Gender identity

@Salo phil,

There is a distinction to be made between sex and gender:
Sex is the biological characteristics of a person that aligns them as either male or female; although this binary distinction is problemtatic when one considers those born with genetic abberations which blur the clear male-female line.
Gender is the internalization and performance of social conventions identified as masculine and feminine. This is distinct from sex and is merely the conventions that one comes to identify with, seperate from biological sex. There is no clear distinction between masculine and feminine in this sphere, and there exists a great level of experimentation, such as gender-beinding (males taking on certain feminine characteristics and vice versa) or transvestism (one performing the opposite of their biological sex).

While physical sex is determined (by-in-large) biologically, gender is a social construction that one internalizes and performs. This allows someone born as a gender to come to identify with the social characteristics associated with the other, thus coming to identify with this other sex rather than their own. This is when sex-reassignment surgery becomes an option, as performing the role one gender while being the other sex becomes socially problematic.

This is a difficult topic to summarize, but Judith Butler's book "Gender Trouble" is the core text in this discussion, although a difficult reading. If you are at all interested in this topic, start there and it will become much more clear.

Bock Bock

@Salo phil,

Salo wrote:

The thread "Why are Men, Why are Women" got me thinking, and I'm posting this as a new thread because it's way off on a tangent from the original post.

Generally speaking, men identify themselves as men, and women identify themselves as women, based on their biology. Your physical sex is determined by the chromosomes and genitals that you're born with.

So how can it be explained then, that there are a number of trans-gendered people who are not happy with the gender they've been born with, and feel that they should have been born as the opposite one? If its an environmental factor that causes it rather than genetics, what is the nature of that factor? If gender identity resides somewhere other than the genitals and chromosomes, where is that? The soul? If there's no soul then where? If it's entirely biological then surely 100% of the population would be 100% content with the gender they've been assigned at birth but that is clearly not the case.

(Disclosure: I am speaking from personal experience here as one of those people who identifies as a gender opposite to the one with which I was born).

Personally, IMO, I think it is a complex and even more so sensitive issure. Without going into a lot of dialog, I think is involves a combination of issues that include family dysfunction, social alienation, stifled creative ability and pharmaceutical manipulation. Narrowing down what each contributes is IMO, difficult to know. Realizing there may be other reasons, these are the ones I have thought of that I think play a major role. :perplexed:

William

@Salo phil,

'Sex' can be, as stated, 'visually' discovered and thereby defined.
'Gender' is impetus of the sum total of one's 'nature', and manifests on an entire spectrum.
No 'right', no 'wrong', just 'is'.

@William,

William wrote:

issues that include family dysfunction, social alienation, stifled creative ability and pharmaceutical manipulation.

I think these all can be causes but I'm not convinced that there aren't more than that. I certainly have experienced no family dysfunction, no stifled creativity and no pharmaceutical manipulation (beyond a moderate amount of alcohol and ordinary cigarettes). Social alienation, I believe, has been a result of my gender identity issues and not the cause of them, as I've been displaying gender identity issues since pre-school and the social alienation didn't start till high school.

And I definitely agree with the distinction between "sex" and "gender".

@Salo phil,

Salo wrote:

I think these all can be causes but I'm not convinced that there aren't more than that. I certainly have experienced no family dysfunction, no stifled creativity and no pharmaceutical manipulation (beyond a moderate amount of alcohol and ordinary cigarettes). Social alienation, I believe, has been a result of my gender identity issues and not the cause of them, as I've been displaying gender identity issues since pre-school and the social alienation didn't start till high school.

And I definitely agree with the distinction between "sex" and "gender".

I think everyone, heterosexual and gay alike are searching for answers to this. IMO. Being a heterosexual myself I have always wondered why, in lieu of the deadly consequences that are involved with that particular lifestyle, what is it that drives the "gay" to participate in such activity when there are escape mechanism's such as we are all familiar that can relieve any sexual tension that may arise? If I am over the top her please tell me for I do not wish to put you on the spot. Is is a compulsion? Is it a need for love out of desperation? I can even understand having a deep, loving relationship with a person of the same sex without engaging in such dangerous behavior. I have a very good friend whom I love dearly who has been a part of my life for many, many years yet it is unfathomable to even think about engaging in any type of sexual activity. Please forgive me if I am out of line, as it is just impossible of me, and I speak only for myself, to understand where that "compulsion", if that is what it is, comes from. And if you could, through medical breakthroughs, become 'heterosexual" if you could?

Thank you so very much for you candor involving this subject. Again, sorry if I am over the top in my curiosity. Smile

William

@William,

William wrote:

I think everyone, heterosexual and gay alike are searching for answers to this. IMO. Being a heterosexual myself I have always wondered why, in lieu of the deadly consequences that are involved with that particular lifestyle, what is it that drives the "gay" to participate in such activity when there are escape mechanism's such as we are all familiar that can relieve any sexual tension that may arise? If I am over the top her please tell me for I do not wish to put you on the spot.

I don't mind answering, but I should first point out that gender identity and sexual orientation are not related to one another at all. Sexual orientation relates to the gender I choose in my sexual partners, and is irrelevent to the subject of gender identity. My gender identity is the gender in which I view myself.

Quote:

Is is a compulsion? Is it a need for love out of desperation? I can even understand having a deep, loving relationship with a person of the same sex without engaging in such dangerous behavior. I have a very good friend whom I love dearly who has been a part of my life for many, many years yet it is unfathomable to even think about engaging in any type of sexual activity.

And that just simply means only that you are totally heterosexual, and that's perfectly fine. It's not connected with gender identity however (except in the sense that you define heterosexuality by the difference between your own gender and that of your partner).

Quote:

Please forgive me if I am out of line, as it is just impossible of me, and I speak only for myself, to understand where that "compulsion", if that is what it is, comes from. And if you could, through medical breakthroughs, become 'heterosexual" if you could?

I'm either a straight female or a gay male, depending on whether you take my gender to be only based on my chromosomes, or not. There is no way on earth I would change my sexual orientation. I have been with my current partner for 22 years and we love one another very much. If my orientation changed then the relationship with him would have to come to an end and that is utterly unthinkable to me.

However.

If there was some medical breakthrough, some drug I could take that would make me suddenly identify comfortably as the gender that matches my body, then I would take it, without a moment's hesitation. Because living a half-life of confusion and self-deception like I've done for the past 40-odd years, just sucks.

@Salo phil,

My concern Salo in today's society as we effort to use "political correctness" to condone all, heretofore less than socially acceptable behavior is what influence it has on our young as they venture though those pubescence years of sexual awakening as they are conditioned to learn being "gay" is a "optional" lifestyle, how many "choose" to be gay who are in fact, not. Personally, I think all sexuality should be restricted from the public domain and be confined to that very private and secluded sanctuary of the the individuals private domain. Call me old fashioned if you will, I don't mind. No one needs to know what takes place there unless it is manifested in the public domain and proves to be a negative influence to the young and innocent that frequent that neutral ground. Unfortunately we are innundated with sex every where we turn and it is underestandable why so many are confused as nature is not allowed to "take it course" due to all the "influences" there. IMO. Sexual procliviteis are a private affair and they should remain private, IMO. Thanks again for you candor.

William

@William,

William wrote:

n today's society as we effort to use "political correctness" to condone all, heretofore less than socially acceptable behavior is what influence it has on our young as they venture though those pubescence years of sexual awakening as they are conditioned to learn being "gay" is a "optional" lifestyle, how many "choose" to be gay who are in fact, not.

I would be willing to agree here, although not to the point of citing homosexuality as a "less than socially acceptable behaviour." I do agree that public acceptance of alternative lifestyles (homosexuality, amongst others, included) has lead to their increase, which has influenced how many people identify with these lifestyles. I don't think this causes people to "choose" to be gay (or any other of these lifestyles) when they simply aren't. It isn't such a cut-and-dry identification of straight or gay or bisexual. The prevalence of these lifestyles is allowing people to explore their sexual tendancies and reveal what works best for them, rather than simply making a conscious choice to "be gay" (or any other of these lifestyles). Although this would come into play in a relatively minor capacity (who would have thought one to feign being gay for social acceptance would ever be a reality?), I think the prevalence leads many who are gay (or uncertain) to explore their sexuality, rather than figuring it out alone and then coming out with that decision as their end-decision.

Quote:

Personally, I think all sexuality should be restricted from the public domain and be confined to that very private and secluded sanctuary of the the individuals private domain. Call me old fashioned if you will, I don't mind. No one needs to know what takes place there unless it is manifested in the public domain and proves to be a negative influence to the young and innocent that frequent that neutral ground.

The argument against this underground sexuality (ignoring how feasible or not it may be) is that this exposure to sexuality allows people to explore it from a more open perspective, rather than face their sexual anxieties in secret. Those who are struggling with their sexuality require validation from society at large in order to accept their own position. Being gay would be much more difficult if there was not such a socially-wide discussion of the sexuality (even if this discourse is not always homosexual or bisexual friendly).

Quote:

Unfortunately we are innundated with sex every where we turn and it is underestandable why so many are confused as nature is not allowed to "take it course" due to all the "influences" there.

Nature 'taking its course' would not be possible without all of those influences. The items that are not discussed become repressed, not opened. Without an ongoing, public dialogue about sexuality what many people feel to be "natural" would be problematic, if not impossible, to express. There will always be a dominant sexual ideology, even if it is not spoken of. The Victorian era showed us how not talking about sexuality openly does not liberate it, at all, but simply causes it to be expressed in other fashions.

(All of this from laying a couple of eggs. How about that?)

@William,

William wrote:

Personally, I think all sexuality should be restricted from the public domain and be confined to that very private and secluded sanctuary of the the individuals private domain.

Do you mean simply that sexuality should not be displayed publically, or that it should not be talked about at all?

And by sexuality do you also include heterosexual activity? If for instance it is not acceptable for two men to walk down the street holding hands, is it also unacceptable for a husband and wife to hold hands in public?

@BlueChicken,

BlueChicken wrote:

I would be willing to agree here, although not to the point of citing homosexuality as a "less than socially acceptable behaviour." I do agree that public acceptance of alternative lifestyles (homosexuality, amongst others, included) has lead to their increase, which has influenced how many people identify with these lifestyles.

I'm not so sure that it's really increased at all, just become more acceptable. Whereas today a gay person is granted the legal right (at least in the UK - I don't know about all; US states, I think in some it may still be illegal) to engage in homosexual relationships, this has not always been the case in the past.

Where homosexuality is illegal, a gay person has one of the following choices:
1) Pursue homosexual relationships anyway, but be very very careful and very very secretive about it.
2) Remain celibate, suppress natural sexual desires.
3) Pretend to be heterosexual, get married, have kids, suppress natural sexual desires.
4) Commit suicide.

And even today, where homosexuality is legal, some people live in communities or families where it is so negatively viewed that a gay person still has only those four choices to look forward to.

Despite that, I am still no convinced that the gay population is bigger now than it ever has been. Its just that fewer people are forced to deny their natural sexuality.

Quote:

I don't think this causes people to "choose" to be gay (or any other of these lifestyles) when they simply aren't. It isn't such a cut-and-dry identification of straight or gay or bisexual.

Agreed. If you're not gay, then no amount of social pressure, experimenting, playing around etc, is going to turn you gay. You can't choose to be gay just to fit in with a gay friend for instance. You may go through the motions, if you can force yourself to do that, but it will never be pleasant.

Also the reverse is true for homosexuals - a gay person cannot "choose" to be straight. They may choose to pursue a heterosexual lifestyle (for instance out of fear) but again it will never be pleasant.

The only people who are able to choose are those who are naturally bisexual. They may be sexually attracted to both males and females but some may have chosen to devote their relationship(s) to a person or people of one gender or another. They may fully identify as gay or straight based on that relationship, but that is a lifestyle/orientation they have chosen.

So I can see why everyone else is confused about whether gays get a choice or not. If you get some bisexual people identifying as gay and saying they chose it, then on the other hand you get people who are totally gay, who say they could not choose, so it's comparing apples and oranges here. Just because the bisexual people are able to choose, doesn't mean that ALL gays did.

I definitely agree with Blue Chicken about society giving more people now the chance to explore their own sexuality and be able to come to an informed and experienced decision rather than have to work it out in isolation and secret. And I think this is an extremely good thing.

@Salo phil,

Very good thread; kudos to the excellent exchanges here. A couple of thoughts if I may

Wherein sexual identity lies, I believe, is a combination of biology and socialization in that urges and predispositions may be influenced by either. How much of one aspect effects ones' orientation (or desires) depends necessarily on the impact nature or nurture has had. This is one of those areas that I think to be very much individualized to that animal, and to that social creature; impossible to draw general conclusions.

As to the effect more "openness" in other-than-heterosexual behaviors has had. I believe this hasn't affected anyone's tendencies much, if at all. More openness simply allows one the freedom to not have to hide so much. This, by any accounts, is a good thing.

I'd reject, very enthusiastically, any suggestion that other-than-heterosexual desires or behaviors is a result of a disfunction or desperate need. I'm not sure that anyone has suggested it, but I believe I sensed the tone earlier. This is a damaging stereotype that has no place; and from which no good can come.

Again, applaud the open-expression here. Good stuff

Thanks

@Salo phil,

Salo wrote:

I'm not so sure that it's really increased at all, just become more acceptable. Whereas today a gay person is granted the legal right (at least in the UK - I don't know about all; US states, I think in some it may still be illegal) to engage in homosexual relationships, this has not always been the case in the past.

And even today, where homosexuality is legal, some people live in communities or families where it is so negatively viewed that a gay person still has only those four choices to look forward to.

Despite that, I am still no convinced that the gay population is bigger now than it ever has been. Its just that fewer people are forced to deny their natural sexuality.

I think this brings up a very pertinent question for this thread however: is a person's sexuality something that they are born with, or to nod to any Freudians (I don't know why, however) something that develops early in life, or is sexuality something that constantly evolves over a person's life as either a conscious choice or something they can't control but is not static?

On the one hand, a person has no control over what their sexuality entails, and they can only explore or deny what is already within them. So a homosexual individual could mask themselves as a heterosexual, even convincing themselves, but this would only mask what is 'really there' (i.e. their homosexuality). This could be based on genetics, early childhood experiences, or even neurological progression during fetal development (I am at a loss here).

The flip side would be that is is something that changes with a person. As a factor of personality, sexuality would be linked to the experiences a person has and the social characteristics they identify with. Even if this is not a fully conscious choice, it is the idea that experiences can change one's sexuality: based on x type and y number of experiences one can come to 'be gay' after having 'been straight'.

Neither of these is 'good' however. In the first case, homosexuality and bisexuality come to be seen as a defect; in the second homosexuality/bisexuality is a choice, or at the very least something that can be cured. Neither is desireable, but the origin of sexuality (something a lot of people would like with both sex and gender) does seem to be somewhere within this mix.

Salo, you seem to identify more with the first option. Do you think that sexuality is something we are born with, or at the very least something we cannot change or control (only accept or deny what is 'really there')? I think this speaks a lot to how we view gender, as both it and sexuality seem to align themselves.

(For my two cents, I can't imagine times past where the chickens laid eggs, the roosters yelled at farmers, and everyone was 'happy' with how it worked out.)

@Salo phil,

Salo wrote:

Do you mean simply that sexuality should not be displayed publically, or that it should not be talked about at all?

And by sexuality do you also include heterosexual activity? If for instance it is not acceptable for two men to walk down the street holding hands, is it also unacceptable for a husband and wife to hold hands in public?

Salo, in all due respect, I can see where this is going. Personally, I cannot think of a reason why two men should be holding hands period unless they were personally making a statement. My concern is the child and the message two men holding hands sends that child. A man and a woman holding hands is and always has sent a message that was compatible with nature and therefore considered agreeable with it.

I have always been one who feels that relationship between a man and a woman to be a sacred one as it relates to what is needed to bring a new life into this world and any "cheapening" of that union only threatens the balance that child needs. If it's all the same to you, I do not wish to participate in a debate comparing one lifestyle to the other, for me their simply is no comparison in any stretch of "my" imagination. To me, there should be more to life than exclaiming one's sexual proclivities. I don't care to know those "preferences" regardless if they are hetero, or same sex or whatever.

I got the answer I was looking for and we can only hope one day medicine will allow us to eliminate the behavior once and for all, if what you said is indeed held by others who experience gender conflict.

William

@Salo phil,

^^^ What ignorant biggoted intolerant hateful ravings of an obsolete dinosaur going down for the last time (Xtian?!). Hopefully 'your children' will rebel against such crap. Hopefully 'your children' will learn more from a tolerant and accepting society than from your ossified ignorance.
I, and all decent, honorable, compassionate, loving people reject your ignorance and hate. It will, i know, pass (perhaps only with your passing, but nontheless...).
I would have said 'with all due respect', but such hateful intolerant ignorance is due no respect whatsoever!
(Know that any response that you make to this post will be ignored. You can present no 'justification' whatsoever!)
Pffft!

@Salo phil,

In developmental Psychology, the issue of gender construction is termed the 'phallic' stage. Between the ages of 4 and 6 years is where the person constructs their social gender consciousness.

If the opposite gender parent or role-model rejects the child in some intrinsic way, the child will internalize this rejection and become heterophobic when it enters the 'gender phase' (puberty).

These roles can be re-established if you undergo deep therapy whereby you would temporarily regress back to this age and then re-establish the gender wole, fixated on a person more suitable.

If you find this hard to deal with, do not be dismissive. Consider that heterosexual people are normally attracted to those who remind them of their opposite gender parent. This is well known. If the opposite gender care-giver has rejected the child, the rejection becomes imprinted on the psyche and gender-complex issues result.

But, with hard psychological work, you can win through.

@William,

William wrote:

Salo, in all due respect, ...

Wow.

I completely failed to find any "due respect" in anything you said.

@BlueChicken,

BlueChicken wrote:

Neither of these is 'good' however. In the first case, homosexuality and bisexuality come to be seen as a defect; in the second homosexuality/bisexuality is a choice, or at the very least something that can be cured. Neither is desireable, but the origin of sexuality (something a lot of people would like with both sex and gender) does seem to be somewhere within this mix.

Salo, you seem to identify more with the first option. Do you think that sexuality is something we are born with, or at the very least something we cannot change or control (only accept or deny what is 'really there')? I think this speaks a lot to how we view gender, as both it and sexuality seem to align themselves.

You are right, Blue, for the most part I believe that sexuality is something that you're born with or is fixed by very early experience. I believe it can't be changed; the only thing you can choose is whether to express it or repress it. I do believe however, that those who are bisexual have the ability to choose, at least in terms of whether they settle to a heterosexual lifestyle or a homosexual one. Although I guess even in this case they're not actually stopping being bisexual, they're just choosing to limit the kind of relationships they have, which is really only another case of the balance between repression and expression.

However even if it's a genetic thing, doesn't mean it's a defect. My eyes are blue, I am right handed, I have light brown hair. These things are all genetic, none of those things are defects.

@Salo phil,

I see here the ugliness of bigotry and hate rearing its head.

For all we espouse with regards to our individual choices and respect for the individual, I never cease to be amazed at how quickly caustic homophobia and self-righteous "disgust" supplant any philosophical considerations for personhood.

Love is a rare, needed and precious thing. Love, in a romantic sense, justly exists between people of mixed genders. In no way, and in no context, should this ever be condemned, discouraged or made to seem wrong. To do so is to disrespect the individual and their free agency and places them - through actions and words - on a lower level. Through this "disgust", we deny them the privilege of our company and our compassion. Through our judgment, we exclude and condemn. Sad stuff...

I'll go back to my corner now, but I think this needed to be said.

Thanks

@Salo phil,

Salo wrote:

... I do believe however, that those who are bisexual have the ability to choose, at least in terms of whether they settle to a heterosexual lifestyle or a homosexual one.... However even if it's a genetic thing, doesn't mean it's a defect.

Good points. I've heard much on nature -vs- nurture on sexuality, but I've not seen much with regards to bisexuality specifically. I've always felt - for no particular reason than those bisexuals I've known - that bisexuality had more to do with someone who "wasn't really disposed, sexually, one way or the other" (and by extension, neither through nature or nurture).

Thanks

Philosophy Forum

Gender identity

Quick Links

My Account

able2know