Overall, this was a really good post, AGG. It's nice to see you lay out your perspective in more detail.
The people (or at least the ones I have seen) who say gender doesn't exist are genuinely saying gender doesn't exist. That it isn't a thing. That all that matters is biological sex. And that there is nothing else.
I'm curious if you have any references for this? I haven't seen this expressed within the context of transgender topics ever. My only exposure to it has been very much limited to anti-feminist perspectives that employ a naturalistic fallacy proclaiming that women shouldn't have equality, because they're just naturally the way society views them. I doubt you subscribe to that perspective, and I don't believe I've ever seen it expressed on ISF. In fact, I don't think I've seen it expressed in well over a decade.
Some people seem to say that gender does exist but it's a social construct overlaid on top of biological sex. In that sense it isn't something 'real' it's just an idea.
Other people say that gender identity is something 'real' that lives in the brain.
I think there is some overlap between the last two positions because to some extent a gender identity could be an internalisation of a social construct. And there are probably multiple nuanced variations of the above as well. I don't think the list here is exhaustive but I think it distills down 3 distinct positions which cover a broad area of views.
I think many people in this thread take position 2.5 on this. Gender is a social construct overlaid on sex... and gender identity is an internal mental concept. Some people have a stronger affinity and attachment to that mental construct of themselves in opposition to the gender expected of them by the rest of society.
Many moons ago, I made the following simplification:
- Sex is what your body is
- Gender is what other people assume your body is (based on secondary and tertiary sexed characteristics and presentation and mannerism)
- Gender Identity is the sex that you want other people to assume your body is
I think that's consistent with view 2.5 - the overlap you mention.
I think there are real differences and real implications for these positions.
I find the first one untenable as it would suggest that all discrimination against women is based on their genitalia and reproductive organs and the like. It would also lead to the conclusion that you cannot be transgender as there is no such thing as gender. There seem to be a number of posters here who come very close to this position if not stating it explicitly.
You've got two conclusions in here, and I don't think they are related as much as you think they are.
I do think that discrimination against women is based on their sex - it's intimately tied to reproductive capacity. Given that there is discrimination against females within every culture and every time period, regardless of the cultural shifts around gender presentation and gender roles, I can't think of any other unifying attribute. If you think that discrimination against females throughout the ages is based on something else, I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on this.
The second option tends to lead to the position which I think you might hold that since gender is a construct then all we are talking about is whether we comply with the rules and roles society set out for us and our genders. So if a man likes to wear a dress and take care of babies and watch soaps and other stereotypically 'female' things then it doesn't mean he's female he's just a man who likes to do those things. Equally a woman who likes to fix cars and watch sports isn't a man, just a woman who likes to do those things.
That's about 98% of the view I hold.
The third option goes beyond that and says that it isn't just about how you act and what your interests are but a more deep-seated sense of self identity. You are not a man who likes to do girly things. But a woman. Who happens to have male biology through an accident of nature.
This is the other 2%, although I would definitely frame it differently. It may not be your intention, but your statement "who happens to have a male biology through an accident of nature" implies that at some point in development, that fetus was supposed to be female... but something went wrong and they became male because of a genetic error. I think this is backwards from what we understand of genetics. I think it would be more accurate to say that the chromosomes of the zygote were those of a male, and through some other mechanism, the fetus emerged with a female identity.
I say "mechanism", because I don't know the cause. There might be a developmental trigger involved. But there is also a fair bit of psychiatrics evidence that suggests that in some cases, early trauma can be a contributing element, and that in at least some people, identifying as the opposite gender is a coping mechanism for that trauma.
I simply don't know enough (nor does anyone at this point) to be sure how much is nature and how much is nurture. All I do know is that it does happen, and that the mental state that produces that persistent memory causes enough distress to merit intervention and accommodation for those in whom it expresses strongly enough, and cannot be managed otherwise.
Personally I find the first position to be unsustainable and overly reductionist. We are more than just our equipment and our meat. Our minds and psychology matter to who we are and our sense of self. I don't agree with the idea that a woman is just a biological baby making machine and a man a biological impregnation machine.
Nobody else does either. Well, except maybe for a small hold-out of misogynistic cavemen here and there. But that doesn't mean that discrimination against women isn't intimately related to sex.
From that I reach the conclusion that there is such a thing as gender and that there is a mental element to it. And from that I accept that if there is a mental element to it then it is possible for there to be a disconnect between the physical and mental. That gender dysphoria is a real thing. In that I seem to be in agreement with the vast majority of people who study the topic and in disagreement with a number of TERFs and posters to this thread who seem to argue that gender dysphoria isn't a real thing at all.
See, here's where I end up feeling like you don't read posts. Not a single poster in this thread has argued or even suggested that gender dysphoria isn't a real thing. We all agree that it is a real thing.
If we accept that gender dysphoria is a thing then we are left with two options really. Treat it as a mental illness and try to get the mental to line up with the physical (again it seems some posters here advocate that) or alternatively to accept the gender identity and allow the person to live as the gender they identify as and possibly align the physical with the mental through surgery if that's considered beneficial. Again most experts seem to believe this latter approach is best.
I hope that helps. That's the best I can do in outlining my understanding of what you seem to be struggling with.
Personally, I think that both approaches are appropriate. You start with CBT and try to get the mental to align with the physical. This is the least overall harmful, as it doesn't require permanent medicalization, and also doesn't expose the individual to abuse and discrimination. In those cases where such approaches are unsuccessful and the dysphoria persists, then transition is an appropriate next step.
I'll draw a bit of an analogy here. I'm epileptic. When I was first diagnosed, we talked about different treatment options. The potential treatments range from therapies all the way up through actual surgery and invasive treatment. Even within the approach of drug therapies, there are drugs that have almost no side effects at all, and which work for many people, but which are ineffective for about 25% of epileptics. The other side of the drug options has drugs that are highly effective for almost everyone except about 2%, but which have serious side effects including kidney stress and increased risk of stroke and embolism, as well as cognitive effects like restlessness, inability to concentrate, etc. Only the 2% for whom all of those approaches are ineffective do doctors consider invasive medical treatments like surgeries or electrical shock therapies.
I am lucky - the mildest of the drug therapies works very well for me. I'm extremely happy that we started with that approach. Starting with the harsher drugs seems like it would be an irresponsible approach, even if it works for almost everyone. Starting with an approach that assumes invasive medical procedures would be downright negligent malpractice.
That is a misunderstanding of what the term spectrum implies in mathematical contexts.
