I can sympathize with your answer to the question of "what is gender identity" -- i.e., "Gender Identity isn’t anything at all".
However, I think you and far too many others are far too quick to dismiss the concept as not carrying any weight or substance at all, that all you're doing is shooting yourselves in the feet. You might consider …
I can sympathize with your answer to the question of "what is gender identity" -- i.e., "Gender Identity isn’t anything at all".
However, I think you and far too many others are far too quick to dismiss the concept as not carrying any weight or substance at all, that all you're doing is shooting yourselves in the feet. You might consider that, as I've argued here recently, it's more or less analogous to personal identity which the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP] gives some credence to. Of particular note is this summary or overview:
SEP: "Outside of philosophy, ‘personal identity’ usually refers to properties to which we feel a special sense of attachment or ownership. Someone’s personal identity in this sense consists of those properties she takes to 'define her as a person' or 'make her the person she is', and which distinguish her from others."
The problem isn't with "gender identity" itself but with how it is misused and misinterpreted. As you put it yourself: "it is used to justify body hatred, denial of physical reality, and serious, risky medical interventions in response to mental discomfort."
Steersman, I understand your point of view, and you and I have discussed this before. I personally suspect (without doing an in-depth research project, the likes of which I have no idea how to accomplish, I cannot know for sure) that "gender identity" started off to mean "the degree and type of feminine and/or masculine (as those terms are defined in a given society at a given time) qualities one possesses and with which the person feels most comfortable." This definition makes sense to me, and has value. It can be used to say that we tend to have set (although fluctuating) degrees and types of feminine and masculine qualities that are somewhat inherent to us, and allow for more acceptance of what is considered gender non-conforming behavior.
However, that definition of "gender identity," if it ever was used, has never become known or used in society at large, and remained somewhere in the world of academia. The only definition of "gender identity" that has become a part of society at large is the one that has been used by activists and judges to uphold the "right" for minors to medically transition.
Whatever these activists and judges mean by the term, it is not being used to describe a set of characteristics regarding performative gender, which could never justify the radical medical experimentation being employed in droves on young, vulnerable people. Rather, "gender identity," as it is being used, refers to an "identity" that, in and of itself, simply means that a person is "male" or "female" or "both male and female" or "neither male nor female" or something else, and, for an inexplicable reason, also means that the person (in most cases - but not all, as some people think medicalization is wholly unnecessary, but, oddly, still think they should be part of the physical category of "male" or "female" based merely upon the "gender identity") must medically transition to appear as much as possible like the opposite sex. In the case of "non-binary" people, it often means the person should at least bind or tuck (depending on what they are hiding), and sometimes also means they need medical interventions to remove, disguise or tweak sexed organs or features.
My argument is simply that, to the extent that a "gender identity" is supposed to refer to the sense of being "male" or "female," yet not refer to biology, and not refer to societal expectations/stereotypes, it is completely meaningless, and cannot justify the medical interventions being pushed on young, vulnerable people.
I would retort that "gender identity" serves only to do harm, and it should be removed everywhere from psychology and law. It isn't just sterilizing chilkdren, though that is probably the worst, it has become the foundation of myriad abuses and of nothing good.
In German the memory of the lexicon of the Holocaust has all but eliminated Vernichtung, annihilation, from the language. And the Holocaust abd 'trans" have mass sterilization in common.
Hippiesq: "I personally suspect ... that 'gender identity' started off to mean 'the degree and type of feminine and/or masculine ... qualities one possesses and with which the person feels most comfortable.' This definition makes sense to me, and has value."
Amen to that! A definition I'm ready to go to the wall with you on! 😉🙂 Or even without you, more or less in any case. But many thanks for your comments here and, in particular, for the one on my Substack which I'll try to get to shortly, although there's a lot to chew through there:
As you say, we have discussed this before, including in comments to that post, and I see that we're more or less on the same page as far as the above definitions go.
Hippiesq: "... without doing an in-depth research project, the likes of which I have no idea how to accomplish ..."
Hadn't thought about it before but it's a good question. Caused me to use Google's "Ngram Viewer" to do a search on the term "gender identity" -- haven't used it much myself, but it seems like a good start:
Seems the term first showed up on the scene in about 1966, hit a bit of a peak of popularity in 1977, a trough in 1984, and been ever onward and upward since then. Have only had time to look into a couple of the Google Books returned by the search, but the few I've read/skimmed so far more or less confirms your suspicions:
"Identity in Question (1992):
2.1 The development of gender identity
In this section we are going to look at where we come from in terms of childhood experience and the development of gender identities in childhood. Gender identity involves the construction and use of gender categories. .... What evidence exists about children’s use of gender categories? Children’s preference for particular toys is some of the earliest behaviour indicating a categorization of masculine and feminine. Preferences, behaviours or traits [some of which are biologically determined or motivated; my emphasis] mirror the views of one’s society about what is masculine and what is feminine are termed ‘gender-appropriate’. ....”
Gender identity has been likened to a symphonic orchestration. It is composed of many motifs intertwined into one integrated them. .... Gender role is the public expression of one’s individuality [personality] as male or female. Gender identity is the private experience of one’s individuality as male or female. ....”
I think the latter is rather “problematic” at best for a number of reasons, though I’d have to do a closer reading than I have time for at the moment. But offhand it seems the author isn’t acknowledging atypical personality traits – e.g., masculine traits in females – and seems a bit clueless about what is required to qualify as a male or a female in the first place.
Hippiesq: "[Gender identity] can be used to say that we tend to have ... feminine and masculine qualities that are somewhat inherent to us, and allow for more acceptance of what is considered gender non-conforming behavior."
Amen to that.
Hippiesq: "Rather, 'gender identity,' as it is being used, refers to an 'identity' that, in and of itself, simply means that a person is 'male' or 'female' ..."
Exactly right. Many of the sources I've quoted above and before -- Scalia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in particular -- are more or less careful about clearly differentiating between being male or female (as sexes) and having masculine and feminine traits that are merely more or less typical of each sex without being definitive -- as you've emphasized.
But various transgender ideologues and their useful/useless idiots have more or less poisoned the well by insisting on using "male" and "female" as genders and/or gender identities. For examples, see Matt Walsh's tweet of Merriam-Webster's definitions for "female" -- both as a sex and as a gender identity -- and, as a Canadian I'm somewhat ashamed to say this, Statistics Canada's call for "consultation on gender and sexual diversity statistical metadata standards":
There isn't any intrinsic problem in defining words in contradictory ways -- many words are like that -- but there are humongous problems caused by using the contradictory definitions in the same sentence or argument. The "informal fallacy" of equivocation; Wikipedia's rather sexist example:
Equivocation -- AKA, bait-and-switch -- for fun and profit. Largely why I'm rather "peeved" with Wikipedia -- smoke comes out of my ears just thinking of their egregious fraud -- for their article on transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard which claimed that "she" had "transitioned to female":
I can sympathize with your answer to the question of "what is gender identity" -- i.e., "Gender Identity isn’t anything at all".
However, I think you and far too many others are far too quick to dismiss the concept as not carrying any weight or substance at all, that all you're doing is shooting yourselves in the feet. You might consider that, as I've argued here recently, it's more or less analogous to personal identity which the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [SEP] gives some credence to. Of particular note is this summary or overview:
SEP: "Outside of philosophy, ‘personal identity’ usually refers to properties to which we feel a special sense of attachment or ownership. Someone’s personal identity in this sense consists of those properties she takes to 'define her as a person' or 'make her the person she is', and which distinguish her from others."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/#ProPerIde
The problem isn't with "gender identity" itself but with how it is misused and misinterpreted. As you put it yourself: "it is used to justify body hatred, denial of physical reality, and serious, risky medical interventions in response to mental discomfort."
https://hippiesq.substack.com/p/gender-identity
But that some people misuse tools is no reason to throw them overboard. Only reason to re-educate them or take them out of their hands.
Steersman, I understand your point of view, and you and I have discussed this before. I personally suspect (without doing an in-depth research project, the likes of which I have no idea how to accomplish, I cannot know for sure) that "gender identity" started off to mean "the degree and type of feminine and/or masculine (as those terms are defined in a given society at a given time) qualities one possesses and with which the person feels most comfortable." This definition makes sense to me, and has value. It can be used to say that we tend to have set (although fluctuating) degrees and types of feminine and masculine qualities that are somewhat inherent to us, and allow for more acceptance of what is considered gender non-conforming behavior.
However, that definition of "gender identity," if it ever was used, has never become known or used in society at large, and remained somewhere in the world of academia. The only definition of "gender identity" that has become a part of society at large is the one that has been used by activists and judges to uphold the "right" for minors to medically transition.
Whatever these activists and judges mean by the term, it is not being used to describe a set of characteristics regarding performative gender, which could never justify the radical medical experimentation being employed in droves on young, vulnerable people. Rather, "gender identity," as it is being used, refers to an "identity" that, in and of itself, simply means that a person is "male" or "female" or "both male and female" or "neither male nor female" or something else, and, for an inexplicable reason, also means that the person (in most cases - but not all, as some people think medicalization is wholly unnecessary, but, oddly, still think they should be part of the physical category of "male" or "female" based merely upon the "gender identity") must medically transition to appear as much as possible like the opposite sex. In the case of "non-binary" people, it often means the person should at least bind or tuck (depending on what they are hiding), and sometimes also means they need medical interventions to remove, disguise or tweak sexed organs or features.
My argument is simply that, to the extent that a "gender identity" is supposed to refer to the sense of being "male" or "female," yet not refer to biology, and not refer to societal expectations/stereotypes, it is completely meaningless, and cannot justify the medical interventions being pushed on young, vulnerable people.
I would retort that "gender identity" serves only to do harm, and it should be removed everywhere from psychology and law. It isn't just sterilizing chilkdren, though that is probably the worst, it has become the foundation of myriad abuses and of nothing good.
In German the memory of the lexicon of the Holocaust has all but eliminated Vernichtung, annihilation, from the language. And the Holocaust abd 'trans" have mass sterilization in common.
Entirely unevidenced opinion ...
You might actually try reading some history of the term:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22gender+identity%22&year_start=1880&year_end=2000&case_insensitive=on&corpus=en-2012&smoothing=3
But then again, pigs might fly ...
Hippiesq: "I personally suspect ... that 'gender identity' started off to mean 'the degree and type of feminine and/or masculine ... qualities one possesses and with which the person feels most comfortable.' This definition makes sense to me, and has value."
Amen to that! A definition I'm ready to go to the wall with you on! 😉🙂 Or even without you, more or less in any case. But many thanks for your comments here and, in particular, for the one on my Substack which I'll try to get to shortly, although there's a lot to chew through there:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/is-nothing-sacred-looking-into-the/comment/36738199
As you say, we have discussed this before, including in comments to that post, and I see that we're more or less on the same page as far as the above definitions go.
Hippiesq: "... without doing an in-depth research project, the likes of which I have no idea how to accomplish ..."
Hadn't thought about it before but it's a good question. Caused me to use Google's "Ngram Viewer" to do a search on the term "gender identity" -- haven't used it much myself, but it seems like a good start:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22gender+identity%22&year_start=1880&year_end=2000&case_insensitive=on&corpus=en-2012&smoothing=3
Seems the term first showed up on the scene in about 1966, hit a bit of a peak of popularity in 1977, a trough in 1984, and been ever onward and upward since then. Have only had time to look into a couple of the Google Books returned by the search, but the few I've read/skimmed so far more or less confirms your suspicions:
"Identity in Question (1992):
2.1 The development of gender identity
In this section we are going to look at where we come from in terms of childhood experience and the development of gender identities in childhood. Gender identity involves the construction and use of gender categories. .... What evidence exists about children’s use of gender categories? Children’s preference for particular toys is some of the earliest behaviour indicating a categorization of masculine and feminine. Preferences, behaviours or traits [some of which are biologically determined or motivated; my emphasis] mirror the views of one’s society about what is masculine and what is feminine are termed ‘gender-appropriate’. ....”
https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Identity_in_question/KoerDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22%22+gender+identity+%22%22&pg=PT15&printsec=frontcover
"Schizophrenia Bulletin (1976):
Gender identity has been likened to a symphonic orchestration. It is composed of many motifs intertwined into one integrated them. .... Gender role is the public expression of one’s individuality [personality] as male or female. Gender identity is the private experience of one’s individuality as male or female. ....”
https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Schizophrenia_Bulletin/MGXWGsYPCSwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22%22+gender+identity+%22%22&pg=PA267&printsec=frontcover
I think the latter is rather “problematic” at best for a number of reasons, though I’d have to do a closer reading than I have time for at the moment. But offhand it seems the author isn’t acknowledging atypical personality traits – e.g., masculine traits in females – and seems a bit clueless about what is required to qualify as a male or a female in the first place.
Hippiesq: "[Gender identity] can be used to say that we tend to have ... feminine and masculine qualities that are somewhat inherent to us, and allow for more acceptance of what is considered gender non-conforming behavior."
Amen to that.
Hippiesq: "Rather, 'gender identity,' as it is being used, refers to an 'identity' that, in and of itself, simply means that a person is 'male' or 'female' ..."
Exactly right. Many of the sources I've quoted above and before -- Scalia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in particular -- are more or less careful about clearly differentiating between being male or female (as sexes) and having masculine and feminine traits that are merely more or less typical of each sex without being definitive -- as you've emphasized.
But various transgender ideologues and their useful/useless idiots have more or less poisoned the well by insisting on using "male" and "female" as genders and/or gender identities. For examples, see Matt Walsh's tweet of Merriam-Webster's definitions for "female" -- both as a sex and as a gender identity -- and, as a Canadian I'm somewhat ashamed to say this, Statistics Canada's call for "consultation on gender and sexual diversity statistical metadata standards":
https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1549382790952656899
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/concepts/consult-variables/gender
There isn't any intrinsic problem in defining words in contradictory ways -- many words are like that -- but there are humongous problems caused by using the contradictory definitions in the same sentence or argument. The "informal fallacy" of equivocation; Wikipedia's rather sexist example:
"Since only man [human] is rational.
And no woman is a man [male].
Therefore, no woman is rational."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
Equivocation -- AKA, bait-and-switch -- for fun and profit. Largely why I'm rather "peeved" with Wikipedia -- smoke comes out of my ears just thinking of their egregious fraud -- for their article on transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard which claimed that "she" had "transitioned to female":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/wikipedias-lysenkoism
There's your "justification" for the "activists and judges to uphold the 'right' for minors to medically transition."