How the Law (doesn't really), define "gender identity"

[icehorse]

Um, are you thinking that there was some kind of fairness in sports, and no kind of gaming, before all this happened?

I just don't think prior imperfections are a good reason to knowingly allow it to get worse.

 

[Niatero]

I just don't think prior imperfections are a good reason to knowingly allow it to get worse.

Agreed.

 

[Pogo]

And so bad actors can claim any old "gender identity" they want, and use that to game the system.

bad actors are bad actors, is this relevant?

 

[Niatero]

bad actors are bad actors, is this relevant?

It is if sorting people by gender is facilitating the bad actions. I think that's happening, but it's an open question for me how much it's happening. Also, I don't think that trying to fight against it will do anything to help stop it or help reduce the damage.

(later) I also think that the push for sorting people by gender is mostly driven by the medical and story-selling industries and other global monopoly game interests, and forces of violence against all women including trans women. I think that most trans women are being hurt by it as much as other women. Maybe more.

 

[McBell]

I think it's a product of magical thinking and therefore should not be a part of any laws. Let's try this, can you name a "gender identity" that's falsifiable?

How about you provide a definition you would accept?

 

[icehorse]

bad actors are bad actors, is this relevant?

It's relevant in this case because these non-definitions are giving bad actors entry points.

 

[icehorse]

How about you provide a definition you would accept?

I don't believe it's a real thing. Again, I think it's a product of magical thinking and I can't define what's in other people's minds.

Put another way, I think it's akin to what some people call a "soul", except that from what I've been told it's at once infinitely fluid, and somehow at the same time must be locked down permanently via medical interventions

 

[Niatero]

I don't believe it's a real thing. Again, I think it's a product of magical thinking and I can't define what's in other people's minds.

Put another way, I think it's akin to what some people call a "soul", except that from what I've been told it's at once infinitely fluid, and somehow at the same time must be locked down permanently via medical interventions

For example, a person identifying truthfully as a woman means that according to their stereotype of a woman, they think they are one or want to be one. That's influenced not only by their stereotype of women, but also by their stereotype of men, and stereotypes of women and men in the society around them That's why I'm saying that sorting people that way is validating and intensifying gender stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination. It's a new layer of camouflage over the forces of violence against women (including most trans women).

 

[McBell]

I don't believe it's a real thing.

So you are saying you do not identify as a gender?
You are not male or female or any of the other genders?
You are "not gender"?

Again, I think it's a product of magical thinking and I can't define what's in other people's minds.

You are claiming that "gender" does not exist outside the mind?

Put another way, I think it's akin to what some people call a "soul", except that from what I've been told it's at once infinitely fluid, and somehow at the same time must be locked down permanently via medical interventions

huh?

 

[crossfire]

I don't think "sexual orientation" is relevant in a definition of "gender identity". If you think it is, can you explain how?

It looks like the other way around to me. It looks to me like crossfire is saying that gender identity is relevant in a definition of "sexual orientation," which I think is true.

Niatero is correct.

In regard to sexual orientation: terms such as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, and pansexual are identity labels that are individually self-reported to describe the subjective desires in relation to any or all of the following: sexual desire, attraction, behavior, or the lack thereof. Since these are subjective calls and are self-reported, the only way to falsify them is by asking the person. Likewise, a gender identity is an identity label that is individually self-reported to describe the way in which an individual orientates themselves within society when it comes to traditional roles, presentations, and behaviors culturally associated with particular sex(es] and/or gender(s.) Gender identities are likewise only falsifiable by asking the person. Sexual orientations, be it heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, pansexuality, butch dyke, tomboy, flaming gay, macho man, girly girl, closet gay, lipstick lesbian, femme, straight, queer, genderqueer, ****, incel, etc, are all identities that individuals may or may not take up or change during their lifetimes, and have associations with the individual's sense of sexuality and social roles associated with a sexuality within society.

I would say that "gender identity" is often independent of sexual orientation, no?

Sexual orientation is not part of the definition of “gender identity,” but gender identity is part of the definition of “sexual orientation.”

According to the definitions for the anti-discrimination laws provided in the OP, Niatero is also correct.

And again, I agree that trans people sometimes need the support of anti-discrimination laws.

Good.

But these poorly worded definitions are allowing misogynists to harm women and girls.

Please demonstrate how the definitions given in reference to the anti-discrimination declarations listed in the OP are enabling misogynists to harm women and girls.

That's not why the video struck out the terms. It was phrases like "may or may not be" that render whatever follows to be useless in a definition.

It's not useless as a definition as it shows that gender identity and expression is subject to change throughout an individual's lifetime.

For example we could say: "gender identity is whatever a person thinks their gender is, which may or may not include also thinking they are orange grizzly bears". The problem isn't with the orange grizzly bears, it's with the "may or may not".

Actually, the problem is with orange grizzly bears, as orange grizzly bears do not participate in human society and take up roles associated with any specific sex or gender in human society. Therefore, orange grizzly bear is not a gender identity. (It might be an identity a given individual might take up, but it is not a gender identity.)

While I have several issues with the above, the key point is that everything and anything that follows the phrase "whether or not" can logically be thrown out, as it adds nothing to the definition.

Again, it demonstrates that gender identity and expression is subject to change within any given individual's lifetime. (Traditional society actually expects different gender expressions for individuals at different stages of their lifetimes. "Don't sexualize children" is a rather obvious example of this.)

If so, that's a bad definition. If you name a "gender identity" (and good luck with that), it's easy to see how that gives us no clues as to that person's sexual orientation.

Actually, I have named several in this post already, some of which I will now repeat: butch dyke, flaming gay, closet gay, lipstick lesbian. I'm sure you can come up with many other examples if you put your mind to it.

I think it's a product of magical thinking and therefore should not be a part of any laws. Let's try this, can you name a "gender identity" that's falsifiable?

It's a subjective call, therefore the only way to falsify it would be by asking the individual.
As for being a part of any laws, I can say that others may project a gender identity upon another individual and use that projection as an excuse in an attempt to justify the sexual abuse of, bullying of, persecution of, or discrimination towards another individual. Transgender individuals are victims of this abuse more often than the rest of the general population, so it does show a need for laws addressing this issue.

 

[Niatero]

Transgender individuals are victims of this abuse more often than the rest of the general population, so it does show a need for laws addressing this issue.

As I said in another post, I think I see the problems that people think they're trying to solve, but I disagree with doing it in ways that validate and intensify gender stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination, and animosities and hostilities across belief divides.

(later) People might think that what really needs to be done to stop oppression will take too long, but I'm thinking that everything they think is a shortcut is actually a new layer of camouflage over the forces of oppression. That's part of how the system works. There isn't any shortcut for stopping it from happening. Along with working for that, there's a lot we can be doing to help reduce the damage, and I don't think that sorting people by gender will help with that either. All it will do is add to the oppression and help perpetuate it.

But nobody will listen to me.

Yes, I know. "Mansplaining." I'll be quiet now.

 

[icehorse]

So you are saying you do not identify as a gender?
You are not male or female or any of the other genders?
You are "not gender"?

I am a man. I have a unique personality.

You are claiming that "gender" does not exist outside the mind?

I can't make many claims about gender because I have never seen a solid definition for the idea. Again, it sounds similar to how people describe their "souls"?

It's not useless as a definition as it shows that gender identity and expression is subject to change throughout an individual's lifetime.

mcbell - see the above to answer your "huh?"

 

[crossfire]

As I said in another post, I think I see the problems that people think they're trying to solve, but I disagree with doing it in ways that validate and intensify gender stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination, and animosities and hostilities across belief divides.

If you want to deconstruct gender stereotypes, you are going to have to get rid of the production of memes. Good luck with that!

(later) People might think that what really needs to be done to stop oppression will take too long, but I'm thinking that everything they think is a shortcut is actually a new layer of camouflage over the forces of oppression. That's part of how the system works. There isn't any shortcut for stopping it from happening.

I agree, bringing content from the unconscious mind into consciousness can be painful. Acknowledging it and intelligently addressing it before it runs back into the Shadow can be tricky as well as painful.

Along with working for that, there's a lot we can be doing to help reduce the damage, and I don't think that sorting people by gender will help with that either. All it will do is add to the oppression and help perpetuate it.

Again, deconstructing stereotypes would involve a huge undertaking with no guarantee that the stereotypes won't spring back up in an unmindful moment.

But nobody will listen to me.

Do you have any suggestions for how to keep people from sorting people according to gender, and how many generations do you reckon it might take? I'm listening.

Yes, I know. "Mansplaining." I'll be quiet now.

LOL!

 

[icehorse]

@crossfire - thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Would you agree that outward expression provides no real clues to sexual identity?

Please demonstrate how the definitions given in reference to the anti-discrimination declarations listed in the OP are enabling misogynists to harm women and girls.

They allow bad men to gain access to women's safe spaces, to disrupt women only gatherings, and interfere with women's athletics.

This is all possible partly because they can use these weak, ambiguous definitions to claim whatever "gender" they want - in that moment. So for example we have male convicts who before sentencing are claiming that they now identify as female and so they must be sent to women's prisons. And I hope you can guess what happens next

Actually, the problem is with orange grizzly bears, as orange grizzly bears do not participate in human society and take up roles associated with any specific sex or gender in human society. Therefore, orange grizzly bear is not a gender identity. (It might be an identity a given individual might take up, but it is not a gender identity.)

Hmmm, let me try again... the problem is with using phrases like "whether or not" - because ANYTHING you say after that phrase adds nothing to the definition you're trying to establish.

Actually, I have named several in this post already, some of which I will now repeat: butch dyke, flaming gay, closet gay, lipstick lesbian. I'm sure you can come up with many other examples if you put your mind to it.

And I would say those all convey sexual orientations but are independent of whatever you think "gender" might be.

As for being a part of any laws, I can say that others may project a gender identity upon another individual and use that projection as an excuse in an attempt to justify the sexual abuse of, bullying of, persecution of, or discrimination towards another individual. Transgender individuals are victims of this abuse more often than the rest of the general population, so it does show a need for laws addressing this issue.

I can imagine an effeminate man being bullied, or a trans person being bullied. But again, the bully probably isn't thinking in terms of fluid gender ideas.

As for trans people being victims of more abuse, I hear that claim a lot, but the stats I've seen are not convincing. But either way, that's for a different thread.

 

[crossfire]

I am a man. I have a unique personality.

That is your gender identity.

I can't make many claims about gender because I have never seen a solid definition for the idea. Again, it sounds similar to how people describe their "souls"?

I would say it is more related to Persona than to "Soul." (whatever might be meant by Soul)

 

[Niatero]

Do you have any suggestions for how to keep people from sorting people according to gender, and how many generations do you reckon it might take? I'm listening.

Seriously, I've decided not to participate any more in discussions about women's issues. One less man violating the space. I know this is not intended as a safe space for women, but I'm pretending that it is, for practice.

(later) If you really want to know what I think about it, we could do it in The Interview Forum or some other place away from discussions about women's issues.

 

[icehorse]

That is your gender identity.

I decline to accept that religious label

 

[icehorse]

Seriously, I've decided not to participate any more in discussions about women's issues. One less man violating the space. I know this is not intended as a safe space for women, but I'm pretending that it is, for practice.

(later) If you really want to know what I think about it, we could do it in The Interview Forum or some other place away from discussions about women's issues.

Sorry to but in, but I have women friends who appreciate my efforts to fight misogyny, and I'm also fighting for my wife and daughters

 

[crossfire]

@crossfire - thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Would you agree that outward expression provides no real clues to sexual identity?

You would have to ask the person. Either way, outward expression is not grounds for discrimination as named in the RCW's of the OP.

They allow bad men to gain access to women's safe spaces, to disrupt women only gatherings, and interfere with women's athletics.

I'm not seeing the connection here: Just how does the definition of sexual orientation in regards to the Declaration of Rights Against Discrimination in the Washington State RCW's do this? Can you provide any examples of such disruptions that are specifically enabled by the existence of this definition regarding these RCW's?

This is all possible partly because they can use these weak, ambiguous definitions to claim whatever "gender" they want - in that moment. So for example we have male convicts who before sentencing are claiming that they now identify as female and so they must be sent to women's prisons. And I hope you can guess what happens next

So you are blaming the anti-discrimination declarations for such behavior? Really?

Hmmm, let me try again... the problem is with using phrases like "whether or not" - because ANYTHING you say after that phrase adds nothing to the definition you're trying to establish.

You do understand that this argument is just another way of saying shut the **** up?

And I would say those all convey sexual orientations but are independent of whatever you think "gender" might be.

The term is gender identity not just gender.

A so-called flaming gay gender expression or identity is called flaming because the person is making it obvious that they are a man who is also a homosexual. That is the role in society that person is taking up, advertising by way of presentation and seeking to fulfill.

I can imagine an effeminate man being bullied, or a trans person being bullied. But again, the bully probably isn't thinking in terms of fluid gender ideas.

As for trans people being victims of more abuse, I hear that claim a lot, but the stats I've seen are not convincing. But either way, that's for a different thread.

Would you say that doing away with laws addressing discrimination and abuse associated with gender identity will make the abuse magically disappear?
[satire] Observe, I will make this disappear by sweeping it under the carpet! See! All gone! Just don't look under the carpet, or you will break the magical spell! [/satire]

 

[crossfire]

Seriously, I've decided not to participate any more in discussions about women's issues. One less man violating the space. I know this is not intended as a safe space for women, but I'm pretending that it is, for practice.

(later) If you really want to know what I think about it, we could do it in The Interview Forum or some other place away from discussions about women's issues.

The ironic humor of not sorting people according to gender and calling this a safe space for women is not lost on me.