# Gender identity model **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 21, 2017, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-model/796877 "2017-09-21T10:25:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2017, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-model/796877/21 "2017-09-26T02:44:08Z")
> [@Lasciel](#): > > Are you saying that men are more likely to be gay than women are to be lesbian, or perhaps vice versa? No Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Lasciel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e79b87/32.png) [@Lasciel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lasciel)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2017, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-model/796877/22 "2017-09-26T16:41:28Z")
> [@antechinus](#): > > No > > Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk THEN WHY DO YOU CARE ABOUT WHO THEY ARE BANGING? I’m sorry to be frustrated, but this KEEPS coming up in discussions of people’s identities like it somehow proves a point or makes a difference, and it really just is totally and utterly irrelevant to the whole concept. If your answer is NO, then your “conceptual framework” of sexual identity does NOT include some presupposition of a “gendered” (ie: intrinsic-to-their-sexual-identity) sexual orientation, and thus you’re just being a voyeur by asking about it. As my grandmother says “That’s tacky.” Don’t be tacky. Now, I feel like I have to say that if your framework DID include some presupposition of that nature, \*you might \*\*not \*_be wrong_, but I believe it’s a currently impossible task to try and figure out how and where any possible correlations or statistical likelihoods even laid out, and could easily be a truly insulting process to try and tease those things out from an actually representative variety of people, many of whom are already disadvantaged in really physically dangerous, stigmatized, and dehumanizing ways. (And to be blunt: I think that presupposition along those lines IS wrong, but we can’t prove it right now and I’m trying really hard to be fair and scientific rather than responding just out of frustration.) ---
**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-model/796877/23 "2017-09-27T12:23:52Z")
Based on your feedback, here is model Gender Identity Model v II 1. **Gender expression** - behaviour, mannerisms, interaction with society and others 2. **Gender Identity** - spectrum of personal identity 3. \*\*Phenotype \*\*- e.g. hormones, hair distribution, breasts, adam’s apple, genitals 4. \*\*DNA \*\*- genes 5. \*\*Chromosomes \*\*- XX, XY, XXY etc Each level builds on the abstaction of the previous level. I have taken sexual attraction out, because as other posters have said, this has nothing to do with gender. I broke up top level into personal identity and societal interation. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-model/796877/24 "2017-09-27T12:44:52Z")
You really should make it into: 1. Gender expression 2. Gender Identity 3. Phenotype 4. Nucleotides 5. Base Pairs 6. DNA 7. Nucleosomes 8. Heterochromatin 9. Chromosomes Because if you are going to insist on going with pointless, redundant distinctions, why not go all out? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2017, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-model/796877/25 "2017-09-27T17:08:40Z")
> [@antechinus](#): > > Based on your feedback, here is model Gender Identity Model v II You didn’t include my feedback, which is that the whole idea of layers resting on one another, like abstraction layers is a bad idea to begin with. Probably the strongest connections is genes -\> phenotype but even there there’s a lot of potential for the maps to just be mere correlations as environment, including womb environment, have a significant impact. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gender-identity-model/796877.md?page=1)