We need more people picking apart the concepts of gender identity and asking questions. I understand how someone can have a deep, intense, relenting feeling for something they want or wish desperately to be true, in this case being or looking like the opposite sex. I can imagine how it can become a defining part of their identity. But I struggle to see how this is fundamentally different than any other deep desire for something that is so intense that it becomes the core of a person's identity, like intensely driven professional athletes who don't see losing as an option or people who define themselves by their professional success. For those people, we recognize that's it's a mixture of personality traits and environment that create that focus and drive, not a single-dimensional thing in the brain that we all have that may or may not match the rest of us.
Thank you, Lisa, for turning that “slightly ranty tweet” into a long form article. Your summation at the end is says it all: “The problem with “gender identity” is that it ends inquiry rather than spurring it. It erases questions of etiology, and it privileges the slippery notion of gender over the material reality of sex. But this idea, rather than being questioned, has been institutionalized in medicine, in law, in education, and in the minds of a generation.” This all leads me, once again, to wonder whether clarity can only come back to us by excising the now much-abused linguistic term “gender” from the lexicon.
100% agree with the inquiry terminating nature of gender identity. I'm an alum of Stanford and today received an email from the Chair of the Board of trustees (I'm not special, it went to all alumni and was basically sharing the same message that was sent to students, faculty and staff on Oct 11.) Although the topic was the university's response to the situation in the Middle East, I was fascinated/excited to see the following language as it is highly relevant to the problem Lisa is addressing. The interim leadership at Stanford wrote:
"Our commitment to academic freedom means that latitude for expression of controversial and even offensive views is necessary to avoid chilling freedom of thought and ideas."
"Again, it is important to remember that controversial and even offensive speech is allowed except when it crosses the line into certain illegal categories such as threats or harassment for which the threshold is quite high."
"Moreover, it is worth remembering that while a climate of free expression requires breathing room, our aspiration as a community is for respectful and substantive discourse."
I do hope that articulating these principles in a relatively public way forces the administration to reset how they respond on other controversial topics, including gender. Only time will tell. We alumni need to hold them to their word.
Exactly. That is why alumni, like me, need to hold Stanford accountable to the same set of standards they just articulated. And same for other institutions to the extent they have made similar statements.
Great article. The most relevant point being that if I don’t subscribe to the vocal left “gender identity” religion, I’m being abusive and ultimately a TERF.
Re "It’s not until about age six or seven that most of us experience 'sex constancy'—the realization that our bodies dictate our sex, not our adherence to stereotypes."
While reading the above line, I had the (perhaps uncharitable) thought that all the mishmash about fluidity and self-identification and proliferation of truly ridiculous — actually, childish — "gender" identities (raccoon-gender, etc.) illustrates a kind of regression to infancy among both children and adults.
In other words, kids under the age of 6 or 7 do not possess the cognitive ability to grasp "sex constancy," but they gain it as they mature; meanwhile, some full-grown adults and teenagers today adamantly declare beliefs and positions supporting what we might call "sex inconstancy," a stance once understood as belonging only to small children.
The pronoun kerfuffle seems so obviously ridiculous to me. It *is* about respect ... respect for each, autonomous person to think and speak as they wish.
Almost by definition, third-person pronouns are not needed unless the person referred to is not present. If present, we use the person's name or, in conversation, "you."
But insisting that I refer to a person as "x/y/z" when they are not present is little more than an arrogant attempt at thought control. It's actually none of their business how I choose to speak of them when they are not present.
I always point out that I can personally "identify" as handsome, wealthy, humorous, generous, kind, clever, but if *your* "lived experience" suggests I am rather unattractive, poor, dull, selfish, cruel and dimwitted, who the hell am *I* to demand that you accept my self-identification, especially when I'm not even present?
Pulmonary embolism, a blood clot in the lungs, an adverse event some die from, is one of the risks of long term consumption of wrong sex hormones. Type "Ray Williams detransitioner" in the search line on YouTube and his channel comes up; his story of smoking cigarettes while taking oral estrogen (we know from contraceptive pills that this is a bad combo) and developing racing heart rate, pain and other symptoms of the blood clot in his lungs. So, he detransitioned, took back the name Ray, recently naming his lingerie habit as a "paraphilia" --his phrase. My analysis of his detransition process and comments on his commenter, another AGP, who's also anorexic since age 12--he didn't want to grow up, calls himself "adult boy." So many illnesses in one body/mind!
We need more people picking apart the concepts of gender identity and asking questions. I understand how someone can have a deep, intense, relenting feeling for something they want or wish desperately to be true, in this case being or looking like the opposite sex. I can imagine how it can become a defining part of their identity. But I struggle to see how this is fundamentally different than any other deep desire for something that is so intense that it becomes the core of a person's identity, like intensely driven professional athletes who don't see losing as an option or people who define themselves by their professional success. For those people, we recognize that's it's a mixture of personality traits and environment that create that focus and drive, not a single-dimensional thing in the brain that we all have that may or may not match the rest of us.
Thank you, Lisa, for turning that “slightly ranty tweet” into a long form article. Your summation at the end is says it all: “The problem with “gender identity” is that it ends inquiry rather than spurring it. It erases questions of etiology, and it privileges the slippery notion of gender over the material reality of sex. But this idea, rather than being questioned, has been institutionalized in medicine, in law, in education, and in the minds of a generation.” This all leads me, once again, to wonder whether clarity can only come back to us by excising the now much-abused linguistic term “gender” from the lexicon.
100% agree with the inquiry terminating nature of gender identity. I'm an alum of Stanford and today received an email from the Chair of the Board of trustees (I'm not special, it went to all alumni and was basically sharing the same message that was sent to students, faculty and staff on Oct 11.) Although the topic was the university's response to the situation in the Middle East, I was fascinated/excited to see the following language as it is highly relevant to the problem Lisa is addressing. The interim leadership at Stanford wrote:
"Our commitment to academic freedom means that latitude for expression of controversial and even offensive views is necessary to avoid chilling freedom of thought and ideas."
"Again, it is important to remember that controversial and even offensive speech is allowed except when it crosses the line into certain illegal categories such as threats or harassment for which the threshold is quite high."
"Moreover, it is worth remembering that while a climate of free expression requires breathing room, our aspiration as a community is for respectful and substantive discourse."
I do hope that articulating these principles in a relatively public way forces the administration to reset how they respond on other controversial topics, including gender. Only time will tell. We alumni need to hold them to their word.
Exactly. That is why alumni, like me, need to hold Stanford accountable to the same set of standards they just articulated. And same for other institutions to the extent they have made similar statements.
I expect I will be crying into a void but plan on pointing out the double standard regardless.
Jennifer Bilek has also made this point. But I think I love your pithy statement best of all: “Gender identity” is bullshit.”
Great article. The most relevant point being that if I don’t subscribe to the vocal left “gender identity” religion, I’m being abusive and ultimately a TERF.
Can a cis-male-gay-man be a TERF?
Re "It’s not until about age six or seven that most of us experience 'sex constancy'—the realization that our bodies dictate our sex, not our adherence to stereotypes."
While reading the above line, I had the (perhaps uncharitable) thought that all the mishmash about fluidity and self-identification and proliferation of truly ridiculous — actually, childish — "gender" identities (raccoon-gender, etc.) illustrates a kind of regression to infancy among both children and adults.
In other words, kids under the age of 6 or 7 do not possess the cognitive ability to grasp "sex constancy," but they gain it as they mature; meanwhile, some full-grown adults and teenagers today adamantly declare beliefs and positions supporting what we might call "sex inconstancy," a stance once understood as belonging only to small children.
Who knew, I'm lilacgender!
BTW, just as an aside, I ran across this in a NYT advice column. The advice giver is Roxanne Gay. See what you think (I'll hold my fire . . .). https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/14/business/its-not-ok-to-police-co-workers-pronouns.html
The pronoun kerfuffle seems so obviously ridiculous to me. It *is* about respect ... respect for each, autonomous person to think and speak as they wish.
Almost by definition, third-person pronouns are not needed unless the person referred to is not present. If present, we use the person's name or, in conversation, "you."
But insisting that I refer to a person as "x/y/z" when they are not present is little more than an arrogant attempt at thought control. It's actually none of their business how I choose to speak of them when they are not present.
I always point out that I can personally "identify" as handsome, wealthy, humorous, generous, kind, clever, but if *your* "lived experience" suggests I am rather unattractive, poor, dull, selfish, cruel and dimwitted, who the hell am *I* to demand that you accept my self-identification, especially when I'm not even present?
Great analogy.
Pulmonary embolism, a blood clot in the lungs, an adverse event some die from, is one of the risks of long term consumption of wrong sex hormones. Type "Ray Williams detransitioner" in the search line on YouTube and his channel comes up; his story of smoking cigarettes while taking oral estrogen (we know from contraceptive pills that this is a bad combo) and developing racing heart rate, pain and other symptoms of the blood clot in his lungs. So, he detransitioned, took back the name Ray, recently naming his lingerie habit as a "paraphilia" --his phrase. My analysis of his detransition process and comments on his commenter, another AGP, who's also anorexic since age 12--he didn't want to grow up, calls himself "adult boy." So many illnesses in one body/mind!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRtK6daC5hk&t=8s