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

[Lagayascienza]

"[A]ccepting those who are different does not require a rejection of male and female and our sexed bodies. In fact, male and female form the bedrock for the sexual diversity in our bodies and our behavior."

(Elliott, Zachary A. Binary: Debunking the Sex Spectrum Myth. Paradox Press, 2023. p. vii)

Well said!

Yes, I don’t think it’s about rejecting male or female. That's not the issue. At least it's not the issue for gender dysphoric people. The issue is that there is a certain proportion of the population who have a real condition called gender dysphoria which negatively impacts their quality of life and which can and should be treated if the gender dysphoric person wishes it. For gender dysphoric people the etiology of gender dysphoria is most likely irrelevant, as is the question of whether gender identity is innate or a social construct. These are esoteric biological, psychological, sociological and philosophical questions that have no bearing on whether society should "leave people alone" and stop oppressing them for matters over which they have no control. The majority here seem to think that we should let people assume the gender they feel they are, but with the understanding that if they transition, they must accept that there are certain areas such as sport which, for physiological reasons, will not be able to accommodate their transition.

The question of the OP was whether gender identity is innate. I don't think we can answer that until we are clear on what we mean by "gender identity" and "innate". Much of the discussion and disagreement thus far has been about the definitions of these two terms.

A dictionary definition of "gender identity" is: "the personal sense of one's own gender. Gender identity can correlate with a person's assigned sex or can differ from it".

A dictionary definition of "innate" is: “existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth: native, inborn”.

If we accept something like those two definitions, how do people here answer the question posed in the OP?

Personally, I'm ok with the above definition of "gender Identity”. I think gender identity is one’s personal sense of one’s own gender. I think that is fairly straight forward.

The question of whether this personal sense of one's own gender is innate is more difficult to answer. However, where a young child thinks they are the wrong sex, and when this notion persists into adulthood, I'm inclined to think that it is innate. The fact that gender dysphoria is not some new fad but has been around since forever also points to the likelihood of it being innate. As does the fact that it is not possible for most of us to just one day decide we are going to change our gender identity. For example, physically, I am a male whose gender identity is also male, and the idea of changing that identity is inconceivable. I suspect it’s the same for others including gender dysphoric people. In light of all this, I’d say that gender identity is probably innate.

[JackDaydream]

The issue which I see your focus is missing is the human side of gender identity. Science has been helpful in understanding the physiology of sexual.differentiation but there is the lived identity and personal experience which is more than clear categories. While the activists may seem to be telling people what to think that comes in the context of people' s struggle, often in the response to oppression and bullying.
…
Of course, the issue of whether gender is innate is a philosophical and psychological one of importance for all men and women and not just a question of intersex and transgender people. The issues of the minority raise areas for thinking but there is a danger of too much being projected onto those who are different. This is where science can be turned into an ideology in a similar way to religious belief has done in regard to gender and sexuality.

The biology of sex and the (neuro)physiology of sex aren't the only sciences of sex (& sexuality), since there are also the psychology of sex and the sociology of sex. As I already said, there is a bio-psycho-social sex-complex that isn't exhausted by the subject matter of the biology or (neuro)physiology of sex. However, owing to the influence of gender studies (as conceived and practiced by the Cultural Left, i.e. as a politico-scientific project), the science of sex is now suffused with woke ideology.

(By "woke ideology" I don't just mean the perfectly legitimate political fight for the human rights of homosexuals, intersexuals, and transsexuals, but the entire politico-philosophical framework of the Identitarian/Minoritarian Left aka Postmodern Multicultural Left.)

I am inclined to take a multidisciplinary approach because I was introduced to this while doing a year module on 'Gender and Sexuality' on a course in 'Social Ethics'. The tutors were more influenced by feminism than postmodernism and feminism played such a strong influence in sociology and academic thinking..Funnily enough, the external invigilators queried while all the male students were arguing from a feminist perspective and whether this meant the tutors were indoctrinating feminist ideas.

One important writer was Mary Daly and within Englisj literature, Virginis Wolf's, 'Orlando'' was important as well as many gay authors. One very interesting book is 'The Well of Loneliness', by Radcylffe Hall, who identified as a 'gender invert' as it was before the time God transsexual identities and physical treatment. One more recent novel which looks at intersex is Jeffrey Eugene's 'Middlesex', as it a fiction tale of someone who was assigned as female at birth who began going through male puberty.

Within psychology, there are various approaches, and Freud's ideas were very influential in thinking until his ideas went out of fashion, especially with the idea of the Oedipus complex. Personally, I have read more on Jung's idea and he wrote about the anima and animus as opposites in the human psyche, which is a foundation for the idea of androgyny. Sexology and psychiatry were major too and postmodernist sociology may have stepped in here as a response to the limitations of the psychological approaches.

I am not sure to what extent postmodernism is such an influence now, except by people with a special interest in it. The stories in popular culture and the media are probably more influential and so many ideas on the internet in general. One aspect which I think doesn't get enough attention in thinking about gender is anthropology, because it says so much about the cultural comparisons and development of gender in culture to complement or challenge the perspective of biology.

It is problematic if the idea of gender and 'self-identification' is suggested in a concrete and shallow way. Currently, there is so much discussion of trans issues that so much is hearsay. It is especially confusing for children. One problem here may be if people are taught about trans issues before they even know the facts of life because gender will not be linked with the basics of reproduction.

The issue of children's gender clinics is controversial because one person in England argued and won a legal case after having puberty blockers, hormones and some surgery during adolescence. They regretted this and suggested that they had not had the capacity to consent due to the psychological turmoil of adolescence. Currently, I believe that puberty blockers for children have been banned in England.

The issues of adult treatment is a little different and self- identification will not get someone very far in most instances. A person can change their name but unless they can 'pass' as their chosen gender they are going to have difficulties in daily life, such as using toilet facilities. Some fortunate people can 'pass' without physical treatment but most require some hormones. The process of getting hormones involves careful psychiatric assessment, as the psychiatrists act as gatekeepers. Some people may resort to getting hormones illegally, such as online, but that is another issue in itself.

[JackDaydream]

What gender theorists call "gender identity" is nothing more than subjective gender identity = gender self-identification = gender self-belief.
(By "self-belief" I mean belief about oneself, not belief in oneself qua self-confidence.)

Where there is self-belief (self-conviction), there is the possibility of self-deception and self-delusion.

There is a greater possibility of genuine variance, unless one assumes - as is common - that gender dysphoria is inherently delusional. Of course, not so long ago homosexuality was also considered delusional. People distrust the unfamiliar.

Given that transpeople have to go through years of psychiatric assessment before surgery, and given that "treatments" tend to be about as "successful" as gay conversion therapy, it's clear that there are genuine issues with mental gender that are not mental illness and not well understood.

You are going too far in suggesting that 'treatments' are are about as successful as gay conversion therapies. For many, the physical transitions are a source of greater quality of life. The 'unsuccessful' stories are so overblown in the media while the people who have 'successful' ones are likely to draw very little attention. There is probably a need for thorough and reliable research, including quantitative and qualitative evidence. Of course, plenty of research is available, but it is such a large topic, that careful sifting of so much information, and constant new evidence, makes it an extremely hard task.

There are many variables involved. With the people who are unhappy there may be issues with the difficulties experienced, such as social rejection and discrimination. In addition, some difficulties may be due to side-effects of treatments, including blood abnormalities and risks of blood clots. The physical health has to be monitored carefully, like all forms of psychiatric medications. Generally, some are more fortunate than others in the obstacles they face in transitioning than others people whose transitions are smooth rather than rocky.

[Fried Egg]

I think this "children growing out of dysphoria" is a recent phenomenon. Back when transgenderism was a stigma rather than trendy, gender variant kids either suffered in silence (since you never seemed to see or hear of them), presumably until they grew into their gayness or became old enough to change over. Either that, or they were open and ended up in psychiatrist offices.

Indeed. And also a recent phenomenon is society's ability to actually alter one's body and body chemistry (all too often in irreversible ways). So both the likelihood and the consequences of a mis-diagnosis of gender dysphoria seems to have increased in recent times which is probably (at least partly) why this has become such a contentious issue.

[Sy Borg]

What gender theorists call "gender identity" is nothing more than subjective gender identity = gender self-identification = gender self-belief.
(By "self-belief" I mean belief about oneself, not belief in oneself qua self-confidence.)

Where there is self-belief (self-conviction), there is the possibility of self-deception and self-delusion.

There is a greater possibility of genuine variance, unless one assumes - as is common - that gender dysphoria is inherently delusional. Of course, not so long ago homosexuality was also considered delusional. People distrust the unfamiliar.

Given that transpeople have to go through years of psychiatric assessment before surgery, and given that "treatments" tend to be about as "successful" as gay conversion therapy, it's clear that there are genuine issues with mental gender that are not mental illness and not well understood.

You are going too far in suggesting that 'treatments' are are about as successful as gay conversion therapies. For many, the physical transitions are a source of greater quality of life. The 'unsuccessful' stories are so overblown in the media while the people who have 'successful' ones are likely to draw very little attention.

A misunderstanding, Jack. By "treatments" I am referring to electroshock and aversion therapy used to "cure" them.

[Sy Borg]

I think this "children growing out of dysphoria" is a recent phenomenon. Back when transgenderism was a stigma rather than trendy, gender variant kids either suffered in silence (since you never seemed to see or hear of them), presumably until they grew into their gayness or became old enough to change over. Either that, or they were open and ended up in psychiatrist offices.

Indeed. And also a recent phenomenon is society's ability to actually alter one's body and body chemistry (all too often in irreversible ways). So both the likelihood and the consequences of a mis-diagnosis of gender dysphoria seems to have increased in recent times which is probably (at least partly) why this has become such a contentious issue.

There's the risk of young gender dysphoric people being suicidal if they are not allowed to start the process, and there's the risk of them being suicidal if they start the process and it wasn't suitable. Generally speaking, a la the trolley problem, society tends to favour the risks of inaction over the risks of wrong action. Certainly, the former is seen as less blameworthy by the law.

People intuitively sense that, in areas we don't much understand, when we let things happen there's less risk of catastrophic distortions than when we try to intervene. That is, nature may screw up, but it doesn't tend to screw up quite as royally as mistaken humans.

[JackDaydream]

Where there is self-belief (self-conviction), there is the possibility of self-deception and self-delusion.

There is a greater possibility of genuine variance, unless one assumes - as is common - that gender dysphoria is inherently delusional. Of course, not so long ago homosexuality was also considered delusional. People distrust the unfamiliar.

Given that transpeople have to go through years of psychiatric assessment before surgery, and given that "treatments" tend to be about as "successful" as gay conversion therapy, it's clear that there are genuine issues with mental gender that are not mental illness and not well understood.

You are going too far in suggesting that 'treatments' are are about as successful as gay conversion therapies. For many, the physical transitions are a source of greater quality of life. The 'unsuccessful' stories are so overblown in the media while the people who have 'successful' ones are likely to draw very little attention.

A misunderstanding, Jack. By "treatments" I am referring to electroshock and aversion therapy used to "cure" them.

Okay, it was a mere misunderstsnding of what you meant by 'treatment', as I didn't think it was consistent with your thinking to be so harshly opposed to transitioning.Electroshock and aversion therapy for gender dysphoria would be as equally as destructive as 'gay conversion' therapy.

[Consul]

A dictionary definition of "gender identity" is: "the personal sense of one's own gender.…"

I'd like to know what exactly "sense" means here.

[Consul]

A dictionary definition of "gender identity" is: "the personal sense of one's own gender.…"

I'd like to know what exactly "sense" means here.

I presume it means "(inner) awareness/consciousness/knowledge". However, one cannot be aware/be conscious/know that one is female/male unless one is female/male; so there can be no contradiction between one's "gender identity" qua knowledge of one's gender (= sex) and one's gender (= sex).

Gender self-knowledge (= knowledge of one's sex) is not innate! Babies aren't born with innate knowledge of their sex.

[Consul]

Gender self-knowledge (= knowledge of one's sex)…

If gender ≠ sex, then what is gender self-knowledge knowledge of?

[JackDaydream]

A dictionary definition of "gender identity" is: "the personal sense of one's own gender.…"

I'd like to know what exactly "sense" means here.

I presume it means "(inner) awareness/consciousness/knowledge". However, one cannot be aware/be conscious/know that one is female/male unless one is female/male; so there can be no contradiction between one's "gender identity" qua knowledge of one's gender (= sex) and one's gender (= sex).

Gender self-knowledge (= knowledge of one's sex) is not innate! Babies aren't born with innate knowledge of their sex.

Your challenging of the dictionary definitions of gender is absurd because dictionaries are a form of colloquial understanding, which are important basis of meaning but rather different from the technicalities of concepts of philosophy.

Your own argument misses the basis of personal identity and is not about gender itself. One particular aspect of 'being', as argued by Sartre is the way in which people exist in an embodied way and on the basis of this, develop understanding through reflection. This is not separate from social development of understanding.

Therefore, based on this thinking it can be argued that identity involves internalised meanings, including aspects of gender identity. This leads to the notion that gender identity must involve an inner 'sense' of identity, which is different from the bodily aspects of the male/female dichotomy. In animals there may be incongruence between anatomy but not it is different from other the self-consciousness.

The difference involves language primarily because that is what is different from animals because both humans and animals have sensory perception. Language is bound up with human intersubjective understanding and involves self-consciousness. This means that the actual question of whether gender is innate is a little step beyond whether gender identity is innate.

However, it would be absurd to say that there is not a correspondence as based on the Joan/John case, which pointed to the inner aspects of innate gender involvement in the development of gender identity. When John was forced into becoming Joan by sexologists it was as if identity could be socialised. In John's situation, he struggled with the biological aspects despite being given female hormones and surgery to correct the circumcision error. In his autobiographical account he described how he was hairy and tormented for his bodily appearance. This involved biological aspects of identity and his own 'inner' sense of gender identity, and his knowledge of his own history and the decisions of sexologists.

John was not intersex or trans, so it is a rather unique and unfortunate one, but it has shown the complexity of innate gender and gender identity. It involves core aspects of biology but, also, the role of self-consciousness in the process. It is applicable to the understanding of identity and gender dysphoria.

It is not based on what you see as 'delusion' and it may have a basis in the brain itself. This is the underlying 'mysterious'.element and it is difficult to pinpoint clearly because It involves the nature of identity rather than simply the male/female dichotomy. What you try to see as 'delusion' is different from psychosis. If transsexualism was identical with psychotic disorder, presumably it would be treatable in a similar way to psychosis, which it is not. In the assessment of gender dysphoria, there is an overall assessment for psychosis. Gender dysphoria is not consistent with a background of psychosis and delusional thinking because it involves the complexity of the formation of the nature of personal identity, which involves biology and self-consciousness.

[Consul]

Recommended reading:

* Alex Byrne: The Origin of "Gender Identity" (2023) [PDF]

* Alex Byrne: More on "Gender Identity" (2023) [PDF]

"'Gender identity' has gone from being well-defined to being ill-defined." – A. Byrne

In 1964, the phrase was originally introduced and defined by the American psychiatrist Robert Stoller (1924-1991) as follows:

"Gender identity is the sense of knowing to which sex one belongs, that is, the awareness ‘I am a male’ or ‘I am a female’."

(Stoller, R. J. "A Contribution to the Study of Gender Identity." International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 45 (1964): 220–226. p. 220)

Gender identity thus defined is gender self-knowledge (self-awareness) = knowledge (awareness) of one's sex.
Note that I cannot know or be aware that I am male without being male!

[Sy Borg]

There is a greater possibility of genuine variance, unless one assumes - as is common - that gender dysphoria is inherently delusional. Of course, not so long ago homosexuality was also considered delusional. People distrust the unfamiliar.

Given that transpeople have to go through years of psychiatric assessment before surgery, and given that "treatments" tend to be about as "successful" as gay conversion therapy, it's clear that there are genuine issues with mental gender that are not mental illness and not well understood.

You are going too far in suggesting that 'treatments' are are about as successful as gay conversion therapies. For many, the physical transitions are a source of greater quality of life. The 'unsuccessful' stories are so overblown in the media while the people who have 'successful' ones are likely to draw very little attention.

A misunderstanding, Jack. By "treatments" I am referring to electroshock and aversion therapy used to "cure" them.

Okay, it was a mere misunderstsnding of what you meant by 'treatment', as I didn't think it was consistent with your thinking to be so harshly opposed to transitioning.Electroshock and aversion therapy for gender dysphoria would be as equally as destructive as 'gay conversion' therapy.

Yes, it would be strange if I suddenly turned around and favoured a regressive approach to the issue. You must have been confused. I was, of course, referring to attempts at conversion therapy. It didn't work with gays and it didn't work with trans. The issue is clearly deeper than assumed.

Logically, activists and unsuccessful stories will be presented to the public rather than the cases when transpeople anonymously disappear into society. The latter would protect their privacy as if their lives depended on it. No matter what the group - gay, trans, Muslim, black - the public will always exposed to the extremes while the mainstream bulk of each of those groups is relatively hidden.

[Sy Borg]

Gender identity thus defined is gender self-knowledge (self-awareness) = knowledge (awareness) of one's sex.
Note that I cannot know or be aware that I am male without being male!

I know you are a highly intelligent person. That's why the above is so surprising and disappointing to me. As the debate grows and you dig in (as people tends to do in these situations), you fall into ever more superficiality and feigned ignorance, ignoring information you already have. That is not like you.

If you were trying, instead of typing the above regressive nonsense, you would have immediately remembered that, in the John/Jan case, John had no male parts and everyone had told him he was a girl and treated him as such from infancy. Yet he never felt like it. He knew. Inside. In his mind.

Nor have you wondered why attempts to "cure" transpeople over some decades failed as miserably as did gay conversion therapy.

You usually embrace logic. Why stop now?

[Consul]

"Gender identity is the sense of knowing to which sex one belongs, that is, the awareness ‘I am a male’ or ‘I am a female’."

(Stoller, Robert J. "A Contribution to the Study of Gender Identity." International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 45 (1964): 220–226. p. 220)

"While the work of our research team has been associated with the term gender identity, we are not militantly fixed either on copyrighting the term or on defending the concept as one of the splendors of the scientific world. It is a working term. We know that though it deals with another realm of feelings, thoughts, and behavior than that encompassed by, say, sexual activity, the two terms are contiguous and at times inextricably intermingled. With gender difficult to define and identity still a challenge to theoreticians, we need hardly insist on the holiness of the term "gender identity"."

(Stoller, Robert J. Sex and Gender: The Development of Masculinity and Femininity. 1968. Reprint, London: Karnac, 1984. p. vi)

"…So much for the moment for sex and gender. As regards the word identity, my treatment of that word will not be more adequate. The purpose of this work is not to arrive at a comprehensive or even useful definition of the term identity, or to enter into the controversies now very much in the forefront of psychoanalytic theorizing as to the differences and similarities, usefulness or distortions of such terms as ego, self, self-representation, identity, sense of identity and the like. At this point in my studies, I am using the word identity to mean one's awareness (whether one is conscious of it or not) of one's existence and purpose in the world or, put a bit differently, the organization of those psychic components that are to preserve one's awareness of existing. After much struggle, I cannot see, when actually observing a person, what is identity as different from self, ego identity, self-representation, and so forth. All the efforts at definition in the literature blur terribly for me in facing real life.

Yet these terms represent our yearning for theory that will help us to better understand data. Take this statement: "I am going to the store." Where has this "I" gone when dissected into ego, superego, and id? Identity or the other words (synonyms?) represents our honest but at times pathetic attempts to get the whole personality back into metapsychology."

(Stoller, Robert J. Sex and Gender: The Development of Masculinity and Femininity. 1968. Reprint, London: Karnac, 1984. p. viii)

"Gender is a term that has psychological or cultural rather than biological connotations. If the proper terms for sex are "male" and "female," the corresponding terms for gender are "masculine" and "feminine"; these latter may be quite independent of (biological) sex. Gender is the amount of masculinity or femininity found in a person, and, obviously, while there are mixtures of both in many humans, the normal male has a preponderance of masculinity and the normal female a preponderance of femininity. Gender identity starts with the knowledge and awareness, whether conscious or unconscious, that one belongs to one sex and not the other, though as one develops, gender identity becomes much more complicated, so that, for example, one may sense himself as not only a male but a masculine man or an effeminate man or even a man who fantasies being a woman. Gender role is the overt behavior one displays in society, the role which he plays, especially with other people, to establish his position with them insofar as his and their evaluation of his gender is concerned.
While gender, gender identity, and gender role are almost synonymous in the usual person, in certain abnormal cases they are at variance. One problem that arises to complicate our work is that gender behavior, which is for the greatest part learned from birth on, plays an essential part in sexual behavior, which is markedly biological, and at times it is very difficult to separate aspects of gender and sex from a particular piece of behavior."

(Stoller, Robert J. Sex and Gender: The Development of Masculinity and Femininity. 1968. Reprint, London: Karnac, 1984. pp. 9-10)

"[T]he sense of maleness—the person's unquestioned certainty that he belongs to one of only two sexes, the male—is permanently fixed long before the classic phallic stage (age 3 to 5)."

(Stoller, Robert J. Sex and Gender: The Development of Masculinity and Femininity. 1968. Reprint, London: Karnac, 1984. p. 39)

"By "the sense of maleness" I mean the awareness I am a male. This essentially unalterable core of gender identity is to be distinguished from the related but different belief, I am manly (or masculine)."

(Stoller, Robert J. Sex and Gender: The Development of Masculinity and Femininity. 1968. Reprint, London: Karnac, 1984. p. 40)

Note that his latter two definitions of "the sense of maleness" are inconsistent, because the (subjective) certainty that I am male is different from and doesn't include the awareness (knowledge) that I am male! For, generally, if x is certain that p, it doesn't follow that x knows that p, but only that x believes that p (or that x is convinced that p).