Qt/tra, how does identity form?

submitted by HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex from self.GCdebatesQT

How does one develop their identity? How does the development of a gender identity differ? How does one part of the identity form so radically differently to the rest? Why does identity matter so much? What obligates others to pretend to perceive someone as they identify, rather than as they are?

all 272 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'd also ask how can they know their "true identity" when they cannot provide a concrete definition of a woman or a man when asked...

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Excellent question! Doubt the thread will get an answer though.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sometimes identity doesn’t come from something that makes sense, but it could still be there. I realize it must be really funny to think about for someone who hasn’t experienced that type of identity though. I’m not saying it’s a “true identity” necessarily, but someone could still experience themselves that way.

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are many things I don't fully understand because I've not experienced them. However, my issue with this stuff is we are being asked to accept it as an unquestionable truth that is already being settled and backed by science. Yet QT cannot answer the most basic questions about their own ideas.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (13 children)

Identity forms in roughly the same way as sexual orientation does but for identity instead of attraction. Certain physical features cause an infant to in some way mentally bond and begin to form a individualized group identity with the organisms who posses the same features. I’d imagine part of the evolutionary reason for this is part of the same reason that chimps and bonobos form sex-trait linked groups.

This is of course an averaged model. Just as there are people who have little to no sexual attraction there are presumably people with little to no physical trait group identification.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And what evidence do you have for this word salad of a model? Or are you back to make grand sweeping theories and then act like we’re fools for doubting your expertise?

Which sexed features do infants latch on to knowing they will develop the same ones? How does this happen?

How is it roughly the same as identity formation but what you describe is totally unique and nothing like identity formation?

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The fact that bonobos and chimps both segregate into sex groups at least some of the times. No one is a fool.

It's said that infants have the ability to discern different types of sex traits at a young age, so presumably this system would work in tandem with how that sex trait identification function works.

It is a form of identity formation.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And your sources for this claim are chimps? And to think I wasted my time with Piaget and Erickson

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Certain physical features cause an infant to in some way mentally bond and begin to form a individualized group identity with the organisms who posses the same features.

Lol wut?

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Infants bond with people of the same sex than them is how I interpreted it. But of course Heim had to insert the sex matrix into the phrase.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It’s also an untrue claim. Infants bond with their primary caregivers regardless of sex. Heims theory would also require the infant be capable of recognising their sex and what their future sexed features before the child is even aware of its own feet.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not really. Sexual Orientation for instance is an instinctive phenomenon that doesn't depend knowledge of one's own sex traits in order to respond to the sex traits of others. Also this isn't about an infant not bonding with their primary care giver, but rather whether there's an instinct that causes them to preferentially incorporate aspects of perceived sex trait groups into their self-concept.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Seriously, one day you gotta publish this theory and share with the rest of us plebs where we all got it wrong.

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Source? Also, could you explain how not all the people who feels they don't fit in with people of their own sex identify as "trans"?

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Because "trans" like all concepts are subjective constructs. Not all people relate to subjective concepts in the same way

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If everything is subjective, then how could anyone know if they are trans or not? Why should it matter how someone "identify as"?

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Identity forms in roughly the same way as sexual orientation does but for identity instead of attraction. Certain physical features cause an infant to in some way mentally bond and begin to form a individualized group identity with the organisms who posses the same features.

So if identity is formed during infancy and comes from bonding with others who possess the same features as us, then how come we don't all fundamentally "identify as" babies?

Or maybe we do - and that's why "baby" is such a common form of endearment? This brings back memories of the 80s when everyone talked about their "inner child" LOL.

Thanks for the explanation. It's really cleared things up for me.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not based on an infant's awareness of it's own appearance, but rather an instinctual preference to absorb certain information into their self-concept based on perceived sex traits groups in their environment

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (255 children)

Probably some combination of biological proclivity and socialization. Gender identity isn’t distinct from other facets of identity really. I suspect dysphoria has a biological root in brain structures but that wouldn’t cover trans identities that claim to have never suffered from dysphoria.

However whether or not there is a social component doesn’t mean that one can or ought to change it.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

So there are woman brains and man brains? I disagree entirely with your theory that transgender people absorb socialisation they do not receive.

Every other facet of identity is one’s understanding of themselves in an actual role or physical reality they experience. Gender identity is nothing like that.

Like, part of my identity is aunty, because I have three nieces two nephews and a goddaughter I’m with one of them at least four days a week.

If it was the same as gender identity, I could identify as a mother despite being childless, because I have changed nappies and fed bottles and taught one-two-threes to some children.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I disagree entirely with your theory that transgender people absorb socialisation they do not receive.

Honestly… what would it even matter if this were true? It still wouldn’t mean they weren’t the sex they were born and the gender that goes with that sex. We aren’t gendered because of what we like or what socialization we absorb or reject. We are gendered because of and based on our sex- regardless of how we personally feel about it.

Also, just a warning from a previous convo I had with Masks, they will refuse to acknowledge the difference between a a mother and motherly figure lol

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It wouldn’t matter at all, I just maintain it’s a ridiculous reach and shouldn’t be argued like it’s an established thing.

Lmao, why am I not surprised masks would say that. Just ridiculous

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

No, but there are structures in a Brain that make someone prone to dysphoria. I don’t think they are dispositive on their own.

Gender identity absolutely deals with the physical reality as experienced. I had to experience my body to feel it was wrong. And experience how the world treated me based on that body to know that was wrong.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

So which structures specifically? You’re making one hell of a claim.

If gender identity is one’s discomfort with their sex and body, it’s not ‘gender’ so much as an unhealthy disconnect from their identity because they don’t like it.

How is that even remotely similar to any other aspect of identity?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Which structures in the brain? I’m Not a neuroscientist but I do recall a study showing that trans women had white matter formations in the brain distinct from men.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

So you’re making a claim based on something you may or may not have heard about a study that was wildly misinterpreted, and that’s good debate to you? That’s a solid foundation to claim that girlbrain is a thing and some men have it? Why on earth would two different mens brains have anything to do with womens?

As per usual you ignore sixty percent of what I ask you. Why even bother, masks?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I never said girlbrain. I said probably a structural basis for dysphoria based on observed commonalities in brain structures in trans women. That’s not saying trans women have “women’s brains”.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

And I’m saying that there is no difference between what you’re saying and the girlbrain concept.

Again, how does a difference between two mens brains equal a woman?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

It doesn’t. It differentiates between men and trans women on a structural level. That’s my point.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

But it only proves that they are men with a disorder or neurological difference. If that’s the case, why are others expected to say a woman is a man with maybe a bit more white matter? Why can we not simply recognise them as a type of men?

[–]Juniperius 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If there are "structures in a Brain that make someone prone to dysphoria" then that's entirely independent of sex. That means that an alternate version of you that had been fertilized by an x-carrying sperm would have ended up just as desperate to be male as you are to be female, rather than having the perfect life you like to fantasize about.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That doesn’t follow at all. Also we don’t have info on Trans men’s brains. They’re understudied.

[–]Juniperius 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you're claiming ladybrain it doesn't follow. In which case you should be honest about the claim you're making. "A structure in the brain that causes dysphoria" is a very different (and more plausible) claim than "my brain is ladybrain," leading to different conclusions and implications.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gender still isn’t based on feelings so your gender identity is irrelevant to society and how society will gender you.

Gender identity doesn’t equal gender

People aren’t gendered based on the socialization they magically absorb

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (225 children)

Gender identity isn’t distinct from other facets of identity really.

How is it not distinct from other facets of identity?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (224 children)

How would it be? It’s part of you like any other piece of you.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (221 children)

Every other facet of identity I can think of is always based on something that people experience or exist as in some way. If it’s not something you can exist as, it’s a "subculture" or community with people who dress/look/like etc similarly. If you’d have said having dysphoria was a part of your identity I’d get that, but I don’t get how identifying as your understanding of the gender/sex opposite your own is in any way similar to other facets of identity. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, it just seems like the concept of gender identity runs counter to every other sense of identity I can think of.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

To me it’s always been intrinsic to dysphoria, but it seems there’s a push now for non dysphoric trans people as a thing. I don’t get it but I don’t want to be dismissive.

Even without dysphoria I suppose society teaches you at an early age what you should like. If you like what one gender is supposed to like and are constantly bombarded in formative development with that message isn’t it conceivable that you would develop a core facet of identity based on that environment?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don’t think that makes sense because there are plenty of female people who reject what’s typically pushed on females without identifying themselves as not being a woman/girl and the same for males. The issue, I think, is the idea that a collection of expectations or associations not even associated with you is a sense of identity. Girls and women don’t find their senses of identity in what we are told to like or be like. Nor do we know we are women/girls because of those things. I think a mentally healthy person would literally just accept that they like things generally associated with the opposite gender. PLENTY of people do exactly this. MOST people who gravitate towards things stereotypically associated with the opposite gender do exactly this.

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

We all receive societal messagges about how we should be. We all get questioned when/if don't fit with was has been deemed acceptable for our sex. This is not a unique experience for people who identify as trans because no one is 100% masculine or feminine. Not to mention there are many contradictions in what is considered feminine or masculine. For instance, men are said to be the rational sex (yeah, right...) and the same time women are told not to dress a certain way because men are unable to control their sexual impulses.

Anyway, don't you understand how offensive is it that you think women (the adult human females, you know) are perfectly comfortable and happy with the way we are treated by society and the way we are told we should be?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Anyway, don't you understand how offensive is it that you think women (the adult human females, you know) are perfectly comfortable and happy with the way we are treated by society and the way we are told we should be?

I never said you were. I said dysphoric tendency plus social messaging that you are wrong for liking the things you like as your sex equals core identity change and indullible trans identity. I didn’t say anything about anyone else.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You say the word woman feels right for you because your perceived lack of "masculinity", how is that not reducing women to stereotypes? Lots of women feel insecure for not living up to social expectations. Lots of women have a complicated relation with their body because of things like beauty standards, sexual objectifaction or sexual harrasment, etcetera. By reducing women to stereotypes and denyng how sex does matter your denying those facts. But if you don't think so, then I challenge you to define what a woman is. Let's see if you can do better than saying we are "non men" or "anyone who identify as such".

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

It feels right because it feels right. Like how your name sounds right. It just doesn’t produce an aversion. Not because I am effeminate. Man, by contrast, produces a visceral negative reaction.

I’ve given a list based definition before and you all said it wasn’t sufficient so I’m not going to give you one. Woman feels right, man feels disgusting. It’s really not more complicated than that for me at this point. Leave the analysis to people smarter than me.

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

Does it genuinely not matter to you that many women have said time and time again that the way you use the word "woman" is harmful and offensive to us? Do the people who this word naturally applies to not matter at all?

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I did not asked you how you personally feel about the words. I asked for a definition. If you want your identity be protected by law, then you should give a more concrete and verifiable definition that "it feels right". How do you justify that you and others like you be grouped together with women? What we do in have in common?

[–]Juniperius 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Wait, is dysphoria because of a brain structure or is it because of adults policing their children's clothing preferences? Or is it whichever is convenient for your argument at that precise moment? Or are you saying that the amount of white matter in the brain determines which clothes someone is destined to like?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I personally believe it’s from both. A structural predilection and societal pressure to conform to identity contrary to interest. But it needs more research.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (201 children)

To clarify I hope

Formative years social pressure tells you that the things you like are only for some other group. You identify with that group. By the time your personality has time for rational reaction you have already formed such a core identity as part of that group it can’t be changed once the mind isn’t in that formative time. Hypothetically anyway.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (181 children)

That doesn’t sound anything like how any one else forms a sense of identity. It’s entirely the opposite.

Women aren’t a group because of the stereotypes associated with us.

The stereotypes are associated with us because we are women.

That’s how that works. So there is no group to identify with. The group only exists because we all share the same sex. Sex is the group. There’s no identity in sex. There can be sub groups, race, economic class, sexuality etc. Other than that, we can’t take for granted we have anything connecting us (even within a sub group, I can’t take for granted I have anything in common with another bisexual woman other than us both being bisexual women).

My point being- the group You identify with wouldn’t be "women" or "females", it would be people who -insert whatever thing(s) you liked or were drawn to that made you believe you identified with all women-. That’s not sex or gender specific. That’s interest/likes/whatever specific.

And realizing that you’ve based your sense of identity on stereotypes could very well be a reason to change how you see yourself to many people. Personally, if I believed I identified as something and then realized it was actually based on the perpetuation of stereotypes about a group of people (females in this case) that Im not a part of, I’d stop saying I identify as a female and start saying I personally gravitate towards things associated with women.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (180 children)

You can’t just decide to change the basis of your personality and identity that is that deeply set.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (168 children)

You can if you understand that you’ve based your identity on a harmful falsehood.

It wouldn’t even be changing the basis of your personality. Woman is not a personality. It’s changing the phrasing you use to describe the basis of your personality. liking feminine things is not a personality. What you’re describing is not personality or identity. The things you like or gravitate toward are not personality or identity. So all that would actually be changing is the phrasing you use- to something that is actually an accurate description of the situation instead of a harmful falsehood.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (147 children)

No you can’t. What feels right to you isn’t something you can just decide to change. Those tracks are laid deep as kids and can’t be undone.

Could you force yourself to call yourself something that feels wrong and lie to everyone? Yeah maybe but that’s not a life anyone can stand for long.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (138 children)

If i called myself black but was actually not black and black people informed me that the basis for me calling myself black was rooted in pushing racist stereotypes about black people i would absolutely stop referring to myself as black. Because it’s the right thing to do. Males should have the same basic level of respect for females (and females for males) IMO.

It’s not a lie to anyone. It’s literally not a lie lol, even if it feels wrong to you personally.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You know people get treatment for personality disorders all the time, right? It’s absolutely possible to improve one’s understanding of themselves and one’s deeply seated, formative ideas that are shit.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

You are just talking about changing a superficial label, I’m talking about the psychological structures that make someone use a label. I know it is wrong to be called a man just as I know it would be wrong to called anything else that just isn’t true. Just as I know woman doesn’t feel wrong.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

So you can’t change the harmful language you use to describe yourself to actual accurate language because you don’t have the psychological capacity to handle it, Not because the label is true?

Im actually fine with You acknowledging that.

Im not fine that that’s the situation as you’ve been done a huge disservice by the medical/mental health professionals who have assisted you. But I’m fine with leaving it here as you’ve acknowledged it’s a psychological issue.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Actually, hold on-

Is this even true? Don’t some racist people stop being racist? Don’t some religious people stop believing or convert? aren’t there thousands of other instances where someone can come to change their feelings on something that influenced them their whole life (particularly in formative years)?

Unless you think that gender identity is just so much more of a powerful influence than religion or being raised in a racist environment? If that’s what you think, what is it that makes gender identity so much more significant than other things that contribute to how someone builds their identity and personality?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Is racism a core facet of their identity? Is religion? If it changes I would bet not.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah! The Not a true Scottman falacy! A true classic!

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Why not? Why is it impossible (despite evidence to the contrary…) for someone who based the core of their identity on racism or a specific religion unable (even tho, again there’s evidence that they can and do all the time and you’re ignoring that for the sake of your argument) can’t change?

So everyone whose racist or extremely religious can’t and doesn’t change? Ever? At all?

My husband’s uncle and I had this whole moment where he apologized to me for his racism and his behavior towards me. He did this because he knew I was pregnant with my first kid and he wanted to be there to see his nephew’s family. He claims to love my son and put years of effort into repairing our relationship and the one he has with my husband.

But nah… I guess he’s just a racist who lied. So he could build a relationship with people he hated. Idk people are weird.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Formative years social pressure tells you that the things you like are only for some other group. You identify with that group.

But the vast majority of children and adults who "identify as" the opposite sex don't really "identify with" members of the sex they want to identify into, do they? Because that would mean seeing members of opposite sex and their own sex as people first and foremost, people who come in the form of individuals. If they saw members of the opposite sex and their own sex as people, they'd see them as fully fleshed-out sentient beings with living, breathing bodies that exist in material reality, and with personalities that are multifaceted, complicated and often contradictory - and which vary greatly from individual to individual.

But it seems to me that people who adopt an opposite-sex gender identity, natal females just as much as natal males, usually do something very different: First, they reduce everyone of their own sex and the opposite sex alike to one-dimensional, cardboard caricatures defined by a very narrow set of sexist stereotypes based on superficial aspects like clothes, hairstyle, toys and interests, which you sum up as "the things they like." Then they hyper-focus on "the things they like" that they associate with the opposite sex and build their sense of self solely around those "things they like," pretending all the while that "the things they like" which they associate with the opposite sex somehow outweigh and erase the actual sex of their own bodies.

You know how kaleidoscopes make ordinary sights look like a fascinating, rich array of patterns and colors? Well, it seems to me that people who regard the world through the lens of genderism do that in reverse. They look at human beings through a genderscope that strips every person of all the fascinating, rich diversity of styles, personality types and quirks of individuality that make him/her unique and different. The genderscope instead reduces everyone in its sights to a bland sameness based solely on superficial sex stereotypes that constitute what genderists focus on exclusively because they believe that a few surface and obvious "things you like" = who you are.

society teaches you at an early age what you should like. If you like what one gender is supposed to like

I suspect dysphoria has a biological root in brain structures but that wouldn’t cover trans identities that claim to have never suffered from dysphoria

So which is it? Do people with dysphoria who try to resolve their distress by developing or claiming to have an opposite-sex gender identity possess an innate sense of gendered self that they're born with and is hard-wired into their brain structures? Or is it mainly about "the things you like," or rather some of them that genderists fixate on, being at odds with the sense obtained in childhood about society's rules regarding "what you should like"?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

We are talking about formative childhood. Archetypes are how you function at that point.

So which is it? Do people with dysphoria who try to resolve their distress by developing or claiming to have an opposite-sex gender identity possess an innate sense of gendered self that they're born with and is hard-wired into their brain structures

I think it’s both. Like I think dysphoria has a biological root but it’s worsened by social pressures. But again I’m only speaking for dysphoric trans people though. I don’t want to dismiss non dysphorics but I also don’t get it.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

We are talking about formative childhood. Archetypes are how you function at that point.

At which point in "formative childhood" exactly is it that "archetypes are how you function"? How many months of age? How long does this point last?

You seem to think that growing up in a physical, sexed body in the material world surrounded by persons, animals and plants that also have sexed bodies has zero impact and influence on the psyches of developing children. Your view seems to be that in "the formative years of childhood," only "things" - specifically "the things you like" - and now "archetypes" matter.

What about toilet training and learning names of body parts? IIRC, little kids are very much into anything and everything that has to do with how, where and why they and others urinate and defecate. They're very interested in the fact that girls and boys have different anatomy that causes them to urinate from different places in markedly different ways. They're also extremely curious about where babies come from, and many beg for information about how they themselves came into being.

Unless they have been raised in Germany or Austria, little boys handle and look at their penises numerous times a day, each time they urinate. Many tug on, scratch, rub and otherwise touch their penises and balls numerous other times a day too. And once they reach a certain age, boys all get spontaneous erections and have wet dreams. What are the archetypes that override all that sensory input from the material world to convince a boy he's really a girl?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You seem to think that growing up in a physical, sexed body in the material world surrounded by persons, animals and plants that also have sexed bodies has zero impact and influence on the psyches of developing children.

I’m making a distinction between the superficial and things that are too deep set to be flexible. I’m in fact directly saying we are influenced by outside experiences. But when they hit you effects how hard they hit you.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I’m making a distinction between the superficial and things that are too deep set to be flexible. I’m in fact directly saying we are influenced by outside experiences. But when they hit you effects how hard they hit you.

You're all over the place, LOL.

First, gender identity is determined by "the things you like" and whether society says it's okay to like them. Then just a few hours ago, you said that "archetypes are how you function" at some unspecified point in formative childhood. I asked you pointedly

At which point in "formative childhood" exactly is it that "archetypes are how you function"? How many months of age? How long does this point last?

But instead of answering, now you say there's "a distinction between the superficial and things that are too deep set to be flexible" and "we are influenced by outside experiences" whose impact is determined by "when they hit you." But still you don't bother to give any these influences names, nor will you say at what point or points in childhood you're referring to.

Tellingly, none of the vague forces you intimate are of paramount influence at some unspecified point or points in "formative childhood" ever have anything to do with having a sexed body, with being a flesh-and-blood sentient being who lives in material world and urinates numerous times each and every day of one's life. Or with the specifics of male urinary and sex anatomy that I've mentioned - and which play a huge role in the psychic and physical development of male children and have led to quite a few "archetypes."

Please provide some specifics to back up your previous claims before skipping off to make another, wholly different claim. Thanks.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Are you saying the combination of you having dysphoria and also being pressured by male socialization that you rejected while you somehow absorbed female socialization is why you know you’re not a man/are a woman?

Because that’s an entirely unique experience that no man or woman who isn’t trans expériences. So i think what the rest of us aren’t getting is how your dysphoria and socialization means tou aren’t the gender that traditionally goes with your sex.

That’s what you never explain. How your feelings and personal sense of self mean so much that they overpower biological fact.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Are you saying the combination of you having dysphoria and also being pressured by male socialization that you rejected while you somehow absorbed female socialization is why you know you’re not a man/are a woman?

Growing up dysphoric effects the lens of the attempted socialization. Feeling alienated from the ideas pushed on you in a way most people don’t shapes the effects of that attempted socialization.

I wouldn’t say I have female socialization. But I don’t think it’s accurate to call me a man. Whether I am a woman is a point in open to discussing. It’s not that important to me personally. However not being a man is a point that I am dead set.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Okay…

Socialization still has nothing to do with what gender someone is. Gender is based on sex. It’s not personal, it’s not chosen individually. It’s societal. So whatever You socialization you absorbed or rejected, and however you feel inside, is irrelevant to gender.

Gender is another thing that doesn’t care about your feelings

Also, man and woman aren’t genders so none of this would really matter. Even if your gender were "female", you’d still be biologically male, that’s would mean technically speaking you’d still be a man because that’s the sex based term for biological male adults.

The issue is not the language, it’s the weight You personally put on words that literally only exist to distinguish male humans from female humans.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Except it's based on stereotypes and the denial of your sex.

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

That’s what I’m not getting. It just seems like gender identity is the only identity that is based on rejecting the fact of your body and identifying as something you have no experience with (aside from trans racial and stuff like that, which… nvm). It seems to be the exact opposite of how everyone else finds their individual senses of identity.