New argument I came across for transgender ideology with the concept of "gender".

submitted by Kai_Decadence from self.GenderCritical

So I was having another discussion about the ideology with someone on YouTube. I was making note of how whenever it comes to the argument and we ask things what

  • "What is gender?"
  • "How do you "feel" like a man/woman?"
  • "Define man/woman without using stereotypes.

A new challenger approached and they said this.

"the word "gender" has two different meanings dependent on context. In sociology and a lot of feminist discourse, it refers to the socially constructed elements of men and women, so the complex of gender roles, expected gender expressions and gender stereotypes. In regards to trans-dsicourse, "gender" is usually short for "gender identity", which is not socially constructed and is instead a neurological phenomena (relevant paper: "Structural, Functional, and Metabolic Brain Differences as a Function of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation: A Systematic Review of the Human Neuroimaging Literature" , 2021) which describes what sexual anatomy the brain expects, whether thats male, female, a mixture of both or neither. This can either match the physical sex of the body (in which case the person is cis) or not (in which case the person experiences gender in congruence and is trans). This in congruence expresses itself either as gender dysphoria (the distress felt when the discrepancy between gender identity and physical sex is noted) or gender euphoria (the relief felt when a reduction in the discrepancy between gender identity and physical sex is noted). And, just to be clear, no, disliking societies treatment for having a particular sexual anatomy does not figure into this. In this context "Feeling like a man"/"Feeling like a woman" would mean, that the person in question would feel more congruent retaining/gaining male/female sexual characteristics. So, as you can see, these questions can be answered without circular definitions or gender stereotypes.

I will admit this one stumped me but it's only because of how wordy it is. I'm still trying my best to get over this hurdle and cut through the BS when it's presented in such a way. I know in this argument there is something adding up but I keep getting distracted by the wordiness of it all. If I am correct, I think this person is wrong about how "gender identity" is not socially constructed because if that were true, why do we have men and women who don't fit socially constructed stereotypes but don't think they are the opposite sex for it?

Another thing I'm thinking of is even if the person thinks they are a man/woman because their brain "expects" it to be seen that way, woudln't that just be another form of body dysphoria akin to those kinds of people who think they should be amputees or obese/anorexic? That it's just a mental issue where they can't come to terms with reality?

And when they pointed out how "disliking societies treatment for having a particular sexual anatomy does not figure into this", I think it's nonsense because that's a big reason why so many young women are transing out in the first place. A lot of them are trying to escape misogyny that they are getting (or seeing) in society with how some people can be towards women, especially during female puberty.

Any thoughts on this argument? Did they actually make a good point or is it just another pile of word salad?

all 26 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]FlippyKing 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think you can imagine the tact I'm taking on this. TO cut to the chase, I agree with your counter arguments. I might have a different way of saying them, so here that is.

The person you are quoting is explaining gender identity, that they start off talking about gender in general, throwing a bone to the uses of the term to describe a social construct (of sex-role expectations it seems and not much else), is what I'd call 'the ball fake'. A better way to describe it is they are muddying the waters and creating added complexity to hide the BS they're about to dive into, citations or not. They then get to their goal, conflating "gender" with gender identity, pretending it is a kind of short hand for this property of a person. This matters, because it is a kind of deception (or an additional one on top of the idea that gender has some sort of useful meaning outside of classrooms for young adults as afraid of math as they are of manual labor, and that somehow this is separate from the easier to understand sex role expectations).

So, they are saying this term refers to a socially constructed way to categorize people or their traits, but then say it is also used as a shorthand for some property of a person. Could we say that people have internalized these socially constructed categories? If we did say that, it would invalidate the idea that this is somehow innate or that it is really a trait of the person and not imposed on them or accepted by them from the outside. So, we have skip past that very strong probability, and just accept this notion that gender is a property of a person.

Is this property of "gender" which is shorthand for "gender identity" a separate property from sex? In this person's version, apparently not. It appears to rely on how well it fits with one's sex, because gender is a property "which describes what sexual anatomy the brain expects, whether thats male, female, a mixture of both or neither". Uhm, what? So, the brain has expectations? This person wants to personify the brain as a being separate from a full person. The brain appears to be a manager of some sort hired to manage a body, and at the job interview the brain is told what kind of body it will be governing. The brain responds to the interviewer (God? the body? The body then sometimes lies to the applicant? just ... what the hell is going on here?) saying "Oh yes, I expected that kind of body and as you can see from my gender, I am qualified to manage that kind of body". Then once in the job, the brain says, "whoa, hold on here, this is not job I was hired for! My gender does not match this body, oh the dysphoria!"

Notice also, the person making this personification of a brain is putting these kinds of anatomies as possible bodies this brain's office and desk and view of the city will be in: male, female, a mixture of both, neither. Need any of us address this, beyond simply saying "no, those last two are not a thing and certainly not worth considering"?

We only get here if we accept the notion that it is a property of a person and not a method of categorization created by society. Once here, we're lost and we can never navigate ourselves back to the real world because they keep creating layers of epicycles meant to keep us in this mental prison. By here I mean trying to reason by means of their lack of reason, by accepting the notions we should reject.

If this "gender" is a category for a kind of property of a person, and if it can conflict with the person's property that is categorized as "sex", how do we classify that incongruity? It is not an incongruity that happens in everyone and, without the term being a judgement, it does not happen to normal people. So it is abnormal. To accept these notions, we have to accept that the incongruity is abnormal, and the idea that one's gender and one's sex are in conflict would be the only way we'd know this is a separate category. Every aspect of this seems made up-- to put it kindly. We do not need the epicycles, we do not need "gender" as a property of a person. We never have to accept what society tells us about ourselves, ever.

To put it another way: fuck these fucking freaks, the My Little Pony they rode in on, and there's no need to listen to their bs. It's winter in the north, shovel snow, put some mink oil on your boots or what ever they might need, live a real life as a human with A body, not as a brain hired into a body under false pretense (which is just silly).

I guess the only thing I'm adding to your analysis of that silliness is that: they have to personify a brain, create a category for this property that is not sex but is somehow potentially in conflict with sex, somehow explain how one could know of this category (or what this category says about a person) unless it is in conflict with sex, and some how explain how this category is of the person and not internalized from society, and how it is not a mental illness. So, I picture them as something analogous to a drunken out of shape fool trying to get over track hurdles that are just dumped onto a track at night during a new moon with no lights while trying to keep their momosa from spilling. It ain't happening, and I don't think The Three Stooges would survive such an exercise.

Edited for typos, clarity, but now also to add this: this category of gender they claim for a set of properties might be applicable to a brain and not a person. Otherwise, why talk about a brain as if it was a person?

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Right so all it really boils down to is that this person internalized the socially constructed stereotypes and may not even realize it? Because if the brain is being told one thing i.e that a man's brain is telling him he's female, it's going to have to default to the socially constructed stereotypes of women which is tied to femininity otherwise why even bring it up?

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

I can't speak for that person, what they internalized or what they realize. If we were talking about what they internalize, then we'd be talking about what they say of themselves. I have no interest in what they say of themselves.

Similarly I can't speak of what the realize, either about themselves or their arguments. They could know they are peddling BS-- I suspect they know they are peddling BS on some level but that's just a suspicion. I suspect that because I don't know why they initially set up the two meanings of gender-- the social construct and the shorthand for identity.

Then they personify the brain, which I run pretty far with but I think you have to if we accept their notion. How can a brain expect a different body unless there is some way the brain is created separate from the way the body is created? I think this means that what they are calling "the brain" is what we'd call socialization. That's a major problem.

I'm glad I have no day-to-day dealings with any of these people (knock on wood)

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

I am finding those conversations exhausting and useless - ones that leading away from real problems.

They are saying "sex and gender are not the same" and then doing the opposite - saying "there no differences between transwoman and woman in sports" or calling transwomen - female.

They say one thing, but do the opposite.

I even saw sometimes them saying GC points and that it is what Gender Identity Activism is trying to achieve, while in reality doing the opposite. People reading it - seeing that their points are legit and reasonable, and going away. Or they are pushing the goals. They will say "we only want to pee", but will demand all the other things. They will say "all we want is people to stop killing us", but then sneaky from behind demand much more (like in that comic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBJv5D-ZRyA).

It is so full of DARVO. Thought, I must admit that most likely most of them actually believing in what they say - because if they made themselves believe that one lie is truth, and made all this mind-dances to turn off logic and make believe that men are women - then this will affect their general thinking and will make it much easier for other similar lies to become reasonable to them. Just like in cults - words and ideas are "changed" to mean something else, same is here.

[–]soundsituation[M] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

u/Kai_Decadence, this type of question would be better suited to s/GCdebatesQT, s/AskSaidit or s/whatever.

[–]FlippyKing 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Is it? Kai seems to be asking for a gender-critical take on this variation of "gender-woo", not debate which would be GCdebatesQT (if that ever actually happened there), and it is too specific for the other two subs.

[–]soundsituation 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I think so. It's the same as all the other posts: "here is something I heard a trans activist say, please tell me why it's wrong". The way it's worded always makes it sound like it's coming from a GC perspective but it's a call for refutation from the GC side. I do see your point about the hyper-specificity of the question, but literally anything is allowed on s/whatever, same for s/AskSaidit as long as it's a question.

[–]FlippyKing 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

I'm not saying it's not allowed there, but that the specificity of the topic places it here. Kai is asking for a GC perspective, not a debate. I don't think Kai wants more QT or Trans input on this topic. Who does, really?

[–]soundsituation 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I don't think Kai wants more QT or Trans input on this topic.

Yes, this is my point. It's a representation of a gender ideologue's argument, with a call to the GC crowd for refutation. I don't know if you've read or participated in the debate sub but this is exactly the format that posts take over there: "Hey [either GC or QT], please refute this argument." That's why I believe this question is best suited to that sub. The other subs I listed are decent alternatives if OP would like wider engagement.

[–]FlippyKing 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

fair point. Kai is not asking GC to debate Kai, but Kai is asking GC to debate or refute this QT trans idea.

Still, if this is not relevant to the GC sub, then does that limit the scope of this sub? I think it is reasonable for there to be overlap in subs where a matter could be appropriate for many subs, as you pointed out the other two more general subs are places where this could go.

[–]soundsituation 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It certainly does limit the scope of the sub, which, frankly, is a consequence I'm not fond of. I want to do whatever you guys want, and personally I'd rather not remove anything unless it's off topic, but I also want to honor the rules of the sub. It gets especially tricky when users report these posts. The reports are legitimate; if you're curious, try reporting something on here and you'll see that the very first justification listed is breaking the "not a debate sub" rule.

I'm actually of the opinion that this community has outgrown the need for such a rule. I understand why it was useful, even necessary on reddit, because the demographics and voting system there are such that the entire sub would turn into a defense of the gender critical position, and actual useful discussions would be suppressed. But we don't have that problem here (although perhaps it would arise if we did away with the "no debate rule", I don't know). On a more practical note, I have the least seniority of the three active mods here and I don't believe they would support a rule change. There is always the option of starting a new sub. If you have any other suggestions I'd be happy to hear them.

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

OK, so I want to rethink the "Kai is looking for debate" or "this is a debate topic", because I think the only problem with the post is that appears to be of that sort. And, that does not have anything to do with there being a debate sub (and if debate happens there is debatable), but has to do with the rule that 'this is not a debate sub' and the implications of that.

That this is a debatish topic is clear. Kai is probably seeking rhetoric to debate the bad ideas. But, I think this falls under the topic of either clarifying a gender critical idea, or under the topic of "apologetics". Apologetics would be like the training or prep work one would do for debate, but it is not about debate and that "debate" could happen in one's own head. That people use the debate sub but specify which team they want responses doesn't mean that is a debate/apologetics sub because it can be either side asking either side for responses, though I acknowledge that usually it is someone asking the other team to respond.

If Kai is engaged in apologetics here with this post and not debate, how would that sit? Also, I hope I don't come off as breaking your chops or being difficult, I just think clarity now would make future issues easier. I also just am on team "on topic" here.

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

That’s an interesting approach. So in this virtual anonymous space how would you distinguish an apologist post from a debate post? Perhaps another way to ask that, and/or a follow up question, is, what kind of post would constitute breaking the sub rule?

[–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The problems that created the need to say this is not a debate sub go back to reddit if I remember correctly. It was tras coming in and being disingenuous douches and just trolling with bad faith arguments. To call it "debate" is too kind, but in essence that is what it was attempting to appear as. But creating a rule around the idea that this is not a debate sub, it allows the mods to remove content like that as well as content from mras and "social conservatives", the kind who would rather say "make me a sandwich" than speaking meaningfully with a woman, that wants to argue with GCs over basic ideas. The rule might also be intended to, as opposed to just make available the option to, remove infighting withing strains of GC thought which has happened more than once. I am making a distinction between an interpretation of the purpose of a rule and an interpretation of the letter of the law of a rule.

Here Kai is not doing that. Kai is looking for ways GC people would address the topic, so in that sense I see it as debate-training and not debating. Kai is not coming here for debate but technique-sharpening amongst liked minded people. In the above examples, a fight is sought not help from an ally. The same could be said for our troll whom I LOVE to respond to, but I acknowledge annoys everyone. Since our troll never responds, instead doing the equivalent of walking into a room to fart and then run out of the room, they are not here for debate either, just trolling. But, there have been posters that roll like our troll does but then stick around and use various bad faith techniques to question responses. This is really the only kind of debate I've every seen from team QT or tras, where they try to ambush people with details or bs or exceptions or "the margins". Kai isn't doing that. Kai is not a stranger. So, a bad-faith poster can come on appearing to do what Kai is doing, but once the bad-faith responses come in, the proof is in the pudding as they say.

What would that proof be? Well, I think previous posts from Kai where discussion and clarification and variations on approaches (the kind Trent Horn discusses in my recent post in the GC guys sister-sub) are brought up, but no one is debating each other.

Another view on what proof there would be is: what debate is occurring? We can tell when a post is here for debate and not discussion or apologetics/debate training. Those are picking fights right away. We can tell when it turns into a fight, just as we can tell when good natured joking gets nasty and fists start flying-- but with words here. Debate has not happened here yet.

Even in our exchanges. I ask about the potential differences between apologetics and debate. I do not say "You are wrong and here's why" (open debate) or "Here's what's weak in your argument" (tra ambuse and chisel-away at the margins, bogus debate). I'm also not being disingenuous in my questions and I'm offering what I think are substantive views. We're discussing, not debating. I'm not offering a firm position and I'm not chipping away at your position, which parallels the second sentence in this paragraph. We're also not egaged in apologetics or debate training, but I think Kai is doing that.

I don't think I missed anything. If I did, let me know.

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

Flippyking was right that I was looking to get a gender critical perspective and not a "Trans" perspective because I know it'll just more or less be the same. I wasn't looking for a debate, just a perspective since it was the first I got someone trying to answer the questions they usually can't answer.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You are correct. I wanted to get insight from gender critical take.

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

I assume you share a gender critical take, that how you act or live is an individual's personality and is malleable, not some innate trait or identity that most be discovered separate from the outside reality, and our sex is simply that.

Am I correct? Or do you buy into the QT/tra view of things?

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

No you are correct with the form, I don't think how you act or live as an individual through personality determines your sex. Gender as far as I'm concerned is just personality and/or demeanor. It doesn't change your sex. Biological sex is immutable and cannot change. In short, no I don't buy into the QT/TRA view of things, I find it utter nonsense.

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

"...what sexual anatomy the brain expects,"

On the face of it that statement seems absurd. Given that the brain is part of a body, the sex of which is determined by either XX or XY chromosomes how can anyone argue that a brain is in a state of expectation as if it is separate from a sexed body?

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

Right because every cell in the human body has your chromosomes and that would include the brain.

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

Did this post get removed from the sub?

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

Yes. I’ve reinstated it though because this has become a whole discussion. A debate, even?

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

a debate about debates

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

I think discussion, very much so. I don't think anything in this post or responses were ever a debate. I think I set forth why pretty well if I do say so myself in the other response.