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 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

They were told the truth before the study was conducted.

You're making things up again! First of all, that paper was about a meta-analysis of a bunch of studies done on males with certain genital abnormalities, some of which were raised as boys and some which were raised as "girls". I saw nowhere in the paper where it says that all of them were told the truth, but even if I'm remembering wrong and that is the case, so what? It doesn't change the fact they were sometime lied to.

Jazz was socialised as a boy, like all male transsexuals.

Why? His case is not that different from boys with penile ablation raised as "girls". The main difference being Jazz was more aware of the medical abuse done to him. Otherwise, he was raised as "(trans) girl" from a young age because he was deemed "inadequated" as male. If socialization = "gender identity", then he should have a "female gender identity" according to you. He may even be more "effeminate" than some of the males raised as "girls" described in that paper, some of which are described as having male-like behaviour. Here is a relevant quote:

By contrast, it seems that most, if not all, individuals with these conditions raised female showed marked masculinization of gender-role behavior where such data are available

My example is not a completely impossible scenario, though. As a woman, pregnacy is a real possibility for me (obligatory, not all female can get pregnant, but only female can get pregnant for the QT who may be still reading our discussion...). And abortion was legalized in my country just some months ago, and there is already a judge who has ruled to suspend the new law. That ridiculous part about being raised as "nonbinary allien" and identifying as a "man" was there to emphatize that is sex what matters there because I don't know how else explaining to you that biology is relevant besides in how someone is socialized. Ok, let's try this. Do you think women being more reluctant on average than men about casual sex is only about socialization and social expectations? Do you not think the fact that we can become pregnant (something men don't have to worry about) and that men, who are on average bigger and physically stronger, can easily overpower us may contribute on this as well?

[–]SnowAssMan 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I saw nowhere in the paper where it says that all of them were told the truth

Nowhere does it say they weren't told it. Studies don't usually go out of their way to remind the reader that everything was done consensually. As far as I know it's illegal to not disclose the purpose of a study to its participants. So it stands to reason that they knew, unless otherwise stated.

they were sometime lied to

Duh

then he should have a "female gender identity" according to you

According to you, you mean. A child's gender identity has already formed before they can start claiming to be transgender.

How does the existence of sex & its consequences undermine the fact that gendered socialisation leads to gendered identity?

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Nowhere does it say they weren't told it. Studies don't usually go out of their way to remind the reader that everything was done consensually.

Do you know what a meta-analysis is? The authors of that paper weren't the ones who performed those studies, they analyzed the results of a bunch of studies done by other people. Also, the authors didn't specified that patients must be fully aware of their medical history within the selection criteria of the studies. So, this is a big assumption that you're making.

As far as I know it's illegal to not disclose the purpose of a study to its participants. So it stands to reason that they knew, unless otherwise stated.

But scientists and doctors don't always act ethically. Bear in mind, the doctors who decided to assign these guys as "females" probably think they're making them a favour by doing so.

Also, I reread the paper I found this, bolding mine:

Even by adulthood, however, at least about half maintained their female gender, including patients who were fully aware of their medical history.

I think this implies that not all of them are aware.

According to you, you mean. A child's gender identity has already formed before they can start claiming to be transgender.

No, I don't believe in "gender identity" and certainly I don't think they have a "female gender identity". But you do think that males can adquire a "female gender identity" if they are socialized as such. So, what are really the differences between a boy who was subject to unnecessary medical procedures and raised as a "girl" because losed his penis, and a boy who was subject to unnecessary medical procedures (although at different times) and raised as a "girl" because he liked the wrong toys at, for instance, age 3? Why just one of them have a "female gender identity" when they are both living a lie imposed by sexists adults who think they are better off as "girls"?

How does the existence of sex & its consequences undermine the fact that gendered socialisation leads to gendered identity?

I think I've already explained this a length several times already. You just don't like my answers because you're set in thinking socialization being the only thing that matters. So, why would repeat myself again when I know you are going to keep asking the same question?

[–]SnowAssMan 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think this implies that not all of them are aware.

Well, some of them are children, so it'd probably be those ones. I don't believe that any of the adults didn't know, while the scientists conducting the study did, despite what that sentence's structure seems to be suggesting. I guess that is an assumption on my part. I don't remember the relevancy of this anymore. Whether they know the truth or not doesn't really undermine the existence of gender identity.

Why just one of them have a "female gender identity"

According to Stoller, transgender males have a male gender identity bc they recognise that they are male but want to be female.

because you're set in thinking socialization being the only thing that matters

The gendered part of a person's socialisation has an effect on their identity, that effect; that resulting part of their identity, is called gender identity. I fail to see the controversy. There are parts of our identity that we share with others. They are social identities. One of those social identities is gender identity. Where is the justification to exclude gender identity from the social identities?

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

According to Stoller, transgender males have a male gender identity bc they recognise that they are male but want to be female.

I don't care what Stoller thought, I asked what YOU think about it. And I asked about little kids being transed by their parents, not little kids identifying as trans on their own, anyway.

The gendered part of a person's socialisation has an effect on their identity, that effect; that resulting part of their identity, is called gender identity. I fail to see the controversy. There are parts of our identity that we share with others. They are social identities. One of those social identities is gender identity. Where is the justification to exclude gender identity from the social identities?

Repeating yourself again and again and again won't convince me, dude. I'd explained my position at length. If you don't like my answers, then we're going to agree to disagree. Believe whatever you want, but stop telling me I've to "reclaim" the term of "gender identity" when I've told you several times how much I hate it. It's bad enough already to listen to anything TRAs demand.

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

You refuse to admit that upbringing influences identity. You never once addressed the other social identities I mentioned. You can pretend you answered it but you never did. Here is the unanswered question yet again: do all the social identities not exist, or only gender identity?

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

I've already said multiple times that women and men are socialized differently, but sex is the relevant part for identity (although I must I don't share current obsession with the concept of identity). But if you want to talk about unanswered questions, here are the questions you didn't answer:

  1. What are really the differences between a boy who was subject to unnecessary medical procedures and raised as a "girl" because he losed his penis, and a boy who was subject to unnecessary medical procedures (although at different times) and raised as a "girl" because he liked the wrong toys at, for instance, age 3? Why just one of them have a "female gender identity" when they are both living a lie imposed by sexists adults who think they are better off as "girls"?

  2. How do you explain males with 5α-reductase-2 deficiency who are mistaken as girls at birth and who adopt a male identity after puberty?

  3. How thinking that 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 is not circular logic?