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

[Sy Borg]

Nature - genetics - is ultimately accumulated nurture, partly shaped by inheritance and partly by epigenetics. In fact, DNA from water, sediments and ice is now being used like rock strata to determine environmental conditions in the past.

So the answer to everything is nature and nurture, to varying degrees. Certainly statistics suggesting that over 20% of young people identify as LGBTQ+ points to "nurture", but it also strikes me to be somewhat of a middle finger to boomers for leaving them without the usual path of study/work/house/family. Why play the game if you can't win?

In the good old days, they used to give prospective transpeople electroshock therapy and all manner of other treatments and deterrents. After destroying numerous lives with failed experiments a doctor (forgot who) decided that if one cannot change the mind to fit the body, then change the body to fit the mind. As with homosexuality, this more accepting approach has yielded better results.

[Lagayascienza]

I read that 20% figure and was quite shocked. Figures in this area are acknowledged as being fairly unreliable because of the sensitivity of the subject, but that seems very high to me.

In 2021, Ipsos interviewed people in 27 countries spanning all continents on their sexual orientation and gender identity. In this survey, about 80% of people worldwide identified as heterosexual. Of the other 20%, 3% identified as gay, lesbian or homosexual, 4% as bisexual, 1% as pansexual or omnisexual, 1% as asexual, 1% as "other", and 11% don't know or won't say.

So, there's a bit of uncertainty there. What I find more interesting, though, is that in an earlier survey by Gallup, Americans, when asked to estimate the percentage of people who are gay, do in fact say that they think the figure is around 20%. Maybe this is due in part to the issue being more openly discussed these days, to gays being "out" and more visible, and to a more positive portrayal of gay people in the media. Whereas, when I was growing up, it was just not spoken of. I didn't even learn the words "homosexual" or "gay" until I'd left home.

But, whatever the percentage of gay people actually is, it is generally no big deal these days - especially not in the post Christian West. I think it is now generally understood to be mostly genetic. Wiki states that,

There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones, especially for males. There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role with regard to sexual orientation

I suspect it's a similar situation with respect to gender dysmorphia. That is, there is probably a strong biological component and it would have little to do with parenting. This also means that there is little parents can do about it and so trying to bash it out of the kid would be cruel and pointless.

Like homosexuality, we hear a lot more about gender dysphoria these days than we used to. So it probably feels as though it's more prevalent than it actually is.

As to the question of the OP, I'd say, yes, gender identity is probably mostly innate. And, further, that, in a small number of cases, for reasons not yet understood, gender identity does not match a person's actual physical gender or sex.

[Belinda]

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.

I am not an elephant. I have been much influenced by elder brothers and an admired father and mother with the result I have always regarded myself as female sex and female gender, and I preferred building things and making dens to playing with dolls and prams. Now I am adult I'm more interested in steam engines and transport than fashions , and I always have been. I don't feel abnormal.
Elephants have had enough years to evolve by natural selection so that secondary sexual behaviours are well defined and predictable as for elephants. This is not the case with homo sapiens who evolve very fast compared with other species , and sapiens's reliance on cultural evolution is their only strategy for subsistence; sapiens has a bad backbone , poor posture, and not very good special senses.

[Pattern-chaser]

...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.

Oh no, I would never be so crass. It's not about a biological female with a male's brain; I'm not even sure such a chimera would be viable? I mean to refer to a biological female, say, whose brain is not adapted to their body in quite the same way as other females. What you said, but toned down a great deal; the differences are much more minor. But the effect they have is not (minor).

Why should the brain go one way but the rest of the body the other?

Natural variation. Just as a minority of creatures are homosexual, or more muscular, or hairy, than their fellows. Any viable variation that is not selected against by evolution is present in our human population somewhere.

[Sculptor1]

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.

I am not an elephant. I have been much influenced by elder brothers and an admired father and mother with the result I have always regarded myself as female sex and female gender, and I preferred building things and making dens to playing with dolls and prams. Now I am adult I'm more interested in steam engines and transport than fashions , and I always have been. I don't feel abnormal.
Elephants have had enough years to evolve by natural selection so that secondary sexual behaviours are well defined and predictable as for elephants. This is not the case with homo sapiens who evolve very fast compared with other species , and sapiens's reliance on cultural evolution is their only strategy for subsistence; sapiens has a bad backbone , poor posture, and not very good special senses.

So what?
How does this counter anything I said?

[Fried Egg]

In the good old days, they used to give prospective transpeople electroshock therapy and all manner of other treatments and deterrents. After destroying numerous lives with failed experiments a doctor (forgot who) decided that if one cannot change the mind to fit the body, then change the body to fit the mind. As with homosexuality, this more accepting approach has yielded better results.

The difference is that you can be accepting of homosexuality without having to having to stop otherwise healthy processes (i.e. puberty) or surgically alter otherwise healthy body parts (such as a mastectomy) in order to be accepting (or affirming). That's not to say such measures are never needed, only that there is good reason for being somewhat more cautious in that regard. Generally, I think people take the analogy between sexuality and gender identity too far some times.

Why did you avoid addressing my questions?

I feel that we are talking past each other and not really understanding what each other are saying so I'm going to leave it if you don't mind.

[Samana Johann]

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?

By innate I mean something that does not arise from experience / social conditioning.

Certainly it seems undeniably true that some people do feel that their physical sex is in contrast to their internal gender identity (sometimes referred to as "gender dysphoria") but that leaves open the question as to whether this arose because of an innate or acquired sense of gender. That also is quite apart from the question of what (and if) something should be done about it.

Personally, I do not feel that I have an innate sense of my gender. I know I am a male because of what everyone has always told me I am and what I know of human biology. I do not understand how my sense of my own gender could be any more than what I have been taught to believe but I accept that others might feel differently.

And does it even matter? However our sense of gender arises, would it make any difference to how we view/treat people with gender dysphoria? Personally I don't think so. But when I first learned about the concept of an innate sense of gender I was intrigued because it was not something I was aware of in myself.

So since a child good householder didn't saw any different of body, ways, tendencies between male oand female? Never inspect and compared all of that? Not to speak about lust or disgust?

[Belinda]

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.

I am not an elephant. I have been much influenced by elder brothers and an admired father and mother with the result I have always regarded myself as female sex and female gender, and I preferred building things and making dens to playing with dolls and prams. Now I am adult I'm more interested in steam engines and transport than fashions , and I always have been. I don't feel abnormal.
Elephants have had enough years to evolve by natural selection so that secondary sexual behaviours are well defined and predictable as for elephants. This is not the case with homo sapiens who evolve very fast compared with other species , and sapiens's reliance on cultural evolution is their only strategy for subsistence; sapiens has a bad backbone , poor posture, and not very good special senses.

So what?
How does this counter anything I said?

The possibility of rapid cultural change applies to humans but hardly at all to elephants.
This discussion is about innateness of gender.
Gender is comparative behavior . Secondary sexual characteristics in humans and elephants are behavioural and anatomical. The degree to which the sexual and other behaviour of elephants is almost absolutely innate is because it almost entirely is selected naturally .

Human behaviours change too fast to be attributable to natural selection.

[Sy Borg]

In the good old days, they used to give prospective transpeople electroshock therapy and all manner of other treatments and deterrents. After destroying numerous lives with failed experiments a doctor (forgot who) decided that if one cannot change the mind to fit the body, then change the body to fit the mind. As with homosexuality, this more accepting approach has yielded better results.

The difference is that you can be accepting of homosexuality without having to having to stop otherwise healthy processes (i.e. puberty) or surgically alter otherwise healthy body parts (such as a mastectomy) in order to be accepting (or affirming). That's not to say such measures are never needed, only that there is good reason for being somewhat more cautious in that regard. Generally, I think people take the analogy between sexuality and gender identity too far some times.

My understanding is that prospective transpeople have to undergo therapy and assessment for a number of years before they can have major surgery. which makes sense. As for kids destined to be trans, ideally there would be early intervention to help them along, but the risk of treating someone who is just going through a phase my be too high.

[Consul]

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?

If you are aware or know that you are male/female, then you are male/female—since you can't know what ain't so. Therefore, there can be no contrast or contradiction between your sexual self-knowledge and your sex.

"[Robert] Stoller and [Ralph] Greenson originally explained gender identity in 1964 as 'the sense of knowing to which sex one belongs'. In Stoller's later book Sex and Gender [1968] this became core gender identity[.]
…
Core gender identity is important and well defined, and its development in children has been extensively studied. At around ages two to three children know that they are either girls or boys. (Stoller's estimate of a year was a little early.) Over the next two to four years they come to realize that their sex is not a temporary property and cannot be changed by altering clothing or behaviour. Wearing a dress or playing with dolls does not turn a boy into a girl. There is no reason to suppose that core gender identity is innate, in the sense of not being learned. Children come to know what sex they are by observing themselves and others and realizing that they are one of two kinds of people – girls and women, boys and men."

(Byrne, Alex. Trouble with Gender. Cambridge: Polity, 2024. pp. 105-6)

[Consul]

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?

If you are aware or know that you are male/female, then you are male/female—since you can't know what ain't so. Therefore, there can be no contrast or contradiction between your sexual self-knowledge and your sex.

"[Robert] Stoller and [Ralph] Greenson originally explained gender identity in 1964 as 'the sense of knowing to which sex one belongs'. In Stoller's later book Sex and Gender [1968] this became core gender identity[.]
…
Core gender identity is important and well defined, and its development in children has been extensively studied. At around ages two to three children know that they are either girls or boys. (Stoller's estimate of a year was a little early.) Over the next two to four years they come to realize that their sex is not a temporary property and cannot be changed by altering clothing or behaviour. Wearing a dress or playing with dolls does not turn a boy into a girl. There is no reason to suppose that core gender identity is innate, in the sense of not being learned. Children come to know what sex they are by observing themselves and others and realizing that they are one of two kinds of people – girls and women, boys and men."

(Byrne, Alex. Trouble with Gender. Cambridge: Polity, 2024. pp. 105-6)

[Consul]

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.

It seems nonsensical to me to call an internal sense of something an identity.
Anyway, the phrase "internal/inner sense" is used in the philosophy of mind & psychology to refer to introspection, i.e. to the internal/inner perception of states of/events in one's own (conscious) mind—as opposed to interoception qua internal/inner perception of nonmental states of/events in one's own body.

There is a further distinction between introspection qua act/event—as introspecting—and the knowledge grounded in it—introspective awareness or knowledge.

Obviously, introspective awareness or knowledge of one's gender/sex is possible only if it is a subjective mental state.
Is it? – I don't think so. First of all, I agree with Alex Byrne that…

"Using 'gender' to mean anything other than sex is to obscure important issues for no good reason."

(Byrne, Alex. Trouble with Gender. Cambridge: Polity, 2024. p. 195)

…and gender = sex is a non-introspectable objective physical state rather than an introspectable subjective mental state; so introspective knowledge of one's gender = sex is impossible. I cannot possibly come to know whether I am male or female (or both or neither) by introspecting my (conscious) mind.

[Consul]

Anyway, the phrase "internal/inner sense" is used in the philosophy of mind & psychology to refer to introspection, i.e. to the internal/inner perception of states of/events in one's own (conscious) mind—as opposed to interoception qua internal/inner perception of nonmental states of/events in one's own body.

For example, it's one thing to interoceive hunger as a physiological state, and another to introspect the bodily feeling of hunger as a psychological/phenomenological state. Of course, the (conscious) interoceiving of hunger involves the bodily feeling of hunger, but not necessarily the introspecting of the latter.

[Consul]

Certainly it seems undeniably true that some people do feel that their physical sex is in contrast to their internal gender identity (sometimes referred to as "gender dysphoria")…

A male person cannot know that he is female. What he can do is believe (delusively) or desire (honestly) that he is female.

[Consul]

Certainly it seems undeniably true that some people do feel that their physical sex is in contrast to their internal gender identity (sometimes referred to as "gender dysphoria") but that leaves open the question as to whether this arose because of an innate or acquired sense of gender. That also is quite apart from the question of what (and if) something should be done about it.

The very description of gender dysphoria as resulting from an alleged mismatch of "physical sex" and "internal gender identity" is an erroneous piece of gender(-identity) theory!

"Conceptualising GD [Gender Dysphoria]

There are currently two distinct conceptual models for GD—a developmental, biopsychosocial model and an innate gender identity model. These models differ in their views about the causes for (etiologies of) GD, whether underlying psychological conditions can lead to gender dysphoria, whether GD can desist, and the role of a thorough evaluation before considering medical and surgical transition.

In a developmental, biopsychosocial model (a model that considers biological, psychological, and social contributors), GD can emerge in the context of a variety of psychological, social, and cognitive situations (such as being bullied for having gender-non-conforming interests, in the aftermath of rape, or due to difficulty accepting oneself as lesbian, gay, or bisexual); can be temporary; and can be the result of underlying psychological conditions (…). Treatment approaches are specific to the type of GD and the context in which it arose. In other words, there are multiple causes for GD and multiple treatments. Medical and surgical transition are not appropriate treatments for all types of gender dysphoria (…). Because there can be multiple causes for GD, the approaches associated with a developmental model employ thorough evaluations to identify the causes of distress and a judicious use of medical and surgical transition so that each patient receives the correct treatment for their situation (…). The approaches consistent with a developmental perspective include the developmentally informed, biopsychosocial approach, and exploratory approaches (…).

In contrast, the innate gender identity model is based on gender identity theory and may be referred to as a gender-affirmative model. From an innate gender identity perspective, every person has an innate soul-like gender identity that represents their ‘true self ’, and this entity can either match or not match one’s biological sex (…). In this model, GD has one cause (a mismatch between a person’s gender identity and their physical body) and one treatment: changing the physical body to align with the innate gender identity (…). Proponents of this model support an approach where once a person expresses a gender identity that differs from their biological sex, the stated gender identity is reinforced without question or delay, and transition interventions are made available to them according to any of several protocols (…). The assumptions supporting this approach are that when transition interventions are provided to gender-dysphoric individuals, the benefts will usually exceed the risks and that delaying these interventions will usually cause harm. The clinical approaches that are related to an innate gender identity model include the gender-(identity-)affirming approach and the informed consent model of care which employ minimised or eliminated evaluations and a liberal use of medical and surgical transition (…).

From the perspective of the innate gender-identity model, the desistence evidence is rejected, and if a person has GD and psychological issues, it is believed that the psychological issues cannot be underlying conditions for the GD (…). However, the existence of people who desist after experiencing GD, people who have been harmed by transition, detransitioners who regret transitioning, and people who have had underlying psychological conditions for their GD contradict the assumptions and beliefs associated with the innate gender-identity model. While the developmental model prioritises making the correct diagnosis and providing the correct treatment to the gender-dysphoric patient, the innate gender-identity model prioritises quick access to transition. These differences in priorities contribute to the current contentious public debate surrounding the topics of GD, transition, and detransition."

(Littman, Lisa. "Psychosocial Factors and Gender Dysphoria: Emerging Theories." In Sex and Gender: A Contemporary Reader, edited by Alice Sullivan and Selina Todd, 156-174. Abingdon: Routledge, 2024. pp. 160-1)