Philosophy Discussion Forums

Fried Egg wrote: ↑March 31st, 2024, 3:51 pm It seems clear to me that gender identity is a social construct which is the only explanation that makes sense as to why people believe they are (or want to be) the opposite sex/gender that their chromosones dictated.

By "chromosomes", I assume you refer to DNA? As if DNA determines the disposition of every cell in the resulting body? It doesn't, because it can't. Despite the amazing information-bearing capability of DNA, it is only a map, a general 'instruction manual' of how the body should be constructed and assembled. The human body contains many 'systems'*, all distributed and overlapping, contributing to the overall structure and function of the person and their 'bits'. All of these systems are synchronised to create, shape, and 'operate' the person. They all work together.

Identical twins aren't identical, they're just very similar. I suspect clones aren't identical either, but maybe that isn't so. Identical twins and clones share the same DNA; the same "chromosomes". DNA does not determine the person to the extent and detail your words seem to imply? A minor difference in the interconnections and interactions of the various controlling/influencing 'systems' within a person, within all those 'systems', could well influence gender, outside of simple biological sex. Is that so unlikely?



* — nerves/CNS; hormones; limbic/lymphatic systems; and so on.

Belinda wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 7:22 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 6:08 am To Sculptor,

My reply to your post in response to me is in the box. That is because the site requires me to remove links and splitting up boxes in quotes is extremely difficult on a phone, without a mouse. So, I am sorry if the layout makes it appear that you are saying what is my part and I am too tired to write it again.

There is at least one behaviour where biological sex is the same as gender. That is that among all two- sexed individuals the male penetrates the female. If in a sexual act the female penetrates the male in some contrived manner, say with a finger, then the female is imitating the male, but not changing 'gender'.

To change gender means to adopt a new behaviour usually associated with one or the other sex but which is not biologically linked to sex.

Genitals are probably the most biological of features and changing them is complex. It goes back to Freud's ideas of the phallus and the symbolic nature of this was developed by Lacan.

The act of penetration is one of the problematic areas of sexuality because it can involve power and abuse, especially rape. That is why there is a problem of male to females in female only spaces, especially if females have been abused. The male act of penetrating females is a key issue although males can rape other males.

The use of other forms of penetration is a form of simulation. Sex toys are available and I read of a case of a female who claimed that another female passing as a 'boy', Jimmy Saunders, had sex with her using a dildo in Doncaster in the 1990s. Jimmy was convicted of rape on the basis of the lie of an artificial 'toy'.

Of course, this raises questions for those who change their genitals during sex change transitions. If a person has sex with a person not knowing that the vagina or 'phalloplasty' are artificial is it unethical? Does this depend on how 'real' the genitals or prosthesis is. For example, does it make a difference if a female to male has a prosthesis or an enlarged clitoris? What is tricky is the contexts of disclosing. It could be argued that there is some ethical need to disclose in personal intimate relationships, but at what point is the question?

So many aspects of life, including social interaction are based on assumptions about a person's genitals, which may be a critical issue in single sex spaces. This is a question with the idea of a transwoman in female only spaces, as potential rapists. I have even read of laws in Iran which allow police the powers, in Iran, to allow a member of the birth assigned gender of a suspected transwoman to inspect their genitals. Despite any fear of transwomen as rapists the Iranian situation is questionable as disproportionate. It raises the area of privacy and public aspects of genital sex at the centre of assumptions about male and female in human life.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 6:41 am

Consul wrote: ↑March 31st, 2024, 9:01 pm Give me a (non-circular) definition of "woman" that includes transwomen in this category!
(Note that the following is a circular and hence inadequate definition: "x is a woman" =def "x identifies as a woman")

My own argument for a 'woman' which includes a transwoman would be someone who has an internalised concept of femaleness, which may have based on biological attributes or some other basis. I know that you see those not based in biology as delusional. You are entitled to your view as I see it but so is the person who self-identified.

Being part of public language, words such as "woman" and "female" aren't private property. They have public meanings; and when transsexual men engage in semantic "humptydumptying" by arbitrarily giving private meanings to words in common use such as "woman" and "female", so as to include themselves in the class of women/females, then nobody else is obliged to accept that.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 6:41 amThe difficulty comes to the dialogue in daily life. I know from previous discussions that you are not in the practice of 'outing' people, but often the biological essentialism is used in such a way. Biology applied alongside religious fundamentalism has created a lot of psychological suppression and bigotry for those who are 'different' in terms of sex/gender and sexuality.

Biology is a science, whereas religious fundamentalism is an ideology. I know that from the Woke Left's own ideological perspective, there is no difference between science and ideology; but they are willfully blurring the objective difference for ideological reasons. Of course, science can be and is sometimes ideologically (politically) misused; but this circumstance doesn't mean that science in general and biology in particular is inherently and fundamentally a "cisheteronormative" system of oppression, which ought to be "deconstructed" for the sake of "gender equity" (equity = social fairness/justness). Facts are facts! If certain people don't like the natural facts of (binary) sex as discovered and conceptualized by biologists, then so much the worse for them!

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 6:29 am

Consul wrote: ↑March 31st, 2024, 8:12 pm Your description of the process of sex determination (not to be confused with sex differentiation as a post-sex-determination process!) is completely false, because at the beginning there are sexually undifferentiated gonads, which then develop into ovaries or testicles. Ovaries never become testicles, or vice versa!
We were all sexless (neither female nor male) at the beginning of our lives in mother's womb!

You are not paying attention.

I beg your pardon?

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 6:50 am Chromesomes are not deterministic, as simple arrangements of genetic material their conformation is an indicator only of what might determine gender outcomes.

You're wrong, because in homo sapiens and other mammalian species, the XX and XY chromosomes are factors of sex determination.

"Primary sex determination is the determination of the gonads. In mammals, primary sex determination is strictly chromosomal and is not usually influenced by the environment. In most cases, the female is XX and the male is XY. Every individual must have at least one X chromosome. Since the female is XX, each of her eggs has a single X chromosome. The male, being XY, can generate two types of sperm: half bear the X chromosome, half the Y. If the egg receives another X chromosome from the sperm, the resulting individual is XX, forms ovaries, and is female; if the egg receives a Y chromosome from the sperm, the individual is XY, forms testes, and is male. The Y chromosome carries a gene that encodes a testis-determining factor. This factor organizes the gonad into a testis rather than an ovary. Unlike the situation in Drosophila (discussed below), the mammalian Y chromosome is a crucial factor for determining sex in mammals. A person with five X chromosomes and one Y chromosome (XXXXXY) would be male. Furthermore, an individual with only a single X chromosome and no second X or Y (i.e., XO) develops as a female and begins making ovaries, although the ovarian follicles cannot be maintained. For a complete ovary, a second X chromosome is needed.
In mammalian primary sex determination, there is no “default state.” The formation of ovaries and testes are both active, gene-directed processes."

Source: Chromosomal Sex Determination in Mammals

"What are these alternative senses of 'gender'? There are four: gender as femininity/masculinity, gender as sex-typed social roles, gender as identity, and gender as woman/man."

(Byrne, Alex. Trouble with Gender. Cambridge: Polity, 2024. p. 36)

Let's add Judith Butler's "gender as performance" as a fifth alternative sense!

Now let's see—assuming that gender ≠ sex—whether suitable (particularly non-circular) and acceptable alternative definitions can be formulated.
Suggestions are welcome!

1. gender1 = "the feminine/masculine genus":

1.1 x is a member of the feminine genus =def x …?
1.2 x is a member of the masculine genus =def x …?

2. gender2 = "the female-role/male-role genus" / "the woman-role/man-role genus":

2.1 x is a member of the female/woman-role genus =def x …?
2.2 x is a member of the male/man-role genus =def x …?

3. gender3 = "the female/male identity genus":

3.1 x is a member of the female-identity genus =def x …?
3.2 x is a member of the male-identity genus =def x …?

4. gender4 = "the woman/man genus":

4.1 x is a member of the woman genus =def x …?
4.2 x is a member of the man genus =def x …?

5. gender5 = "the female/woman-performance genus" / "the male/man-performance genus":

5.1 x is a member of the female/woman-performance genus =def x …?
5.2 x is a member of the male/man-performance genus =def x …?

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 7:29 am Then there is the massive arena of "intersex" which we have not really touched on.

Let's look at this "massive arena":

[Note that most of the 0.02% of "intersexuals" (= people afflicted with some disorder of sex development or other) are classifiable as either female or male!]

Consul wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 1:44 pm …Now let's see—assuming that gender ≠ sex—whether suitable (particularly non-circular) and acceptable alternative definitions can be formulated.
Suggestions are welcome!

1. gender1 = "the feminine/masculine genus":

1.1 x is a member of the feminine genus =def x …?
1.2 x is a member of the masculine genus =def x …?

How about the following?

1.1 x is a member of the feminine genus =def x is overall more feminine than masculine
1.2 x is a member of the masculine genus =def x is overall more masculine than feminine

Does this work as an adequate definition? I don't think so.
As opposed to femaleness & maleness, femininity & masculinity respectively come in many different degrees and respects, so I fail to see how an overall "amount of masculinity or femininity found in a person" (Ann Oakley) could be determined and measured (in a non-arbitrary, objective way).

Moreover, the OED defines "feminine" as "characteristic of, peculiar or proper to women; womanlike, womanly". Correspondingly, "masculine" means "characteristic of, peculiar or proper to men; manlike, manly". This means that a definition of "femininity"/"masculinity" depends on a definition of "woman(hood)"/"man(hood)"; and if the latter isn't defined in terms of femaleness/maleness, we are none the wiser as to what "femininity"/"masculinity" means—and thus as to what the feminine/masculine genus is.

Consul wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 1:57 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 7:29 am Then there is the massive arena of "intersex" which we have not really touched on.

Let's look at this "massive arena":

[Note that most of the 0.02% of "intersexuals" (= people afflicted with some disorder of sex development or other) are classifiable as either female or male!]

I have highlighted the key word in the above.

I cannot see why you think any of this is your business, or how you can make assumptions about people you know nothing about.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 2:30 pm

Consul wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 1:57 pm[Note that most of the 0.02% of "intersexuals" (= people afflicted with some disorder of sex development or other) are classifiable as either female or male!]

I have highlighted the key word in the above.
I cannot see why you think any of this is your business, or how you can make assumptions about people you know nothing about.

Oh dear! I know you're an intelligent person, so this reply of yours is very disappointing.
I've read scientific books & papers about intersexuals, so I do know something about them (although I'm far from being an expert).

Most intersexuals are classifiable as either female or male, because they have undergone gonadal differentiation into ovaries or testicles.
An intersexual individual is not classifiable as either female or male if and only if (1) gonadal differentiation didn't occur at all (complete gonadal dysgenesis), or (2) gonadal differentiation did occur but resulted in both types of gonads (true hermaphroditism).

* The overall percentage of intersexual babies born with some disorder of sex development or other is ~0.02%.

* The percentage of intersexual babies born with complete gonadal dysgenesis is ~0.0007% (1:150000 births—see below!). So the number of intersexual babies with CGD is ~28 times lower than the number of intersexual babies.

* 95% of all human intersexuals are not true hermaphrodites (see below!).

Therefore, my statement that most intersexuals are classifiable as either female or male is fully warranted by the empirical data!

"True hermaphrodite is one of the rarest variety of disorders of sexual differentiation (DSD) and represents only 5% cases of all.
…
In this condition gonads are asymmetrical having both ovarian and testicular differentiation on either sides separately or combined as ovotestis."

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3418019/

"Complete Gonadal Dysgenesis:
The Complete form of Gonadal Dysgenesis is proposed as occurring once in every 150,000 births (Blackless et al. 2000). It affects genetic males (46,XY karyotype) and genetic females (46,XX karyotype), as well as individuals with the 45,XO karyotype (…). In Complete Gonadal Dysgenesis, the typical differentiation of the gonads as either testes or ovaries does not occur. They form atypically as underdeveloped and undescended streak gonads, and there is complete absence of ovaries, testes or ovotestes. Streak gonads differ from ovotestes (which contain both ovarian and testicular tissue) being undeveloped whorled gonadal structures without germinal or secretory cells. They fail to produce the androgens necessary for masculine differentiation of the genitalia, and consequently female-appearing external genitalia form. Streak gonads are also incapable of ovulation or oestrogen secretion. Clitoral hypertrophy (enlargement), and sexual infantilism (delayed or absent puberty) may also be experienced (Jha undated)."

(Harper, Catherine. Intersex. Oxford: Berg, 2007. p. 129)

Consul wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 12:03 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 6:29 am

Consul wrote: ↑March 31st, 2024, 8:12 pm Your description of the process of sex determination (not to be confused with sex differentiation as a post-sex-determination process!) is completely false, because at the beginning there are sexually undifferentiated gonads, which then develop into ovaries or testicles. Ovaries never become testicles, or vice versa!
We were all sexless (neither female nor male) at the beginning of our lives in mother's womb!

You are not paying attention.

I beg your pardon?

Yes, you were not really taking in all I said.

Consul wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 12:11 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 6:50 am Chromesomes are not deterministic, as simple arrangements of genetic material their conformation is an indicator only of what might determine gender outcomes.

You're wrong, because in homo sapiens and other mammalian species, the XX and XY chromosomes are factors of sex determination.

No. The chromesomes themselves are of incidental significance.

Consul wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 1:57 pm

Intersex is represented by million of people.

For example, the best-known estimate of the prevalence of intersex individuals is 1.7% of the total population, drawn from a 2000 study by a team of researchers that included Brown University sexologist Anne Fausto-Sterling. However, Sterling's study used a very broad definition of intersexuality, which has been criticized by other experts.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 4:47 pm Intersex is represented by million of people.

"The projected world population on Jan.1, 2024, is 8,019,876,189[.]"

Source: https://www.commerce.gov/news/blog/2024 ... -years-day

If the current world population is ~8,000,000,000 and the percentage of intersexual persons (ones born with some disorder of sex development or other) is ~0.02%, then there are ~1,600,000 intersexual persons worldwide. That's more than a million, but they are still a teeny-tiny minority.

And those among them who aren't properly classifiable as either female or male are a teeny-tiny minority among a teeny-tiny minority.

If the percentage of persons who may be called asexual/sexless (neither female nor male) owing to complete gonadal dysgenesis is ~0.0007%, then there are ~56,000 such persons worldwide. Let's subtract these from the total population of intersexuals worldwide: ~1,600,00 – ~56,000 = ~1,544,000.

Now, if only 5% of intersexuals (not afflicted with complete gonadal dysgenesis) are true hermaphrodites, then there are ~77,200 such persons worldwide, who may be called bisexual (both male and female).
(Here I don't use "bisexual" to refer to a form of sexual orientation.)