QT: How is the concept of a "gender identity" not sexist?

submitted by Penultimate_Penance from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SnowAssMan 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

They all belong under the same umbrella of intersex, otherwise your studies wouldn't mention the fact that they are in the minority with their findings. A man is an adult human male. Sex can't be changed. I never once said, let alone clung to the idea that men can be turned into women.

You've made it pretty clear at this point that you're not misunderstanding what I'm saying. Your misinterpretations are conscious, deliberate. I can see why you call me a liar. It's deflection. You habitually misrepresent what I'm saying (i.e. you lie), then you fail to address any of the points I made (lies by omission). Instead of it ending there, with you levying all sorts of accusations at me, you add "liar" to the concoction, making you not just a liar, but a hypocrite to boot. Am I calling you names, or calling you out?

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

YOU WAS THE FIRST ONE IMPLYING I WAS LIAR WHEN YOU SAID THE PAPER I LINKED WAS THE SAME AS THE ONE YOU DID! AND THEN YOU DOUBLED DOWN WITH THE LIES BY TRYING TO MAKE ME BELIEVE YOU JUST CONFUSED THEM! IT'S ABSURD YOU GET MAD FOR BEING CALLED A LIAR YOURSELF.

As for the turning men into women, obviously I dind't meant it literally. It was a reference to your beloved concept of "gender identity". It's called context, ever heard about it?

By the way, how does 5 alfa reductase deficiency fits into the blank slate theory?

I take nothing back about what I said. You was the one who started with the condescending actitude and the lies.

[–]SnowAssMan 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

You're the only one here who is getting mad at being called a liar. I thought you said you were done arguing? Just another lie, I suppose. The titles look similar. I never memorised all the conditions covered in my link. The same way you falsely accused me of name-calling, is the same way you're still falsely accusing me of lying.

Your beloved concept of "gender identity"

Camp who say gender identity is determined by socialisation: Stoller, Money, Kohlberg, Bussey, Bandura

Camp who says gender identity doesn't exist: ... crickets... tumble weed... more crickets

It's counter-productive for GC to reject gendered socialisation.

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You keep misrepresenting what I say and you wonder why I keep defending myself? Please. I NEVER said women and men are not socialized differently! I don't need to accept the concept of "gender identity" to recognize that sex roles and stereotypes exist.

So, first you present that paper like the definite proof and that has not been refuted, but you don't even understand what it talk about?

[–]SnowAssMan 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

That paper was just an example of people whose gender identity & sex are genuinely mismatched. You admit that their socialisation is "mismatched" with their sex, right? You admit that socialisation affects behaviour, right? But not identity? What is the reason you don't think gender identity exists? Just because I didn't memorise the conditions covered ≠ I don't understand the paper.

Socialisation shapes identity. Identity determines behaviour. Gendered socialisation shapes gender identity. Gender identity determines gendered behaviours.

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

That paper talked about males who were medically abused and lied to about their medical history just because they were deemed inadequate to be raised as boys. How successful their parents at raising them as “girls” were, I don’t know. The parents and the doctors knew the truth, and I would think that may affect how they treated them. And regardless of how they view themselves, their actual sex is still important for things like health care, for example. That is why I said it was interesting that re-identification with their sex increased with age: because the older they get, the harder is to keep the lie and the more likely they may rebel against their parents and doctors wishes, I think.

I don’t believe in the blank slate theory. I think differences between women and men are the result of the interaction between biology and the environment (women and men being socialized differently is part of that environment).

I explained in my other comment today why I don’t believe in “gender identity”. I am a woman. That is my reality, this has nothing to do about how my family raised me (although likely they would have raised me differently if I’d been born male). And the fact I am female has shaped and will keep shaping my life, either because of biology or because of society.

[–]SnowAssMan 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

That paper talked about males who were medically abused and lied to about their medical history just because they were deemed inadequate to be raised as boys. How successful their parents at raising them as “girls” were, I don’t know. The parents and the doctors knew the truth, and I would think that may affect how they treated them. And regardless of how they view themselves, their actual sex is still important for things like health care, for example.

No one disagrees with any of this.

That is why I said it was interesting that re-identification with their sex increased with age: because the older they get, the harder is to keep the lie

What lie? 100% of the sample know the truth.

The fact that female mathematician role models affect girls' performance in maths exams clearly demonstrates that gender identity exists. If it was called "sex identity" you'd probably accept it in a heartbeat. You've got to divorce the connotation of a term from its denotation.

And the fact I am female has shaped and will keep shaping my life

Replace "life" with 'identity'. The part of your identity shaped by your socialisation as a result of your sex is called a gender identity. How is that the least bit controversial?

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

What lie? 100% of the sample know the truth.

You cannot be serious... The whole point of subject these males to unnecesary medical procedures and raised them as "girls" is making them (and other people) believe they are actually 100% female. Except, sooner or later, they will find the truth because biology doesn't care about sexist and unscrupulous doctors.

Let me ask you this, do you think guys like Jazz Jennings, who were gaslighted from a very young age becuase they parents couldn't accept a (possibly) gay son, have a female "gender identity". If any of these guys decides they have enough of this bullshit and announces to the whole world he actually is male, would you stil insist that he has a female "gender identity" because he was raised as a "girl"?

The fact that female mathematician role models affect girls' performance in maths exams clearly demonstrates that gender identity exists. If it was called "sex identity" you'd probably accept it in a heartbeat. You've got to divorce the connotation of a term from its denotation.

I don't know why this is relevant. I never said, socialization doesn't play a role in the differences between men and women. However, you have made very clear that biology is completely irrelevant.

Replace "life" with 'identity'. The part of your identity shaped by your socialisation as a result of your sex is called a gender identity. How is that the least bit controversial?

That would completely change the meaning of what I said. My parents could have raised me as "non-binary allien" and I could identify as a "man", but if I got pregnant and were denied an abortion it would be because my sex is female. A male could never experience that regardless of how he was raised or how he identifies.

[–]SnowAssMan 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

They were told the truth before the study was conducted. Jazz was socialised as a boy, like all male transsexuals.

I don't know why this is relevant. I never said, socialization doesn't play a role in the differences between men and women.

What role does socialisation play in the difference between men & women? Does gendered socialisation perhaps shape their respective gendered identities?

However, you have made very clear that biology is completely irrelevant

Except as a catalyst. Gender identity is not biologically determined.

My parents could have raised me as "non-binary allien"

Try to stay in reality & not venture into the hypothetical. You share an aspect of your socialisation with all women. What does socialisation do? It shapes identity. If socialisation can be gendered then so can the identity it shapes

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

They were told the truth before the study was conducted.

You're making things up again! First of all, that paper was about a meta-analysis of a bunch of studies done on males with certain genital abnormalities, some of which were raised as boys and some which were raised as "girls". I saw nowhere in the paper where it says that all of them were told the truth, but even if I'm remembering wrong and that is the case, so what? It doesn't change the fact they were sometime lied to.

Jazz was socialised as a boy, like all male transsexuals.

Why? His case is not that different from boys with penile ablation raised as "girls". The main difference being Jazz was more aware of the medical abuse done to him. Otherwise, he was raised as "(trans) girl" from a young age because he was deemed "inadequated" as male. If socialization = "gender identity", then he should have a "female gender identity" according to you. He may even be more "effeminate" than some of the males raised as "girls" described in that paper, some of which are described as having male-like behaviour. Here is a relevant quote:

By contrast, it seems that most, if not all, individuals with these conditions raised female showed marked masculinization of gender-role behavior where such data are available

My example is not a completely impossible scenario, though. As a woman, pregnacy is a real possibility for me (obligatory, not all female can get pregnant, but only female can get pregnant for the QT who may be still reading our discussion...). And abortion was legalized in my country just some months ago, and there is already a judge who has ruled to suspend the new law. That ridiculous part about being raised as "nonbinary allien" and identifying as a "man" was there to emphatize that is sex what matters there because I don't know how else explaining to you that biology is relevant besides in how someone is socialized. Ok, let's try this. Do you think women being more reluctant on average than men about casual sex is only about socialization and social expectations? Do you not think the fact that we can become pregnant (something men don't have to worry about) and that men, who are on average bigger and physically stronger, can easily overpower us may contribute on this as well?