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 →

[–]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.

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

It certainly sounded like you needed a lecture to me:

"Gender identity" is a transgenderism specific concept that cannot be scientifically proved, so I've no desire to start using it

Rejecting gender identity as a concept won't spite the trans cult as much as it'll make you seem uninformed. It's not necessary to reject gendered socialisation (which has been proven) in order to reject the feminine essence hypothesis (which has never been proven to exist).

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

What the hell are you talking about?! I NEVER said that women and men are not socialized differently. I just reject the concept of "gender identity". I don't care if how much you like it. Stop telling me what the hell I have to believe. You're just another man telling women what they need to do to fight against sexism and misogyny.

[–]SnowAssMan 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Ironically someone who doesn't think gender identity exists is now engaging in identity politics.

If your belief that gender identity doesn't exist is based on nothing but your feelings then that's rather ironic too. You keep describing the evidence I have produced as a "belief" that I "like". Empiricism doesn't need to be liked or believed, only proven. Social identities exist, among them gender identity. It's like when MRAs insist that the gender pay gap doesn't exist – they either have to reject all pay gaps (racial, height, weight etc), or explain how gender is the only one that has remarkably managed to evade becoming a bias. So, do no social identities exist, or do they all exist except gender?

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

That’d depend on what you understand by identity politics. I’m not dismissing your opinions because you’re a man if that is what you think. That comment was more to do with your general attitude, i.e. you acting like you’re the only voice of reason here, your need of lecturing about how we need to accept the concept of “gender identity” and your comparison of TRA using this term with trans males appropriation of the word woman. And the fact that most GC people here and elsewhere are women because is women who are the most affected by TRA’s politics. Many men are too happy to use transgenderism to hide their misogyny. Other men don’t see what the big is deal or think this is what feminists deserve. The men who I see speaking out often against TRA usually have been affected by them in some way. I’ve no idea what you reason is, but it does feel like you enjoy “lecturing” “ignorant” women (I remind you, you were the one who said that GC are allergic to reading and often spread their ignorance). I may be wrong, but that is what it feels to me and why I said what I said.

“Gender identity” is an unfalsifiable concept because it can’t be externally determined. You depend on what other people say about their “gender identity”. That is why I compared it with the religious concept of souls in other threads. What there is plenty of evidence of, however, is sex. There is also evidence of the difference of expectations an treatment given to women and men by society. And sexism and misogyny and indeed based on sex.

[–]SnowAssMan 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

You keep ironically demonstrating a high gender identity salience.

If gendered socialisation exists & gendered behavioural trends exist then gender identity exists. It's: socialisation = identity = behaviour. You have no reason to reject the identity step. Do none of the social identities exist, or do they all exist except for the ones that have arbitrarily earned your ire? I've asked this question a couple of times now, with no forthcoming answer.

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You keep ironically demonstrating a high gender identity salience.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? That I argue like a woman or what? Look, if you're going to play armchair psychologist with me, at least make it entertaining and justify that claim. Because, really, yes, you clearly show a female "gender identity", therefore I am right it's not the winning argument you seem to think it is...

You keep equating socialization with "gender identity" when even the people you quote undestand that those two need to be separated concepts. If you think anyone raised as a girl (whether or not they are female) has a female "gender identity" regardless of outcome because they were raised that way, then this theory becomes a tautology and, as such, unfalsifiable. In other words, it's circular logic.

[–]SnowAssMan 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You're hyper-aware of being female & me being male, bc you keep mentioning it, regardless of relevancy. Heightened awareness of your gender identity = increased gender identity salience. Just pretend it says "sex identity", if that makes you feel better.

Anyway, do none of the social identities exist? Or do they all exist except for gender identity? Is 'identity salience' totally made up as well, or only when it's 'gender identity salience'?