All: Is gender identity falsifiable? If so, what would disprove it?

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 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Gender identity exists, even cross-gender identity does (in people with DSDs who were assigned as the opposite sex & brought up accordingly), however transgenderism claims that:

a) a man's desire to be female is proof of a cross-gender identity

b) we all need to engage in his gender-swap role-play, otherwise we are fascist murderers

c) his gender-swap role-play should supersede his being male biologically & socially

You can increase & decrease a person's gender identity salience by influencing their frame of mind. A study found that when women were made to identify more with their personal identity rather than their gender identity they rated sexist scenarios as less offensive than those whose gender identity salience had been increased beforehand. That's at least one example that illustrates gender identity's existence.

[–]Penultimate_Penance[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Awareness of sex stereotypes and being influence by them does not mean that gender identity is a real thing. Gender identity is more akin to a soul than anything. We can't really disprove that souls exists, neither can we really disprove that gender identities exist. These concepts are not part of observable empirical reality, so they should have no influence on the law and should be treated like the faith based beliefs they are.

Some people have a deep personal sense that they are the second coming of Christ or Napoleon Bonaparte that does not mean that the whole of society should trip over itself to accommodate their subjective unverifiable beliefs. Gender identity is equally absurd and at odds with empirical reality.

[–]SnowAssMan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

A gender identity is a social identity, i.e. something you share with others. It's not something you're born with, but inculcated with. It's like a class identity. You can't change your class either, even if a working-class guy gains a lot of wealth, as can be seen in the differences between "old money" & "nouveau riche".

You're going by transgenderism's "definition" of 'gender', which is just: desire + role-play. There is no word for that, so they coopted "gender identity" & "gender". And GC feminists seem to want to help them with that.

[–]Penultimate_Penance[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

This discussion is about genderists definition of what a gender identity is not what you personally think it should mean which is why the genderists definition of gender identity is listed in the debate prompt.

They believe there is an innate sense of 'womanness' and 'manness' and they call that innate sense a gender identity. I am saying that that concept of innate womanness/manness is unprovable unscientific horse shit. There is no such thing as a man brain or a woman brain let alone a mix-up of woman/man brain in the wrong body. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which QT consistently fails to provide.

The genderists are saying that there is an extra super special innate gender identity that overrides biological reality and social reality. Transwomen were raised as boys and are treated like extra special men. They deny that they received male socialization, because this super magical gender identity they believe in overrides a lifetime of culture and male socialization. I'm saying a personal sense of gender is bullshit.

Imagine if someone said they have a personal sense of 'wormness' and that they are actually a worm born in the wrong body. Even if society at large believed in the concept and taught little kids what wormness meant via wormy stereotypes (Ex. If you like dirt, and rolling on the ground you have a worm identity) it doesn't make the concept provable or true. The same applies to an innate sense of 'womanhood' or 'manhood' aka gender identity.

It is impossible for humans to know what it actually feels like to be a worm therefore to claim that a feeling of wormness is an innate part of their identity is absurd. It is impossible for men to know what it actually feels like to be women and vice versa therefore it is absurd to claim the men can have innate sense of 'womaness'. All they have to base their gender identity on are cultural stereotypes.

The concept of a gender identity does not clarify or improve our understanding of the world. It obfuscates it.

We'd be better off dropping the phrase from our vocabulary altogether and stop associating the many traits that men and women can have with only one sex or the other. There are two sexes and a practically infinite combination of personality traits that either sex can have. Some traits are more common in one sex than the other, but that does not mean those traits are innate to every member of that sex.

[–]SnowAssMan 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

not what you personally think it should mean

You think I'm making it up?

Transgenderists haven't got many terms of their own, they usually hijack others, like they hijack everything else. They call men women bc of their own "definition" of the word woman: a man who makes a self-declaration. Does that mean GC feminists should use 'woman' with the transgenderist misunderstanding of the word? Or should we try to use the correct terminology?

A strong desire to be the opposite sex, a self-declaration as the opposite sex, role-playing the opposite sex – none of these things constitute a gender identity, no matter how often people incorrectly call it that. The question should be: is transgender identity falsifiable.

[–]Penultimate_Penance[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Using the other sides words and definitions when it makes sense to do so is essential to debate. I'm well aware there are different meanings, which is why I listed which definition of gender identity is being discussed. I'm not fond of the other definitions of gender identity either, but that is a separate discussion not applicable to this one.

(This is for the lurkers) Identity should be based on who you are not what you are.

That's what the fight against sexism, racism & homophobia is about. A person's sex, skin color or sexual orientation does not dictate the content of their character. That is why discrimination against those groups is unjust. That is what progressivism was supposed to be about until it got poisoned by myopic naval gazing identitarians.

That is what the genderists have gotten horrifically wrong. By claiming gender aka cultural sex stereotypes as innate parts of their identity they are cementing sexism instead of eradicating it.

[–]SnowAssMan 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Using the other sides words and definitions when it makes sense to do so is essential to debate

Whoever uses the terms of the opposition is capitulating. Always make them use your terms, not the other way around. As soon as you start playing by their rules you've helped them monopolise the "debate", which is the their winning move in said debate.

I'm not fond of the other definitions of gender identity either

They're not on the same level. "TWAW" isn't supported by any scientific discipline.

Identity should be based on who you are not what you are

That's only personal identity. Social identities also exist. Billion dollar industries depend on individuals within demographics all sharing behavioural patterns.

A person's sex, skin color or sexual orientation does not dictate the content of their character

A person's class dictates a lot about them. Admitting that isn't justifying classism.

Transgenderists believe that gender identity is a personal construct. They swing between biological determinism & free will, like conservatives. As usual, it's socially determined, otherwise all the dysphorics in media, politics & crime would be homosexual females, not heterosexual males again.

[–]Penultimate_Penance[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Never said the different definitions of gender identity are on the same level. No shit shirlock I'm aware social identities exist. Also no shit sexism, racism, classism and about any other ism's effects people's prospects and position in life. Never said it doesn't.

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

Then why did you say: "Identity should be based on who you are not what you are"?

[–]Penultimate_Penance[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here's an attempt to explain it better. I'm talking about personal identity. Many people choose to or are taught to focus on certain physical traits and base their identity around that. (The what you are.)

It's a value statement. Identity should be based on who you are not what you are means:

  • Your humanity matters more than your sex.
  • Your humanity matters more than your weight.
  • Your humanity matters more than your skin color and so on.

Couldn't think of a clearer way to get the idea across to the QT crowd. I'm open to suggestions.

Queer theorists have conflated the cultural sex stereotypes with the physical reality of being a man or a woman. There's no social need to transition whatsoever if people separate the sexist stereotypes from what it means to be a man or a woman and stick strictly to the facts. Woman/man by itself isn't a full fledged identity nor should it be. It's just a fact about people. Same for skin color and other physical characteristics. I can simultaneously understand that being a man or a woman in our sexist culture has a huge impact on people's lives while also believing that their sex should not be a core part of their personal identity. Culturally and historically it's a huge deal, ethically it shouldn't be. The same idea also applies to skin color and other physical characteristics.

  • Skin tone doesn't = character or personality
  • Man/woman doesn't = character or personality

There's a bit of political black and white thinking divide that's going on with the word identity right now too, so it's real hard to talk about the concept casually without people getting up in arms about it and talking past each other.

Edit: Fixing formatting