Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

So for me, the idea of a gender identity quite apart from an awareness of one's physical sex is not something I can really conceive of.

I'm *definitely* not an expert, but I think there's a perspective on gender that isn't clear here. Doesn't our gender describe what kind of people we are physically/sexually attracted-to? It's not all about that, of course, but isn't that a central theme of gender?

Not as I understand it. Gender is our sense of whether we're male or female. Not to be confused with our sexuality which is whom we are attracted to.

I just did a search of the interweb, and found that both variations are used, which only contributes to the confusion.

Happily, our confusion does not extend to real-life people, but only to which of the two terms we use for what. All the webpages I found described much the same things, but used "sex" and "gender" one way round or the other. Oh well.

***************************

Mind you, this topic is about "gender", so it matters here. And you began by seeming to use the meanings I used:

Do you believe that people can/do have an innate sense of gender (i.e. sense of being male or female) that may be in contrast to the physical sex that we happen to be born with?

[Sculptor1]

The suggestion that gender is devoid of innate propensity is absurd.

I did not ask whether gender itself is innate (or acquired), I asked whether our internal sense of gender is innate. In other words, our gender identity.

THen you are desperate for a fight.
Because what you are saying is I did not ask for X; I asked for X.
[

[Fried Egg]

Fried Egg, maybe you are over-thinking this. One's gender identity is determined by the recognition that one is male or female. You recognise that you are male and you gender identity follows from that recognition. You know you are male. That is your gender identity. That's all there is to it.

You say that, "I don't feel that I am male besides being aware that I have the body of a male".

However., there is nothing "beside being aware that you have the body of a male". In the case of gender dysphoria there is a belief that one is the wrong gender. By you are not gender dysphoric. You believe yourself to be, and you identify here as, male. Thus you gender identity is male.

But someone who is gender dysphoric is also aware of the physical reality of their own body. They just think it is wrong, that it does not reflect their inner sense of their own gender. Thus this inner sense is not merely an awareness of the physical reality of their own body. So where does it come from?

THen you are desperate for a fight.
Because what you are saying is I did not ask for X; I asked for X.

I feel like there is a lot of confusion here which is not helped by the overlapping and evolving meaning of the words we are using.

It used to be that the words "sex" and "gender" were synonyms. Not helped by the fact that the word "sex" can also be used to describe the intimate act between people. But it seems that these days many people say the word "gender" actually means "gender identity". But I don't really know what it is if it is not a mere awareness of your own sex. But for those who believe their gender and sex are in conflict, it must indeed mean something else.

I have also heard it said that gender is a social construct as some cultures have more than two. When people say this I believe they are referring in fact to gender roles. Clearly they are not referring to having more than two sexes which does not make sense as we are a dimorphic species. But there might exist any number of roles that society attaches to it's members. A gender role might include expectations about how you should behave and what your responsibilities are within society.

Is gender dysphoria more than an acute desire to be the opposite sex (or not to be the sex you are)?

[Sculptor1]

Is gender dysphoria more than an acute desire to be the opposite sex (or not to be the sex you are)?

It could be both in different ratios with different people.

Unless you have paid attention to several examples which have made it to a list of documentaries over the last several decades then you won't know that this question is basically meaningless.

Is there an innate sense of gender is the question. If you are simply going to deny innate propensity for this on the grounds that you have decided to DEFINE "gender" as a purely socially phenomenon then you are doing two things. First you are answering your own question, and secondly you are causing a thread to be reduced to verbal diaorreah.

But what you are choosing to ignore is the simple fact that were it not for an innate sense on gender differentiation we would simple never have had gender social or otherwise.

So by all means make this a purely sematic argument; but you will learn nothing about the somatic reality.

[Belinda]

Is gender dysphoria more than an acute desire to be the opposite sex (or not to be the sex you are)?

It could be both in different ratios with different people.

Unless you have paid attention to several examples which have made it to a list of documentaries over the last several decades then you won't know that this question is basically meaningless.

Is there an innate sense of gender is the question. If you are simply going to deny innate propensity for this on the grounds that you have decided to DEFINE "gender" as a purely socially phenomenon then you are doing two things. First you are answering your own question, and secondly you are causing a thread to be reduced to verbal diaorreah.

But what you are choosing to ignore is the simple fact that were it not for an innate sense on gender differentiation we would simple never have had gender social or otherwise.

So by all means make this a purely sematic argument; but you will learn nothing about the somatic reality.

But human beings redefine each other constantly. So we may adapt to changing environments, traditional societies less so than societies in a state of change such as disaster, revolution or urbanisation.
Defining a difference between gender and sex is useful as thus people can be helped to be more productive. In a civilised society pregnant and nursing women will be allowed special innate needs.

[Sculptor1]

Is gender dysphoria more than an acute desire to be the opposite sex (or not to be the sex you are)?

It could be both in different ratios with different people.

Unless you have paid attention to several examples which have made it to a list of documentaries over the last several decades then you won't know that this question is basically meaningless.

Is there an innate sense of gender is the question. If you are simply going to deny innate propensity for this on the grounds that you have decided to DEFINE "gender" as a purely socially phenomenon then you are doing two things. First you are answering your own question, and secondly you are causing a thread to be reduced to verbal diaorreah.

But what you are choosing to ignore is the simple fact that were it not for an innate sense on gender differentiation we would simple never have had gender social or otherwise.

So by all means make this a purely sematic argument; but you will learn nothing about the somatic reality.

But human beings redefine each other constantly. So we may adapt to changing environments, traditional societies less so than societies in a state of change such as disaster, revolution or urbanisation.
Defining a difference between gender and sex is useful as thus people can be helped to be more productive. In a civilised society pregnant and nursing women will be allowed special innate needs.

Not the point I was making.

[Sy Borg]

Innate gender identity is obviously real and, at least sometimes, is thoroughly resistant to de-conditioning. As Sculptor said, many cultures have noticed this and created roles to accommodate the unique situation and skills of the gender variant.

The tragic John/Joan case proved beyond doubt that gender identity cannot be grafted onto people who don't have those tendencies. People simply are who they are, and they must do what they need to do in this bizarre brief theatre called life.

The current right wing anti-trans reaction ignores half a century of research. That ends up confusing people even more than the left's cloying over-focus on transpeople, and it results in revisiting old issues that were long sorted out. What are they planning to do differently with transpeople? Go back to failed electroshock therapies and lobotomies?

The denial of prior research reminds me of how long it took to convince people that climate change was real, long after it was a well-established fact.

I cannot decide whether I disrespect today's left or the right more. It's especially upsetting to see corruption and left-wing bias in academia, which should be encouraging students to think for themselves rather than follow the party line. I always trusted academia as a remedy for dogmatism. Still, academics are right to accept that humans are less binary than their laws are. However, they are wrong to support transwomen in women's professional sports and they are wrong to propose trans childhood interventions in any but the absolute most extreme cases. Just let kids do innocent things without pushing adult complexities onto them FFS. The internet grows them up quickly enough.

Alas, both the left and the right today are hotbeds of cognitive dissonance maintained by the ignoring of inconvenient truths. The dynamic is reminiscent of ancient institutions (that still enjoy tax-free status). It just goes to show, you can take the people out of dogmatic religion, but you can't take dogmatic religious mindsets out of people.

[Lagayascienza]

I didn't know about the John/Joan case. Incredibly sad. But it does illustrate that gender identity is innate rather than learned. And if a person is born gender dysmorphic, well, that is likely innate, too. Just as sexuality is innate. These are not aspects of a person that others are entitled to decide can and should be changed, least of all on the basis of their religious choices. The arrogance! People should just go do their damned religion themselves and leave others alone.

[Fried Egg]

Is there an innate sense of gender is the question. If you are simply going to deny innate propensity for this on the grounds that you have decided to DEFINE "gender" as a purely socially phenomenon then you are doing two things. First you are answering your own question, and secondly you are causing a thread to be reduced to verbal diaorreah.

Well, I am not doing that. I am not defining gender identity as social phenomenon, I am asking the question of whether it is innate or not.

Unless you have paid attention to several examples which have made it to a list of documentaries over the last several decades then you won't know that this question is basically meaningless.

I have no idea to what you refer to.

But what you are choosing to ignore is the simple fact that were it not for an innate sense on gender differentiation we would simple never have had gender social or otherwise.

How so? We are all well aware of our the physical reality of our bodies and that we broadly fall into one of two physical categories (male and female). We are also aware of two broad sets of behaviours that men and women generally fall into, although this is far less definitive and categorical. But it is easy to see how social norms and expectations about gender might arise from these facts and have nothing to do with any internal sense of gender we might have. The idea of an internal sense of gender is not needed to explain social ideas about gender but is needed to explain the phenomenon of gender dysphoria as why else should one believe they are the wrong sex?

Innate gender identity is obviously real and, at least sometimes, is thoroughly resistant to de-conditioning. As Sculptor said, many cultures have noticed this and created roles to accommodate the unique situation and skills of the gender variant.

The tragic John/Joan case proved beyond doubt that gender identity cannot be grafted onto people who don't have those tendencies. People simply are who they are, and they must do what they need to do in this bizarre brief theatre called life.

Just to be clear, whether something is acquired through experience or innate has no bearing on whether one should regard it as "real". Also, in either case, I am not arguing that people who believe their gender is at odds with their sex should be de-conditioned.

[Pattern-chaser]

But someone who is gender dysphoric is also aware of the physical reality of their own body. They just think it is wrong, that it does not reflect their inner sense of their own gender. Thus this inner sense is not merely an awareness of the physical reality of their own body. So where does it come from?

I don't know. But there is one fact that often seems to be ignored here. Our bodies are, biologically, male or female (ignoring rare exceptions). And our brains also are different, as they must be to deal with a slightly different set of organs, hormones, and so forth. Having a womb, or a penis, necessitates some differences in brain organisation (etc).

OK, so what if the brain differences and the biological differences don't fully match? Perhaps this is one feature that might give rise to a trans-sexual person? I do not propose this as THE explanation, but only as a contributory factor.

[Sculptor1]

Is there an innate sense of gender is the question. If you are simply going to deny innate propensity for this on the grounds that you have decided to DEFINE "gender" as a purely socially phenomenon then you are doing two things. First you are answering your own question, and secondly you are causing a thread to be reduced to verbal diaorreah.

Well, I am not doing that. I am not defining gender identity as social phenomenon, I am asking the question of whether it is innate or not.

If it's not a social phenomenon that what are you aksing that question for.
Let me ask you this are you heppy with your body? Does it conform to the feeling you have about your gender. IS there anything you would changes?
When you achieved adolescence, did you chose whom you were sexualliy attracted to, or did your body chose? Why would you think it is any different from that feeling of "gender identity".

Unless you have paid attention to several examples which have made it to a list of documentaries over the last several decades then you won't know that this question is basically meaningless.

I have no idea to what you refer to.

Then you have not been paying attention to the facts of gender dysphoria.

But what you are choosing to ignore is the simple fact that were it not for an innate sense on gender differentiation we would simple never have had gender social or otherwise.

How so? We are all well aware of our the physical reality of our bodies and that we broadly fall into one of two physical categories (male and female).

I really cannot believe you are asking this question. Why would the possession of a penis mean that you "feel" male objectively?
On an objective level would the ownership of breasts make you "feel" like a woman?

We are also aware of two broad sets of behaviours that men and women generally fall into, although this is far less definitive and categorical. But it is easy to see how social norms and expectations about gender might arise from these facts and have nothing to do with any internal sense of gender we might have. The idea of an internal sense of gender is not needed to explain social ideas about gender but is needed to explain the phenomenon of gender dysphoria as why else should one believe they are the wrong sex?

All I can say you need to pay attention. I'd link stuff but the algorythm does not permit it.

Innate gender identity is obviously real and, at least sometimes, is thoroughly resistant to de-conditioning. As Sculptor said, many cultures have noticed this and created roles to accommodate the unique situation and skills of the gender variant.

The tragic John/Joan case proved beyond doubt that gender identity cannot be grafted onto people who don't have those tendencies. People simply are who they are, and they must do what they need to do in this bizarre brief theatre called life.

Just to be clear, whether something is acquired through experience or innate has no bearing on whether one should regard it as "real". Also, in either case, I am not arguing that people who believe their gender is at odds with their sex should be de-conditioned.

[Belinda]

Is gender dysphoria more than an acute desire to be the opposite sex (or not to be the sex you are)?

It could be both in different ratios with different people.

Unless you have paid attention to several examples which have made it to a list of documentaries over the last several decades then you won't know that this question is basically meaningless.

Is there an innate sense of gender is the question. If you are simply going to deny innate propensity for this on the grounds that you have decided to DEFINE "gender" as a purely socially phenomenon then you are doing two things. First you are answering your own question, and secondly you are causing a thread to be reduced to verbal diaorreah.

But what you are choosing to ignore is the simple fact that were it not for an innate sense on gender differentiation we would simple never have had gender social or otherwise.

So by all means make this a purely sematic argument; but you will learn nothing about the somatic reality.

But human beings redefine each other constantly. So we may adapt to changing environments, traditional societies less so than societies in a state of change such as disaster, revolution or urbanisation.
Defining a difference between gender and sex is useful as thus people can be helped to be more productive. In a civilised society pregnant and nursing women will be allowed special innate needs.

Not the point I was making.

If the concept of gender is innate then by definition of 'innate' the concept of gender evolved from nature not nurture.

I can see how the struggle for existence plus random mutations give rise to innate changes..and would give rise to an innate concept. Chomsky held this view about human language as a conceptual system .
However it remains to be shown that the concept of gender is actually a thing, or if it's more an aggregate of human traits loosely connected by some sort of tenuous connection with sexual organs or sexual behaviour, a connection legitimated by society.

[Fried Egg]

But someone who is gender dysphoric is also aware of the physical reality of their own body. They just think it is wrong, that it does not reflect their inner sense of their own gender. Thus this inner sense is not merely an awareness of the physical reality of their own body. So where does it come from?

I don't know. But there is one fact that often seems to be ignored here. Our bodies are, biologically, male or female (ignoring rare exceptions). And our brains also are different, as they must be to deal with a slightly different set of organs, hormones, and so forth. Having a womb, or a penis, necessitates some differences in brain organisation (etc).

OK, so what if the brain differences and the biological differences don't fully match? Perhaps this is one feature that might give rise to a trans-sexual person? I do not propose this as THE explanation, but only as a contributory factor.

Good point, it might well be. Since scientists seem to be getting better at identifying male and female brains (from brain scans), it would be interesting to see if incidences of gender dysphoria correlate with the subjects having brain formations in line with the opposite sex.

However, I suspect that the sexualisation of the human brain would happen in the same way as the rest of the body (i.e. be controlled by one's chromosomes and the effect of hormones). Why should the brain go one way but the rest of the body the other? In which case, we would still be devoid of an explanation for the origin of our gender identities.

Let me ask you this are you heppy with your body? Does it conform to the feeling you have about your gender. IS there anything you would changes?
When you achieved adolescence, did you chose whom you were sexualliy attracted to, or did your body chose? Why would you think it is any different from that feeling of "gender identity".

Don't take this the wrong way but I'm not sure you have read what I have stated more than once in this thread. I do not have any feelings about my gender, only a simple awareness of the physical facts. This is in start contrast to my sexuality.

I really cannot believe you are asking this question. Why would the possession of a penis mean that you "feel" male objectively?

It doesn't. This is precisely my point.

[Sculptor1]

It could be both in different ratios with different people.

Unless you have paid attention to several examples which have made it to a list of documentaries over the last several decades then you won't know that this question is basically meaningless.

Is there an innate sense of gender is the question. If you are simply going to deny innate propensity for this on the grounds that you have decided to DEFINE "gender" as a purely socially phenomenon then you are doing two things. First you are answering your own question, and secondly you are causing a thread to be reduced to verbal diaorreah.

But what you are choosing to ignore is the simple fact that were it not for an innate sense on gender differentiation we would simple never have had gender social or otherwise.

So by all means make this a purely sematic argument; but you will learn nothing about the somatic reality.

But human beings redefine each other constantly. So we may adapt to changing environments, traditional societies less so than societies in a state of change such as disaster, revolution or urbanisation.
Defining a difference between gender and sex is useful as thus people can be helped to be more productive. In a civilised society pregnant and nursing women will be allowed special innate needs.

Not the point I was making.

If the concept of gender is innate then by definition of 'innate' the concept of gender evolved from nature not nurture.

OMG.
This can be like swimming thought treacle.
I did not imply that the "concept" is innate. I suggest that gender is due to unnate propoensities and is not primarily a socially imposed phenomenon.
If you have been following what I have been saying, I talked about a monkey strudy.
I''m pretty sure that those monkey girls attracted to dullies, and those moneky boys attracted to toy trucks do not have a "concept" of gender, but are in fact expressing an innate propesity to behave in gender specific ways..

I can see how the struggle for existence plus random mutations give rise to innate changes..and would give rise to an innate concept. Chomsky held this view about human language as a conceptual system .
However it remains to be shown that the concept of gender is actually a thing, or if it's more an aggregate of human traits loosely connected by some sort of tenuous connection with sexual organs or sexual behaviour, a connection legitimated by society.

Gender is a thing. Ask any elephant.

[Sculptor1]

But someone who is gender dysphoric is also aware of the physical reality of their own body. They just think it is wrong, that it does not reflect their inner sense of their own gender. Thus this inner sense is not merely an awareness of the physical reality of their own body. So where does it come from?

I don't know. But there is one fact that often seems to be ignored here. Our bodies are, biologically, male or female (ignoring rare exceptions). And our brains also are different, as they must be to deal with a slightly different set of organs, hormones, and so forth. Having a womb, or a penis, necessitates some differences in brain organisation (etc).

OK, so what if the brain differences and the biological differences don't fully match? Perhaps this is one feature that might give rise to a trans-sexual person? I do not propose this as THE explanation, but only as a contributory factor.

Good point, it might well be. Since scientists seem to be getting better at identifying male and female brains (from brain scans), it would be interesting to see if incidences of gender dysphoria correlate with the subjects having brain formations in line with the opposite sex.

However, I suspect that the sexualisation of the human brain would happen in the same way as the rest of the body (i.e. be controlled by one's chromosomes and the effect of hormones). Why should the brain go one way but the rest of the body the other? In which case, we would still be devoid of an explanation for the origin of our gender identities.

Let me ask you this are you heppy with your body? Does it conform to the feeling you have about your gender. IS there anything you would changes?
When you achieved adolescence, did you chose whom you were sexualliy attracted to, or did your body chose? Why would you think it is any different from that feeling of "gender identity".

Don't take this the wrong way but I'm not sure you have read what I have stated more than once in this thread. I do not have any feelings about my gender, only a simple awareness of the physical facts. This is in start contrast to my sexuality.

I really cannot believe you are asking this question. Why would the possession of a penis mean that you "feel" male objectively?

It doesn't. This is precisely my point.

Why did you avoid addressing my questions?