3 ms·

> "gender identity" which, insofar as the concept is coherent, appears to be fully pseudoscientific. "gender identity" as used in psychology and sociology is

> "gender identity" which, insofar as the concept is coherent, appears to be fully pseudoscientific. "gender identity" as used in psychology and sociology is a reflection of phenomena occurring in the real world. The existence of trans people and their reported experience is de-facto scientific evidence of gender identity as a concept. There are of course disagreements and mutually exclusive theories but we don't call physics psuedoscience because string theory and quantum theory are incompatible*, we just acknowledge that we don't have enough evidence to unify our understanding of the concept yet. All of this is of course made more complicated by culture as a moving target but the fundamental point stands. > There are probably ways to talk about gender coherently, in terms of expression, presentation, stereotypes, etc. people are out there doing it, they just use specific terms rather than general ones because our previous conception of "gender" is too broad to reflect our understanding as it has been updated by evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_expression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_expression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role * I don't know if this is actually true, insert your own conflicting theories here

vehemenz 4y ago
The phenomenon regarding "gender identity" is real, but the underlying concept is incoherent, as I've said. This doesn't stop anyone from studying it, just in same way people study moral theories or theology.
- enragedcacti 4y ago
  > but the underlying concept is incoherent what specifically is incoherent about it? I attempted to address that by noting that active areas of research will always have mutually incompatible theories that are incoherent when taken together, but perhaps I misunderstood what you meant.
  - poszlem 4y ago
    There is quite a few incoherent things about it. You cannot "define what a woman is", but you can "identify as a woman" (what do you identify as?). You cannot really say why being trans-gender is okay, but being "trans-abled" (so called amputee identity disorder) is not. Nor is being "trans-racial" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_transracialism_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_transracialism_controv...). Even though we have long believed that race is more socially constructed than gender. The whole concept of "gender studies" as it is now is one of the least scientifically sound academic fields (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair). The field is full of people openly questioning the very idea of trying to be an impartial researcher in search of "truth" and instead treat it as an activist project (https://hipatiapress.com/hpjournals/index.php/generos/article/view/1683 https://hipatiapress.com/hpjournals/index.php/generos/articl... - an example of a paper that in plain text advocates for using male students of feminist studies as "viruses" spreading the good news). Most of the theories are unfalsifiable anyway - and are no more scientific that angelology or hamartiology.
  - vehemenz 4y ago
    Plenty of people think things are coherent that, upon conceptual analysis, collide into a reductio ad absurdum around every corner. There are honestly so many problems with it, but let's go off the top of my head: - Self-identity: There is nothing special about sex/gender as a property that distinguishes it as a special case for self-id from other empirical properties of human beings, such as height, eye color, or hair follicle shape. Barring special criteria, if we allow self-id for one property, we must allow it everywhere. Everything goes. - If one truly believes that gender is distinct from sex, then what motivates one to "identify" as something else? - Many if not most transgender individuals emulate the opposite sex and their associated gender stereotypes. Surgically-implanted breasts and facial hair are secondary sex characteristics—their presence has nothing to do with gender. How those characteristics are presented or hidden are gendered expressions, but not their mere presence. - Epistemically, we only know what it is like to be the sex we are. We can attempt to understand "what it's like" to be the opposite sex, but we can never know. Therefore, one can "identify as" something else, but that something else is just a facsimile.

vehemenz 4y ago

The phenomenon regarding "gender identity" is real, but the underlying concept is incoherent, as I've said. This doesn't stop anyone from studying it, just in same way people study moral theories or theology.

enragedcacti 4y ago
> but the underlying concept is incoherent what specifically is incoherent about it? I attempted to address that by noting that active areas of research will always have mutually incompatible theories that are incoherent when taken together, but perhaps I misunderstood what you meant.
- poszlem 4y ago
  There is quite a few incoherent things about it. You cannot "define what a woman is", but you can "identify as a woman" (what do you identify as?). You cannot really say why being trans-gender is okay, but being "trans-abled" (so called amputee identity disorder) is not. Nor is being "trans-racial" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_transracialism_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_transracialism_controv...). Even though we have long believed that race is more socially constructed than gender. The whole concept of "gender studies" as it is now is one of the least scientifically sound academic fields (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair). The field is full of people openly questioning the very idea of trying to be an impartial researcher in search of "truth" and instead treat it as an activist project (https://hipatiapress.com/hpjournals/index.php/generos/article/view/1683 https://hipatiapress.com/hpjournals/index.php/generos/articl... - an example of a paper that in plain text advocates for using male students of feminist studies as "viruses" spreading the good news). Most of the theories are unfalsifiable anyway - and are no more scientific that angelology or hamartiology.
- vehemenz 4y ago
  Plenty of people think things are coherent that, upon conceptual analysis, collide into a reductio ad absurdum around every corner. There are honestly so many problems with it, but let's go off the top of my head: - Self-identity: There is nothing special about sex/gender as a property that distinguishes it as a special case for self-id from other empirical properties of human beings, such as height, eye color, or hair follicle shape. Barring special criteria, if we allow self-id for one property, we must allow it everywhere. Everything goes. - If one truly believes that gender is distinct from sex, then what motivates one to "identify" as something else? - Many if not most transgender individuals emulate the opposite sex and their associated gender stereotypes. Surgically-implanted breasts and facial hair are secondary sex characteristics—their presence has nothing to do with gender. How those characteristics are presented or hidden are gendered expressions, but not their mere presence. - Epistemically, we only know what it is like to be the sex we are. We can attempt to understand "what it's like" to be the opposite sex, but we can never know. Therefore, one can "identify as" something else, but that something else is just a facsimile.