4 ms·

This distinction doesn't sit right with me though. What is Gender really, in the modern definition (since it seems to have changed over the years)? From what I

This distinction doesn't sit right with me though. What is Gender really, in the modern definition (since it seems to have changed over the years)? From what I gather it's a way for people to tell others that one of their physical characteristics (Sex) does not match their mental state (Gender). To me this doesn't really seem like a positive thing, it comes off like a potentially harmful delusion from someone who can't come to terms with their own biology. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a feminine man or a masculine woman, people can behave however they wish regardless of biology. But the most feminine man on the planet is still a man and saying so shouldn't turn you into a pariah, it's true after all. Imagine we came up with 'Gender' like terms for other physical characteristics, it seems to me like the logic quickly breaks down when you think about it- Gender is to Sex as ____ is to Race as ____ is to Age as ____ is to Height as ____ is to Weight as ____ is to Eye Color etc.

MontyCarloHall 5y ago
As I wrote in another comment, trans individuals’ gender identity is hardwired to the same extent that people’s sexual orientation is hardwired, so there must be some innate physiological component to gender identity. My guess is it’s neurological, since there aren’t discernible hormonal, genetic, or anatomical differences between trans and cis people. Your analogies don’t apply because, with the exception of age (mental age vs. physical age), there is no mental analog to race, height, eye color, etc. I’d analogize gender identity to sexual orientation: there is nothing physiological that distinguishes heterosexual people from homosexual people, but the former are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, while the latter are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex.
- cheeseomlit 5y ago
  >Your analogies don’t apply because, with the exception of age (mental age vs. physical age), there is no mental analog to race, height, eye color, etc. Why? What specifically makes transrace/race-identity any less valid of a concept than transgender/gender-identity? You say there is no mental analog to race but there's just as much proof of that as there is for gender identity. I've always loved african-american music and culture, I use black slang a lot, I felt like I didn't fit in with my white peers growing up- maybe I identify as black and will designate myself as such on my job/college applications going forward. Who are you to tell me my race-identity isn't valid? Maybe I'm just hardwired that way. >I’d analogize gender identity to sexual orientation: there is nothing physiological that distinguishes heterosexual people from homosexual people, but the former are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, while the latter are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex. If there is nothing physiological to make that determination I think 'hardwired' isn't the right term
  - MontyCarloHall 5y ago
    > Why? What specifically makes transrace/race-identity any less valid of a concept than transgender/gender-identity? Because there aren’t any (or infinitesimally few) people who believe from a very young age that their “race identity” doesn’t match their genetically defined race. Gender dysphoria is rare but not infinitesimally so (~1% of the population), and it usually first emerges in childhood. > If there is nothing physiological to make that determination I think 'hardwired' isn't the right term Sorry, I was a bit sloppy with my language. I should have written “there is nothing grossly physiological that distinguishes heterosexual people from homosexual people.” Colloquially, we don’t generally consider neurology to be physiological, since we don’t yet have the technology to identify subtle differences in neural topology. Doesn’t mean that neurological phenomena aren’t hardwired, and thus “physiological” on a microscopic level we aren’t yet able to detect. As an extreme example, mental retardation is certainly hardwired, even though there’s often nothing grossly physiological (i.e. detectable physical brain abnormalities) that causes it. I suspect that as science and medicine advance, we will identify the neural wiring patterns that determine one’s sexuality and gender identity (assuming we are allowed to study such things), at which point we can actually point to a definitively physiological determinant of both.
- throwaway8582 5y ago
  > My guess is it’s neurological, since there aren’t discernible hormonal, genetic, or anatomical differences between trans and cis people. That's exactly the point. If someone's "gender identity" doesn't refer any observable characteristic other than their "gender identity", then the entire concept is circularly defined and therefore meaningless. It's like if I were to say my biological height is 5'7" but my "height identity" is 6'3". What meaning does "height identity" have and why should anyone take a concept like this seriously?
  - freemint 5y ago
    Because you want to reduce suffering in the world. Calling someone putting effort in to presenting a female persona, even though you know there was a penis at birth, her is not that hard but if you purposefully him then you might flare up gender disphoria which is not nice to have. The left and center has decided it is not a joke to call someone who had a penis at birth a her, nobody will laugh at you why are you resisting being courteous?

MontyCarloHall 5y ago

As I wrote in another comment, trans individuals’ gender identity is hardwired to the same extent that people’s sexual orientation is hardwired, so there must be some innate physiological component to gender identity. My guess is it’s neurological, since there aren’t discernible hormonal, genetic, or anatomical differences between trans and cis people. Your analogies don’t apply because, with the exception of age (mental age vs. physical age), there is no mental analog to race, height, eye color, etc. I’d analogize gender identity to sexual orientation: there is nothing physiological that distinguishes heterosexual people from homosexual people, but the former are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, while the latter are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex.

cheeseomlit 5y ago
>Your analogies don’t apply because, with the exception of age (mental age vs. physical age), there is no mental analog to race, height, eye color, etc. Why? What specifically makes transrace/race-identity any less valid of a concept than transgender/gender-identity? You say there is no mental analog to race but there's just as much proof of that as there is for gender identity. I've always loved african-american music and culture, I use black slang a lot, I felt like I didn't fit in with my white peers growing up- maybe I identify as black and will designate myself as such on my job/college applications going forward. Who are you to tell me my race-identity isn't valid? Maybe I'm just hardwired that way. >I’d analogize gender identity to sexual orientation: there is nothing physiological that distinguishes heterosexual people from homosexual people, but the former are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, while the latter are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex. If there is nothing physiological to make that determination I think 'hardwired' isn't the right term
- MontyCarloHall 5y ago
  > Why? What specifically makes transrace/race-identity any less valid of a concept than transgender/gender-identity? Because there aren’t any (or infinitesimally few) people who believe from a very young age that their “race identity” doesn’t match their genetically defined race. Gender dysphoria is rare but not infinitesimally so (~1% of the population), and it usually first emerges in childhood. > If there is nothing physiological to make that determination I think 'hardwired' isn't the right term Sorry, I was a bit sloppy with my language. I should have written “there is nothing grossly physiological that distinguishes heterosexual people from homosexual people.” Colloquially, we don’t generally consider neurology to be physiological, since we don’t yet have the technology to identify subtle differences in neural topology. Doesn’t mean that neurological phenomena aren’t hardwired, and thus “physiological” on a microscopic level we aren’t yet able to detect. As an extreme example, mental retardation is certainly hardwired, even though there’s often nothing grossly physiological (i.e. detectable physical brain abnormalities) that causes it. I suspect that as science and medicine advance, we will identify the neural wiring patterns that determine one’s sexuality and gender identity (assuming we are allowed to study such things), at which point we can actually point to a definitively physiological determinant of both.
throwaway8582 5y ago
> My guess is it’s neurological, since there aren’t discernible hormonal, genetic, or anatomical differences between trans and cis people. That's exactly the point. If someone's "gender identity" doesn't refer any observable characteristic other than their "gender identity", then the entire concept is circularly defined and therefore meaningless. It's like if I were to say my biological height is 5'7" but my "height identity" is 6'3". What meaning does "height identity" have and why should anyone take a concept like this seriously?
- freemint 5y ago
  Because you want to reduce suffering in the world. Calling someone putting effort in to presenting a female persona, even though you know there was a penis at birth, her is not that hard but if you purposefully him then you might flare up gender disphoria which is not nice to have. The left and center has decided it is not a joke to call someone who had a penis at birth a her, nobody will laugh at you why are you resisting being courteous?