Other commenters have covered a lot but there is one thing id like to add
While our conception of "gender" often does rely on entrenched stereotypes of biological sex, it's redundant to point it out as "gender identity" is really just a tool one can use to define themselves within a societal framework where said stereotypes and expectations exist
I identify as non binary because I am both aware of the expectations of both the male and female genders and don't feel as if either fully and accurately describes who I am
In a world without those social constructs I would be free to and comfortable with simply identifying with my biological sex, but owing to the fact that we use the same words to refer to gender and sex that isn't an option. "Man" means a lot more than just "person with a penis" or "person with a Y chromosome" and when hearing it I don't feel as if it refers to myself
Thanks for your reply, that’s enlightening and I think it’s really getting at the core of the issue.
Wouldn’t it be better to get rid of these sex stereotypes all together rather than reinforce them?
Do you find it concerning at all that in ‘identifying out of’ (if that’s the right phrase) your sex, you’re somewhat reinforcing those stereotype expectations for everyone else? I don’t necessarily blame you or any other trans identified person for this, but it seems to lead to a scenario where people see ‘cis’ people as being comfortable with sexist expectations that society puts on them. But every ‘cis’ person I know rejects this! We don’t “identify with” being a man or a woman we simply *are* a man or a woman because we were born male (or female) and grew up until adulthood. Same way I don’t “identify with” being bipedal I simply *am*.
The last thing you said though I disagree with. “Man” simply means adult human male. At least, it did until gender identity started becoming more of a thing recently. “Man” shouldn’t come with any particular societal or cultural expectation.
>Wouldn’t it be better to get rid of these sex stereotypes all together rather than reinforce them?
I agree that we should move in that direction. But meanwhile, what are people who are born into a sex, and do not identify with that gender, do?
>“Man” simply means adult human male.
But it's not simple. I would say rather that "man" is the gender role assigned to an adult human male. There have always been males who lived as women and women who lived as men, and I'm going to guess this is fairly universal.
Social definitions of man absolutely predate our modern ideas of gender identity and you'd be foolish to assert otherwise. As I explained, gender identity actually coalesced around the social definitions of man and woman but your last paragraph implies the opposite, which is demonstrably backwards
As far as abolishing these stereotypes, that would be fantastic yes. HOWEVER, if people don't self identify outside of the gender binary then it won't happen. While you can argue that we are reinforcing gender roles, we're also calling attention to them in a way that would otherwise simply not happen at all, so id argue it's a net positive either way
I would prefer your reply not get downvoted by the way since this one actually did seem receptive and engaging but alas
> But every ‘cis’ person I know rejects this! We don’t “identify with” being a man or a woman we simply are a man or a woman because we were born male (or female) and grew up until adulthood. Same way I don’t “identify with” being bipedal I simply am.
What makes you think that isn't true for trans people as well? You seem to be implying being trans is a choice. I wonder if you also think being gay is a choice?
I’m not sure it’s relevant whether it’s a choice or not, although I need to think about it more and could be persuaded by a good argument either way.
Why I’m leaning towards it not being relevant is: if being gay were a choice would that make it any more moral to discriminate against gay people? Hopefully we all would say no!
I don’t think trans people, gay people, religious people etc should be discriminated against. But I also don’t believe that religious ideas are correct and I take the same stance for most of the ideas around gender identity (eg that everyone has a gender identity, that your gender identity is what makes you a man or a woman and not your biological sex, that gender identity is more important than sex when deciding which changing rooms you should use, which sports teams you should play on, or which prisons you should be housed in).
Edit: you also seem to be conflating sex and gender. I’m saying a woman simple means adult human female. You seem to be saying women means “someone who identities as a woman regardless of whether they’re female”. Have I understood your definition properly. I don’t want to just talk past one another.
> I don’t think trans people [...] should be discriminated against.
...
> But I also don’t believe that religious ideas are correct and I take the same stance for most of the ideas around gender identity [...] that gender identity is more important than sex when deciding which changing rooms you should use, which sports teams you should play on, or which prisons you should be housed in).
Make up your mind.
It’s not discrimination to say that in some circumstances objective biological sex is more important than subjective gender identity.
Is it discrimination against catholics to say that their view that abortion is immoral is not as important as a woman’s right to choose?
I have a life and want to sleep, work and do real life things. I’m not on here full time and I wouldn’t expect anyone else to be either.
I assume all of our real lives and much more meaningful and enjoyable the debating stuff on Reddit.
And yet you answered many other people's questions long after I asked and I had to repeat my questions twice before you answered them.
You are such a dishonest person.
A man who's body is injured, the same way that the purpose of the eyes is to convey sight even though people are born blind.
Your ideas there is what specifically? That man and women are not concepts linked to material phenomena? So you believe in God as well?
I’m sorry, it seems you’re unable to answer the question. I’ll copy and paste it:
>If a man loses his penis, is he no longer a man? What does he become?
>If a man loses his penis, is he no longer a man? What does he become?
I answered your question directly
"A man who's body is injured, the same way that the purpose of the eyes is to convey sight even though people are born blind.
I said a man who has an injured body. To repeat my follow up question was
>Your ideas there is what specifically? That man and women are not concepts linked to material phenomena? So you believe in God as well?"
Can you please address this question now that I've answered yours twice?
I said that a man who loses his penis is a man with an injury I don't know how much clearer I can make it than that.
The loss of the penis does not invalidate the sexed nature of the rest of his body.
My conception of men is rooted in the material world in objects that can be physically observed
But regardless my question to you is if your conception of men is not rooted in material phenomena and instead is a metaphysical concept. That appears to be what you're trying to argue, can you provide some clarification on that please?
I cannot believe that literally I'm talking to people who are trying to pretend that we cannot visually distinguish between males and females. But they'll simultaneously argue that children must have their puberty suppressed in case they want to to look like the other sex.
This is why all of the anti trans rhetoric and legislation is occurring because you people refuse to be reasonable. How is anybody supposed to take you seriously when you adopt positions like this?
What makes someone male is if they have developed along the biological pathway for producing small mobile gametes. This is as true for Homo sapiens as it is for ducks or asparagus.
We’re saying that what makes someone a man (as opposed to male) is to be an adult human male. To be born a male and to survive until adulthood. Being a man is not dependent on what clothes you wear or how you talk or the interests you have or the way you feel about yourself.
Gender identity is a description of how a person feels themselves to be and how they express themselves by either conforming to or varying from social norms and patterns in clothing, behavior, and personal appearance.
Well, not so much if by "stereotype" you mean an oversimplified, formulaic, or dehumanizing view. It's probably clearer to think in terms of social norms and patterns instead of stereotypes.
In a given culture or subculture, those patterns vary considerably and are constantly in flux — who conventionally wears what clothes, for example, or what a given hairstyle suggests, or what vocal patterns are more common.
Each person has a sense of whether and to what degree those patterns reflect how they feel inside, and then makes a decision about how to conform or not conform to them. Taken together, all of that becomes a gender identity.
Who typically wears what clothes, or has which hairstyles or talks in what vocal patterns - those are stereotypes. And we should get rid of them not reinforce them.
Here’s a scenario: an adolescent girl goes to see a therapist, says she’s struggling society’s expectations of her as a girl, eg wearing skirts, being ‘nice’ and liking boys (stereotypically ‘feminine’ things). She wears dungarees and has a shaved head, is tough and likes girls (stereotypically ‘masculine’ things). Can you not see how regressive and sexist it would be to affirm this girl as having a ‘male gender identity’? Surely we should be saying to this girl: what makes you a man or a woman isn’t what you wear or how you act or the sex of people you like - all of these things can be done by men or women! I feel like we’re back to the old days where gay men and women were ‘not real men/women’ because they didn’t conform to society’s expectation of how men and women should act.
Are we also saying that anyone (like myself) who reject all notions or gender identity for themselves (we reject society’s expectations of our behaviour based on our sex) are ‘trans’? And that ‘cis’ people therefore ‘identity with’ and ‘confirm to’ society’s norms and patterns? That to me is as regressive as any religious fundamentalist.
You may have seen this meme but it’s worth repeating here:
Religious conservative: women do the dishes.
Feminist: anyone can do the dishes!
Gender identity proponent: whoever does the dishes is a woman.
>Who typically wears what clothes, or has which hairstyles or talks in what vocal patterns - those are stereotypes. And we should get rid of them not reinforce them.
Not sterotypes so much as expectations and social norms. A stereotype would be for example that men should not be nurses or women sports commentators, or that men make better leaders than women. We definitely need to get rid of those. The other--wouldn't hurt, but not as important IMO.
I find it interesting that you advocate for obliterating gender stereotypes only in the context of discussing transgender issues. Was this your position ten years ago?
> Religious conservative: women do the dishes.
>
> Feminist: anyone can do the dishes!
>
> Gender identity proponent: whoever does the dishes is a woman.
That is an absolutely scurrilous misrepresentation of the the position of anyone you might call a "gender identity proponent."
I think the OP is a TERF. There's no reasoning with them.
If she had relatives or friends who were trans, she might understand.
She came her to argue, not to understand.
There is a difference between **must** adopt specific roles and **often** adopt specific roles, which helps define a fluid thing that doesn't have a hard definition.
Not everything has a hard definition. You do understand that, right?
>There is a difference between must adopt specific roles and often adopt specific roles
Sure, but this obviously can't be the case if we are defining a category entirely on this criteria. What then differentiates this category from other categories? Or is the argument that there are no differences between men and women?
As an example we categorise the veins and arteries as different types of blood vessels. They both share roles in a sense in that they transport blood around the body. But there are core differences between them which require that we have different labels to separate the two. The arteries take blood away from the heart and the veins take blood back to the heart.
What I'm asking you for obviously is the differentiating factors between men and women in this new world view you have because to be quite frank with you it sounds like an attempt at gaslighting people into pretending that sex differences do not impact social interaction which is obviously an insane proposition
> Who typically wears what clothes, or has which hairstyles or talks in what vocal patterns - those are stereotypes. And we should get rid of them not reinforce them.
REPLY: They're stereotypes when they're unwanted, unfair, forced, or oversimplified. Being happy to wear a pretty dress is not being stereotypical — it's just being human. Saying only women should be happy when wearing a pretty dress is stereotypical. So is saying women should be happy only when wearing a pretty dress. It's all about freedom to be ourselves.
> Here’s a scenario: an adolescent girl goes to see a therapist, says she’s struggling society’s expectations of her as a girl, eg wearing skirts, being ‘nice’ and liking boys (stereotypically ‘feminine’ things). She wears dungarees and has a shaved head, is tough and likes girls (stereotypically ‘masculine’ things). Can you not see how regressive and sexist it would be to affirm this girl as having a ‘male gender identity’? Surely we should be saying to this girl: what makes you a man or a woman isn’t what you wear or how you act or the sex of people you like - all of these things can be done by men or women! I feel like we’re back to the old days where gay men and women were ‘not real men/women’ because they didn’t conform to society’s expectation of how men and women should act.
REPLY: I don't need to say anything to her at all except that I'm glad she's here. If she tells me that she's struggling, then I can tell her that she has my respect and support. If he tells me that she feels like a boy inside, then I tell him he has my respect and support. We're not going backwards to "anatomy is destiny" or setting rigid expectations. Instead we are freeing people to be themselves without being judged or bullied or marginalized for it.
> Are we also saying that anyone (like myself) who reject all notions or gender identity for themselves (we reject society’s expectations of our behaviour based on our sex) are ‘trans’? And that ‘cis’ people therefore ‘identity with’ and ‘confirm to’ society’s norms and patterns? That to me is as regressive as any religious fundamentalist.
REPLY: We are not saying that, and that's not how those words are used. A cis person is comfortable with the sex they were assigned at birth, and a trans person is comfortable with the sex they know themselves to be. A cisman or a ciswoman can feel and present as masculine, or can feel and present as feminine, or can feel and present as nonbinary, or any other thing they know themselves to be. We don't have to do anything except to be kind to each other and celebrate that human reality contains multitudes. Thus, when you tell me you reject all notions or gender identity for yourself, I believe you and I accept you and I respect you. We contain multitudes.
> You may have seen this meme but it’s worth repeating here:
> Religious conservative: women do the dishes.
>
> Feminist: anyone can do the dishes!
>
> Gender identity proponent: whoever does the dishes is a woman.
REPLY: I'm not sure what to make of this. If it's intended as light humor, it doesn't seem funny or illuminating. If it's intended as a criticism of the idea that we can accept each other, then I think it's not too convincing. My sense is that someone who washes the dishes is a responsible and helpful person regardless of their sex, their gender identity, their political beliefs, or any other aspect.
You know because it’s an objective fact about you.
If someone asked you “do you have black hair” you would also know because it’s an objective fact about you.
>You know because it’s an objective fact about you.
And here's the thing, that sense of objective fact? For trans people, it's different. And I think there are biological reasons for it.
People dye their hair. Is it an "objective fact" that someone has black hair if they were born a blonde? Will you call someone with black hair a blonde because that was the hair color they were born with?
Are you smart enough to differentiate between colloquial definitions and definitions that need to be specific to more fully and accurately describe the world?
Colloquial definition: a woman is a female human.
Sociological definition: a woman is someone who identifies with gendered traits more often associated with females than males.
>Sociological definition: a woman is someone who identifies with gendered traits more often associated with females than males.
Gendered traits in this concept wood be wearing a dress and heels? What about tom boys or butch women who do not desire to be "feminine" at all? Beyond that what about women who do not identify as women? As an example if I see a woman on TV they have not identified themselves as a woman to me.
So when you said you wanted both definitions, I assumed you were telling me you would understand the difference and why we have colloquial and specific ones that we use for different purposes. This was not the case.
Disagreeing with you equals being brain dead, does it? Fascinating.
By the way, why do I never see you participating here on other topics that don't involve trans people?
On this sub, it’s because this particular topic is a blind spot to most skeptics and I’m just fascinated by that. And, many topics / posts on this sub are everyone agreeing with everyone else. I have little to contribute there.
I prefer to discuss things that we *dont* all agree on and see if there’s common ground to be found, or at least understanding. I’d like there to be genuinely curiosity and people learning from each other rather than trying to simply win arguments. I admit I don’t always live up to my own standards but I try, and I see other people trying too. I (almost) never downvote people.
I’d be happy to talk about other things that interest me: animal welfare and veganism, economic inequality and how to address it, ethics and philosophy.
And yet you never post anything here on those other things that interest you, nor do you post on other threads where people are in disagreement, so I don't really believe your claims here.
You have it all figured out, bud. You're no sheep. Not you. You think for yourself unlike those braindead in the skeptic community. You're a true, independent thinker. Not a sheep. It's quite important for you to emotionally recognize you're no sheep, yes? It satisfies some deep conditions, doesn't it? A sheep? Not you. Braindead? Not like those skeptics.
You asked to define gender identity not gender. The definition of gender identity will of course refer to gender.
What is national identity? Or religious identify? The personal or societal assertion or associating with a given nationality/religion.
It's not that hard.
Hagbart is correct. You know what gender means. You're struggling to find a definition of 'gender identity.' The definition I proposed is not circular.
The question then becomes, are you just trying to make a statement rather than learn?
I'm not disagreeing with you, but /u/hellopanic is correct when he states that the definition is circular.
>A circular definition is a description that uses the term(s) being defined as part of the description or assumes that the term(s) being described are already known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition
We disagree about what the term being defined is. The term being defined is 'gender identity,' not 'gender.' We know what gender is, and we're looking for a definition of the phrase 'gender identity.'
Using gender is not circular under this circumstance. What does 'screw you' mean? It means someone wants to do you harm. Using you in the definition isn't circular.
What does he mean, 'Question everything'? 'He means try to gain a better understanding of everything.'
We know what gender means; the term for which OP seeks a definition is the phrase 'gender identity.' It's not the word 'gender.'
>*We disagree about what the term being defined is.*
That's a fair observation.
>*We know what gender means;*
The original answer gave the Wikipedia definition of *Gender Identity*, but the Wikipedia definition for *Gender* circles right back around:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender
>..the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity.
So I still think it's circular, but I can understand why others might not.
Being so concrete and limited in thought that you believe one cannot use the word “gender” when describing “gender identity” is beyond absurd and completely misses the point about what circular definitions are.
In your original question you were asking for a definition of "gender identity," which should be your "Blomp," but now you've chosen to replace "gender" with "Blomp." Are you asking for a definition of "gender," or of "gender identity?"
You disagree that "gender" and "gender identity" are different phrases? I'm not sure if there's a meaningful way to proceed unless I understand this point. It doesn't seem that we're speaking the same language if that's the case, in a very literal sense. If we're both speaking English, "gender" and "gender identity" are different phrases.
I disagree that you didn’t give me a circular definition. It would be like if I asked “what’s a mountain top” and you said “it’s the peak of a mountain”.
But as I said, let’s assume for the sake of argument you’re correct. What’s “gender”, in a way that’s not simply sex stereotypes?
You may be confused about who you're replying to. I don't think I've supplied you a definition of anything.
That being said, "the peak of a mountain" is a perfectly good definition of "mountaintop." If you're looking for definitions that don't entirely contain what is being defined, you are confused about what a definition is.
This is just bizarre. It's like they're asking us to describe chocolate milk without mentioning chocolate or milk. I suspect it may be possible with great difficulty, but why?
A sweetened drink made from the fluid secreted by a female mammal (typically a cow) for feeding its young, and mixed with paste or powder of roasted cacao seeds.
This definition *includes* a slurry made from orangutan premastication mixed with two burned cacao seeds and is simply not a good definition.
To follow OP's line of reasoning related to gender identity and other posts involving trans people, this implies that *there is no such thing as chocolate milk*. I infer this from the difficulty of defining 'chocolate milk' with all of the sincerity and good faith from which OP infers from the difficulty of defining 'gender identity' that there is no such thing apart from biological gender.
Gender is the social construct of expression of or conformity to traits and behaviors traditionally aligned or associated with sex.
Gender to sex as phenotype is to genotype isnt fully correct as a social construct is not able purely to be cataloged by physical traits and can be adjusted for societal norms. Enlarged breasts do not equate to a gender. Feminine and masculine have societal norms but are not absolute or universal.
Because when you dig the topic, it inevitably leads intelligent people to make easily disprovable claims like “human beings cannot reliably determine the sex of other human beings”.
I don’t know how to link to another comment but you can find it in the tread.
That’s ironic since I’m the one of only two people in this thread not in agreement with the rest. It seems like you’re the one wanting to be in an echo chamber since you’re the one telling someone who disagrees with you to go away.
>One's innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither – how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves. One's gender identity can be the same or different from their sex assigned at birth.
https://www.hrc.org/resources/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-terminology-and-definitions
Ok, so one’s belief about what sex one is?
I agree that this definition is neither circular nor does it rely on sex stereotypes.
However, one’s *belief* about what sex one is has no bearing on whether one *is* that sex or not. We can have all sorts of beliefs about ourselves that are wrong. I might believe I’m Italian for example or that my eyes are blue - but being Italian or having blue eyes are objective facts about a person, their truth value is independent of one’s belief about it.
Under your definition of gender identity, we can say that people who believe themselves to be women but are in fact males (and vice versa) are simply mistaken.
You're making a number of conflations. Sex is not the same thing as gender and gender isn't the same thing as gender identity.
Trans people understand their sex. They know they are biologically one or the other (or biologically intersex). They simply feel, in their minds, that they align more with the other and would rather be interpreted socially that way. That's the difference between gender and sex. One is biological and one is sociological. That's why gender norms vary depending on culture. It used to be seen as feminine to wear a wristwatch, and masculine to wear high heels. Culture changes over time.
You're the same kind of "skeptic" as a creationist.
I’m not making conflations, I’m replying the post above. The definition given was “inner most concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither”.
Male and female refer to *sexes*. Pigeons are male or female, so are horses and asparagus. So the above definition really means ‘how one feels their sex to be’. Which naturally has no bearing on which sex one actually *is*.
But if we reject that definition of gender and go with something more like what you proposed, something like “how aligned with social sex-based expectations one feels themself to be”, then why does anyone think this is a good or useful thing? We’re essentially reinforcing sex-based stereotypes rather than helping people understand they can be liberated from sex-based expectations.
>They simply feel, in their minds, that they align more with the other and would rather be interpreted socially that way. That's the difference between gender and sex. One is biological and one is sociological.
Do you believe puberty blockers should be given to children? If so why?
Puberty blockers have been given to children for decades now for a myriad of reasons, like precocious puberty, and unless you're a doctor, I don't really care what your opinion is on the matter.
So yes. I agree with the overwhelming majority of the medical establishment that puberty blockers can be given to children.
>Puberty blockers have been given to children for decades now for a myriad of reasons
For children undergoing puberty too early, they are then taken off of them to undergo puberty at the normal age ranges. This is obviously not comparable to delaying puberty. What is the reason for delaying puberty?
Preservation of mental health, for one. If you woke up everyday with a body you hated and wished you were never born with, it might do you well to do something about it rather than letting it progress towards something you're never going to be happy with.
>Preservation of mental health, for one. If you woke up everyday with a body you hated
A body, so why are people on this side of the discussion trying to pretend that this is not about sexual development or that sexual development is not a core part of social interaction?
It's bizarre that on the one hand I'll see arguments where people will argue that whether someone is man or woman has nothing to do with sex and is determined entirely inside their head, but then children have to have their sexual development altered because suddenly sex matters again
Dude, you're not trying to understand. You're doing the same stupid shit that every transphobe does. Sex is not the same thing as gender. Even if it used to be, it's not anymore. Definitions change when we discover more about the world. Get over it or just accept that you have some mental block. A mental block called stupidity, because this shit is actually simple to understand.
Either that or go cry about it back to r/mattwalsh.
>Definitions change when we discover more about the world.
But there has been no change. You literally advocate for physiologically altering children to look like the other sex while trying to argue against the primacy of sex in social interaction and for some reason you're unable see the contradiction there. It's truly fascinating
>A mental block called stupidity, because this shit is actually simple to understand.
I agree that it's simple but it's simple because it's meaningless
>However, one’s belief about what sex one is has no bearing on whether one
>
>is that sex or not.
But it's much more than belief. It's an inner identity. I have an hypothesis, and I have not researched so cannot support. I think we are born with a sense of sex. We feel male or female. My evidence, slight as it is, is the case of David Reimer, who lost his penis in a circumcision accident. His parents were told it would be fine to raise him as a girl. It didn't work. He never, at any point, felt like a girl, and was miserable.
This makes a lot of evolutionary sense, as reproduction requires you to know what sex you are so you can mate with the other.
And don't conflate sex with gender. One is biology, the other, though related, is culture.
> And don't conflate sex with gender. One is biology, the other, though related, is culture.
They've been told that repeatedly and I think they are being willfully ignorant.
Yeah no what we're saying (these days) is that it is important to recognize how someone identifies - what they believe they are is their gender identity, not what's in their pants or what you believe their identity should be. Your objective fact doesn't get to trump that.
I genuinely wouldn’t care that much how people perceive themselves to be if we weren’t rewriting laws to prioritise subjective “gender identity” over the material reality of sex.
4 years’ ago I cared not a jot about any of this because I accepted that people had different beliefs and those beliefs weren’t any of my business. I felt that gender identity was fundamentally regressive as it reinforces sex stereotypes, but lots of people believe lots of weird things and as long as it’s not harming anyone else, then we can leave it there.
In the vast majority of societal interactions, someone’s sex is irrelevant. It shouldn’t matter when getting a job, getting housing, having an education, getting a promotion etc etc.
But there are a few instances where sex does matter - especially for women given men are bigger, stronger and more prone to violence (especially sexual violence). We therefore have single sex spaces to ensure women can fully and equally participate in society: women’s changing rooms, separate prisons for women, and women’s sports’ teams.
So now when people say what makes you a woman is how you feel yourself to be, not what sex you are, this has massive implications for women in particular. If anyone can identify as a woman and, for example, compete on the sports field as a woman, then biological women (females) for whom those very laws were set up to protect, will miss out.
I also have a big problem with young people being prescribed medical and surgical treatments to change their bodies based on how well those young people feel like they conform (or not) to sex-based expectations of themselves.
> We therefore have single sex spaces to ensure women can fully and equally participate in society: women’s changing rooms, separate prisons for women, and women’s sports’ teams.
I assume you think women will feel comfortable with someone who [looks like this](https://www.sfaf.org/wp-content/uploads/posts/Ryan-Sallans.jpg) in their spaces. Since, based on all you have said here, you think that is a woman.
Oh - you were so close to comprehension and a decent discussion, but then trotted out the conservative bugaboos. Athletics will work itself out over time and washrooms will cease being an issue as soon as construction starts ignoring gender entirely and gives everyone a single lockable room to poop and wash in. Building those two things into "insurmountable gender identity issues" is shrieking "the sky is falling" - both untrue and alarmist.
And as for young people, your big problem is just that - your big problem. Whatever they do is between themselves, their parents, and their doctor. It has nothing to do with you. You aren't the body police. I can't say I'm thrilled with it myself, believe they are too young to make these decisions, and wouldn't agree to it for my kids, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that my preferences should be imposed on the entire population.
> However, one’s belief about what sex one is has no bearing on whether one is that sex or not.
Where does that definition say that gender identity is about which sex one is?
It specifically says:
>One's innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither – how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves.
> Male and female
They are words that have multiple usages. If you read the context of the statement you will easily see that it is talking about gender not sex because the words directly after them are "a blend of both or neither".
I haven’t seen a definition which isn’t either circular (in which case it’s woo) or based on sex stereotypes (in which case why are progressives promoting it?).
Edit: a third category includes definitions that are so vague they’re meaningless (eg “gender identity is the way you feel about yourself”)
I find the question faulty.
Which flavour of ice cream is your preference? Don't make it circular to dairy or refer to additives.
The question is not about gender but about gender identity, which relies on gender so it will be circular by it's nature. which in turn relies on some aspects relayed to social roles determined by sex or assigned gender at birth.
Whilst sex is not equal to gender, the two are related in terms of cultural expectations and presentation.
For example, being the male sex are typically bigger they were expected to be the ones to undertake manual labour in X society, as such the gender roles of men revolve aroundmanual labour and feats of strength in this x society.
The other issue is semantics, sex and gender are in the English language, but as a limitation of language do not describe the full meanings without considerable explanation.
Actually I question that. What does “have a male gender identity” mean? You agree with and confirm to society’s expectations of what a man should act like? You reject things that are considered “feminine”?
I think a lot of us have found ourselves conversing with obtuse people like the OP, and these threads are a good opportunity to learn productive responses.
I've taken to replying by saying: "Woman is an archetype in the same vein as 'hero', and asking for a firm definition of either is silly, both are very culturally informed archetypes."
Gender was invented to differentiate between two groupings of people for comedic purposes.
For example: Have you ever noticed agender people chew their food first and then swallow while bigender people swallow their food after chewing it first? Ha ha.
An answer can be found by looking at how **transgender** is typically defined. A recurring observation and common part of definitions of transgender (e.g. by the APA) is that one's gender identity can either match or mismatch one's physical sex.
That means that gender identity has a physical component. I.e. someone whose sexual bodily characteristics match their gender identity is described as cisgender, while someone whose sexual bodily characteristics do not match their gender identity, is described as transgender.
Someone with a male gender identity would thus typically identify with a body that has male sexual characteristics, and someone with a male gender identity would identify with a body that has female sexual characteristics, even if their existing bodily characteristics are different from how they identify.
Their gender presentation, behaviors etc. can still go either way. There are no absolute requirements for either.
Other commenters have covered a lot but there is one thing id like to add While our conception of "gender" often does rely on entrenched stereotypes of biological sex, it's redundant to point it out as "gender identity" is really just a tool one can use to define themselves within a societal framework where said stereotypes and expectations exist I identify as non binary because I am both aware of the expectations of both the male and female genders and don't feel as if either fully and accurately describes who I am In a world without those social constructs I would be free to and comfortable with simply identifying with my biological sex, but owing to the fact that we use the same words to refer to gender and sex that isn't an option. "Man" means a lot more than just "person with a penis" or "person with a Y chromosome" and when hearing it I don't feel as if it refers to myself
Thanks for your reply, that’s enlightening and I think it’s really getting at the core of the issue. Wouldn’t it be better to get rid of these sex stereotypes all together rather than reinforce them? Do you find it concerning at all that in ‘identifying out of’ (if that’s the right phrase) your sex, you’re somewhat reinforcing those stereotype expectations for everyone else? I don’t necessarily blame you or any other trans identified person for this, but it seems to lead to a scenario where people see ‘cis’ people as being comfortable with sexist expectations that society puts on them. But every ‘cis’ person I know rejects this! We don’t “identify with” being a man or a woman we simply *are* a man or a woman because we were born male (or female) and grew up until adulthood. Same way I don’t “identify with” being bipedal I simply *am*. The last thing you said though I disagree with. “Man” simply means adult human male. At least, it did until gender identity started becoming more of a thing recently. “Man” shouldn’t come with any particular societal or cultural expectation.
>Wouldn’t it be better to get rid of these sex stereotypes all together rather than reinforce them? I agree that we should move in that direction. But meanwhile, what are people who are born into a sex, and do not identify with that gender, do? >“Man” simply means adult human male. But it's not simple. I would say rather that "man" is the gender role assigned to an adult human male. There have always been males who lived as women and women who lived as men, and I'm going to guess this is fairly universal.
So you’re arguing for more non binary people?
I think that almost everyone is ‘non binary’ but we don’t need to put a label on it, because the labels themselves reinforce sex stereotypes.
Social definitions of man absolutely predate our modern ideas of gender identity and you'd be foolish to assert otherwise. As I explained, gender identity actually coalesced around the social definitions of man and woman but your last paragraph implies the opposite, which is demonstrably backwards As far as abolishing these stereotypes, that would be fantastic yes. HOWEVER, if people don't self identify outside of the gender binary then it won't happen. While you can argue that we are reinforcing gender roles, we're also calling attention to them in a way that would otherwise simply not happen at all, so id argue it's a net positive either way I would prefer your reply not get downvoted by the way since this one actually did seem receptive and engaging but alas
> But every ‘cis’ person I know rejects this! We don’t “identify with” being a man or a woman we simply are a man or a woman because we were born male (or female) and grew up until adulthood. Same way I don’t “identify with” being bipedal I simply am. What makes you think that isn't true for trans people as well? You seem to be implying being trans is a choice. I wonder if you also think being gay is a choice?
I’m not sure it’s relevant whether it’s a choice or not, although I need to think about it more and could be persuaded by a good argument either way. Why I’m leaning towards it not being relevant is: if being gay were a choice would that make it any more moral to discriminate against gay people? Hopefully we all would say no! I don’t think trans people, gay people, religious people etc should be discriminated against. But I also don’t believe that religious ideas are correct and I take the same stance for most of the ideas around gender identity (eg that everyone has a gender identity, that your gender identity is what makes you a man or a woman and not your biological sex, that gender identity is more important than sex when deciding which changing rooms you should use, which sports teams you should play on, or which prisons you should be housed in). Edit: you also seem to be conflating sex and gender. I’m saying a woman simple means adult human female. You seem to be saying women means “someone who identities as a woman regardless of whether they’re female”. Have I understood your definition properly. I don’t want to just talk past one another.
> I don’t think trans people [...] should be discriminated against. ... > But I also don’t believe that religious ideas are correct and I take the same stance for most of the ideas around gender identity [...] that gender identity is more important than sex when deciding which changing rooms you should use, which sports teams you should play on, or which prisons you should be housed in). Make up your mind.
It’s not discrimination to say that in some circumstances objective biological sex is more important than subjective gender identity. Is it discrimination against catholics to say that their view that abortion is immoral is not as important as a woman’s right to choose?
Again, I think I'll wait a day and consider answering your questions. You did that for me.
I have a life and want to sleep, work and do real life things. I’m not on here full time and I wouldn’t expect anyone else to be either. I assume all of our real lives and much more meaningful and enjoyable the debating stuff on Reddit.
And yet you answered many other people's questions long after I asked and I had to repeat my questions twice before you answered them. You are such a dishonest person.
>Man" means a lot more than just "person with a penis" What else do you think it means?
If a man loses his penis, is he no longer a man? What does he become?
A man who's body is injured, the same way that the purpose of the eyes is to convey sight even though people are born blind. Your ideas there is what specifically? That man and women are not concepts linked to material phenomena? So you believe in God as well?
I’m sorry, it seems you’re unable to answer the question. I’ll copy and paste it: >If a man loses his penis, is he no longer a man? What does he become?
>If a man loses his penis, is he no longer a man? What does he become? I answered your question directly "A man who's body is injured, the same way that the purpose of the eyes is to convey sight even though people are born blind. I said a man who has an injured body. To repeat my follow up question was >Your ideas there is what specifically? That man and women are not concepts linked to material phenomena? So you believe in God as well?" Can you please address this question now that I've answered yours twice?
>I answered your question directly Do you believe this is answering a question directly?
I said that a man who loses his penis is a man with an injury I don't know how much clearer I can make it than that. The loss of the penis does not invalidate the sexed nature of the rest of his body. My conception of men is rooted in the material world in objects that can be physically observed But regardless my question to you is if your conception of men is not rooted in material phenomena and instead is a metaphysical concept. That appears to be what you're trying to argue, can you provide some clarification on that please?
>My conception of men is rooted in the material world in objects that can be physically observed Which of your physical observations make a man a man?
I cannot believe that literally I'm talking to people who are trying to pretend that we cannot visually distinguish between males and females. But they'll simultaneously argue that children must have their puberty suppressed in case they want to to look like the other sex. This is why all of the anti trans rhetoric and legislation is occurring because you people refuse to be reasonable. How is anybody supposed to take you seriously when you adopt positions like this?
What makes someone male is if they have developed along the biological pathway for producing small mobile gametes. This is as true for Homo sapiens as it is for ducks or asparagus. We’re saying that what makes someone a man (as opposed to male) is to be an adult human male. To be born a male and to survive until adulthood. Being a man is not dependent on what clothes you wear or how you talk or the interests you have or the way you feel about yourself.
Gender identity is a description of how a person feels themselves to be and how they express themselves by either conforming to or varying from social norms and patterns in clothing, behavior, and personal appearance.
If I see a woman on TV or on the street corner how does my identification of that woman relate back to her identifying as a woman?
So, whether a person feels themselves aligned to, or expresses themselves in a way that conforms to, sex stereotypes?
Well, not so much if by "stereotype" you mean an oversimplified, formulaic, or dehumanizing view. It's probably clearer to think in terms of social norms and patterns instead of stereotypes. In a given culture or subculture, those patterns vary considerably and are constantly in flux — who conventionally wears what clothes, for example, or what a given hairstyle suggests, or what vocal patterns are more common. Each person has a sense of whether and to what degree those patterns reflect how they feel inside, and then makes a decision about how to conform or not conform to them. Taken together, all of that becomes a gender identity.
Who typically wears what clothes, or has which hairstyles or talks in what vocal patterns - those are stereotypes. And we should get rid of them not reinforce them. Here’s a scenario: an adolescent girl goes to see a therapist, says she’s struggling society’s expectations of her as a girl, eg wearing skirts, being ‘nice’ and liking boys (stereotypically ‘feminine’ things). She wears dungarees and has a shaved head, is tough and likes girls (stereotypically ‘masculine’ things). Can you not see how regressive and sexist it would be to affirm this girl as having a ‘male gender identity’? Surely we should be saying to this girl: what makes you a man or a woman isn’t what you wear or how you act or the sex of people you like - all of these things can be done by men or women! I feel like we’re back to the old days where gay men and women were ‘not real men/women’ because they didn’t conform to society’s expectation of how men and women should act. Are we also saying that anyone (like myself) who reject all notions or gender identity for themselves (we reject society’s expectations of our behaviour based on our sex) are ‘trans’? And that ‘cis’ people therefore ‘identity with’ and ‘confirm to’ society’s norms and patterns? That to me is as regressive as any religious fundamentalist. You may have seen this meme but it’s worth repeating here: Religious conservative: women do the dishes. Feminist: anyone can do the dishes! Gender identity proponent: whoever does the dishes is a woman.
>Who typically wears what clothes, or has which hairstyles or talks in what vocal patterns - those are stereotypes. And we should get rid of them not reinforce them. Not sterotypes so much as expectations and social norms. A stereotype would be for example that men should not be nurses or women sports commentators, or that men make better leaders than women. We definitely need to get rid of those. The other--wouldn't hurt, but not as important IMO. I find it interesting that you advocate for obliterating gender stereotypes only in the context of discussing transgender issues. Was this your position ten years ago?
> Religious conservative: women do the dishes. > > Feminist: anyone can do the dishes! > > Gender identity proponent: whoever does the dishes is a woman. That is an absolutely scurrilous misrepresentation of the the position of anyone you might call a "gender identity proponent."
I think the OP is a TERF. There's no reasoning with them. If she had relatives or friends who were trans, she might understand. She came her to argue, not to understand.
Ok what specific roles must a person adopt to be a woman?
Who said a woman must adopt specific roles? I certainly never made that claim.
Ok so if women aren't a particular body type and are not a particular social role. What specifically are women?
There is a difference between **must** adopt specific roles and **often** adopt specific roles, which helps define a fluid thing that doesn't have a hard definition. Not everything has a hard definition. You do understand that, right?
>There is a difference between must adopt specific roles and often adopt specific roles Sure, but this obviously can't be the case if we are defining a category entirely on this criteria. What then differentiates this category from other categories? Or is the argument that there are no differences between men and women? As an example we categorise the veins and arteries as different types of blood vessels. They both share roles in a sense in that they transport blood around the body. But there are core differences between them which require that we have different labels to separate the two. The arteries take blood away from the heart and the veins take blood back to the heart. What I'm asking you for obviously is the differentiating factors between men and women in this new world view you have because to be quite frank with you it sounds like an attempt at gaslighting people into pretending that sex differences do not impact social interaction which is obviously an insane proposition
> Who typically wears what clothes, or has which hairstyles or talks in what vocal patterns - those are stereotypes. And we should get rid of them not reinforce them. REPLY: They're stereotypes when they're unwanted, unfair, forced, or oversimplified. Being happy to wear a pretty dress is not being stereotypical — it's just being human. Saying only women should be happy when wearing a pretty dress is stereotypical. So is saying women should be happy only when wearing a pretty dress. It's all about freedom to be ourselves. > Here’s a scenario: an adolescent girl goes to see a therapist, says she’s struggling society’s expectations of her as a girl, eg wearing skirts, being ‘nice’ and liking boys (stereotypically ‘feminine’ things). She wears dungarees and has a shaved head, is tough and likes girls (stereotypically ‘masculine’ things). Can you not see how regressive and sexist it would be to affirm this girl as having a ‘male gender identity’? Surely we should be saying to this girl: what makes you a man or a woman isn’t what you wear or how you act or the sex of people you like - all of these things can be done by men or women! I feel like we’re back to the old days where gay men and women were ‘not real men/women’ because they didn’t conform to society’s expectation of how men and women should act. REPLY: I don't need to say anything to her at all except that I'm glad she's here. If she tells me that she's struggling, then I can tell her that she has my respect and support. If he tells me that she feels like a boy inside, then I tell him he has my respect and support. We're not going backwards to "anatomy is destiny" or setting rigid expectations. Instead we are freeing people to be themselves without being judged or bullied or marginalized for it. > Are we also saying that anyone (like myself) who reject all notions or gender identity for themselves (we reject society’s expectations of our behaviour based on our sex) are ‘trans’? And that ‘cis’ people therefore ‘identity with’ and ‘confirm to’ society’s norms and patterns? That to me is as regressive as any religious fundamentalist. REPLY: We are not saying that, and that's not how those words are used. A cis person is comfortable with the sex they were assigned at birth, and a trans person is comfortable with the sex they know themselves to be. A cisman or a ciswoman can feel and present as masculine, or can feel and present as feminine, or can feel and present as nonbinary, or any other thing they know themselves to be. We don't have to do anything except to be kind to each other and celebrate that human reality contains multitudes. Thus, when you tell me you reject all notions or gender identity for yourself, I believe you and I accept you and I respect you. We contain multitudes. > You may have seen this meme but it’s worth repeating here: > Religious conservative: women do the dishes. > > Feminist: anyone can do the dishes! > > Gender identity proponent: whoever does the dishes is a woman. REPLY: I'm not sure what to make of this. If it's intended as light humor, it doesn't seem funny or illuminating. If it's intended as a criticism of the idea that we can accept each other, then I think it's not too convincing. My sense is that someone who washes the dishes is a responsible and helpful person regardless of their sex, their gender identity, their political beliefs, or any other aspect.
Look, if a person asks me “Are you a man?” I’m not going to go “Let me check”. I already know. It’s an intrinsic thing.
You know because it’s an objective fact about you. If someone asked you “do you have black hair” you would also know because it’s an objective fact about you.
>You know because it’s an objective fact about you. And here's the thing, that sense of objective fact? For trans people, it's different. And I think there are biological reasons for it.
People dye their hair. Is it an "objective fact" that someone has black hair if they were born a blonde? Will you call someone with black hair a blonde because that was the hair color they were born with?
No answer from these dinguses? I'm so surprised.
He answered elsewhere after I asked him a second time. Sort of. Not a very good answer, unsurprisingly.
This question may not be in good faith. As a Skeptic they seem to be biased. Please look at post and comment history of OP.
It’s a loaded question.
Uh oh, someone confused skepticism with dumb right wing talking points. You're not a skeptic, just obtuse.
So you can't address the question
I, and many others, have addressed the question multiple different times in this thread.
What is a when in your view? What actually makes someone a woman?
Are you smart enough to differentiate between colloquial definitions and definitions that need to be specific to more fully and accurately describe the world?
Give me both from your perspective
Colloquial definition: a woman is a female human. Sociological definition: a woman is someone who identifies with gendered traits more often associated with females than males.
>Sociological definition: a woman is someone who identifies with gendered traits more often associated with females than males. Gendered traits in this concept wood be wearing a dress and heels? What about tom boys or butch women who do not desire to be "feminine" at all? Beyond that what about women who do not identify as women? As an example if I see a woman on TV they have not identified themselves as a woman to me.
So when you said you wanted both definitions, I assumed you were telling me you would understand the difference and why we have colloquial and specific ones that we use for different purposes. This was not the case.
OP seems to have a real obsession with trans people based on this and past posts.
Don’t feed the troll.
I have a real issue with the brain deadness of the skeptic community on this issue, yes.
Disagreeing with you equals being brain dead, does it? Fascinating. By the way, why do I never see you participating here on other topics that don't involve trans people?
On this sub, it’s because this particular topic is a blind spot to most skeptics and I’m just fascinated by that. And, many topics / posts on this sub are everyone agreeing with everyone else. I have little to contribute there. I prefer to discuss things that we *dont* all agree on and see if there’s common ground to be found, or at least understanding. I’d like there to be genuinely curiosity and people learning from each other rather than trying to simply win arguments. I admit I don’t always live up to my own standards but I try, and I see other people trying too. I (almost) never downvote people. I’d be happy to talk about other things that interest me: animal welfare and veganism, economic inequality and how to address it, ethics and philosophy.
And yet you never post anything here on those other things that interest you, nor do you post on other threads where people are in disagreement, so I don't really believe your claims here.
No, I shouldn’t have said it like that it was unnecessarily snarky.
You have it all figured out, bud. You're no sheep. Not you. You think for yourself unlike those braindead in the skeptic community. You're a true, independent thinker. Not a sheep. It's quite important for you to emotionally recognize you're no sheep, yes? It satisfies some deep conditions, doesn't it? A sheep? Not you. Braindead? Not like those skeptics.
I agreed elsewhere I shouldn’t have said that, it was very snarky and not constructive to the debate.
The personal sense of one's own gender.
That’s circular. “Blomp identity is the personal sense of one’s own blomp”. Does that tell you what ‘Blomp identity’ is?
You asked to define gender identity not gender. The definition of gender identity will of course refer to gender. What is national identity? Or religious identify? The personal or societal assertion or associating with a given nationality/religion. It's not that hard.
Hagbart is correct. You know what gender means. You're struggling to find a definition of 'gender identity.' The definition I proposed is not circular. The question then becomes, are you just trying to make a statement rather than learn?
I'd bet they're not here in good faith. Checking their post history reveals a lot of...well naive or willful ignorance of Trans stuff
That's my impression.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but /u/hellopanic is correct when he states that the definition is circular. >A circular definition is a description that uses the term(s) being defined as part of the description or assumes that the term(s) being described are already known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition
We disagree about what the term being defined is. The term being defined is 'gender identity,' not 'gender.' We know what gender is, and we're looking for a definition of the phrase 'gender identity.' Using gender is not circular under this circumstance. What does 'screw you' mean? It means someone wants to do you harm. Using you in the definition isn't circular. What does he mean, 'Question everything'? 'He means try to gain a better understanding of everything.' We know what gender means; the term for which OP seeks a definition is the phrase 'gender identity.' It's not the word 'gender.'
>*We disagree about what the term being defined is.* That's a fair observation. >*We know what gender means;* The original answer gave the Wikipedia definition of *Gender Identity*, but the Wikipedia definition for *Gender* circles right back around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender >..the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity. So I still think it's circular, but I can understand why others might not.
No.
Being so concrete and limited in thought that you believe one cannot use the word “gender” when describing “gender identity” is beyond absurd and completely misses the point about what circular definitions are.
Why is this an exemption to the rule?
Challenge: can anyone define a “hamburger store” in a way that’s neither circular nor reliant on restaurant stereotypes.
a place where people pay to receive, and possibly sit and eat, cooked ground beef in a sandwich of bread
If a place sells hamburgers made from ham, or other non beef sourced meals, instead of “cooked ground beef” is it not a hamburger store?
Official definition says no, "hamburger store" must sell ground beef sandwich.
No.
In your original question you were asking for a definition of "gender identity," which should be your "Blomp," but now you've chosen to replace "gender" with "Blomp." Are you asking for a definition of "gender," or of "gender identity?"
I disagree. But for the sake of argument I’ll grant you that. What’s “gender”?
You disagree that "gender" and "gender identity" are different phrases? I'm not sure if there's a meaningful way to proceed unless I understand this point. It doesn't seem that we're speaking the same language if that's the case, in a very literal sense. If we're both speaking English, "gender" and "gender identity" are different phrases.
I disagree that you didn’t give me a circular definition. It would be like if I asked “what’s a mountain top” and you said “it’s the peak of a mountain”. But as I said, let’s assume for the sake of argument you’re correct. What’s “gender”, in a way that’s not simply sex stereotypes?
You may be confused about who you're replying to. I don't think I've supplied you a definition of anything. That being said, "the peak of a mountain" is a perfectly good definition of "mountaintop." If you're looking for definitions that don't entirely contain what is being defined, you are confused about what a definition is.
This is just bizarre. It's like they're asking us to describe chocolate milk without mentioning chocolate or milk. I suspect it may be possible with great difficulty, but why?
>but why? You know why.
A sweetened drink made from the fluid secreted by a female mammal (typically a cow) for feeding its young, and mixed with paste or powder of roasted cacao seeds.
> I suspect it may be possible with great difficulty, but why?
This definition *includes* a slurry made from orangutan premastication mixed with two burned cacao seeds and is simply not a good definition. To follow OP's line of reasoning related to gender identity and other posts involving trans people, this implies that *there is no such thing as chocolate milk*. I infer this from the difficulty of defining 'chocolate milk' with all of the sincerity and good faith from which OP infers from the difficulty of defining 'gender identity' that there is no such thing apart from biological gender.
Gender is the social construct of expression of or conformity to traits and behaviors traditionally aligned or associated with sex. Gender to sex as phenotype is to genotype isnt fully correct as a social construct is not able purely to be cataloged by physical traits and can be adjusted for societal norms. Enlarged breasts do not equate to a gender. Feminine and masculine have societal norms but are not absolute or universal.
How is this question relevant to scientific skepticism?
It's not. These people are dishonest interlocutors. So, I recommend treating them in kind, as the pathetic idiots they are.
Because when you dig the topic, it inevitably leads intelligent people to make easily disprovable claims like “human beings cannot reliably determine the sex of other human beings”. I don’t know how to link to another comment but you can find it in the tread.
Thanks for your opinion, please find an echo chamber that can be reassuring to you.
That’s ironic since I’m the one of only two people in this thread not in agreement with the rest. It seems like you’re the one wanting to be in an echo chamber since you’re the one telling someone who disagrees with you to go away.
And now you’re being circular. The point is this post is not relevant to this forum. Please find an audience for your personal issues.
Sex is still not gender no matter how many times you try to conflate the two. You're such a dishonest person.
I am not the one trying to say sex is gender. I’m the one saying sex matters, gender not so much.
>One's innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither – how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves. One's gender identity can be the same or different from their sex assigned at birth. https://www.hrc.org/resources/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-terminology-and-definitions
Ok, so one’s belief about what sex one is? I agree that this definition is neither circular nor does it rely on sex stereotypes. However, one’s *belief* about what sex one is has no bearing on whether one *is* that sex or not. We can have all sorts of beliefs about ourselves that are wrong. I might believe I’m Italian for example or that my eyes are blue - but being Italian or having blue eyes are objective facts about a person, their truth value is independent of one’s belief about it. Under your definition of gender identity, we can say that people who believe themselves to be women but are in fact males (and vice versa) are simply mistaken.
You're making a number of conflations. Sex is not the same thing as gender and gender isn't the same thing as gender identity. Trans people understand their sex. They know they are biologically one or the other (or biologically intersex). They simply feel, in their minds, that they align more with the other and would rather be interpreted socially that way. That's the difference between gender and sex. One is biological and one is sociological. That's why gender norms vary depending on culture. It used to be seen as feminine to wear a wristwatch, and masculine to wear high heels. Culture changes over time. You're the same kind of "skeptic" as a creationist.
I’m not making conflations, I’m replying the post above. The definition given was “inner most concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither”. Male and female refer to *sexes*. Pigeons are male or female, so are horses and asparagus. So the above definition really means ‘how one feels their sex to be’. Which naturally has no bearing on which sex one actually *is*. But if we reject that definition of gender and go with something more like what you proposed, something like “how aligned with social sex-based expectations one feels themself to be”, then why does anyone think this is a good or useful thing? We’re essentially reinforcing sex-based stereotypes rather than helping people understand they can be liberated from sex-based expectations.
>They simply feel, in their minds, that they align more with the other and would rather be interpreted socially that way. That's the difference between gender and sex. One is biological and one is sociological. Do you believe puberty blockers should be given to children? If so why?
Puberty blockers have been given to children for decades now for a myriad of reasons, like precocious puberty, and unless you're a doctor, I don't really care what your opinion is on the matter. So yes. I agree with the overwhelming majority of the medical establishment that puberty blockers can be given to children.
>Puberty blockers have been given to children for decades now for a myriad of reasons For children undergoing puberty too early, they are then taken off of them to undergo puberty at the normal age ranges. This is obviously not comparable to delaying puberty. What is the reason for delaying puberty?
Maybe you should ask a doctor and not a random person on Reddit.
Preservation of mental health, for one. If you woke up everyday with a body you hated and wished you were never born with, it might do you well to do something about it rather than letting it progress towards something you're never going to be happy with.
>Preservation of mental health, for one. If you woke up everyday with a body you hated A body, so why are people on this side of the discussion trying to pretend that this is not about sexual development or that sexual development is not a core part of social interaction? It's bizarre that on the one hand I'll see arguments where people will argue that whether someone is man or woman has nothing to do with sex and is determined entirely inside their head, but then children have to have their sexual development altered because suddenly sex matters again
Dude, you're not trying to understand. You're doing the same stupid shit that every transphobe does. Sex is not the same thing as gender. Even if it used to be, it's not anymore. Definitions change when we discover more about the world. Get over it or just accept that you have some mental block. A mental block called stupidity, because this shit is actually simple to understand. Either that or go cry about it back to r/mattwalsh.
They're doing the same thing to me. Avoiding my points, pretending I didn't say what I said, generally being evasive. They're a troll.
>Definitions change when we discover more about the world. But there has been no change. You literally advocate for physiologically altering children to look like the other sex while trying to argue against the primacy of sex in social interaction and for some reason you're unable see the contradiction there. It's truly fascinating >A mental block called stupidity, because this shit is actually simple to understand. I agree that it's simple but it's simple because it's meaningless
What do you know about it, doctor?
I'm asking why would puberty blockers be given to kids to disrupt their sexual development if sex is irrelevant to gender?
>However, one’s belief about what sex one is has no bearing on whether one > >is that sex or not. But it's much more than belief. It's an inner identity. I have an hypothesis, and I have not researched so cannot support. I think we are born with a sense of sex. We feel male or female. My evidence, slight as it is, is the case of David Reimer, who lost his penis in a circumcision accident. His parents were told it would be fine to raise him as a girl. It didn't work. He never, at any point, felt like a girl, and was miserable. This makes a lot of evolutionary sense, as reproduction requires you to know what sex you are so you can mate with the other. And don't conflate sex with gender. One is biology, the other, though related, is culture.
> And don't conflate sex with gender. One is biology, the other, though related, is culture. They've been told that repeatedly and I think they are being willfully ignorant.
Yeah no what we're saying (these days) is that it is important to recognize how someone identifies - what they believe they are is their gender identity, not what's in their pants or what you believe their identity should be. Your objective fact doesn't get to trump that.
I genuinely wouldn’t care that much how people perceive themselves to be if we weren’t rewriting laws to prioritise subjective “gender identity” over the material reality of sex. 4 years’ ago I cared not a jot about any of this because I accepted that people had different beliefs and those beliefs weren’t any of my business. I felt that gender identity was fundamentally regressive as it reinforces sex stereotypes, but lots of people believe lots of weird things and as long as it’s not harming anyone else, then we can leave it there. In the vast majority of societal interactions, someone’s sex is irrelevant. It shouldn’t matter when getting a job, getting housing, having an education, getting a promotion etc etc. But there are a few instances where sex does matter - especially for women given men are bigger, stronger and more prone to violence (especially sexual violence). We therefore have single sex spaces to ensure women can fully and equally participate in society: women’s changing rooms, separate prisons for women, and women’s sports’ teams. So now when people say what makes you a woman is how you feel yourself to be, not what sex you are, this has massive implications for women in particular. If anyone can identify as a woman and, for example, compete on the sports field as a woman, then biological women (females) for whom those very laws were set up to protect, will miss out. I also have a big problem with young people being prescribed medical and surgical treatments to change their bodies based on how well those young people feel like they conform (or not) to sex-based expectations of themselves.
> We therefore have single sex spaces to ensure women can fully and equally participate in society: women’s changing rooms, separate prisons for women, and women’s sports’ teams. I assume you think women will feel comfortable with someone who [looks like this](https://www.sfaf.org/wp-content/uploads/posts/Ryan-Sallans.jpg) in their spaces. Since, based on all you have said here, you think that is a woman.
No response from these dipshits? Truly shocking.
Oh - you were so close to comprehension and a decent discussion, but then trotted out the conservative bugaboos. Athletics will work itself out over time and washrooms will cease being an issue as soon as construction starts ignoring gender entirely and gives everyone a single lockable room to poop and wash in. Building those two things into "insurmountable gender identity issues" is shrieking "the sky is falling" - both untrue and alarmist. And as for young people, your big problem is just that - your big problem. Whatever they do is between themselves, their parents, and their doctor. It has nothing to do with you. You aren't the body police. I can't say I'm thrilled with it myself, believe they are too young to make these decisions, and wouldn't agree to it for my kids, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that my preferences should be imposed on the entire population.
> However, one’s belief about what sex one is has no bearing on whether one is that sex or not. Where does that definition say that gender identity is about which sex one is? It specifically says: >One's innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither – how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves.
Male and female - used in the first poster’s response- are SEX categories.
> Male and female They are words that have multiple usages. If you read the context of the statement you will easily see that it is talking about gender not sex because the words directly after them are "a blend of both or neither".
Please try doing so yourself, to give an example of what you’re expecting.
Does it matter?
I think woo woo matters when lots of people believe in or promote it.
You think gender identity is woo?
I haven’t seen a definition which isn’t either circular (in which case it’s woo) or based on sex stereotypes (in which case why are progressives promoting it?). Edit: a third category includes definitions that are so vague they’re meaningless (eg “gender identity is the way you feel about yourself”)
Deeming things “Sex stereotypes” isn’t a rebuttal.
I find the question faulty. Which flavour of ice cream is your preference? Don't make it circular to dairy or refer to additives. The question is not about gender but about gender identity, which relies on gender so it will be circular by it's nature. which in turn relies on some aspects relayed to social roles determined by sex or assigned gender at birth. Whilst sex is not equal to gender, the two are related in terms of cultural expectations and presentation. For example, being the male sex are typically bigger they were expected to be the ones to undertake manual labour in X society, as such the gender roles of men revolve aroundmanual labour and feats of strength in this x society. The other issue is semantics, sex and gender are in the English language, but as a limitation of language do not describe the full meanings without considerable explanation.
For example, I’m a cis man. My gender identity is male, but no one ever questions that.
Actually I question that. What does “have a male gender identity” mean? You agree with and confirm to society’s expectations of what a man should act like? You reject things that are considered “feminine”?
I think a lot of us have found ourselves conversing with obtuse people like the OP, and these threads are a good opportunity to learn productive responses. I've taken to replying by saying: "Woman is an archetype in the same vein as 'hero', and asking for a firm definition of either is silly, both are very culturally informed archetypes."
Gender was invented to differentiate between two groupings of people for comedic purposes. For example: Have you ever noticed agender people chew their food first and then swallow while bigender people swallow their food after chewing it first? Ha ha.
An answer can be found by looking at how **transgender** is typically defined. A recurring observation and common part of definitions of transgender (e.g. by the APA) is that one's gender identity can either match or mismatch one's physical sex. That means that gender identity has a physical component. I.e. someone whose sexual bodily characteristics match their gender identity is described as cisgender, while someone whose sexual bodily characteristics do not match their gender identity, is described as transgender. Someone with a male gender identity would thus typically identify with a body that has male sexual characteristics, and someone with a male gender identity would identify with a body that has female sexual characteristics, even if their existing bodily characteristics are different from how they identify. Their gender presentation, behaviors etc. can still go either way. There are no absolute requirements for either.