Gender identity

[agnosticatheist]

Do genders exist?

Or are they constructs?

It's simple enough to look in the mirror and see that you are physically:

A: A male

B: A female

C: A hermaphrodite (In this case, you are still genetically either a male or a female)

However, when determining "who" you are, the matter is much more complicated.

[Paprika]

For humans, there are two sexes (and also corruptions of them due to genetic flaws). This is simple biological fact.

'gender' (I speak not of the grammatical concept) is merely a concept embraced and popularised by feminists to ignore the many significances of sexual differentiation.

"Corruption" is a value judgment that has no standing in science.

Since you don't accept 'corruption', maybe 'genetic flaws' or 'genetic defects' is more agreeable?

Gender is not an invention of feminism.

Agreed. I merely claimed the feminism popularised it.

[Haven]

Since you don't accept 'corruption', maybe 'genetic flaws' or 'genetic defects' is more agreeable?

Being intersex is not defective or harmful (from an objective, health-based standpoint). There is no harm that comes to anyone as a result of being intersex. It's only considered "defective" by people who are uncomfortable with the intersex condition.

[Hamsaka]

Do genders exist?

For humans, there are two sexes (and also corruptions of them due to genetic flaws). This is simple biological fact.

Do you have supportive evidence for this that are not scriptures? We're in the philosophy section, so this should be interesting.

'gender' (I speak not of the grammatical concept) is merely a concept embraced and popularised by feminists to ignore the many significances of sexual differentiation.

Not another unsupported claim! This is a debate forum, not an opinion-fest, and there is no lectern from which to preach it

[Jashwell]

Sex refers to biological traits (including chromosomes, genitalia, hormones, etc.); a person may fall anywhere along the spectrum between female, intersex, or male. [...] The fact is that not all humans fit neatly into the "female" and "male" boxes (again, I'm talking about biological sex, not gender identity). Some people have XXY or XXYY chromosomes; there is no way to assign such people to either "mainstream" biological sex.

In biology (outside of sciences, most people would have different opinions):

Y is the sex-determining chromosome in many species, since it is the presence or absence of Y that determines the male or female sex of offspring produced in sexual reproduction.

Testis-determining factor (TDF), also known as sex-determining region Y (SRY) protein, is a DNA-binding protein (also known as gene-regulatory protein/transcription factor) encoded by the SRY gene that is responsible for the initiation of male sex determination in humans.

SRY is present in the Y chromosome (in rare circumstances it can end up in X chromosomes, such as a 'crossing over'). SRY activation is usually used to determine male sex in these rare circumstances. XXY and XXYY individuals are generally male, and when they aren't it's because of non-standard behaviour in the SRY gene of the Y chromosome. (E.g. XX males, who have SRY in an X chromosome.)

Later, researcher David C. Page analyzed the chromosomes of sex-reversed XX men, rare individuals who look like men but have two X chromosomes instead of one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. Using DNA hybridization with probes corresponding to different regions of the Y chromosome, Page discovered that sex-reversed males carried genes from a 140-kilobase region on the short arm of the Y chromosome (Figure 1). Presumably, this region had been transferred to the X chromosome during a translocation (Page et al., 1985). Subsequent experiments narrowed down this region (McLaren, 1991) and found that one gene, the sex-determining region of the Y, or SRY, was the master regulator of sex determination.

Gender refers to the identities, expressions, and cultural performances often associated with sex. Sex and gender usually match (a person who has a female sex will typically identify as a woman [feminine gender]), but this is not always the case (and yes, there is scientific evidence for this).

The evidence that people identify differently is that they identify differently, this is the evidence that a large number of those who identify as a different gender have similar brain physiology to the associated sex.

What a particular gender means to you isn't necessarily what it means to others. Gender likely has different meaning in fields like evolutionary psychology to what it means in sociology, and similarly to other subjects - let alone what gender means to most people. Gender is just like any other category, and while there's a lot of overlap, different people include different people (sex isn't as controversial a topic). Many people might associate gender largely with sex, others might associate gender largely with stereotypes of sex. (The former might still use similar stereotypes to determine sex.) Compare religions and holy scriptures, as well as the many standards for considering a member to be of a particular religion.

Feminism is the belief that all people, regardless of gender, should have equality. Gender is not an invention of feminism.

Feminism is a group that's a mix of movements and ideologies, some of which claim to just be the belief that "all people, regardless of gender, should have equality"; almost all of which have been largely about Women's Rights Activism (hence feminism). Feminism is not just the belief that "all people, regardless of gender, should have equality", which can be pointed out simply by referencing either intersectional feminism (about more than gender) or the wildly different ideas of what equality individuals should have. (Legal equality, equality of opportunity (and in what circumstances), outcome equality, social equality, etc.) There are a variety of other ideas associated with feminism that some consider requirements of a 'true' feminist, and ideas some consider 'anti-feminist'.

Sexual differentiation is something that has been heavily debated, but so far no clear conclusions have been drawn.

What do you mean by this? Are there specific differences you have in mind?

[Paprika]

Since you don't accept 'corruption', maybe 'genetic flaws' or 'genetic defects' is more agreeable?

Being intersex is not defective or harmful (from an objective, health-based standpoint).

Genetic defects need not necessarily lead to any significant health issues.

Now, the normal reproduction process is supposed to lead to the human embryo possessing XY or XX sex chromosomes; any deviation is a genetic defect.

[Paprika]

Do genders exist?

For humans, there are two sexes (and also corruptions of them due to genetic flaws). This is simple biological fact.

Do you have supportive evidence for this that are not scriptures? We're in the philosophy section, so this should be interesting.

See above.

'gender' (I speak not of the grammatical concept) is merely a concept embraced and popularised by feminists to ignore the many significances of sexual differentiation.

Not another unsupported claim! This is a debate forum, not an opinion-fest, and there is no lectern from which to preach it

One would imagine that the reader would have a little background knowledge.

This might help; though you may prefer Wikipedia.

The "male-or-female sex" sense is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being," in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.

[FinalEnigma]

Since you don't accept 'corruption', maybe 'genetic flaws' or 'genetic defects' is more agreeable?

Being intersex is not defective or harmful (from an objective, health-based standpoint).

Genetic defects need not necessarily lead to any significant health issues.

Now, the normal reproduction process is supposed to lead to the human embryo possessing XY or XX sex chromosomes; any deviation is a genetic defect.

That seems to be taking a semantic/technical rather than practical view of things.

wouldn't it logically follow from this that all mutations are genetic defects?
Are you comfortable with the idea that positive adaptations as a result of mutation are defects?


As far as the question of whether genders are a constructed thing or not, I do not know how to answer this. For clarity, I'm am going with Sex = the physiological manifestations of biological sex (even this gets tricky). The problem is that I don't know what a gender is.

Is gender what body parts you have?

Is gender which sex you identify as (note, uselessness alert)?

Is gender which sex you feel more like you belong to?

I have difficulty if it is anything other than that. Perhaps gender could be a combination of sex and sexual orientation. But a gender cannot be defined as the gender that you identify as, because that's circular and useless.

Incidentally, do we know whether people with gender identity mismatch feel as though they are the opposite gender to their sex because of what the opposite sex actually is, or is it because they identify with the societal definition of the gender for the opposite sex?

[Paprika]

Since you don't accept 'corruption', maybe 'genetic flaws' or 'genetic defects' is more agreeable?

Being intersex is not defective or harmful (from an objective, health-based standpoint).

Genetic defects need not necessarily lead to any significant health issues.

Now, the normal reproduction process is supposed to lead to the human embryo possessing XY or XX sex chromosomes; any deviation is a genetic defect.

That seems to be taking a semantic/technical rather than practical view of things.

A technical approach is needed especially since we're discussing technical issues of biology. And semantics is important, because careful definition is crucial. If you doubt the necessity, look at the ill-defined 'gender'.

wouldn't it logically follow from this that all mutations are genetic defects?[/quote]
Yes.

Are you comfortable with the idea that positive adaptations as a result of mutation are defects?

Not all defects necessarily result in disorders.

For clarity, I'm am going with Sex = the physiological manifestations of biological sex (even this gets tricky).

It's quite simple: define sex as the genotype. Feminists and other progressives attempt to play on the varying phenotypes (especially intersex) to subvert the common idea of the sexual binary, but the foundation should be genotype, which is binary although defects can lead to abnormal individuals.

The problem is that I don't know what a gender is. (snip)

Whatever is convenient for the purpose at hand

[FinalEnigma]

wouldn't it logically follow from this that all mutations are genetic defects?

Yes.
I'm not sure that I find this reasonable.

a defect is defined as: a shortcoming, imperfection, or lack.

a genetic defect is defined as: a disease or disorder that is inherited genetically

I can find no definition that frames a genetic defect as ANY mutation or change in genes. It is always used synonymously with genetic disorder.

This is because calling a difference a defect is incorrect.
Mutations occur because of replication errors, however, an error does not necessarily cause a defect. An error which causes an improvement cannot be said to have caused a defect, because by definition, defects are necessarily bad.

[Paprika]

wouldn't it logically follow from this that all mutations are genetic defects?

Yes.
I'm not sure that I find this reasonable.

a defect is defined as: a shortcoming, imperfection, or lack.

a genetic defect is defined as: a disease or disorder that is inherited genetically

I can find no definition that frames a genetic defect as ANY mutation or change in genes. It is always used synonymously with genetic disorder.

This is because calling a difference a defect is incorrect.
Mutations occur because of replication errors, however, an error does not necessarily cause a defect. An error which causes an improvement cannot be said to have caused a defect, because by definition, defects are necessarily bad.

An error is also by definition necessarily bad.

Now, I must concede that from further research, I find that I have used 'genetic defect' inaccurately with respects to mutations. But as regards missing or duplicate sexual chromosomes, I believe 'genetic defect' is perfectly appropriate.