ForumsWEPRGender Identity

137 57193
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,815 posts
Jester

I feel like there should be a thread about such a topic, and now there is one.

What are your thoughts on Gender Identity?
[Note: Gender =/= sex]

  • 137 Replies
Kalaina
offline
Kalaina
33 posts
Nomad

Back to @Fishpreferred

I'm going to assess your given definition of gender identity against how well it allows me to communicate who I am.

In my understanding, gender identity is the psychological representation of gender (id est, sex) with which an individual can most readily identify itself. In other words, the sex/gender that a person identifies as being, regardless of the sex/gender of the body.


I identify as being a woman. Ignoring the fact that I now express estrogen and that my body isn't fully male, let's say that I have a male body as per my genitalia, skeletal structure, and etc.

My identity is, by definition, my concept of what I am. Thus, when asked for my gender or my sex, I should consult my identity regarding what gender I am, and answer accordingly.

In doing so, I will reply that my sex (and thus, my gender) is male. I do not have any fundamental understanding that I have a female body (nor, in many ways, that I should have a female body), and thus I do not have any fundamental understanding that my sex/gender is female. As such, by your definition of gender identity, my gender identity is that I am male.

So how, then, do I communicate that I am a woman? Clearly we need another term which addresses this gap in communication; given that sex = gender, then perhaps the three terms we have are not, in fact sufficient.

There are, however, some ways in which I believe that I should have a female body; this is why I am replacing my hormones. But given that my identity is a concept regarding what I am - and not what I should be - I would argue that even in those contexts my gender identity prior to starting HRT was still that I was male.

In that context, does this definition of gender identity actually have any value at all, other than to describe a very particular kind of delusion - that one's body currently has a different physical form than is observable - which is not at all common among trans people? It's certainly not relevant to my interests in communicating who I am.

Certainly, if none of the available terms are useful we can always make more, but given that the term "gender identity" is not typically used in the way that you have defined it, I question why you have defined it as such.

Now we're getting somewhere. Why exactly is it more difficult, aside from what is mentioned in your fourth point?


Terms such as "gender identity," "gender role," and "gender expression" are unwieldy and difficult by virtue of being very technical, nuanced ideas; I believe that their nature is too complex for the average person to comprehend. Further, they are terms which are not currently in most people's vocabularies, and as such there is an implied difficulty in that knowledge gap.

These, as well as your closing statement, seem more like reasons not to use it in place of the other terms. If people so frequently confuse and misinterpret the intended meaning, it seems an odd choice of word for your purposes. If you were to coin a new term, rather than redefine an existing one, you would not run this risk (although, I admit, you may have a hard time having it generally recognized).


The fact that it would be difficult to get a new term generally recognized is the reason why. Which is easier - to accept people's common misuse of a particular term to have a meaning which I find valuable, or to get people to stop using that term entirely and then also use a different one that I've selected?

Myself included, there are a lot of trans people (I'd guess that it's likely most trans people) who don't want to go to great lengths to alter the world to be a place that can better accommodate us, but rather simply want to be part of the world as it currently is. Even in the latter context, there are still many, many things that need to change, particularly instances where the world does not allow us to be part of it. But it's a far more realistic task.

Further, with regard to the term itself, if you're concerned with confusion which is caused by using "gender" to mean too many different things (i.e. to mean sex in addition to social roles), then I question why the insistence that it shouldn't refer to sex is a cause of that confusion rather than a mitigation of it; given that gender is already being commonly misused by the average person to mean too many things, then I would think that choosing one of them to standardize would be a clarifying step, even if it is not the "correct" option.

I would think that their specificity would make them more useful than one term.


The utility depends on the context. As most people are binary-identified, the word gender alone can encompass the remaining three terms. I identify as being a woman, believe that many of the roles typically ascribed to women are suitable for me, and express this in a variety of ways, some overt and some subtle.

Stating that my gender is that I am a woman implies all of those things, and does so quickly and efficiently. If I need a brief way to describe who I am, then I need not go into details about my identity, expression, and preferred roles. Very rarely are those details actually relevant.

I do acknowledge that this is not a perfect descriptor, particularly of non-binary people. I haven't really given a lot of thought to how the term gender relates to them, and will consider it.

...a fundamental understanding of the concepts of masculinity and femininity, how they do and do not relate to sex, and how they are and are not opposites?


To clarify, by this I meant "a fundamental understanding of the concepts of masculinity and femininity, the ways in which they relate to sex, the ways in which they don't relate to sex, the ways in which they are opposites, and the ways in which they are not opposites."
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

In doing so, I will reply that my sex (and thus, my gender) is male. I do not have any fundamental understanding that I have a female body (nor, in many ways, that I should have a female body), and thus I do not have any fundamental understanding that my sex/gender is female.


This would be correct.

As such, by your definition of gender identity, my gender identity is that I am male.


No, as this would still be a consequence of your own definition of gender identity. It is not, as I daresay you know, a matter of what you "identify" your body's gender to be, but what gender you "identify" as being your own.

Perhaps this is a miscommunication on my part. If you say that you are a woman, you are identifying yourself as a woman. Similarly, if you consider your self to be female, your gender identity is female. If you say that your gender or sex is male, that means that you have a male-type body. I'm approaching this from the angle that body does not neccessarily equal self.

I believe that their nature is too complex for the average person to comprehend. Further, they are terms which are not currently in most people's vocabularies, and as such there is an implied difficulty in that knowledge gap.


The intellect of the general human populace is not something I hold in very high regard, but I think these are concepts that can be understood by most people if explained cleary. I agree that because they are new to many, if not most, people, they may not be recognized immediately. Considerable time and effort would be needed to bring them into common use, but this is also the case with your definition of gender, except that in the case of gender, much of that effort goes into abating confusion.

Further, with regard to the term itself, if you're concerned with confusion which is caused by using "gender" to mean too many different things (i.e. to mean sex in addition to social roles), then I question why the insistence that it shouldn't refer to sex is a cause of that confusion rather than a mitigation of it;


The cause of the confusion is its being abducted to the other meaning in the first place, but its continued use in such a way is only adding to that confusion. Because it was defined much earlier as a synonym of sex, all mention of gender up to the mid nineties (and much thereafter) retains this meaning. Because the evolution of language is generally a slow process, this definition is likely to remain in the common vernacular for some time no matter how much you insist on its being dropped. The other definition, which has only seen widespread use within the last few decades, does not have this reinforcement. Therefore, I consider it a far more practical and viable solution to drop the new definition.

[...] the ways in which they are opposites, and the ways in which they are not opposites."


You may think I'm nitpicking, but [totally nitpicking]in that case I would advise replacing "opposite" with "opposed", as the word "opposite" is confusing in this context.[/totally nitpicking]
Kalaina
offline
Kalaina
33 posts
Nomad

No, as this would still be a consequence of your own definition of gender identity. It is not, as I daresay you know, a matter of what you "identify" your body's gender to be, but what gender you "identify" as being your own.


As I understand it, sex can be defined as the sum total of a body's physical sex characteristics, including chromosomes, genitalia, and characteristics resulting from hormonal development. Similarly, identity can be defined as the fundamental concept of oneself which one considers to be true.

What I don't understand is how I can have an identity about my sex that is separate from my sex.

There are two reasons for that; one is based on my definition of identity: as my identity refers to traits which I consider to be true about myself, how can my identity about any given attribute actually differ from the "real" state of that attribute without me being incorrect or delusional?

The second is based on my definition of sex. I do not conceptualize sex as existing in any sense distinct from physical traits. As such, any identity I have related to my sex would thus be an identity about my physical body.

Provided that my definitions are correct, both of these are apparent contradictions. What, then, differs between my definitions of the words "sex" and "identity" and the way you define them?

I think these are concepts that can be understood by most people if explained cleary


I seriously doubt it. Given the amount of time and effort I've spent considering these concepts (particularly, in relation to myself) without reaching a fully comprehensive understanding, and that I'm not exactly a dull knife, it seems unreasonable to expect the same of others. Perhaps at a very basic level, thoroughly colored with society's nascent sexism, but I find that rather off-putting; hypothetically, if people took to emphasizing certain gender roles as more legitimate than they really are, it would be detrimental to gender equality.

Lastly, I'm not sure where you got the mid-nineties date, but there have been two decades since the mid-nineties, and gender as a non-grammatical term wasn't in common usage at all until the sixties. Against those numbers, I don't really buy the argument for language changing too slowly.

In regards to whether or not that is happening and how quickly it is happening, I do believe that dictionaries have value (though not jurisdiction). While I acknowledge that they appear to universally include gender as meaning sex in one or more definitions, most of them have more to say:


Meriam-Webster includes "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex".

Oxford English dictionary includes this one: "The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)" in addition to a clarification that "Although the words gender and sex both have the sense âthe state of being male or female,â they are typically used in slightly different ways: sex tends to refer to biological differences, while gender refers to cultural or social ones."

For what it's worth, Wiktionary includes "The mental analogue of sex: one's maleness (masculinity) or femaleness (femininity). (Also called gender identity.)" and "The sociocultural phenomenon of the division of people into various categories such as 'male' and 'female', with each having associated clothing, roles, stereotypes, etc."

Dictionary.com's medical dictionary includes "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex."

The Free Online Dictionary includes "Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture."


In light of the fact that the socially oriented definition shows up in multiple dictionaries, I would surmise that it is at least in some manner of common usage. Whether or not it's a good thing is a different matter entirely.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

Provided that my definitions are correct, both of these are apparent contradictions. What, then, differs between my definitions of the words "sex" and "identity" and the way you define them?


This:
As such, any identity I have related to my sex would thus be an identity about my physical body.


I defined it as the psychological representation of gender that you identify with yourself, not what you identify your gender to be.

hypothetically, if people took to emphasizing certain gender roles as more legitimate than they really are, it would be detrimental to gender equality.


Suggesting that they currently don't?

Lastly, I'm not sure where you got the mid-nineties date [...]


Dammit.
Sorry, that should have been mid-nineteen hundreds, and the biological usage of the term is much older.

While I acknowledge that they appear to universally include gender as meaning sex in one or more definitions, most of them have more to say:


That is irrelevant, however, as it only indicates that the word is used in such a way. Unless you can evidence that the biological definition is currently secondary to the psychological one, I do not see this as furthering your point.
Kalaina
offline
Kalaina
33 posts
Nomad

I defined it as the psychological representation of gender that you identify with yourself, not what you identify your gender to be.


What? I legitimately do not understand what you mean. Can you provide examples?

Dammit. Sorry, that should have been mid-nineteen hundreds, and the biological usage of the term is much older.


By which I can infer that you're contrasting the older use of the term, prior to when it entered common usage, with the use of the term after it entered common usage. I don't see how the time prior to common usage is relevant to how a word is commonly used.

That is irrelevant, however, as it only indicates that the word is used in such a way. Unless you can evidence that the biological definition is currently secondary to the psychological one, I do not see this as furthering your point.


I am making two points. The first is that there is meaningful communicative value in using gender distinctly from sex; this does not address that point, is the point to which you refer, and is the point I find most interesting to discuss. The second is that the usage of gender to refer to psychological and social aspects is common enough and has enough traction to be legitimate.

In short, the first point is: I acknowledge that gender can be used in place of sex, but I believe that it shouldn't be. The second is: I reject the idea that the use of gender distinctly from sex is incorrect by virtue of it not being standard.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

What? I legitimately do not understand what you mean. Can you provide examples?


Well, you say you identify as a woman, which I take to mean that you regard your own mentality as being female in some way. In other words, you find that your conceptual understanding of the female sex fits your mentality/personality best. That is the psychological representation I'm referring to.

By which I can infer that you're contrasting the older use of the term, prior to when it entered common usage, with the use of the term after it entered common usage.


The grammatical usage relates to different forms of words based on the sex (or supposed sex) of the subject, and therefore easily translates to the use of gender in place of sex. This biological usage became common around the same time that the social/psychological usage was introduced. The latter usage has increased more quickly, but not nearly enough to phase out the former; otherwise, we probably wouldn't be having this argument.

this does not address that point, is the point to which you refer, and is the point I find most interesting to discuss.


Um...could you rephrase that for clarity?

In short, the first point is: I acknowledge that gender can be used in place of sex, but I believe that it shouldn't be. The second is: I reject the idea that the use of gender distinctly from sex is incorrect by virtue of it not being standard.


Okay. I concede that neither definition is in error.
Kalaina
offline
Kalaina
33 posts
Nomad

Well, you say you identify as a woman, which I take to mean that you regard your own mentality as being female in some way. In other words, you find that your conceptual understanding of the female sex fits your mentality/personality best. That is the psychological representation I'm referring to.


And by your assertion that sex and gender have the same meaning, you're saying that this psychological representation of the female sex which best represents my mentality/personality is somehow distinct from the psychological and social aspects to which you believe that gender should not refer?

This biological usage became common around the same time that the social/psychological usage was introduced.


From what I've read, the biological sense was not in common usage prior to ~1960. Admittedly, I haven't researched the etymology in depth.

Um...could you rephrase that for clarity?


I was making two separate points, and you indicated that statements which furthered one point did not further the other, which is true, but counterproductive. Additionally, I prefer arguing the latter point (i.e. why distinguishing gender and sex is valuable) more than the former (i.e. whether or not it is okay to distinguish gender and sex).
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

And by your assertion that sex and gender have the same meaning, you're saying that this psychological representation of the female sex which best represents my mentality/personality is somehow distinct from the psychological and social aspects to which you believe that gender should not refer?


No. It is one of the psychological and social aspects to which I believe gender should not refer.

Additionally, I prefer arguing the latter point (i.e. why distinguishing gender and sex is valuable) [...]


But the fact that it this definition is included in these sources does nothing to indicate any such value.
Kalaina
offline
Kalaina
33 posts
Nomad

So, given your earlier statements about the definition of the term "gender identity,"

In my understanding, gender identity is the psychological representation of gender (id est, sex) with which an individual can most readily identify itself. In other words, the sex/gender that a person identifies as being, regardless of the sex/gender of the body.


It is not, as I daresay you know, a matter of what you "identify" your body's gender to be, but what gender you "identify" as being your own.


And that when you refer to this identification of sex/gender, you're saying that

It is one of the psychological and social aspects to which I believe gender should not refer.


But given that this is supposedly "the gender with which an individual can most readily identify itself," "the sex/gender that a person identifies as being," or "what gender you "identify" as being your own," then why, exactly, are you using the term gender to refer to the psychological and social aspects to which you believe gender should not refer?


But the fact that it this definition is included in these sources does nothing to indicate any such value.


Exactly, hence "this does not address that point."
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

But given that this is supposedly "the gender with which an individual can most readily identify itself," "the sex/gender that a person identifies as being," or "what gender you "identify" as being your own," then why, exactly, are you using the term gender to refer to the psychological and social aspects to which you believe gender should not refer?


I am doing no such thing.

Exactly, hence "this does not address that point."


"That" meaning the relevant one?
Kalaina
offline
Kalaina
33 posts
Nomad

This is getting silly; you indicated that the point I made regarding dictionaries including the psychological definition of gender did not support the assertion that the distinction between sex and gender is valuable, to which I replied that I did not make that particular point in support of that particular assertion, but rather a separate one. You are correct that the point does not support it, I was just clarifying that it was not my intent to do so.

I am doing no such thing.


Are you sure? If my identification of gender is based on my conceptual understanding of which sex best fits my mentality and personality as pertaining to the relevant psychological and social aspects, and gender does not refer to those psychological and social aspects, then how does my identification of gender relate to gender at all?
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

Are you sure? If my identification of gender is based on my conceptual understanding of which sex best fits my mentality and personality as pertaining to the relevant psychological and social aspects, and gender does not refer to those psychological and social aspects, then how does my identification of gender relate to gender at all?


One thing doesn't need to be referred to as another thing in order for the two to be related, does it? There is no direct relationship between gender identity and the gender/sex you happen to have. The relationship is to the concept of gender/sex.
Kalaina
offline
Kalaina
33 posts
Nomad

I don't understand how the concept of sex can encompass those psychological and social aspects when those aspects are excluded from the definition of sex. Moreover, I don't see how you can have an identity that is related to a concept at all.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

I don't understand how the concept of sex can encompass those psychological and social aspects [...]


Why would it? You seem to be working from a totally unrelated premise, unless I made a mistake somewhere.
Kalaina
offline
Kalaina
33 posts
Nomad

I don't believe that it is possible define gender identity (or anything else) in a way which refers to those relevant psychological and social aspects, without using a word that encompasses those aspects. Given that sex and gender are identical, and refer exclusively to one's physical body, I do not think that they can be used to refer to those respective psychological and social aspects, in concept or otherwise. I don't see how those aspects can be born of the relation between a person and a gender (nor with their concept of a gender), nor do I see any other words in your definitions from which such a psychological/social implication can be derived.

Where in your definitions of gender identity do you actually refer to anything that is at all related to those necessary psychological aspects? And if the association is somehow derived or implied, can you revise your definitions to state explicitly how and from where it is derived or implied?

I believe this is a fundamental demonstration of why not having an explicit term to describe those psychological and social aspects of gender makes communication difficult or impossible, as well as showing that without being able to use "gender" in the social sense, the three more specific terms "gender identity," "gender role," and "gender expression" are all misnamed, as they cannot be defined in the context of gender. I believe that these are negatives, and alleviating them by virtue of using gender in the social sense thus gives that usage positive communicative value.

Showing 121-135 of 137