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

[Sculptor1]

Think of yourself. Do you really think you could chose to change your gender? When you were a child do you think your gender was totally due to your parents treating you like your physical sex. Is that reasonable?
ANd when the many people who feel they are unhappy with their asigned sex - do you think they are just suffering from a mental problem? When they say that they never felt happy in their assigned gender - you want to tell them that they just have a mental confusion; that they can be "cured".
And what about homosexuals. Are you going to say that is "mental" too?
GIven the horrific prejudices, and abuses towards homosexuals so you really expect us to beleive that these are just mental abberations?

I no more chose my gender than I chose the shape of my nose, my hair colour or eye colour.. I would never have chose the persistent unbidden erections and obsessions with the female form. It's absurd. I have no hesitation in thinking that this is exacly the same for all LGBT+ people - these are not choices; these are variations of the human form.
You can call them mutations if you will, but pretending they are mental problems would be unfair and bigoted.
I going to suggest that the tendency to pedophila is also unchosen. Such practices are harmful and need treatment. Trans and homosexuality is not harmful in any way except through lack of understanding imposed up them by bigotry , expecially religious bigotry.

Yes, we all haven't freely chosen our sex, our sexual identification, or our sexual orientation. I generally don't believe in libertarian free will, ultimate self-creation, or ultimate moral responsibility.

From my materialist perspective, calling something mental is not synonymous with calling it nonphysical; so my distinction between the mental and the physical is to be read as an intraphysical distinction between the psychophysical (psychoneural) and the non-psychophysical (non-psychoneural), or the merely physical (neural).

When I call homosexuality and transsexuality mental states (that can and usually do manifest themselves in certain forms of behavior), I'm using "mental" in the general sense of "of or relating to the mind" rather than in the specific sense of "of, relating to, or affected by a psychiatric disorder".
Nevertheless, they are two different kinds of mental states, the one being a sexual orientation and the other a sexual identification.

As far as I know, many young gender-dysphoric people "grow out of" their gender dysphoria without any hormonal or surgical treatment, especially as there are different possible causes of gender dysphoria.

I'm pretty sure that is mostly propoganda

[JackDaydream]

Think of yourself. Do you really think you could chose to change your gender? When you were a child do you think your gender was totally due to your parents treating you like your physical sex. Is that reasonable?
ANd when the many people who feel they are unhappy with their asigned sex - do you think they are just suffering from a mental problem? When they say that they never felt happy in their assigned gender - you want to tell them that they just have a mental confusion; that they can be "cured".
And what about homosexuals. Are you going to say that is "mental" too?
GIven the horrific prejudices, and abuses towards homosexuals so you really expect us to beleive that these are just mental abberations?

I no more chose my gender than I chose the shape of my nose, my hair colour or eye colour.. I would never have chose the persistent unbidden erections and obsessions with the female form. It's absurd. I have no hesitation in thinking that this is exacly the same for all LGBT+ people - these are not choices; these are variations of the human form.
You can call them mutations if you will, but pretending they are mental problems would be unfair and bigoted.
I going to suggest that the tendency to pedophila is also unchosen. Such practices are harmful and need treatment. Trans and homosexuality is not harmful in any way except through lack of understanding imposed up them by bigotry , expecially religious bigotry.

Yes, we all haven't freely chosen our sex, our sexual identification, or our sexual orientation. I generally don't believe in libertarian free will, ultimate self-creation, or ultimate moral responsibility.

From my materialist perspective, calling something mental is not synonymous with calling it nonphysical; so my distinction between the mental and the physical is to be read as an intraphysical distinction between the psychophysical (psychoneural) and the non-psychophysical (non-psychoneural), or the merely physical (neural).

When I call homosexuality and transsexuality mental states (that can and usually do manifest themselves in certain forms of behavior), I'm using "mental" in the general sense of "of or relating to the mind" rather than in the specific sense of "of, relating to, or affected by a psychiatric disorder".
Nevertheless, they are two different kinds of mental states, the one being a sexual orientation and the other a sexual identification.

As far as I know, many young gender-dysphoric people "grow out of" their gender dysphoria without any hormonal or surgical treatment, especially as there are different possible causes of gender dysphoria.

I'm pretty sure that is mostly propoganda

I have come across a few people who 'grew out' of gender dysphoria, including a couple of females who discovered that they liked the attention of males for being females as a result of the effects of changes of puberty. This could mean that they were not gender dysphoric or it could be related to social aspects of body-image and appearance. I also remember my female art teacher saying that she thought she was a 'boy' until she was about 12. Then, she realised that she was female at a girl's school and decided to she wished to be feminine. Some of this may relate to the social aspects of appearance.

Of course, if a person is gender dysphoric, and conforms, nevertheless. I have known some married men who had a 'secret' life of crossdressing to cope with underlying dysphoria. Similarly, there are many stories of a married person coming out to the marital partner as 'trans'.

So, there may be battles, not simply of realisation but of disclosure and expression. Also, in the psychiatric literature there is so reference to primary and secondary transsexuals, with the second form being a later emergence in identity than in those who realise the issue early on. However, this may be complex because it may involve denial or even lack of awareness of trans issues, especially before it became such a raised media topic.

[Sculptor1]

Think of yourself. Do you really think you could chose to change your gender? When you were a child do you think your gender was totally due to your parents treating you like your physical sex. Is that reasonable?
ANd when the many people who feel they are unhappy with their asigned sex - do you think they are just suffering from a mental problem? When they say that they never felt happy in their assigned gender - you want to tell them that they just have a mental confusion; that they can be "cured".
And what about homosexuals. Are you going to say that is "mental" too?
GIven the horrific prejudices, and abuses towards homosexuals so you really expect us to beleive that these are just mental abberations?

I no more chose my gender than I chose the shape of my nose, my hair colour or eye colour.. I would never have chose the persistent unbidden erections and obsessions with the female form. It's absurd. I have no hesitation in thinking that this is exacly the same for all LGBT+ people - these are not choices; these are variations of the human form.
You can call them mutations if you will, but pretending they are mental problems would be unfair and bigoted.
I going to suggest that the tendency to pedophila is also unchosen. Such practices are harmful and need treatment. Trans and homosexuality is not harmful in any way except through lack of understanding imposed up them by bigotry , expecially religious bigotry.

Yes, we all haven't freely chosen our sex, our sexual identification, or our sexual orientation. I generally don't believe in libertarian free will, ultimate self-creation, or ultimate moral responsibility.

From my materialist perspective, calling something mental is not synonymous with calling it nonphysical; so my distinction between the mental and the physical is to be read as an intraphysical distinction between the psychophysical (psychoneural) and the non-psychophysical (non-psychoneural), or the merely physical (neural).

When I call homosexuality and transsexuality mental states (that can and usually do manifest themselves in certain forms of behavior), I'm using "mental" in the general sense of "of or relating to the mind" rather than in the specific sense of "of, relating to, or affected by a psychiatric disorder".
Nevertheless, they are two different kinds of mental states, the one being a sexual orientation and the other a sexual identification.

As far as I know, many young gender-dysphoric people "grow out of" their gender dysphoria without any hormonal or surgical treatment, especially as there are different possible causes of gender dysphoria.

I'm pretty sure that is mostly propoganda

I have come across a few people who 'grew out' of gender dysphoria, including a couple of females who discovered that they liked the attention of males for being females as a result of the effects of changes of puberty. This could mean that they were not gender dysphoric or it could be related to social aspects of body-image and appearance. I also remember my female art teacher saying that she thought she was a 'boy' until she was about 12. Then, she realised that she was female at a girl's school and decided to she wished to be feminine. Some of this may relate to the social aspects of appearance.

Of course, if a person is gender dysphoric, and conforms, nevertheless. I have known some married men who had a 'secret' life of crossdressing to cope with underlying dysphoria. Similarly, there are many stories of a married person coming out to the marital partner as 'trans'.

So, there may be battles, not simply of realisation but of disclosure and expression. Also, in the psychiatric literature there is so reference to primary and secondary transsexuals, with the second form being a later emergence in identity than in those who realise the issue early on. However, this may be complex because it may involve denial or even lack of awareness of trans issues, especially before it became such a raised media topic.

There is no doubt that the social prejudices are going to impede the natural expression of aspects of gender variability.
We can only hope to foster a non prejudicial atmosphere and avoid the persecution of LGBTQI+ people. A
t the moment that atmosphere is toxic and highly opressive in the USA and the contagion is moving to the UK

[Belinda]

Consul wrote [ "What is gender?" is the wrong question because there is no one thing that answers to the name "gender" (or, for that matter, to the name "gender identity")."]


I reply: Gender is a set of heuristic devices , which often are unwitting especially in traditional societies. Heuristics we variously call "gender" pertain both to biological sex and to normative values of behaviour.
It's more than likely that there are neurological correlates to 'gender' in people's brains, like there are neurological correlates to all remembered narratives.
Narratives are sometimes used to rationalise self expression, especially these days when self expression is romanticised. Narratives which are internalised sometimes are mutually incompatible in which cases you may get body dysmorphia and so forth.

E.G .regarding influential narratives: Rowlings's Harry Potter narrative is entertaining ,but the plot is basically flawed in its insistence that either Muggles mentality or Hogwarts magic are exclusively the only alternatives. In fact the good life is the third alternative of resisting the Muggles whilst enduring the consequences of your courage. Some influential narratives are not true enough to serve us with truth, and such stories are usually Romances such as Harry Potter and others like them (such as Narnia by CS Lewis).

[Consul]

…So, I am arguing that idealism and materialism are both relevant for thinking about the idea of gender. However, it may be extremely complex and I am unsure about the foundations of materialistic fundamentalism in this? Does it rule out reflective consciousness? To what extent is each of us in this discussion about gender aspects of biology, as in the thinking of materialistic determinism? Or, is there something more?

If the "idealistic" aspect is simply the psychological aspect of what I've called the bio-psycho-social sex-complex, then it's an interesting topic in its own right. BUT when it comes to defining sex (the sexes), then psychology is irrelevant. Mindless plants are sexed organisms too, and the biological definition of sex applies to them as well.

It is a difficult area in some ways and may come down to the question of whether gender is physical, and how does this solve this question of what is 'sex' and -gender? It goes back to ' the sociology of Anne Oakley, as this as a prerequisite for both the philosophy of feminism and postmodernism, which may involve the deconstruction of cultural ideas. All of these views impact on philosophical understanding, subjective and objective, in the consideration of gender identity construction and the question as to whether 'gender' is innate.

I already quoted Oakley:

"Gender is a term that has psychological and 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."

(Oakley, Ann. Sex, Gender and Society. 1972. Reissue, Abingdon: Routledge, 2016. p. 116)

Last week I noticed that she is guilty of plagiarism, because she "stole" the whole passage from Stoller:

"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."

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

With there being many different degrees and respects of femininity and masculinity, it is not possible to formulate an adequate definition of "the female gender" & "the male gender" in terms of "the amount of masculinity or femininity found in a person." How feminine/masculine does a person have to be in order to be a member of the female/male gender? No non-arbitrary answer can be given to this question, especially as ascriptions of femininity/masculinity are influenced by cultural stereotypes.

By the way, immediately after the above-quoted, Stoller writes:

"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."

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

Later in the book, Stoller uses the term core gender identity to refer to "the knowledge and awareness, whether conscious or unconscious, that one belongs to one sex and not the other."

"Almost everyone starts to develop from birth on a fundamental sense of belonging to one sex. The child's awareness—"I am a male" or "I am a female"—is visible to an observer in the first year or so of life. This aspect of one's over-all sense of identity can be conceptualized as a core gender identity, produced by the infant-parents relationship, by the child's perception of its external genitalia, and by a biologic force that springs from the biologic variables of sex."

(Stoller, Robert J. Sex and Gender: The Development of Masculinity and Femininity. 1968. Reprint, London: Karnac, 1984. pp. 29-30)

"[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)

Yes, "core gender identity is important and well defined" (as defined by Stoller), but I see no good terminological reason to call sexual self-knowledge (or self-belief) a kind of identity in the first place.

[Consul]

Consul wrote ["What is gender?" is the wrong question because there is no one thing that answers to the name "gender" (or, for that matter, to the name "gender identity")."]

I reply: Gender is a set of heuristic devices , which often are unwitting especially in traditional societies. Heuristics we variously call "gender" pertain both to biological sex and to normative values of behaviour.

Yes:

"Gender as femininity/masculinity and gender as social roles are often given a ‘normative’ cast. That is, feminine attitudes and behaviours are understood as those that females should have, according to prevailing social values. Similarly with social roles: a female gender role, say primary caregiver, is not only a social role that females tend to occupy but one that they should occupy. We can call this twist on gender as femininity/masculinity and gender as social roles, gender as norms. Here's an example:
'As it is conceived ordinarily, sex is thought of as a set of fixed biological characteristics, whereas gender is construed as a set of variable social norms about the proper behavior of sexed individuals.'

Since it's vital to distinguish between characteristics that females typically have and characteristics that societies deem females should have, mixing in norms or social rules to some definitions of ‘gender’ just multiplies misunderstandings. This can easily be avoided by reserving ‘femininity/masculinity’ and ‘gender role’ for neutral descriptive purposes. When societies’ rules or expectations are the topic, the phrases ‘norms of femininity/masculinity’ and ‘gender role norms’ can be used.

Notice that gender as norms is primarily a feature of societies, not individual people. On the gender as norms conception, there is no obvious sense in asking ‘What is your gender?’ Here's an example from an article by five psychologists…: 'The term gender is used here to refer to sociocultural systems that include norms and expectations for males and females…'."

(Byrne, Alex. Trouble with Gender. Cambridge: Polity, 2024. p. 40)

It's more than likely that there are neurological correlates to 'gender' in people's brains, like there are neurological correlates to all remembered narratives.
Narratives are sometimes used to rationalise self expression, especially these days when self expression is romanticised. Narratives which are internalised sometimes are mutually incompatible in which cases you may get body dysmorphia and so forth.

E.G .regarding influential narratives: Rowlings's Harry Potter narrative is entertaining ,but the plot is basically flawed in its insistence that either Muggles mentality or Hogwarts magic are exclusively the only alternatives. In fact the good life is the third alternative of resisting the Muggles whilst enduring the consequences of your courage. Some influential narratives are not true enough to serve us with truth, and such stories are usually Romances such as Harry Potter and others like them (such as Narnia by CS Lewis).

Speaking of "narratives":

"Dennett's center of narrative gravity:
Human beings are constantly engaged in presenting themselves, both to others and to themselves. We create autobiographical narratives about who we are. The self, according to Dennett (1991), is not the source of these narratives but, rather, a by-product of the brain's propensity to produce them. The self is a sort of story. By speaking of a center of narrative gravity, Dennett is describing an act of public self-representating. We are at some level trying to present a collection of facts about ourselves as a unity. We are doing this both for other people and for ourselves. We are endeavoring to create a clear and stable concept of ourselves, in ourselves and others, despite a fundamental lack of unity. Dennett thus argues that the self is a fiction, an abstract object, like the engineer's notion of a center of gravity. The self is the center of narrative gravity within the biographies our brains compose about ourselves and each other. Selves, like centers of gravity, are useful organizing concepts but they are not real. There is not a part of you called 'the self' any more than there is a part of you which is your center of gravity. Dennett sees this narrative self as a sort of virtual self, in the sense that one human person might produce several quite different centers of narrative gravity over time, just as a computer might run several different programs. In our parlance, Dennett is denying the existence of an executive self and attempting to replace it instead with a type of representational self."

(Hirstein, William. Mindmelding: Consciousness, Neuroscience, and the Mind's Privacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. p. 141)

Yes, we create (sexual and non-sexual) self-representations, including autobiographical narratives; but I don't regard "selves" as fictions (fictional "centers of narrative gravity") created by self-representations. I regard them simply as real self-conscious animals that produce such mental items as self-concepts and self-images.

[JackDaydream]

…So, I am arguing that idealism and materialism are both relevant for thinking about the idea of gender. However, it may be extremely complex and I am unsure about the foundations of materialistic fundamentalism in this? Does it rule out reflective consciousness? To what extent is each of us in this discussion about gender aspects of biology, as in the thinking of materialistic determinism? Or, is there something more?

If the "idealistic" aspect is simply the psychological aspect of what I've called the bio-psycho-social sex-complex, then it's an interesting topic in its own right. BUT when it comes to defining sex (the sexes), then psychology is irrelevant. Mindless plants are sexed organisms too, and the biological definition of sex applies to them as well.

It is a difficult area in some ways and may come down to the question of whether gender is physical, and how does this solve this question of what is 'sex' and -gender? It goes back to ' the sociology of Anne Oakley, as this as a prerequisite for both the philosophy of feminism and postmodernism, which may involve the deconstruction of cultural ideas. All of these views impact on philosophical understanding, subjective and objective, in the consideration of gender identity construction and the question as to whether 'gender' is innate.

I already quoted Oakley:

"Gender is a term that has psychological and 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."

(Oakley, Ann. Sex, Gender and Society. 1972. Reissue, Abingdon: Routledge, 2016. p. 116)

Last week I noticed that she is guilty of plagiarism, because she "stole" the whole passage from Stoller:

"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."

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

With there being many different degrees and respects of femininity and masculinity, it is not possible to formulate an adequate definition of "the female gender" & "the male gender" in terms of "the amount of masculinity or femininity found in a person." How feminine/masculine does a person have to be in order to be a member of the female/male gender? No non-arbitrary answer can be given to this question, especially as ascriptions of femininity/masculinity are influenced by cultural stereotypes.

By the way, immediately after the above-quoted, Stoller writes:

"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."

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

Later in the book, Stoller uses the term core gender identity to refer to "the knowledge and awareness, whether conscious or unconscious, that one belongs to one sex and not the other."

"Almost everyone starts to develop from birth on a fundamental sense of belonging to one sex. The child's awareness—"I am a male" or "I am a female"—is visible to an observer in the first year or so of life. This aspect of one's over-all sense of identity can be conceptualized as a core gender identity, produced by the infant-parents relationship, by the child's perception of its external genitalia, and by a biologic force that springs from the biologic variables of sex."

(Stoller, Robert J. Sex and Gender: The Development of Masculinity and Femininity. 1968. Reprint, London: Karnac, 1984. pp. 29-30)

"[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)

Yes, "core gender identity is important and well defined" (as defined by Stoller), but I see no good terminological reason to call sexual self-knowledge (or self-belief) a kind of identity in the first place.

You compare the nature of human sex/gender with plants and that is to ignore the role of human meaning. Plants most definitely have a sense of identity because they don't have self- consciousness.. With masculinity and femininity there is so much emphasis on meaning as opposed to the body, especially behaviour and not just appearance. There are shifts according to place and time as opposed to static categories.

The idea of core gender identity is about inner representation and autobiographical aspects of the self. It involves knowledge of bodily differences but is more than just such knowledge because it involves the construction of preference, as the basis for choices about behaviour, attire, friendships and a sense of a future becoming..

However, so much change comes with puberty because as children there is not that much obvious physical differences besides genitals/genitalia. Puberty is critical because the impact of hormones and secondary sexual characteristics come into play. It may be at this point that dysphoria becomes a key issue. This may be why there is opposition to puberty blockers because puberty is the physical basis for the psychological nature of adolescence. The changes may be so detested because they affect a person so much. This aspect of identity cannot be dismissed. The reason why people may wish to stop puberty is because they are difficult to reverse later

A deep voice in a transwoman can be a source of distress. The best known way of altering this is through a tracheal shave, in which the Adam's apple is reduced I have met some transwoman who sound like bio females after this. The only problem is sometimes it is successful and sometimes not.

In some ways, transmen have an easier time because the masculinisation process involves some degree of change of voice. However, there are some downsides, such as a need for surgery for breast removal. This is major surgery and not always as effective as desired, especially if a person has large breasts. Similarly, testosterone does not always stop periods and many female to males seek to have their internal female parts removed.

To see people's identity without paying attention to how they feel is to ignore the psychology and the existential suffering. The reason why people choose to make a transition is because is because dysphoria involves extreme unhappiness. This sense of unhappiness can make it hard for a person to pursue so much in social life. At the extremes of comparison a plant won't feel distress at its physical appearance and shape whereas a person may. Similarly, people who are not actually dysphoric may feel attractive enough or compatible with their biological gender. I have known a couple of women who have even been mistaken for transwoman wheh they are not. Such is the complexity of appearance, just as identity is. There is so much variance and variables, because male or female has so much more than reproduction. It is connected as involving attraction and finding partners but the internal aspects of experiencing this involves the depths of love amongst other things. The inner aspects of human sexual experience is at the basis of human existence. It is the source for the arts, from music to fiction etc. Gender and sexual expression and experience involve the arts and not just scientific aspects of categorisation and here may lie a key reason why gender as human meaning has a foundation in the arts.

I know that you detest postmodernism but part of the reason why it has validity is because it has a foundation in the arts. Similarly, sociology is important because the social dimensions of existence are a core feature of life experiences.

[Consul]

From my materialist perspective, much of what you say above is correct and terminology seems to have been the main stumbling block. However, I question your assertion that many young gender-dysphoric people "grow out of" their gender dysphoria without any hormonal or surgical treatment.

There is a useful summary on WIKI dealing with the question of desistence and persistence. It provides links to the original research papers quoted, some of which I have read. It states:

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, most children have a stable sense of their gender identity by age 4. They explain that research shows prepubertal children who assert a transgender or gender diverse identity know their gender as clearly and as consistently as their cisgender peers.…[10][11]

If gender identity is the sense of one's gender, then a "sense of gender identity" is the sense of one's sense of one's gender—which makes no sense. What is true is that children know by age 4 which sex they are. But I don't understand the second sentence: Does it mean e.g. that a "transboy" knows he's a girl, like a "cisboy" knows he's a boy? If yes, then it is plainly false, since a transboy cannot know he's a girl. He can only (falsely) believe, be convinced, or be certain that he is a girl.

Anyway, once again, it is just not clear what is meant by "gender" and "gender identity"!

Other research has shown that if gender dysphoria persists during puberty, it is very likely permanent.[12][13][14] Factors that are associated with gender dysphoria persisting through puberty include intensity of gender dysphoria, amount of cross-gendered behavior, and verbal identification with the desired/experienced gender (i.e. stating that they are a different gender rather than wish to be a different gender).[14][15]
…

Okay, as far as I recall, the statistical data my statement is based on concern the percentage of remissions of gender dysphoria before or during puberty (without any medical or surgical intervention).

By the way, the transgender hype in the (social) media and the social contagion resulting therefrom play a major role in the significant increase of gender dysphoria among young people, especially among girls, during the last ten years.

"Before 2012, there was no scientific literature on girls aged 11 to 21 ever having developed gender dysphoria.
In the past decade, that has changed dramatically.
The Western world has seen a sudden surge of adolescents claiming to have gender dysphoria and self-identifying as transgender.
In Britain, Canada, Sweden and Finland, clinicians and gender therapists began reporting a dramatic shift in the demographics of those presenting with gender dysphoria, from predominately pre-school-aged boys to predominately adolescent girls.
In Britain, in 2018, there was a 4,400 per cent rise over the previous decade in teenage girls seeking gender treatments.
Between 2016 and 2017, the number of gender-reassignment surgeries for girls in the US quadrupled, with people born female suddenly accounting for 70 per cent of all such operations."

Quelle: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... e-sex.html

"American Society of Plastic Surgeons: 2017 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report

GENDER CONFIRMATION SURGERIES:
2016: Transfeminine (Male to Female) patients: 1,759
2017: Transfeminine (Male to Female) patients: 2,483
% CHANGE 2016 vs. 2017: 41%
2016: Transmasculine (Female to Male) patients 1,497
2017: Transmasculine (Female to Male) patients 5,821
% CHANGE 2016 vs. 2017: 289%"

Source: https: //www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2017/body-contouring-gender-confirmation-2017.pdf

[Consul]

There is a useful summary on WIKI dealing with the question of desistence and …

As for the distinction between "desisters" and "detransitioners":

"Detransition and desistance both describe processes where people cease to pursue medical transition and/or stop identifying as transgender.
…
A detransitioner is someone who previously identified as transgender and received medical and/or surgical interventions as a result, but stopped taking these interventions and no longer identifies as transgender in the same way.
…
A desister is someone who previously identified as transgender but who re-identified with their biological sex prior to any medical intervention."

Source: https: //can-sg.org/frequently-asked-questions/what-do-the-terms-detransition-and-desistance-mean/

[Sy Borg]

From my materialist perspective, much of what you say above is correct and terminology seems to have been the main stumbling block. However, I question your assertion that many young gender-dysphoric people "grow out of" their gender dysphoria without any hormonal or surgical treatment.

There is a useful summary on WIKI dealing with the question of desistence and persistence. It provides links to the original research papers quoted, some of which I have read. It states:

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, most children have a stable sense of their gender identity by age 4. They explain that research shows prepubertal children who assert a transgender or gender diverse identity know their gender as clearly and as consistently as their cisgender peers.…[10][11]

If gender identity is the sense of one's gender, then a "sense of gender identity" is the sense of one's sense of one's gender—which makes no sense. What is true is that children know by age 4 which sex they are. But I don't understand the second sentence: Does it mean e.g. that a "transboy" knows he's a girl, like a "cisboy" knows he's a boy? If yes, then it is plainly false, since a transboy cannot know he's a girl. He can only (falsely) believe, be convinced, or be certain that he is a girl.

Anyway, once again, it is just not clear what is meant by "gender" and "gender identity"!

So, what is your explanation for all those little boys who believed they were girls, and who later went on to have successful sex changes?

If they were delusional, then their sex change would be a disaster. Yet, despite the publicity, sex changes were known to be one of the more successful surgeries in terms of patient satisfaction.

So, if the transperson is not delusional, and you claim there is no such thing as innate gender identity, what do you think is going on? How can such a person exist if innate gender identity does not exist?

[Consul]

So, what is your explanation for all those little boys who believed they were girls, and who later went on to have successful sex changes?

…so-called "sex changes", which are merely feminizing or masculinizing body modifications that don't literally result in sex changes, because they aren't cases of sequential hermaphroditism.

If they were delusional, then their sex change would be a disaster. Yet, despite the publicity, sex changes were known to be one of the more successful surgeries in terms of patient satisfaction.

So, if the transperson is not delusional, and you claim there is no such thing as innate gender identity, what do you think is going on? How can such a person exist if innate gender identity does not exist?

"Gender Dysphoria in Children 302.6 (F64.2)
A. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months’ duration, as manifested by at least six of the following (one of which must be Criterion A1):
1. A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
…
B. The condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, school, or other important areas of functioning."

(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM-5]. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association, 2013. p. 452)

An (honest) insistence that one is the other gender/sex presupposes a corresponding belief. Given that A1 is formulated as a disjunction, gender dysphoria manifests itself (inter alia) as a belief or as a desire, or both as a belief and as a desire.

When a boy/man desires to be a girl/woman, but believes/knows that he is a boy/man, there is certainly nothing delusional about it. But when he believes or is even certain that he is a girl/woman, and no evidence to the contrary makes him change his mind, then what else is his belief but a delusion?

As for the causes of transsexuality and gender dysphoria, I don't know; but I bet the innate gender-identity model is incorrect. It's up to the scientific experts to discover and explain the true causes!

[Consul]

When a boy/man desires to be a girl/woman, but believes/knows that he is a boy/man, there is certainly nothing delusional about it.

For example, Buck Angel is a very masculine transman who is completely non-delusional about his real sex. He knows and affirms that he is female. (Writing "biologically female" is a pleonasm, because there is no non-biological kind of femaleness.) He's not a male but a male-looking female, who is fully passable as a man in society (as long as his female genitals are invisible).

[JackDaydream]

Consul,
You suggest that you 'don't know' the causes of transsexuality' but you 'bet the innate gender model of gender identity is incorrect'. Bearing in mind your emphasis on precision in definitive categories, this is extremely vague. Also, you suggest that it is up to scientists to find out the causes? What about personal testimony as an aspect of qualitative research, recognised as of value in evidenced based psychology and psychiatry?

I know that you argue that you are a reductive materialist, but why? Are there not any weaknesses to such an approach? What about the role of participant observer in research? Are there not limitations of reductive materialism? Would you go as far as to say that in considering the value of medicine that the experience of the effects and side-effects of the person taking it? To what extent can science be detached and value free?

Reductive materialism without any consideration of values is a rather one dimensional approach. In spite of your claim to recognise the bio-psychosocial model, this does not seem evident in your approach and thinking, as it is extremely selective and does not incorporate multidisciplinary dialogue and blending.

[Sy Borg]

So, what is your explanation for all those little boys who believed they were girls, and who later went on to have successful sex changes?

…so-called "sex changes", which are merely feminizing or masculinizing body modifications that don't literally result in sex changes, because they aren't cases of sequential hermaphroditism.

If they were delusional, then their sex change would be a disaster. Yet, despite the publicity, sex changes were known to be one of the more successful surgeries in terms of patient satisfaction.

So, if the transperson is not delusional, and you claim there is no such thing as innate gender identity, what do you think is going on? How can such a person exist if innate gender identity does not exist?

"Gender Dysphoria in Children 302.6 (F64.2)
A. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months’ duration, as manifested by at least six of the following (one of which must be Criterion A1):
1. A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
…
B. The condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, school, or other important areas of functioning."

(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM-5]. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association, 2013. p. 452)

An (honest) insistence that one is the other gender/sex presupposes a corresponding belief. Given that A1 is formulated as a disjunction, gender dysphoria manifests itself (inter alia) as a belief or as a desire, or both as a belief and as a desire.

When a boy/man desires to be a girl/woman, but believes/knows that he is a boy/man, there is certainly nothing delusional about it. But when he believes or is even certain that he is a girl/woman, and no evidence to the contrary makes him change his mind, then what else is his belief but a delusion?

As for the causes of transsexuality and gender dysphoria, I don't know; but I bet the innate gender-identity model is incorrect. It's up to the scientific experts to discover and explain the true causes!

OMG, you re displaying all the poetry of a brick. You don't have to take everything literally, weighing all words against scientific terms. You can look behind the words to try to understand a speaker's or writer's intent.

When a boy claims he is a girl, he is not being delusional. He is not saying that he is unaware of his penis or that that penises are attached to boys. That seems to be your interpretation. Such a child would clearly describing how he feels inside, his sense of estrangement from masculine things and leanings towards the feminine. That happens with some gays too, but it seems that some young people take their discomfort in their expected gender role more to heart than others. For some, it is deeply internalised. History shows that changing transpeople via cognitive therapy does not work, so that would suggest that the dysphoria is "innate", yes?

[Consul]

You compare the nature of human sex/gender with plants and that is to ignore the role of human meaning. Plants most definitely have a sense of identity because they don't have self-consciousness.

What exactly do you mean by "sense of identity", and doesn't such a thing require self-consciousness?

With masculinity and femininity there is so much emphasis on meaning as opposed to the body, especially behaviour and not just appearance. There are shifts according to place and time as opposed to static categories.

Here's Alex Byrne again, with whom I fully agree on the gender/sex issue:

"Feminists in the 19705 seized on Stoller's distinction. His influence extended to the former US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, not a man known for his feminist sympathies: 'The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.'

Feminism tended to build in an anti-biological component to Stoller's conception of gender. They assumed that femininity and masculinity are not (even partly) the result of biological differences between the sexes but, instead, are imposed by society. As one feminist philosopher put it, gender 'pertains to the socio-cultural constructs of femininity and masculinity, comprising certain psychological traits, and certain modes of dress, grooming, language use, and bodily comportment, among other things.' This prejudges a complex empirical issue about the role of biology. (…)

Should we follow Stoller’s recommendation to use ‘gender’ for ‘the amount of masculinity or femininity found in a person’? There is certainly an important difference between sex (female and male) and feminine or masculine characteristics. Although feminine characteristics are more prevalent among females, and masculine characteristics are more prevalent among males, females can have masculine characteristics and males can have feminine ones. In fact, females can be pretty much as masculine as you like, and similarly for males and femininity. This is not a recent discovery. For example, the Roman writer Seneca the elder was not impressed with young men ‘curling the hair, lightening the voice to the caressing sounds of a woman, competing with women in physical delicacy, and adorning themselves with filthy elegance’. There has never been a general confusion or conflation of being female with being feminine or a failure to notice that the two do not always go together.

Why introduce a special piece of terminology, since we already have ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’? Admittedly there is no word that stands to ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ as ‘sex’ stands to ‘female’ and ‘male’. but there is no pressing need for one. More importantly, ‘gender’ is a positively misleading choice."

(Byrne, Alex. Trouble with Gender. Cambridge: Polity, 2024. pp. 36-7)

The idea of core gender identity is about inner representation and autobiographical aspects of the self. It involves knowledge of bodily differences but is more than just such knowledge because it involves the construction of preference, as the basis for choices about behaviour, attire, friendships and a sense of a future becoming.

In Stoller's original sense of the term, core gender identity consists in nothing more than the awareness or knowledge of one's sex. What you describe above is part of what I would call gender habitus (sexual habitus).

…The reason why people may wish to stop puberty is because they are difficult to reverse later.

The physical effects of puberty blockers are difficult (if not impossible) to reverse too, aren't they?

A deep voice in a transwoman can be a source of distress. The best known way of altering this is through a tracheal shave, in which the Adam's apple is reduced I have met some transwoman who sound like bio females after this. The only problem is sometimes it is successful and sometimes not.

In some ways, transmen have an easier time because the masculinisation process involves some degree of change of voice. However, there are some downsides, such as a need for surgery for breast removal. This is major surgery and not always as effective as desired, especially if a person has large breasts. Similarly, testosterone does not always stop periods and many female to males seek to have their internal female parts removed.

Feminizing or masculinizing body modifications are really not a child's play!

To see people's identity without paying attention to how they feel is to ignore the psychology and the existential suffering. The reason why people choose to make a transition is because is because dysphoria involves extreme unhappiness. This sense of unhappiness can make it hard for a person to pursue so much in social life. At the extremes of comparison a plant won't feel distress at its physical appearance and shape whereas a person may. Similarly, people who are not actually dysphoric may feel attractive enough or compatible with their biological gender. I have known a couple of women who have even been mistaken for transwoman wheh they are not. Such is the complexity of appearance, just as identity is. There is so much variance and variables, because male or female has so much more than reproduction. It is connected as involving attraction and finding partners but the internal aspects of experiencing this involves the depths of love amongst other things. The inner aspects of human sexual experience is at the basis of human existence. It is the source for the arts, from music to fiction etc. Gender and sexual expression and experience involve the arts and not just scientific aspects of categorisation and here may lie a key reason why gender as human meaning has a foundation in the arts.

No biologist denies that "there is so much variance and variables" in many respects both within the male sex and within the female sex; but this fact doesn't refute the statement that there are exactly two sexes.

I know that gender dysphoria is not a laughing matter, and I do not "ignore the psychology and the existential suffering" of transsexuals! When I say trans(wo)men aren't (wo)men, this is not meant as an end-of-story statement. I am not a "biological reductionist" if being one means reducing the entire bio-psycho-social sex complex (* to the biology (or physiology) of sex. (* I don't mind calling it the gender complex if "gender" is used as a synonym of "sex".)

I know that you detest postmodernism but part of the reason why it has validity is because it has a foundation in the arts. Similarly, sociology is important because the social dimensions of existence are a core feature of life experiences.

I cannot declare that I detest philosophical postmodernism (postmodern philosophy) as a whole, because I've learned that it is highly heterogeneous, comprising many different theorists and theories. The list of "suspects", i.e. of isms associated with postmodernism (e.g. relativism), is long, but this is a topic for another thread…