Forums → WEPR → Gender Identity

You cannot arbitrarily make up a new gender role. Society could eventually come to have more than two accepted gender categories, but unless the majority of the population suddenly decided that tree is on the gender spectrum, it would not be.

[...] (that's like saying allowing gay marriage will lead to people marrying their dogs).

The reason is not irrelevant.

As it turns out, gender is more like an axis in ten dimensions than it is a binary.

And above all, a person's gender is their decision, not yours.

Gender is social, and SRY and FOXL2 are sex traits. You can't define a social role by physical traits, which was basically my point. I don't need to make the terminology distinction between sex and gender, do I? Unless you legitimately believe that e.g. liking to wear skirts is written into the human genome...?

Assuming that you mean sex in your statement that "Gender is not a decision," that's an interesting point. Rather than reinvent the argument wheel, let me just link you to this: http://skepchick.org/2011/12/bilaterally-gynandromorphic-chickens-and-why-im-not-scientifically-male/

I'd also argue that while gender identity isn't all that much of a decision, the essence of gender - i.e. in what way a person chooses to present to other people - is very much a decision, even if it is typically an easy one.

I don't need to make the terminology distinction between sex and gender, do I?

So you disagree with the way the word "gender" is generally used in this context and in so doing you have decided to take an incorrect interpretation of the related arguments and/or fail to explicitly mention that you are shifting the subject to some sort of linguistic debate about whether or not words should men what people use then to mean. I'm not sure that's a productive approach to a discussion.

So you disagree with the way the word "gender" is generally used in this context and in so doing you have decided to take an incorrect interpretation of the related arguments and/or fail to explicitly mention that you are shifting the subject to some sort of linguistic debate about whether or not words should men what people use then to mean.

All right, let's talk about terminology. Given that gender equals sex,

Gender identity is a person's inner sense of the gender role society should ascribe to them.
Gender role is a person's socially ascribed role as related to their gender expression.
Gender expression refers to the ways in which a person expresses their gender identity.

And in spite of the fact that all three of these ideas include the word "gender," none of them necessarily have anything to do with gender.

Furthermore, from an angle of language utility, having two words which mean the exact same thing has less expressive value than having two words which mean different things. As we have no other word to group the concepts of gender identity, role, and expression, yet we do have a word to describe sex (i.e. "sex&quot, the word "gender" is by definition more useful as the former.

Given that language does, in fact, evolve over time, I don't see any particular reason for us to hold the past and present meanings of words sacred. By such an angle in this case, "gender"should still be a purely grammatical construct and should no more be equated to sex than it should to the aforementioned concepts. However, there isn't a whole lot of value in taking such an approach, given that language is first and foremost a communicative tool; the meanings that people collectively ascribe to words should, in my opinion, be more important than the words themselves.

Above all, "gender" in its social definition is a useful term, and not having it makes it significantly more difficult to discuss those social concepts.

Given that language does, in fact, evolve over time, I don't see any particular reason for us to hold the past and present meanings of words sacred. By such an angle in this case, "gender"should still be a purely grammatical construct and should no more be equated to sex than it should to the aforementioned concepts. However, there isn't a whole lot of value in taking such an approach, given that language is first and foremost a communicative tool; the meanings that people collectively ascribe to words should, in my opinion, be more important than the words themselves.

Except that the usage of "gender" in a social context is far more prevalent than in a physical one and is not in fact a term used only by the trans community. In fact, I can't offhand think of a single case in a legitimate context (forms, news articles, etc) where the term has been equated with sex.

The confusion regarding this usage of the word is a lack of comprehension of the social concepts involved rather than a simple misinterpretation of words. Further, would you care to address why you believe "gender identity" is not a person's identity about their gender, why "gender role" is not a role related to a person's gender, and why "gender expression" is not a person's expression of their gender? If you want confusing, that seems like it's a lot more confusing than the alternative.

In fact, I can't offhand think of a single case in a legitimate context (forms, news articles, etc) where the term has been equated with sex.

When it comes to forms, a lot of them request gender, sure, and the designers of the forms may not do so with any knowledge that there is a distinction to be made. But what is it they want to know? The vast majority of the time, they don't care about your sex, they care about your gender expression and maybe your gender identity. The few that have reason to care about your sex typically request your sex rather than your gender.

The same is true in other contexts as well. When people use the word gender they may not understand that they aren't explicitly referring to sex, but most of the time they use it to discuss some social aspect rather than to talk about bodies. Of course this isn't always true, but more often than not, it is. If gender = sex, then there are a lot of people misusing the word gender to mean things other than sex.

Except that the usage of "gender" in a social context is far more prevalent than in a physical one [...]

Further, would you care to address why you believe "gender identity" is not a person's identity about their gender, why "gender role" is not a role related to a person's gender, [...]

[...] and why "gender expression" is not a person's expression of their gender?

When it comes to forms, a lot of them request gender, sure, and the designers of the forms may not do so with any knowledge that there is a distinction to be made.

The same is true in other contexts as well. When people use the word gender they may not understand that they aren't explicitly referring to sex, [...]

If gender = sex, then there are a lot of people misusing the word gender to mean things other than sex.

The claim is hardly outlandish, and I think the burden of proof is on you anyway.

Where did you get this idea? "Gender identity" and "gender role" are informative. They are unambiguous. They are easy to interpret. When you truncate them to "gender", you cause needless confusion.

No. Psychiatric forms aside, they generally have no interest in your gender identity.
If you're in the hospital, waiting to receive treatment for a urinary tract infection, does it matter if you identify as the opposite sex? No.
What do they ask for? Gender.

Again, you are making the same mistake. They are explicitly referring to sex. [emphasis]That is what gender means!![/emphasis]

Precisely.

Sex (as physical appearance, organs) have to be considered in medical treatment (anatomy and hormons mostly depend on the organs being there), and also designing the enviroment (size of chest determines where you can fit through, what's between your legs determine what is comfortable/healthy to sit on, bodyshape determines what is comfortable/healthy to wear etc.).

Also not to forget we are product of evolution, what for hundreds of millions of years relied on instincts, not on consciousness, so when you see boobs or a ****, that'll very much effect your reactions wether you like it or not.


Gender (as psychological state) comes to play at some medical treatment (this DO HAVE hormon-background and other anatomical reasons wether oyu like it or not), but above all long-term social interactions (like marriage, partner-choice for willful sexual intercourses, friendships).


The meaning of "gender" is currently shifting from &quothysical appearance" to "mental identity", and I think it does it from necessity, and is a good thing.

I have to tell it is ridiculous people can't even write down their names for speech-filters...

On the medical treatment note, it's tough to argue that sex isn't more relevant than gender. What gets tricky there for trans people who medically transition is knowing what your sex actually is. For someone on hormone replacement therapy, their sex is, for most medical purposes, the sex aligned with the hormones they're taking. There are other medical purposes for which it isn't. It's usually easy to tell a doctor you're taking hormones if they need to know, but for forms and insurance purposes it's really sketchy to try and describe your non-binary sex to a system that isn't set up for it.

But medical care isn't exactly the end all be all of life, either.