Okay, so this will be a loaded post. I have made a similar post before, but I wish to discuss it again. The reason why I write this is because of the discrepancy on the understanding of what gender is between the trans community and [most of the rest of the world, including most cis people and academia]. My intention is to try to bridge the two realms of understanding: to find a common middle ground, so to say... To stop seeing things in terms of 'gender is A, a social construct, or B, an innate identity', that black-and-white thinking, but rather to see the subleties of it all. It appears to me to be the will of much of the transgender community to monopolize the right to speak with validity on the topic of gender theory. This attitude makes my skin crawl when I see it. It feels authoritarian over the freedom of ideas to me. Now, there are ideas that are firmly unethical and deserve to be rebuked, such as the idea that transgender individuals merely want attention. But there is also old, recognized philosophy and theory on gender that I think deserves respect. This tradition I'm referring to is classically seeing gender as something socially constructed; naming gender as a scale between femininity and masculinity, which are forms of expression. There is much of this theory about, and vehemently claiming it to be without worth isn't the way to do things in my opinion. I think the trans community has contributed exceptionally well to the discussion on gender in recent times, however. We have recognized something through introspection that the old cis theorists could not, namely that there is another, important component to gender; identity. A person may dress or otherwise express themselves in a certain way that does not directly, stereotypically correspond with their inner sense of self, and that's okay. I think trans people can be a great force in shaping society's views on gender to one more healthy and of less corrosive stereotyping and harmful judgment. Now, I do understand the desire of wanting your identity recognized as a thing of nature, and I'm not saying you're wrong. There is this notion in our society now, it seems, that all things socially constructed are 'fake', and only that which is verifiable by natural science (in this base Biology) can rightfully be considered 'true'. This notion has its roots in the Enlightenment and Empiricism, and is widely internalized. But before one gets too upset over someone calling gender a mere social construct - and I have been upset by this! - I think it's worth pondering: is a punk rocker who devotes their life to punk and considers that the most important part of themselves, born, genetically coded to be, a punk rocker? I think it's fair to say that no, that is not the case. So a person isn't necessarily trying to pick at you or invalidate your being by claiming that gender is social. In summary, the idea that you were programmed, fated, one could even say, to be the gender you identify as rather than what you were identified as at birth in spirit and mind, is a comforting thought. And research in the natural sciences are coming along on this; maybe it is indeed the actual case that this is the truth on this matter - that some are simply born with another identity. It makes sense if you consider the large number of transgender individuals, and especially if you consider early exhibited dysphoria. Current research is largely unconvincing in my opinion, but it seems to be making some progress, at least. I will say: there are elements to gender that are social, and elements that are not. The INFP always choosing the middle ground, yes, I know. I think the assumtion that cis individuals often have a harder time recognizing their own innate identity (and the assumption that they have one) is a fair one - I like the metaphor of the missing arm that contrasts the trans and the cis experience. There is a component of an innate gender identity to gender. But there is also a social component to gender, which manifests itself in expression, such as clothing, how one carries oneself, your speech patterns, hairstyles, and the like. I think that both gender identity and gender expression are important in the discussion of gender. Putting one on a pedestal on top of the other is not a democratic way to do discourse, I think. Both are needed to get a clear, full picture of what gender is, and clarity is the first step to truth and liberation.
Gender expression: The social construct of masculinity, feminity or androgynous - can be changed within different societies at the same time, and can be changed within the same society at different times. Gender expression can also be changed by an individual at any moment the individual wishes to. Perhaps gender expression has some element of identity. For example, most males have high levels of testosterone, which allows for more energy and muscle. This makes more males better suited for fighting than most females. Traditionally, it was man's job to get the food due to being more suited [which wasn't at a supermarket, but fighting in the wild for meat] and since a woman is more likely to be able to get pregnant, and that baby needed to be protected - so a woman stayed at home and waited for the food. This is probably how gender expression linked with gender identity - with the addition of ''stereotypes'' which out casted anybody who went against them and ''you're X so you have to do Z'' kind of mindset. So perhaps there are some biological roots in gender expression, but this does not mean it has to be played out [especially in today's society where we have supermarkets which are a lot safer, and it is a lot easier to keep a baby protected]. In linking to gender identity, gender expression is what affirms somebody's gender in the eyes of the public and their identity as their gender (or lack of). Gender identity: The gender the individual identifies with. Whilst the words 'male' and 'female' and 'nonbinary' are words constructed by language, the identification as, for example, a male is not constructed. Gender identity is linked to sex, even if it isn't the sex the person was born with. We know trans exists as they took a cismale, ''made him'' into a female, and yet he still identified as male despite being sociolised into the ''female role'' and being called as a woman [David Reimer/Money if you want to look it up] - so there has to be non-constructed element to gender identity. Both expression and identity are important to a person's identity and who they are. Gender expression may or may not match with the stereotypes of the identity, but as long as it's what the individual wants, then that's fine for the individual.
While I do agree with the idea of gender being both a social construct and biological, I disagree with the notion that the majority consensus is that gender identity is a social construct. As far as I can understand gender theory mostly speaks about what we define as gender expression. While gender identity has gender in its name, it does not mean it actually is the same gender that people have been studying for years. As Secrets5 pointed out gender identity is strongly linked with biological sex for most people. I would argue that sex and gender identity have a stronger connection than gender identity has with gender expression or the socially constructed concept of gender that most people connect with gender. Gender expression is not considered to be biologically determined and as far as I know can't be seen in scans. However, gender identity has been mostly proven to be biologically determined. Gender expression is a way for people to reinforce their gender identity but where does biological sex come into the equation? The discrepancy between a person's biological sex and gender identity is the source of gender dysphoria, not the way a person express themselves. Without medically transitioning, people still suffer from gender dysphoria no matter how they express themselves or how well they pass. Meaning that the problem lies in a person's body, not social behavior. When trying to show that gender identity is real, most people don't turn to sociology or gender theory, they turn to neurology because this connects directly with the human body and mind. ---------- Post added 16th Jul 2016 at 09:05 PM ---------- Here's a great lecture that gives a nice overview of some of the research that proves that gender identity is biologically determined: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMiyp5bwrg
My apologies, I must have worded myself a bit unclearly; I mostly meant that in academia that's a common assumption. To the average cis person... hmm, I don't really know. 'What's in your pants plus some gender stereotypes'? That seems like a common conception of gender. Do you have some good sources on that? I won't ask you to go dig up the entire internet, of course, lol, I was just wondering if you had something readily available. Because what I've seen so far seems pretty darn crass.
Sigh, sorry, my reply was not well thought out as I don't agree with everything that I said and mostly spoke about gender dysphoria, not gender identity. I think the terminology is severely flawed as it stands because of how gender identity refers both to the biological innate component of gender and the label we use to describe this inner sense of self. Gender dysphoria seems to be caused by a discrepancy between a person's innate gender and biological sex. However, what about the label that we use to describe ourselves, at its heart it is obviously socially constructed as it refers to a label that has socially determined meaning. Two people can have the exact same experiences and one might identify as genderfluid and another as a trans woman. The reason is that it depends on subjective meaning given to the label. Each person has a set of schemata that help define what it means to be transgender and the different labels associated with the word. However, behind the need to identify with a label outside of a binary cisgender one is some inner feeling that is what I tend to view as a person's innate gender. Invidia, I posted a link in my previous post to a lecture that gives a really nice overview of the research. ---------- Post added 16th Jul 2016 at 09:52 PM ---------- Here's an embedded link of the lecture that I linked to earlier, I learned quite a bit from watching it and I would recommend that everyone that has an interest in gender identity and doesn't know much about the research that show that it is biologically determined watch it: [YOUTUBE]v=RgMiyp5bwrg[/YOUTUBE]
You don't have to apologize for your every post. (*hug*) I think it was a good post. Thanks for the link, I'll check it out after dinner and maybe give some feedback. And yes, dinner at 9 PM is totally legitimate. XD
:icon_redf Nothing like posting a second post just to give an embedded link and then realizing that I posted it wrongly. I did preview it before posting it and thought it worked but I guess it just showed the youtube screen with a bad link image and then because it added it on to my old post I couldn't edit it. It was anyway probably a bad idea to post another time a link just to have it embedded, I just thought it would be nice and I couldn't edit my old post. Ok I might be anxiously overthinking things just a tiny bit, I'll stop posting for a bit. Here's a working link: [YOUTUBE]RgMiyp5bwrg[/YOUTUBE]
I have two major issues with the idea of gender as a solely social construct. The first is that every culture has a concept of gender. It may differ greatly from the European binary of male = penis = man and female = vagina = woman, but it exists. If gender wasn't something innately part of us in some way, there would be people somewhere without it. I can't even imagine how a completely genderless society would work without suppressing personal expression. The second is my own experience. Take all my gender cues and interactions away, stand me naked in the middle of an empty room by myself, and I will still "feel male". I can't explain what that means but it's more than how others see me and how I interact with society. There are certainly social aspects to gender, but there has to be more to it than that.
I agree, Althidon. ---------- Post added 16th Jul 2016 at 10:44 PM ---------- Eveline, this was better than any video I'd watched before on the topic. : ) Again, thanks for the link!
I know a lot of transgender people don't have any biology behind their identity, and while that makes me feel uneasy, I do, at the end of the day, respect their choice to identify however they want. That being said, there IS science behind MY gender identity: only my EXPRESSION of my gender is environmental, and even then, there are some behaviors or mine that are almost biologically ingrained into me as a guy. I COULD try to avoid expressing those biological behaviors that are perceived as masculine, but personally, as a masculine person, I see no reason to. My issue with gender identities is that people are making them up left and right. Sorry, but I don't believe there are 76 gender identities. Actually, I think that a lot of people are confusing gender expression and gender identity when they say stuff like that, because most of those "76 gender identities" end up being boys who just love dresses but use he pronouns, or non-conforming people who like girls. We're merging gender identity with gender expression and sexual orientation, which I personally think is just people feeling pressured to sum up everything they are into one word. Do I think girls biologically exist? Yes Do I think boys biologically exist? Yes Do I think there are outliers? Yes, because the brain isn't a simple thing, and as the OPer stated, how you identify can be influenced by environmental factors. Now, how do I feel on gender fluidity? I certainly think it might be possible for someone's gender to change overtime, though trans people with biological factors making them identify that way usually seem to be somewhat linked to their pre-natal hormones. Still, the brain can take weird turns sometimes, and yeah, it could, in theory, make somebody's gender change even biologically overtime. However, people who say they're a boy one day and a girl the next are what I'd call "environmentally transgender" and of course there's nothing wrong with that, though as I said, I feel a little uneasy around environmentally transgender people because I know I am a "biological transgender" person. I just think that being able to distinguish between somebody who is environmentally trans and somebody who's biologically trans would really help lessen the tension and confusion that people in the trans community have for each other, and actually using the terms "gender expression" and "sexual orientation" instead of adding the fact somebody likes to wear skirts or likes girls to their identity would be very helpful.
I don't believe gender identity is socially constructed. Gender roles are though. Actually I found an interesting study from 2006 that discusses this subject a bit from the nature/nurture perspective, but I can't find the whole thing anywhere for free unfortunately so far :/ that website does say 'try two weeks free though' so maybe later... https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springe...chosexual-development-how-does-one-Ep8Hend0fa Oh and you can read the 1st and 2nd page here (above link is only the first page): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-006-9115-y#/page-1
Thank you for posting this it clears up a lot of things in my mind. I've been struggling with these ideas and to hear someone embrace both is tremendously helpful.
