I am OK with gender fluidity and self-determination too, at least in theory. But if gender is no big deal and it can switch on a whim, then let’s stop acting like gender-segregated spaces make sense. Let’s tell women they aren’t entitled to women’s only support groups and abolish things like women’s health services, since apparently “women” doesn’t mean anything objectively. Let’s stop calling people “men” and “women” based on appearance, too, and just call people “people”.
Either gender is a no big nebulous pile of nothing deal or it is a majorly important thing that requires sensitivity, special consideration, and conscientious language. Seems like both of these things can’t be simultaneously true. That’s my problem with all this newfangled gender stuf–it isn’t logically consistent.
If gender is a social construct, and if you slightly change what you say, it’s consistent.
Gender is something that exists primarily within the heads of humans, and it’s a meeting-place between biology, culture, and identity. For some people it’s not important, and for others it’s curucially important. Over time, culture changes, and with it, understanding of gender changes. We can respect everyone’s understanding of their own gender, and we can find ways to uncomfortably accommodate, in public and semipublic spaces, social understandings of gender that are mutually contradictory.
Trying to find clear lines in a crooked world is going to lead to more suffering, not less. Our best bet is to admit it’s messy and do our best to accommodate folks.
Fine by me, but you can see how angry people get about the idea of services for ‘people who menstruate’. Some people have such a strong gender identity that they would consider the very suggestion to be a personal attack. Practically, some of the gender-segregated spaces already have major issues; women’s shelters may have a cut-off age where they don’t allow male children to stay with their families. Focus on stuff like breast cancer and domestic violence as a women’s problem can cause serious problems for men affected by those problems.
I like to see gender kind of like colour (or the species concept), it’s kind of useful, but it’s not definitive; there’s red, and there’s purple; exactly where one stops and the other begins isn’t obvious, and maybe there’s a violet in there too. Maybe what looked red yesterday might look purple today in a different light, while someone else is still saying red. That doesn’t mean red and purple don’t exist, but it doesn’t mean you have to decide exactly which box to put each shade in- and if it was a sentient colour which could tell you where it would like to be, you’d probably take its word for it.
This. In 99% of people, the chromosomes, sex organs, appearance etc, all line up as one sex or the other. When they don’t it’s because something has gone wrong with development, and sometimes that results in ambiguity. But that doesn’t make sex ambiguous for the other 99% of people.
What’s the contradiction? Do you think your brain is not “a concrete, biological thing”?
But to clarify - I was not remotely suggesting that it should be visible on a brain scan with current technology. I was more making the point that what’s in your brain has just as much objective physical reality as what’s between your legs, and neuron configuration could in principle be detected by scan. It was also a sarcastic response to someone who didn’t seem to understand that the way we generally discover what’s in someone’s brain is by talking to them.
I took @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness to mean it’s a concept, an idea, but perhaps I misinterpreted. He can confirm or not.
But, hypothetically speaking, what if brain scans were eventually able to show there was no consistent difference between the brains of transwomen and men, or that some had a difference and some didn’t. Would you still say everyone should be able to self-define their gender?
I agree with everything you wrote, LHoD. I agree that we need to treat gender like a social construct. But I’m seeing us moving away from that approach.
If you wish to be referred to by feminine pronouns, I promise I will accommodate you on that. But I don’t think that obligates me to see you as a woman. I feel like I’m entitled to decide whether you belong to my gender group, just like I’m entitled to decide whether you are in my nationality, ethnic, racial, religious, and sexuality group. All social constructs operate in this framework. All social constructs have some rules that we can point to, just so everyone can understand the framework we’re operating from.
I don’t want hard and fast rules to gender. But defining gender around whatever an individual says they are is just as extreme as saying that gender is only about reproductive organs. I think there is a middle-ground here that we should be striving towards.
So is gender how a person has been socialized? I mean, I agree that socialization is important, but I’m not thinking socialization is what motivates folks to switch gender.
I was a bit flippant. I was trying to make a point to Reimann that not everything about our identity/self is measurable. One example are the Manson followers who went on to kill. By all accounts they were basically normal suburban kids. However Manson was able to resocialize them to violence and obedience through massive use of LSD and messaging. Under the right conditions most of us can be resocialized. What this tells me is that there is something about our brains that is malleable. Something that cant be predicted by any brain scan. My opinion, of course.
You are misunderstanding the point I was making. When I said that in principle the contents of your brain could be detected by scanning your brain, I was simply making the point that the configuration of your brain - your thoughts themselves, all your brain’s operations - have the same objective physical reality as what’s between your legs.
In that sense, the distinction you are trying to draw - “things a scan can see in principle” and “things the person is thinking or claiming” - does not exist.
Well sure, the person is really thinking they are/should be the opposite sex. And tomorrow they might change their mind. Why should I care about that or act on it? I thought you were claiming there was some part of the brain that was different between the sexes, that represented the gender identity, even if we can’t detect/measure it yet.
Your second sentence is a good way of describing it. Gender expression is largely a social construct; but the very existence of trans people, some of whom persistently and insistently assert a trans identity despite immense social pressure to conform to a cis identity, strongly implies that that there is some component to gender identity that is refractory to social conditioning - either inborn, or firmly established early in life.
You changed what we’re talking about. This isn’t the first time you’ve done that, and I’ll ask you to be more careful, going forward, to be sure you’re not suggesting I’m talking about something I’m not talking about.
The story that was described by Slacker did not involve anyone taking hormones. It did not involve anyone getting surgeries. It involved a kid who identified as a girl decided to identify as a boy for awhile and then deciding to identify as a girl. That’s not a problem. Another story–the one you’re imagining–in which a girl identifies as a boy and has surgery or hormone treatments before identifying as a girl again would have more serious concerns.
But when you change the story, you change reactions to it and concerns about it. Please don’t do that unless you make it clear that you’re no longer talking about the same thing.
You appear to be persisting with a model where you think that the fact that you can change your mind, that your thoughts are not static, implies that your thoughts are therefore not objectively real biological phenomena.
Gender identity is a mental state with the same objective physical reality as a penis or vagina. The question of whether it is always a persistent or invariant mental state for all people - clearly it is not - is a separate one. What I’m trying to address is the persistent fallacy that a penis is “real” but a state of mind is not.