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

[Mounce574]

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.

This depends on how you define the term gender.
"Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with sex as the preferred term for biological forms, and gender limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits. In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and socio-cultural traits. his delineation also tends to be observed in technical and medical contexts, with the term sex referring to biological forms in such phrases as sex hormones, sex organs, and biological sex." Merriam Webster Dictionary.
Using this a guiding definition- innate would be an internal processing of your sex. Gender is a social construct.
Literally speaking- if a person is born a male but is taught "culturally" to behave as a female- that still makes him a male.
My personal view is there are only 2 sexes - male and female. If you are a female but "feel like" a male then you are suffering from gender dysphoria or a delusion. How does a woman know what it feels like to be a man or vice versa?
If a transgender person dies- 100 years later, their bones are dug up- they will be known as the biological sex no matter what hormone therapy or surgery is performed. Gender identity is generally used to explain sexual preferences with a mask. Non-binary/gender-fluid leans to sexual promiscuity.

[Sy Borg]

Are forum members saying that male people are always mentally masculine and females are always mentally feminine?

That would be a surprisingly naive view on a philosophy forum. Those whose minds are at odds with the expectations attached to their physical bodies will struggle, and maybe change over if they are also physically androgynous. They deserve respect and understanding.

I think that the ones that disturb people are very masculine males who, for whatever reason, identify as transwomen. It's a peculiarly self-defeating thing to do - why go to so much trouble to makes their lives worse? Clearly these people are disturbed and don't belong in female spaces or sport. Likewise, there's also an issue with feminine women insisting that they are "they/them" when blind Freddy can see they are "she/her", but they are not likely to infiltrate male spaces.

[Lagayascienza]

I can only imagine how difficult it is to have gender dysphoria. While I sympathize with the predicament, I have to say that I think men with very masculine characteristics should be advised against transitioning. Unfortunately, they are always going to look and sound like jocks in frocks, which does not solve their predicament and potentially makes it worse. They’ll have to take hormones for life and they may find that they are unwelcome in both men’s and women’s spaces.

That said, I have known and worked with post-op trans-women who were so feminine it would be impossible to pick them as trans. They were successful professionally, seemingly happy, and in long-term, stable relationships with men. In such cases, I don’t understand the opposition some people have to transexual women. And even masculine looking transexuals don’t worry me if they end up happier despite the difficulties they may experience with not fitting in. It’s their life. Live and let live.

[Fried Egg]

Are forum members saying that male people are always mentally masculine and females are always mentally feminine?

It depends on what you mean by "mentally masculine/feminine". I think there are behavioural traits that we are socially conditioned to associate with masculine and feminine and that social expectation has probably arisen due to those traits tending to be more commonly associated with males or females.

So I do think that there are traits and behaviours that men and women tend to be associated with more often than not but clearly there are many individuals who do not exhibit those typical traits. And there is nothing wrong with that. And I don't think that suggests even remotely that they are "born in the wrong body" or that they might be better off transitioning.

And I think there are people who developed/have severe distress because of the disparity between society's expectations on how they should behave and how they naturally feel they want to behave (with respect to gendered norms/behaviours) and you might call this gender dysphoria . But even in such cases I do not think it think it is a good idea to take puberty blockers or undergo other surgery that permanently damages their bodies.

That said, if people want to takes steps to pass as the opposite sex and live their lives as far as possible as if they were the opposite sex, all power to them, as long as they don't go so far as to force others to accept them in all respects as the opposite sex.

I think that the ones that disturb people are very masculine males who, for whatever reason, identify as transwomen. It's a peculiarly self-defeating thing to do - why go to so much trouble to makes their lives worse? Clearly these people are disturbed and don't belong in female spaces or sport. Likewise, there's also an issue with feminine women insisting that they are "they/them" when blind Freddy can see they are "she/her", but they are not likely to infiltrate male spaces.

It is still not much talked about but there are a significant proportion of trans-women who are autogynephiliacs. That is that they they get sexually aroused by the thought and image of themselves as the opposite sex. Now, I don't cast judgement on such people and if that is what they need to do to get their kicks, I don't have a problem with it. As long as they don't force others to participate in their fantasies.

[Good_Egg]

Bell Curves, of course, represent continua.

The human body is shaped by sex-related hormones in various ways. Seems like most of the differences between male and female bodies can be visualized as overlapping bell curves. You'll have seen that sort of graph, where a significant proportion (? 20% ? ? 60% ?) of male bodies have values that are within the expected range for female bodies, and vice versa.

In theory the tails of a bell curve stretch infinitely far at infinitesimal height, but for any given threshold of improbability there is a finite width in which observations will fall.

So it is conceivable that for some measurement of the human body, the distributions of male and female values are - practically speaking - non-overlapping. That seems to be what Sculptor1 is claiming.

Facts are facts; if it turns out that that is the case, so be it. But facts are subject to interpretation.

The argument seems to be as follows:

Premise: among those with no gender dysphoria, some particular brain measurement being greater or less than some threshold value 100% corresponds to maleness/femaleness of body, without any overlap of the distributions, so that it is possible to use this measurement to accurately classify brains as male or female.

Premise: using this method, some people with gender dysphoria have been found to have brains of the opposite sex to their body.

Conclusion: gender dysphoria is not a mental dysfunction, but is an accurate perception of a difference between brain-sex and body-sex.

So what do we think of this as a philosophical argument ?

[Pattern-chaser]

If you are a female but "feel like" a male then you are suffering from gender dysphoria or a delusion.

And yet, I wonder how I come to "feel like" a male? Is it because I have a penis, or is there more to it than that?

Is it not likely that in my supposedly-male bodymind, there are many expressions of my masculinity? Likewise for females. As well as my penis, are there not, for example, areas of my brainmind specifically concerned with managing that masculinity? Also, likewise for females.

As Sy Borg says,

Are forum members saying that male people are always mentally masculine and females are always mentally feminine?That would be a surprisingly naive view on a philosophy forum. Those whose minds are at odds with the expectations attached to their physical bodies will struggle, and maybe change over if they are also physically androgynous.

And, given that we know that DNA does not contain the type and location of every cell in a human body — DNA just doesn't have sufficient capacity for that level of detail — it is quite possible that I could have a penis, but that the appropriate area of my brain was more in keeping with that of a typical female, yes? All kinds of variations such as this occur commonly; this, we already know, and perhaps even understand.

I think this simple example illustrates how your own distinctions between sexes are simplistic, at the least?

[Pattern-chaser]

It is still not much talked about but there are a significant proportion of trans-women who are autogynephiliacs. That is that they they get sexually aroused by the thought and image of themselves as the opposite sex.

I really wish you had not introduced this. Not the idea, but the vocabulary of J.K. Rowling's Sisters of Hatred. This subject is hard enough to discuss without introducing extreme (and hateful) views such as theirs.

Now, I don't cast judgement on such people and if that is what they need to do to get their kicks, I don't have a problem with it. As long as they don't force others to participate in their fantasies.

Fantasies? Maybe not. That's the point of this mature and considered discussion, I think? For sure, none of what you just mentioned is generally accepted; not even close.

[Pattern-chaser]

The argument seems to be as follows:

Premise: among those with no gender dysphoria, some particular brain measurement being greater or less than some threshold value 100% corresponds to maleness/femaleness of body, without any overlap of the distributions, so that it is possible to use this measurement to accurately classify brains as male or female.

Premise: using this method, some people with gender dysphoria have been found to have brains of the opposite sex to their body.

Conclusion: gender dysphoria is not a mental dysfunction, but is an accurate perception of a difference between brain-sex and body-sex.

So what do we think of this as a philosophical argument ?

As an argument, it is plausible, as it isn't (obviously) refutable, but not (yet?) proven. That's what I think.

[Fried Egg]

It is still not much talked about but there are a significant proportion of trans-women who are autogynephiliacs. That is that they they get sexually aroused by the thought and image of themselves as the opposite sex.

I really wish you had not introduced this. Not the idea, but the vocabulary of J.K. Rowling's Sisters of Hatred. This subject is hard enough to discuss without introducing extreme (and hateful) views such as theirs.

Well, I don't know what this has to do with J.K. Rowling (or other gender critical feminists) but there is nothing hateful about this fact. (As an aside, this ties in somewhat in the discussion about "hate" speech in the other thread where something might be construed as hateful by some, but simply a statement of facts by others).

It is unequivocally a fact that some trans-women are autogynephiliacs. Some of them have been quite open about talking about it (Debbie Hayton for example). My bringing this up is not an attempt to smear trans people, only to say that gender dysphoria is not always the cause. And this is something that is not discussed nearly enough.

[Lagayascienza]

Conservative, religious, self-righteous, obnoxiously puritanical killjoys who would impose their own moral codes on others are the real problem and not those who suffer from gender dysphoria who transition to the gender they feel most comfortable with. The killjoys cannot live and let live. Any suspicion that people might be enjoying themselves and pursuing happiness in their own way is like fingernails scratching a blackboard to the conservative puritanical religious mind - they simply cannot bear it. Long may they have to endure it.

[Good_Egg]

The argument seems to be as follows:

Premise: among those with no gender dysphoria, some particular brain measurement being greater or less than some threshold value 100% corresponds to maleness/femaleness of body, without any overlap of the distributions, so that it is possible to use this measurement to accurately classify brains as male or female.

Premise: using this method, some people with gender dysphoria have been found to have brains of the opposite sex to their body.

Conclusion: gender dysphoria is not a mental dysfunction, but is an accurate perception of a difference between brain-sex and body-sex.

So what do we think of this as a philosophical argument ?

As an argument, it is plausible, as it isn't (obviously) refutable, but not (yet?) proven. That's what I think.

I find the position that this argument represents helpful, in a number of ways.

If it is true (and "plausible but not yet proven" seems accurate). then

- it takes away the feelings-vs-facts element of the debate. All the nonsense about "transwomen are women" and "a woman is someone who says they are" disappears. A transwoman is, on this view, a person with male body and female brain, both of which are empirically verifiable facts. And anyone who claims to be female-brained but demonstrably isn't is suffering from a mental dysfunction akin to those claiming to be Napoleon.

- it distinguishes a lifelong condition from sexual perversion, and confusion around sexual attraction, which tend to manifest at puberty. So all the religion-adjacent stuff - about whether perversion should be resisted, or freely indulged, or enjoyed in private but kept from the kids - can be set aside as a separate issue.

- it raises the question of whether women's sports (and girls' schools and female bathrooms etc) are for female-bodied people or female-brained people, given that these sets are not identical.

So I'm rather hoping that it does turn out to be true. And pessimistically suspecting that it will turn out to be just another imperfect correlation...

[Sculptor1]

Stand back a moment and ask yourself if this question is not the most absurd question yet posted on this Forum.
Take you mind back to the innocent days of your early teens when you woke up one morning and suddenly realised that you were not as you were before. Let's imagine you are male. For an unaccountable reason your penis was erect and you keep thinking about girls - you know those weird creatures that you were never interested in because you do not like dolls. Now they are the most important thing in the universe. More important than toy cars and dinosaurs. Every move they make, the way the light shines in their hair, their bottoms and breast.
You did not chose this state to be in. It comes unbidden.
Now imagine that rather than girls you suddenly look at boys a different way. You have become gay.
What if you have never been happy with your gender, but thing you should have been a girl, and that you feel it deeply?

SInce the heterosexual urge is considered we find that easy to accept in ourselves and others. So what is it about conservatives that want to deny other states of beingness. What gives the haters and detractors the right to try to impose the heteronormative way of feeling when they did not even make that choice for themselves.
No one ever choses gender.
They find themselves more or less free to express their gender but it is so obviously innate that this entire thread is hot air.

[Fried Egg]

Conservative, religious, self-righteous, obnoxiously puritanical killjoys who would impose their own moral codes on others are the real problem...

Are they? Is there really a significant number of people who actually want to ban adults from living their lives as the opposite sex simply because they think it is morally wrong in and of itself? I really don't think there are that many people who believe this and they are not at the core of the controversy around transgenderism that has arisen in recent years. Certainly, I don't think I've seen anyone express such thoughts here anyway.

The real problem or controversy now is centred around how we treat children and the concerns over women only spaces/sports, etc. I don't see how dwelling on the dwindling number of people who are puritanically opposed to to the very existence of transgender people is very helpful.

In fact, I would argue the rise in tensions around the this issue in recent years is not as a result in a growth of the numbers of people who hold such puritanical views as you describe (quite the contrary), but rather the growth in militancy in a minority of those in the transgender movement that are pushing things too far (so that their rights are now conflicting with women's rights, and without due regard for the proper safeguards for children, etc.)

[Pattern-chaser]

It is still not much talked about but there are a significant proportion of trans-women who are autogynephiliacs. That is that they they get sexually aroused by the thought and image of themselves as the opposite sex.

I really wish you had not introduced this. Not the idea, but the vocabulary of J.K. Rowling's Sisters of Hatred. This subject is hard enough to discuss without introducing extreme (and hateful) views such as theirs.

Well, I don't know what this has to do with J.K. Rowling (or other gender critical feminists)...

It is the misrepresentation of trans-sexuality as "autogynephilia" (basically, the opposite of 'penis-envy': 'vagina-envy'). That, and that the views (and actions) of the Sisters of Hatred benefit no-one, especially not 'women'.

Autogynephilia is defined as a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female.

[Pattern-chaser]

I find the position that this argument represents helpful, in a number of ways.

If it is true (and "plausible but not yet proven" seems accurate). then

- it takes away the feelings-vs-facts element of the debate. All the nonsense about "transwomen are women" and "a woman is someone who says they are" disappears. A transwoman is, on this view, a person with male body and female brain, both of which are empirically verifiable facts. And anyone who claims to be female-brained but demonstrably isn't is suffering from a mental dysfunction akin to those claiming to be Napoleon.

- it distinguishes a lifelong condition from sexual perversion, and confusion around sexual attraction, which tend to manifest at puberty. So all the religion-adjacent stuff - about whether perversion should be resisted, or freely indulged, or enjoyed in private but kept from the kids - can be set aside as a separate issue.

- it raises the question of whether women's sports (and girls' schools and female bathrooms etc) are for female-bodied people or female-brained people, given that these sets are not identical.

So I'm rather hoping that it does turn out to be true. And pessimistically suspecting that it will turn out to be just another imperfect correlation...

But isn't the core of this discussion the difficult combination of feelings and facts?