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

[Pattern-chaser]

Teenagers are being seduced into medical transitioning by "gender-affirming" theorists/activists/therapists on the basis of ideological faith rather than scientific facts; but if they later decide to detransition, it's all the detransitioners' fault? Oh, come on!

Oh come on! You sound exactly like those who squealed, maybe 20 years ago (?), that our educators were promoting gay and homosexual stuff, thereby making our children gay; teaching them to be gay. And we now know this was just reactionaries trying to force their conservative agenda on others. You seem to be behaving as they did, back then...?

No, I'm really not! Have you heard of the Tavistock clinic scandal?

No, I hadn't, until now. But that's because I have no expertise in the care of trans people. I suspect you don't either. If things went wrong at one clinic, this is hardly surprising. Trans people, although they have always been around, are a new concept to most of us. We still have a lot to learn. And it seems mistakes have been made, which is sad, regrettable, and serious, but as I said, hardly surprising.

But none of this really impacts on trans people, and treating them as they deserve, and need, to be treated. Any thinking person can see immediately that recognising a trans person as a trans person is non-trivial, and that this recognition should not be mistaken. Otherwise, the mistakes that can happen have serious and unwanted consequences. To mistake a non-trans person for a trans person is something we must try, VERY HARD, to avoid. But, also as I have said, this is obvious to most people.

The most obvious pitfall is to misidentify a trans person, and maybe to give that person pharmaceutical or surgical treatment that is inappropriate. And yet again, we can all see that; it's obvious. A child might come to see themselves as trans, even thought they're not. Again: obvious.

But should we then stop all efforts to help trans people to transition? No, of course we shouldn't. To me, the obvious course of action is to employ caution alongside care, and to work unusually hard to learn from any mistakes made, and just to learn about trans people and their needs. We might even go so far as to talk to trans people, to ask them what they need, and get them to explain to us why that is, from their POV. Like autists — and probably others too who deviate from the norm — carers, medically-qualified and not, think they can go it alone, and work it out without asking the people themselves what they need and want. Idiots.

We need to learn, not just to panic and close everything down.

But what has this to do with answering the question we have been set: Is there such a thing as an innate sense of gender?

[Fried Egg]

But what has this to do with answering the question we have been set: Is there such a thing as an innate sense of gender?

Well, I did attempt to steer the conversation back on topic a while back but no one seemed to respond. I'll quote myself below:

I cannot speak for others, but I know that, from my earliest memories, I always felt strongly that I was a boy and not a girl and I felt "right" being a boy. I knew what girls were. And I knew emphatically that I was not one of them. I suspect it is the same or the vast majority of boys and girls. So, does that indicate that I had an innate sense of my gender? I guess that will depend on what we mean by "innate". I don't know whether my gender identity was "inborn" but I don't remember ever having to learn that I was a boy. But I'm not sure whether that proves anything.

That's interesting because, as I have said, I don't seem that have my own deeply held sense that I am a male (that you appear to have). How can those two subjective experiences be reconciled?

Perhaps one or the other of us is wrong.

You could be wrong because it's possible that it is simply something you learned subconsciously by the way you were treated and what you were told by others from the moment you were born. It is a notoriously difficult problem separating nature from nurture, of which this question is but an aspect of.

I could be wrong because I just take it for granted without even realising it. If it is something I've always had, how can I really be aware of what it is like unless I lost it (or it changed)?

Perhaps we are both right.

It is possible that it varies by individual. Perhaps some have a strong sense of gender and others less so (or even none)? Just as there are asexuals who do not feel attracted to either males or females, perhaps I am agender if I do not have an internal sense of gender?

And of course it could be something that changes throughout your life. Some people appear to develop gender dysphoria later in life (where they did not appear to have it before). Most of the conversation in this thread has treated it as if it is something that is fixed but do not some people claim to be gender fluid? If it does change (for some people), what causes it to change?

I'm increasingly inclined to think of gender identity as a drive or desire. Your gender identity is the gender you feel driven or desire to be. Defining it thusly does not really help to answer my original question but it might help me to understand it better if that was the case. At least it makes more sense to me than merely being some kind of innate self knowledge.

[Pattern-chaser]

However, I do think it is not accurate to characterize critics of the modern "excesses" of the trans movement as just religious conservatives. Much of the criticism is coming from women (gender critical feminists) and even some the gay/lesbian community (that don't like being grouped together with the trans community). Many of the critics might ordinarily (on other issues) tend to fall down on the left.

I have no firm figures, but it seems to me that most feminists are supportive of trans people, excepting only J.K. Rowlings' Sisters of Hatred, also known as 'TERFs'. Most of the LGBTQ+ community also support one another, if only because they need to stand together against the constant prejudice they suffer from the so-called 'normal' people.

Anyhow, there is nothing hateful about JK Rowling or the so called "TERFS" who are simply attempting to speak out to protect various women's rights (that have been so hard fought for) against the incursions of biological men. Besides that they are quite happy for anybody to live their lives however they want to live them. However, it is shocking the abuse JK Rowling (and others with similar views) receive. The threats of sexual violence and murder from the aggressive fringes of the trans-woman community are shocking to behold.

Their objections are fabricated, it seems. They squeal about the possibility of someone in possession of a working penis entering an area deemed 'safe' for women. This can already happen, if an ill-intentioned man sneaks into such a place. In fact, in this case, sex/gender doesn't matter. Anyone who enters a women-only space with the intention of harm is the sort of person who needs to be stopped. That has always been the case, and applies just as much to people masquerading as 'trans' to gain access to their victims as it does to common-or-garden rapists. We already have laws designed to deal with such criminals, and those laws continue to be valuable and necessary.

Their issues are non-issues, it seems.

Oh, and there is no LGBTQ+ community. They are disparate groups with different problems and concerns. See above for how the some gay people are increasingly concerned about the high numbers of gay people are being "steered" into thinking that they're the wrong gender (rather than coming to terms with the fact they are gay).

The whole notion of a LGBTQ+ community is going to explode real soon. Just like other of these silly acronyms that lump together different minority groups as if they all share the same problems. BAME is a classic example (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) that was popular a few years ago but quickly died a death because no one identified with it. The very idea of lumping them all together is an offensive notion and I think the same is true of LGBTQ+.

Tell that to the autists at the meet-up I attend. Autists are more likely than NTs to have non-conventional sexual leanings. So LGBTQ+ people are more common in our groups than yours. And there is a definite sense of community. People simply band together to support each other in the face of prejudice and persecution by intolerant heterosexual monogamists, quite possibly informed and guided by religious texts written thousands of years ago. Our groups are characterised by the tolerance that is so rare among the population as a whole. They have to be; *we* have to be.

If and when the persecution stops, we may see such communites break down. Maybe. Until then, such groups will continue to join together, for mutual protection and support.

BAME just means not-white, and as such, the term, or one meaning the same thing, is useful. Maybe one day in the future, that will no longer be the case? Maybe...

[Fried Egg]

Anyhow, there is nothing hateful about JK Rowling or the so called "TERFS" who are simply attempting to speak out to protect various women's rights (that have been so hard fought for) against the incursions of biological men. Besides that they are quite happy for anybody to live their lives however they want to live them. However, it is shocking the abuse JK Rowling (and others with similar views) receive. The threats of sexual violence and murder from the aggressive fringes of the trans-woman community are shocking to behold.

Their objections are fabricated, it seems. They squeal about the possibility of someone in possession of a working penis entering an area deemed 'safe' for women. This can already happen, if an ill-intentioned man sneaks into such a place. In fact, in this case, sex/gender doesn't matter. Anyone who enters a women-only space with the intention of harm is the sort of person who needs to be stopped. That has always been the case, and applies just as much to people masquerading as 'trans' to gain access to their victims as it does to common-or-garden rapists. We already have laws designed to deal with such criminals, and those laws continue to be valuable and necessary.

Their issues are non-issues, it seems.

~yawn~

Another man trivializing and diminishing women's issues. And going over the same old arguments that you've made earlier in this thread and that I've rebutted. I've no interested in going over them again.

Oh, and there is no LGBTQ+ community. They are disparate groups with different problems and concerns. See above for how the some gay people are increasingly concerned about the high numbers of gay people are being "steered" into thinking that they're the wrong gender (rather than coming to terms with the fact they are gay).

The whole notion of a LGBTQ+ community is going to explode real soon. Just like other of these silly acronyms that lump together different minority groups as if they all share the same problems. BAME is a classic example (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) that was popular a few years ago but quickly died a death because no one identified with it. The very idea of lumping them all together is an offensive notion and I think the same is true of LGBTQ+.

Tell that to the autists at the meet-up I attend. Autists are more likely than NTs to have non-conventional sexual leanings. So LGBTQ+ people are more common in our groups than yours. And there is a definite sense of community. People simply band together to support each other in the face of prejudice and persecution by intolerant heterosexual monogamists, quite possibly informed and guided by religious texts written thousands of years ago. Our groups are characterised by the tolerance that is so rare among the population as a whole. They have to be; *we* have to be.

If and when the persecution stops, we may see such communites break down. Maybe. Until then, such groups will continue to join together, for mutual protection and support.

BAME just means not-white, and as such, the term, or one meaning the same thing, is useful. Maybe one day in the future, that will no longer be the case? Maybe...

These labels are usually created and used by people outside of those groups and imposed on them. Usually, by middle class, hand wringing, progressives that think they're helping the people they're lazily categorizing together. These labels may have meaning to the people that create them but not to those they impose them on who don't necessarily share any affinity for those they're lumped together with. "LatinX" is another example; never actually used by those people the label was created for.

In the case of trans, I think they attached themselves to the LGB groups in order to enable them to make so many false equivalences between their cause and the cause of gay people (which you can see from many posts in this thread, has been very successful). Besides being both minorities within the population at large, what else do they have in common? One is about sexuality and the other about gender identity. Why not lump black people and ginger haired people in there too?

[Pattern-chaser]

Anyhow, there is nothing hateful about JK Rowling or the so called "TERFS" who are simply attempting to speak out to protect various women's rights (that have been so hard fought for) against the incursions of biological men. Besides that they are quite happy for anybody to live their lives however they want to live them. However, it is shocking the abuse JK Rowling (and others with similar views) receive. The threats of sexual violence and murder from the aggressive fringes of the trans-woman community are shocking to behold.

Their objections are fabricated, it seems. They squeal about the possibility of someone in possession of a working penis entering an area deemed 'safe' for women. This can already happen, if an ill-intentioned man sneaks into such a place. In fact, in this case, sex/gender doesn't matter. Anyone who enters a women-only space with the intention of harm is the sort of person who needs to be stopped. That has always been the case, and applies just as much to people masquerading as 'trans' to gain access to their victims as it does to common-or-garden rapists. We already have laws designed to deal with such criminals, and those laws continue to be valuable and necessary.

Their issues are non-issues, it seems.

~yawn~

Another man trivializing and diminishing women's issues. And going over the same old arguments that you've made earlier in this thread and that I've rebutted. I've no interested in going over them again.

Neither have I. And, in agreement with your sentiment, I've not quoted the rest of your post, where you go over them again.

I am not trivialising anyone's wishes. Isolating one tiny fraction of those who are equipped with penises as a particular risk to women is daft. All those equipped with penises are equipped to rape. Happily, almost none of them exploit this capability. Those who do, regardless of all other factors, must be opposed and prevented. This trivialises no-one's rights or wishes.

[Consul]

We need to learn, not just to panic and close everything down.

In this case learning starts with studying the Cass Review.

But what has this to do with answering the question we have been set: Is there such a thing as an innate sense of gender?

If the question is whether (self-)knowledge of one's sex is innate, the answer is no.

[Consul]

Oh, and there is no LGBTQ+ community. They are disparate groups with different problems and concerns. See above for how the some gay people are increasingly concerned about the high numbers of gay people are being "steered" into thinking that they're the wrong gender (rather than coming to terms with the fact they are gay).

The whole notion of a LGBTQ+ community is going to explode real soon. Just like other of these silly acronyms that lump together different minority groups as if they all share the same problems. BAME is a classic example (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) that was popular a few years ago but quickly died a death because no one identified with it. The very idea of lumping them all together is an offensive notion and I think the same is true of LGBTQ+.

We now have "LGBTQIA+" (adding intersexuals & "asexuals"/"agenders"). I agree that, regarding its internal cohesion, this is largely an imaginary community, with the one umbrella term being "sexual minorities".

Note that in Wokespeak "social minority" is defined qualitatively rather than just quantitatively: social minority = oppressed/marginalized/disadvantaged/underrepresented social group. For example, the billionaires are a social minority, quantitatively speaking; but they are not a minority in the Woke Left's qualitative sense, because they are not counted among the oppressed/marginalized/disadvantaged/underrepresented groups.

[Pattern-chaser]

But what has this to do with answering the question we have been set: Is there such a thing as an innate sense of gender?

If the question is whether (self-)knowledge of one's sex is innate, the answer is no.

Still you refuse even to acknowledge the difference between sex and gender. Do you think that, if you maintain your state of denial, gender will simply go away?

The question in the topic title invites us to consider gender. And, as ever, you respond by talking of sex instead.

[Sy Borg]

Oh, and there is no LGBTQ+ community. They are disparate groups with different problems and concerns. See above for how the some gay people are increasingly concerned about the high numbers of gay people are being "steered" into thinking that they're the wrong gender (rather than coming to terms with the fact they are gay).

The whole notion of a LGBTQ+ community is going to explode real soon. Just like other of these silly acronyms that lump together different minority groups as if they all share the same problems. BAME is a classic example (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) that was popular a few years ago but quickly died a death because no one identified with it. The very idea of lumping them all together is an offensive notion and I think the same is true of LGBTQ+.

We now have "LGBTQIA+" (adding intersexuals & "asexuals"/"agenders"). I agree that, regarding its internal cohesion, this is largely an imaginary community, with the one umbrella term being "sexual minorities".

Note that in Wokespeak "social minority" is defined qualitatively rather than just quantitatively: social minority = oppressed/marginalized/disadvantaged/underrepresented social group. For example, the billionaires are a social minority, quantitatively speaking; but they are not a minority in the Woke Left's qualitative sense, because they are not counted among the oppressed/marginalized/disadvantaged/underrepresented groups.

We can at least agree on this. The LGBTQIA+ concept is nonsense, lumping everything but heterosexuality together - a little heavenly utopia where the the lion shall lie with the lamb, the lesbian shall lie with the trans, and the asexual will lie with polyamorous.

It should be clear to most here that I am no fan of modern cultural Marxism, but there's no denying the existence of gender identity as a separate notion to biological sex. Millions of people have lived it. Best to just throw out the bathwater. Leave the baby.

[Consul]

Still you refuse even to acknowledge the difference between sex and gender. Do you think that, if you maintain your state of denial, gender will simply go away?
The question in the topic title invites us to consider gender. And, as ever, you respond by talking of sex instead.

"Sex" is the only unequivocally clear (non-grammatical) meaning of "gender". If (non-grammatical) gender isn't sex, I still don't know what it is. There are two words in the phrase "innate sense of gender" which are in desperate need of clarification, viz. "sense" and "gender". If that phrase doesn't mean "innate knowledge of one's sex", what does it mean?

[Consul]

It should be clear to most here that I am no fan of modern cultural Marxism, but there's no denying the existence of gender identity as a separate notion to biological sex. Millions of people have lived it. Best to just throw out the bathwater. Leave the baby.

The basic problem with the psychological/sociological concepts of gender, identity, and gender identity is that there is a diversity of definitions and no consistent usage. There is no doubt that psychologists and sociologists have been using these terms for many decades to refer to something different from sex, but they are still in a state of conceptual confusion and obfuscation.

[Sculptor1]

It should be clear to most here that I am no fan of modern cultural Marxism, but there's no denying the existence of gender identity as a separate notion to biological sex. Millions of people have lived it. Best to just throw out the bathwater. Leave the baby.

The basic problem with the psychological/sociological concepts of gender, identity, and gender identity is that there is a diversity of definitions and no consistent usage. There is no doubt that psychologists and sociologists have been using these terms for many decades to refer to something different from sex, but they are still in a state of conceptual confusion and obfuscation.

In my view we ought to allow anyone to express whatever they FEEL is their innate sense, without prejudice.
Anything else is fascism

[Consul]

In my view we ought to allow anyone to express whatever they FEEL is their innate sense, without prejudice.
Anything else is fascism

Anything but semantic anarchism ("humptydumptying") is fascism? – I don't think so!
I understand that from the standpoint of the Woke Liberation Front, insisting on "wo/man" meaning "adult fe/male" is a case of "semantic oppression".

"humptydumptying. Giving private meanings to words in common use.
This takes its name from Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking-Glass. When Alice asks Humpty Dumpty what he meant by 'glory', he replies 'I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'. Alice protests that this isn't the meaning of 'glory'. 'When I use a word', Humpty Dumpty answers, in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.'

This is stipulative definition of quite a bizarre kind, but less conspicuous humptydumptying can lead to confusion and misunderstanding, particularly when there is no explicit stipulation of what a word is being taken to mean.
...
The term 'humptydumptying' should be reserved for extreme cases of stipulative definition and idiosyncratic uses of words in common use. To label someone´s use of language humptydumptying is to condemn it as obfuscatory. Words have public meanings and to treat them as if they don't usually leads to confusion and ambiguity."

(Warburton, Nigel. Thinking from A to Z. London: Routledge, 1996. pp. 67-8)

[Sculptor1]

In my view we ought to allow anyone to express whatever they FEEL is their innate sense, without prejudice.
Anything else is fascism

Anything but semantic anarchism ("humptydumptying") is fascism? – I don't think so!
I understand that from the standpoint of the Woke Liberation Front, insisting on "wo/man" meaning "adult fe/male" is a case of "semantic oppression".

You are hilarious.
You accuse me of humptydumptying and imply I am part of some imaginary Woke Liberation Front, of your mightmares.

So saying I am part of a group or concept that does not exist - is that what you mean by humptydumptying?

AMusingly you even used capitals:Woke Liberation Front, pretending that it is an actual organisation.

When all I was doing is asking forebearance of prejudice..

Take a good look at yourself, and ask yourself why you are so scared of trnas people..LOL
Have you ever had the urge to cross dress?
Yes?
Maybe we are grtting somewhere?

[Lagayascienza]

If people with a common interest want to to be known collectively by an acronym like LGBTQI, or whatever is its, then so what? Who does is hurt? If pisses off the fascists, well, so much the better. If that means I'm part of the imaginary WLF then I don't give a sh*t - count me in. I'd rather be with them than their evil opposition.