm trans ideology, you're just reading something into it that isn't there. Obviously, if someone is socialised as a girl, but is a boy, then yes, their gender identity would in that case not match their sex.

Where do you get the idea from that gender identity was "associated with transsexualism from the beginning"? You could just as easily say it was associated with homosexuals, or intersex people from the beginning, since that's just as true (within psychoanalysis). Actually, it's far closer associated with intersexuality than transsexualism. From the very start gender identity is understood as originating from socialisation. I know you'd rather believe MarkTwainiac over me (bc I'm supposedly the only one who says this), but in Stoller's own words:

"By the time of the phallic stage, an unalterable sense of gender identity – the core gender identity (“I am male”) – has already been established in the normal person. While later, as a result of conflict, the boy may have doubts about his maleness, or may even say, “I wish I were female,” this still implies that he knows he is male but would rather it were otherwise. Thus we can say that the core gender identity remains unchanged throughout life; this is not to say that gender identity is not constantly developing and being modified, but only that at the core the awareness of being either a male or female remains constant. It has already been noted that this core gender identity is produced, starting at birth, by three components. The first of these is the contribution made by the anatomy of the external genitalia. By their “natural” appearance, the external genitalia serve as a sign to parents that the ascription of one sex rather than the other at birth was correct. Then too, by the production of sensation, the genitalia, primarily from external structures but in females additionally and dimly from the vagina, contribute to a part of the primitive body ego, the sense of self, and the awareness of gender. The second component, the infant-parent relationships, is made up of the parents’ expectations of the child’s gender identity”

In his first book he even demonstrates that he understand the difference between sex & gender: "sexes, male and female, with two resultant genders, masculine and feminine”.

Don’t just believe TRAs when they say something or someone affirms their ideology, likewise don’t believe gender critical feminists who are so convinced of the threat posed by the trans movement that they endow it with more power than it actually has, creating a Frankenstein boogeyman half-real half-imagined. Your jumping-off point should always be that nothing of merit affirms trans cult ideology, because that appears to be the case 99% of the time. Remember that brainsex thing that totally backfired? All their “evidence” is like that – evidence to the contrary. They just say things with conviction repeatedly & people believe them, inexplicably.

The one thing QT & GC have in common is they are allergic to reading. But they won’t let that stop them from bestowing their ignorance onto others, unprompted.

In English all the laws & academic writing says gender e.g. gender inequality, gender ratios, gendered slurs. You can't change all your terms every time someone appropriates them. Feminism has been taken over by a bunch of patriarchists. Why not abandon it as well? It'd never end, that's why.

I didn't lie, I just mistook your link for mine. It's not my theory, it's sociology, it's the only theory, since even the big bads: Stoller & Money confirm it.

[–]BiologyIsReal 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

I DIDN’T find an article on Wikipedia. YOU WAS who linked that article in your first comment who you told me to check in another comment, you big liar.

Yes, I’ll believe u/MarkTwainiac any day over you. She is not one who keeps lying about what I said or did in order to look good in the forum. Anyway, I already knew about Stoller and Money’s involvement in the making of transsexualism before this discussion. So, it’s not like I’m blindly trusting her.

So, you’re saying you’re not GC or TRA and think both are ignorant. Then why are you in this forum in the first place? To impress all the silly women with your “superior” male intellect and call them names?

So, all the laws in English say gender rather than sex? Then how is the Democratic Party in the US want to expand the definition of sex to include sexual orientation and “gender identity” in law? And how do you explain that sex (not gender) is one of the protected characteristics by British law? Yes, I know this because I’ve following closely the development of the transgender movement in the UK and US the past months, you know, by READING.

And did all the academics writings in English talk about gender, not sex? Really? Even the ones in the biological sciences?

I didn't lie, I just mistook your link for mine. It's not my theory, it's sociology, it's the only theory, since even the big bads: Stoller & Money confirm it.

Yeah, and I’m Santa Claus. The only way that you could have mistook it if not only you didn’t bother to open the link to read the abstract, but also didn’t even read the title that I’ve copied & pasted in the link. Seriously, the papers where about very different conditions. How could you have mistook it?

Anyway, are you ever going to address how these guys fit in the blank slate theory? By the way, there is a big problem with all the cruel experiments with the penis-less boys like Reimer that you are not considering. You think the fact that many penis-less boys raised as girls keep identifying that way is the result of their socialization. But these boys were not merely socialized as girls. No, they were also subjected to unnecessary medical procedures in order to keep the lie. Don’t you think that may influence how they see themselves? This is not unlike transactivists claiming GnRH agonists are a neutral option that gives the children time to think about their “gender identity”. Another thing about the paper you linked, I don’t think it’s possible to make any conclusion because the numbers are small (and the number of older patients even smaller), but I find interesting the number of males who re-adopt a male identity increase with age. The authors even mention a case of a patient who re-adopt a male identity at age 52 after his parents’ death. Here’s the relevant part:

Perhaps some children already harbor an internal gender identity different from the assigned gender, but because of parental pressure or incompliance with parental expectations, they do not let the interviewers in on it. This rationale may apply to Reiner and Gearhart’s two patients with cloacal exstrophy whose declaration of male gender was not accepted by their parents, and to the one patient each in Reiner and Gearhart (2004) and Reiner and Kropp (2004) who refused to discuss her (?) gender identity with the interviewer. It may also have applied to the patient with classical exstrophy who was raised female but underwent a gender change to male at age 52 years after both his parents had died (Feitz, van Grunsven, Froeling, & de Vries, 1994).

Edit: fixed some typos

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

So, all the laws in English say gender rather than sex?

Here in the U.S., they started using "gender" as a euphemism for "sex" in the 1960s. I think it started to replace "sex" in legal and official documentation in the 1960s/70s, but only as a euphemism (from a legacy of puritanical squeamishness over the word "sex" maybe). But it meant "biological sex," not "gender identity."

[–]SnowAssMan 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I never said you found an article on Wikipedia, so take back what you said pls. You went to the article I pointed to & found something that you mistakenly thought affirmed trans ideology. I've already pointed your mistake out, but also mentioned that it's not uncommon to find trans propaganda on Wiki (like everywhere says "assigned at birth" even though they are referring to someone who isn't intersex). It looks like my reply to you should have been even longer in order to avoid misunderstandings, because those misunderstandings seem to be frequent & seem to lead to false accusations on your part. Why didn't you address the fact that you misinterpreted your extract btw?

Anyway, I already knew about Stoller and Money’s involvement in the making of transsexualism before this discussion. So, it’s not like I’m blindly trusting her

You're blindly trusting someone else then, someone who hasn't read their work, because you haven't read their work either. That's the ignorance begetting ignorance I was talking about. Even after I tried correcting you you're still holding on to the ignorance. In my previous reply I posted an excerpt from Stoller's book that backed up the gender identity via socialisation theory that I've been talking about this whole time, rather than feminine essence theory, which is what you presumably believe to be the original/real definition of gender identity. How come you have nothing to say about that? This is the second time you haven't addressed something I said, a correction I made to your mistake. You said you knew about Stoller, but apparently you had the complete opposite impression of him than what is true about him. In truth, gender identity, even according to Stoller & Money is determined by socialisation, just like the sociological perspective. What do you have to say about that? Apparently, I'm not the only one who says socialisation determines gender identity, in fact it's quickly becoming apparent that it's the only perspective within academia, despite what QT wants GC to believe & what GC has been duped into believing.

So, you’re saying you’re not GC or TRA and think both are ignorant. Then why are you in this forum in the first place? To impress all the silly women with your “superior” male intellect and call them names?

When did I say I'm not GC or TRA? Yet another one of your misinterpretations, I presume. Which names did I call them btw? You're the one calling me names. I've already demonstrated your ignorance about Stoller's view of gender identity, didn't I? You're not making a good case against the claim that you're ignorant, are you? MarkTwainiac posted a reply about Stoller that totally mischaracterised gender identity within his work, & the reply was very well-received on here (it was rated as insightful by a lot of people), how else am I meant to interpret that other than abounding ignorance? I'm literally the only one on this entire sub who knows (not pretends to know) what Stoller actually wrote about gender identity. How is that my fault? The least you could do is let go of the ignorant take after I've disabused you of it, with that extract that must not be addressed.

So, all the laws in English say gender rather than sex? Then how is the Democratic Party in the US want to expand the definition of sex to include sexual orientation and “gender identity” in law? And how do you explain that sex (not gender) is one of the protected characteristics by British law? Yes, I know this because I’ve following closely the development of the transgender movement in the UK and US the past months, you know, by READING.

Of course you've been keeping up with the news. But remember the three examples I gave you: gender inequality, gender ratios, gendered slurs, they exist, along with others like them, & they are everywhere. 'Gender' in most cases within law & academia refers to the sexes. There are some instances where they used sex instead. Recently they have been re-wording laws to add gender to the laws that only say sex, because activists don't want gender & sex to be synonymous anymore.

The only way that you could have mistook it if not only you didn’t bother to open the link to read the abstract, but also didn’t even read the title that I’ve copied & pasted in the link. Seriously, the papers where about very different conditions. How could you have mistook it?

Well, I did mistake it for mine, because of how similar it looked. I've responded to the links since. I'm not invested enough in this to lie.

Regarding your criticism of the study (the role medical procedures play & the fact that any of them adopted a male identity):

The only metric by which the study measures gender identity is self-identification. As we know trans people self-identify as the opposite sex, despite never having been socialised as the opposite sex. Self-identification is not a reliable method to determine gender identity. A trans person's gender identity is unchanged despite their self-identification, so why should anyone else's self-identification undermine socialisation? The interesting part of the study is the larger percentage of self-identification that favours socialisation over biology. That's why the study helps make the case that gender identity is determined by socialisation. I think the reason for the medical procedures was to help them pass as the opposite sex. Is it an an unaccounted variable? Yes & no. I think it'd be a variable either way (if they had had no medical procedures, then passing as their sex would also influence their self-id).

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Give me a break, first you act like a know-it-all (despite the fact you apparently can’t take two different papers apart) and imply I’m a stupid who blindly trust what other people say, but somehow I’m the villain because I won’t call you on your behavior.

Here are some extracts from a 1994 paper by the infamous John Money himself, bolding mine:

The term “gender role” appeared in print first in 1955. The term “gender identity” was used in a press release, November 21, 1966, to announce the new clinic for transsexuals at The Johns Hopkins Hospital. It was disseminated in the media worldwide, and soon entered the vernacular. The definitions of gender and gender identity vary on a doctrinal basis. In popularized and scientifically debased usage, sex is what you are biologically; gender is what you become socially; gender identity is your own sense or conviction of maleness or femaleness; and gender role is the cultural stereotype of what is masculine and feminine.

G-I/R (gender-identity/role): gender identity is the private experience of gender role, and gender role is the public manifestation of gender identity. Both are like two side of the same coin, and constitute the unity of G-I/R. Gender identity is the sameness, unity, and persistence of one’s individuality as male, female, or androgynous, in greater or lesser degree, especially as it is experienced in self-awareness and behavior. Gender role is everything that a person says and does to indicate to others or to the self the degree that one is either male or female or androgynous; it includes but is not restricted to sexual and erotic arousal and response (which should not be excluded from the definition).

That was what I was trying to say all along. Money and others (like the scholars cited in that Wikipedia article) define “gender identity” not as how one was socialized, but how one perceives themselves. That is pretty much TRA’s definition of the term, with the difference being the latter think “gender identity” is innate (hence why I said TRA have adapted Money’s ideas). You’re “gender identity” is how one was socialized and mixing it up with feminist theories. That is why I said, you were the first person I’ve seen define the term that way.

I think the reason for the medical procedures was to help them pass as the opposite sex. Is it an an unaccounted variable? Yes & no. I think it'd be a variable either way (if they had had no medical procedures, then passing as their sex would also influence their self-id).

I get the rationale behind such procedures, but that doesn’t mean they are neutral. Furthermore, such experiments were completely unnecessary and unethical. The quack doctors who performed them deemed the boys too defective to be males and, therefore, decided they were better off being raised as lowly girls. That is a very sexist view, so why should I consider their ideas about sex and gender seriously? More so, when there is evidence against them.

[–]SnowAssMan 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

despite the fact you apparently can’t take two different papers apart

Is that an admission that I took the third apart? I guess we'll have to assume so, since your way of admitting I'm right about something is to do so indirectly, by pretending the point you made that I apparently successfully took apart, never existed to begin with.

Money was a paediatrician who studied intersex children. That's his background. It was even the subject of his dissertation at university. Robert Stoller coined the term gender identity in a paper he wrote about intersexuality in 1964. That is the origin of gender identity: intersex, not transgender. Similarly with 'gender role' (at least according to the source you linked). I feel this origin needs to be stressed. I think its the association with transgenderism which is causing the knee-jerk rejection of gender identity as a concept by GC. The association seems to colour everything you read about it. For instance, you look at that extract that you posted & see damning evidence that Money theorised that gender identity is not determined by socialisation. Only, even after paying special attention to the sections you made bold, I still don't see anything on causality of gender identity.

The only causality he talks about within the document is the causality of "gender identity disorder", about which he says:

I have no proven cause of gender identity disorder in childhood and adolescence to bring to you, and I do not adhere to any dogma of causality

I would have thought that the Reimer case alone would have made Money's views on how gender identity is formed indisputable, yet here you are, trying to convince me that the guy who is notorious for trying to re-socialise a boy into a girl, actually completely rejects the idea that socialisation determines gender identity.

You’re “gender identity” is how one was socialized

My? So I'm 96 years old & my name is Stoller & I faked my own death in 1991? Oh right, Stoller has ceased to exist since I proved that the guy who coined the term 'gender identity' literally defined it as being determined by socialisation, which was the same model Money was clearly following with the Bruce/Brenda case. I also seem to be the author of this page on simply psychology. You can tell it perpetuates the view that gender identity is determined by socialisation, by the angry trans-ally comments trying to undermine it. From the page:

The social labelling of a baby as a boy or girl leads to different treatment which produce the child\s sense of gender identity. [...] gender identity is neutral before the age of 3, and can be changed, e.g. a biological boy raised as a girl will develop the gender identity of a girl.

Apparently I also invented Social Learning Theory & Cognitive Developmental Theory

According to cognitive-developmental theory, gender identity is postulated as the basic organizer and regulator of children's gender learning (Kohlberg, 1966). Children develop the stereo- typic conceptions of gender from what they see and hear around them. Once they achieve gender constancy—the belief that their own gender is fixed and irreversible—they positively value their gender identity and seek to behave only in ways that are congruent with that conception. Cognitive consistency is gratifying, so individuals attempt to behave in ways that are consistent with their self-conception. Kohlberg posited the following cognitive processes that create and maintain such consistency: "I am a boy, therefore I want to do boy things, therefore the opportunity to do boy things (and to gain approval for doing them) is rewarding" (Kohlberg, 1966, p. 89). In this view, much of children's conduct is designed to confirm their gender identity. Once children establish knowledge of their own gender, the reciprocal interplay between one's behavior (acting like a girl) and thoughts ("I am a girl") leads to a stable gender identity, or in cognitive-developmental theory terms, the child achieves gender constancy.

That is why I said, you were the first person I’ve seen define the term that way.

Actually you said I was the only one you've seen define it that way. Well now you know a bunch of people who define gender identity as being determined by socialisation: Stoller, Money, Kohlberg, Bandura. Is there anyone (other than TRAs) who defines it any other way?

No one is condoning unethical experiments. I've already addressed what limited relevance the penile ablation etc. link had.

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Is that an admission that I took the third apart?

Oh, please. I meant the fact that supposely "confused" the paper you linked when the one I did. I still believe you lied. The title alone should had give you a clue it was a completely different paper.

Can't you read, dude? I never said Money and the others didn't think "gender identity" was the result of socialization. I explicitly said TRA were the ones who said it was innate. I said they both have the same definition of gender identity, they only differ in the origin. And I don't know what are you trying to acomplish "lecturing" me about intersex when I said from the beginning that I saw "gender identity" used in regards to them.