Talk:Gender identity/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Gender identity as a subjective notion that is unfalsifiable and unverifiable

A reliable source was inserted to support this uncontroversial claim and was reverted. Maneesh (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case can you quote what the source says so people can see it? (Nevermind I saw the quote.)CycoMa (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Maneesh: your source, Griffin et al. 2020 (which I did not remove, so it and your quote are still visible on the article page) is controversial concerning the topic of this article; its claims simply cannot be presented as statements of fact in Wikivoice, when other sources do not agree. You can't simply cherry-pick one (low quality) source to support your preferred - but controversial and even provocative - wording. Newimpartial (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

There are various GI definitions that are mixed and matched throughout this article without qualification, which of them state that the gender identity is objective/verifiable/falsifiable? A common element across the various source is something like "sense of self", in which case it is WP:BLUESKY that such sense are subjective/unverifiable/unfalsifiable. Hardly controversial or provocative. The article was called "controversial" in this editorial, but no corrigendum I can see. Griffin et al. are writing about the same notion of gender identity with respect to other well known mainstream sources that they cite in the context of clinical gender dysphoria, it is not their own idea of gender identity. Maneesh (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial question what is wikivoice? I keep seeing this mentioned by more experienced editors on this site.CycoMa (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

"Wikivoice" means as a statement of fact, without attribution. One non- wikivoice way of making a similar statement would be "Griffin et al. (2020) describe gender identity as a subjective notion that is unfalsifiable and unverifiable". I'm not convinced that that statement would be WP:DUE for this article, but it would overcome my objection to using Wikivoice. Newimpartial (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Lots of things are unfalsifiable/unverifiable when they involve a person's inner state, such as hunger, depression, hallucinations, and many more. Nevertheless, we have articles on these topics, and they don't say anything about "unfalsifiable/unverifiable". Do you think they all should, or is there something about this article that you find uniquely different? Mathglot (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hold on a moment I don’t know if I’m mixing things up but isn’t gender/gender identity basically a social construct. If it is doesn’t that basically mean it’s subjective by design? Or am I just confused?CycoMa (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Certainly gender identity has an essentially subjective aspect. Most scholars do not move to such language as "unfalsifiable", though, perhaps because (1) that language is part of a discredited positivist metaphysic or (2) it tends to cast doubt on the reality of the phenomenon it describes (would you describe suicidal ideation as "unfalsifiable"?), or both. Newimpartial (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

"Unfalsifiable" definitely is usable in some subjects - for example, it applies to the unmeasurable "energies" posited by proponents of some forms of Supplementary, Complementary, and Alternative Medicine (SCAM). SCAM is rightly rejected on such grounds. I'm curious what metaphysic you would consider to be current and not discredited. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

When I wrote that I was thinking of logical positivism, FWIW. As a discredited metaphysic, I mean. Metaphysical credit is not really something I myself am looking for at the moment, though if I were I might hire Ruby the Galactic Gumshoe. Newimpartial (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC), elaborated by Newimpartial (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not thinking of proponents of Heterodox and Offbeat Ancillary Xenotherapies? Mathglot (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Ooh, I haven't heard that one before. It just occurred to me that one could have the H be "Holistic", too. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

They probably should if that's what a reliable source says like in this case. Hunger, pain etc. seem to be common experiences, so it isn't surprising that ideas like "unverfiability and unfalsifiability" aren't brought up often in those contexts. GI is something that is really only known to relate to a small part of the population. The general importance of verifiability and falsifiability is an important idea in the philsophy of science that often comes up in many parts of psychology, and psychoanalysis (where GI comes from) specifically for obvious reasons. Maneesh (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen any RS that support the idea that only a small part of the population have gender identities. Do you have any? Newimpartial (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I certainly don't have one any more than I have a soul, I do have accurate cognitive knowledge of my sex in the way I do about my blood type, height etc. Look at the Stock reference and her quote in this very article. Maneesh (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a RS on metaphysics, thanks; I was asking for someone with relevant expertise who asserts that only a minority have gender identities.

So you don't identify as male or female? That's good to know. Neither do I. Do you also use they/them pronouns, then? Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

What? Stock's is a reliable source, in this very article, that supports the idea that "only a small part of the population have gender identities", her quote is "In non-dysphoric contexts, the concept of gender-identity rarely comes up, so that actually, it would seem false to say that everyone has one." Maneesh (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Stock is certainly a reliable source for her own opinion, but that quote does not serve as an RS for any claim beyond her opinion. We are apparently back to the Wikivoice issue again. Newimpartial (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

You've been provided a RS in this very article, that supports the idea that "only a small part of the population have gender identities". Not much else to say. Maneesh (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

That was a self-published piece on Medium, which cannot be used as a source for factual claims per WP:RSOPINION. Looks like you've got nothin'. Newimpartial (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

You didn't read the ref carefully. It is published RS. Maneesh (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The link you provided was to the piece that had been removed from the Medium site. Setting that aside, that is still a philosopher giving an opinion outside their area of expertise, which is still only RS for their opinion, not for a factual claim. You can't cite a philosopher for the factual claim that only a minority of people have a gender identity, any more than you can cite a philosopher for the factual claim that you can indeed transform your sex (also in a peer-reviewed journal.) At least, you can't provide either without attributing it as one philosopher's opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The journal was in the ref, you just didn't read it. Gender identity is an active area of philosophy that carefully assess claims like "does everyone have a GI" and should be represented here, there is nor better domain that explores the many different connotations of GI. The claims that GI has a specific relationship to GD, a clinical condition of very low known prevalence is not controversial. Stock's ref should be restored and does support the idea very few of us have a GI. Sex is a part of material reality, so what biologists say in textbooks will naturally have a higher precedence than a philosopher (your link just looks like low quality pseudoscience to me). Maneesh (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I can understand where that mind comes from. But, this discussion feels like rambling at this point. Like what do you want changed or fixed in this article?CycoMa (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Maneesh, you seem to misunderstand "gender identity" as being primarily an area of philosophy, while in fact it is primarily an aspect of medicine, psychology, law and human rights discourse. I am unaware of any distinction in WP policy that would exclude psychology, law and human rights claims from material reality and apply different sourcing standards for (supposedly) immaterial claims, but I expect you to correct me if I am mistaken. In the mean time, statements about gender identity emanating from RS in psychology, law and human rights take precedence over "philosophical" opinions like that of Stock. Newimpartial (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I never claimed it was primarily an area of philosophy, like many other things, philosophy reflects on the findings from underlying domains like psychology. Stock has written a well known book on GI and her general "GI skepticism" is reflected in other sources. Maneesh (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay seriously what ways do y’all want to improve this article? Because right now I feel like I’m gonna have to collapse some of your comments.CycoMa (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking that all comments in this section bearing on whether "unfalsifiable" should be in the article text, should stay, which is just about all of them. Newimpartial (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

"unfalsifiable and unverifiable" was removed from article, though ref to source was left. Source should be represented accurately and now Stock has been removed. She is an author on a prominent book that deals with GI and has been described in news articles with respect to what she has said about GI. Her general "GI skepticism" should be represented here. Maneesh (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that Stock's "gender critical" views should not be included in the article; I am saying (1) that statements by philosophers must not presented as though they were RS statements about the underlying topic (any more than the source I presented above about "changing sex" should be presented as RS about the biology - rather than the philosophy - of sex), and (2) that Stock's views should not be presented as though they represented the predominant view of philosophers concerning gender identity. They don't. Newimpartial (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

What? The venues that philosophers publish in meet the criteria of WP:RS that's why they can be included here. A source that claims that humans can actually change sex is not RS since it quite clearly meets the qualifications for WP:FRINGE. GI is a vague term (much of the philosophical discussion focuses on this) and what philosophers say is largely not in conflict with what people like clinical psychologists say. Which source claims that we all have a gender identity? Stock's claims about GI are uncontroversial and do not conflict with psychology. The problematic vagueness and circularity of GI are well documented and well supported by reliable sources in philosophy. It is uncontroversial to suggest many of us don't have a GI in light of this, it is not honest to suggest that this is merely Stock's opinion as her claim follows from clear facts about the clinical context of GI. There has been no argument Stock's view is representative of a majority (the news articles suggest that her view is not). Where did you see in the sentence that Stock's views were being portrayed as representative of the majority? Maneesh (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Last things first: one problem with the section I deleted is that it only presented Stock's views, as though either (1) she were the only philosopher who had addressed the issue or (2) her view were the predominant one in the field. The available evidence contradicts both of these.

The idea that Stock's claims about GI are uncontroversial is laughable, and is contradicted by even a casual look at the reception of this dimension of her work. Whether or not her "gender critical" views are necessarily FRINGE, they are certainly minoritatian, and the evidentiary status of her statement about GI is exactly identical to the one I provided about changing sex; namely, the statement of a non-expert using terms in different senses than do the actual specialists in the respective fields. And I'm afraid, Maneesh, that you can't use whether or not you happen to agree with a source as a criterion of its reliability.

As far as it being uncontroversial to suggest many of us don't have a GI, I would like to see a reliable source stating this from outside of philosophy; the contrary (that the vast majority of us have a gender identity) is documented in this framwwork for example, though I dare say it is BLUESKY that cis people have a gender identity, namely one that corresponds with their assigned sex. To deny this would really and truly be FRINGE. Newimpartial (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Why would you want to see it outside of philosophy? "Do we all have a gender identity" is quite obviously a philosophical question, it isn't one that is answered by a gender identity meter. It depends on the various definitions, if one is simply using it to mean "...awareness that one is male or female", in which case it is quite obvious that most of us have one (or at least the cognitive part of one), which shouldn't surprise anyone. Maneesh (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

As I have previously established, gender identity is not primarily a philosophical concept, any more than sex is, or culture is or labour is. We do not seek out philosophers as RS for key aspects of any of these concepts, though they have had much to say about all of them.

And to your othet point, for the vast majority of people (except us non-binaries), gender is precisely the "awareness that one is male or female", and whether this correlates (cis) or contrasts (trans) with the sex assigned at birth is an important aspect of that awareness. So it seems that you are agreeing with the consensus view after all. Newimpartial (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I doubt I am, you're just changing which GI definition you consider. The truth of "we all have a gender identity" depends on the definition. Stock isn't an idiot wouldn't be unaware of the fact that most of us, past an early cognitive developmental stage, know if we are male or female. How this knowledge is different from other factual knowledge we have isn't at all clear. She's referring to GI in the clinical context as it used to diagnose dysphoria, in which case it's not clear if we have one past rather obvious factual knowledge. 03:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop the sleight of hand. The mainstream view is that when people "know that they are male or female" this is a subjective identity ("gender identity") that can correspond to *or* conflict with the sex assigned at birth (which in turn usually corresponds to anatomy and/or chromosomes). The minority/FRINGE view is that people who experience a conflict between their gender identity and their sex assigned at birth are somehow mistaken about their gender. This seems to be Stock's view. Is it your view as well? Newimpartial (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot gets it right. Calling something "unfalsifiable" asserts that it is a relevant and undesirable property of the thing, which is why we don't use this as a label on all things it could technically describe. To use it here needs strength of sourcing that is yet to be displayed by anybody here. — Bilorv (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv maybe more neutral language regarding gender identity is appropriate. Maybe we could say it’s subjective and varies from person to person.CycoMa (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The current article brings up that it is 'part of one's subjective experience' in the measurement section. Rab V (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Where does any source or the article suggest that something being "unfalsifiable" is somehow "undesirable"? Maneesh (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

What even is all this? A construct (in both the philosophical and psychological meanings) is not something you falsify in the first place. It's a tool to aid in our understanding of a concept. Unless you are talking about correlations of dimensions and indicators in a psychometric instrument, there is no hypothesis to falsify. How can gender identity (or ego, negative affect, personality, anomie, etc.) be falsified? And the notion that gender identity is unverifiable (in this sense) is an argument for the 1990s and post-modernists/sturcturalists. Can we have a section on critiques of subjective identities or mental states? Sure. But there have been attempts to use PET scans, hormone levels, and other biomarkers to validate the concept of gender identity and thus verify someone's subjective state (c.f., stress and cortisol levels). EvergreenFir (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

EvergreenFir I know I might be called Devil’s advocate here but that sounds like a Not even wrong argument to me.CycoMa (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Every construct comes with an implicit existence hypothesis/claim, in this case, that "a person has a gender identity that means something beyond cognitive awareness of facts". You can find very similar language when critically assessing anything from psychoanalysis, which GI is a part of. Other vague constructs are discussed in similar language "A soul is usually thought of as stemming from a divine power and is as unverifiable, and unfalsifiable, as God, or as Ch'i.. Maneesh (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

And what reliable source suggests that cognitive awareness of facts performs anything like the function mainstream scholarship attributes to gender identity? Preferably a source from a discipline other than philosophy or theology, and one less than 15 years old. Newimpartial (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

An "individual's personal sense of identity as masculine or feminine, or some combination thereof" can WP:BLUESKY come from "thinking, knowing, remembering, judging". Maneesh (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

But presumably you meant cognitive awareness of some fact other than one's own gender identity (of which, indeed, most of us are aware through thinking, knowing, remembering, judging, or some other such process). So you haven't really offered anything based on a RS that would do the "work" mainstream scholarship attributes to gender identity, for both cis and trans people. Newimpartial (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

This is unintelligible to me. 01:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. So, to ask the same question another way, what did you mean when you tried to problematize the claim that "a person has a gender identity that means something beyond cognitive awareness of facts"? If you meant "a gender identity that means something beyond cognitive awareness of" their gender, that doesn't seem to advance your perspective, so I assumed that you meant cognitive awareness of something else. Anyway, I am less interested in your perspective on this than I am in reliable sources supporting it, if any exist. Newimpartial (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

You'll have to use less circularity in your questions to be understood. You've already seen definitions of gender identity that have a cognitive component from Zucker, nothing more than one being aware that they are either male or female. Maneesh (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

You are right that you have led this discussion in a frustratingly circular direction. All sources agree that the vast majority of people understand their gender identity as either male or female. You seemed to be saying something different from that. Newimpartial (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Have you read the first sentence of the article that this talk page corresponds to? Write out how it defines gender identity. 02:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course I have; don't be rude. I can do one better and quote the first two sentences: Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Gender identity can correlate with a person's assigned sex at birth or can differ from it. This precisely replicates the consensus, RS view. Where exactly do you dissent from this, and what are your sources? Newimpartial (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

"All sources agree that the vast majority of people understand their gender identity as either male or female" vs. from the first cite "Gender identity refers to an individual's personal sense of identity as masculine or feminine, or some combination thereof." Which one are you using? Maneesh (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

You referred to the article that this talk page refers to, not its first reference. Don't move the goalposts.

Also, there isn't the slightest tension between the vast majority of people understanding their gender identity as either male or female and a minority of people experiencing it as a combination of the two, or as none of the above. Obviously. Newimpartial (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

You are ignoring the bolded words and my intent absolutely what the quote that supports the first sentence. You male and masculine are not the same neither are female and feminine. Maneesh (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

According to the relevant sources, your distinctions between "male" and "masculine" and between "female" and "feminine" do not carry with them any meaningful differences. A "male" gender identity, a "masculine" gender identity and a gender identity "as a man" all mean essentially the same thing. Newimpartial (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The is the root of the thinking behind this entire silly thread: The deliberate conflation of dichotomous sex categories with a vague, cultural/time dependent notion of sex stereotypes. They are quite obviously not the same thing and nothing more needs to be said. Trying to equate them in this way is dubious. Maneesh (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

According to the RS, gender identity does not consist either of dichotomous sex categories nor of sex stereotypes, but something else entirely. Perhaps you would be happier contributing to an article that relates to topics you understand a bit better? Newimpartial (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I am quite happy with my understanding, your conflation is clear above. Maneesh (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

You appear to believe that I conflated "sex" with "gender", or something, but I did not. "Male" and "female" are not terms only applicable to "sex", in spite of what you appear to assume. Even Stock does not make this elementary error. Newimpartial (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this all going back to Maneesh's focus on Zucker's criteria for GID? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Maneesh seems to be trying to cross the streams. Newimpartial (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

You haven't followed the thread. Maneesh (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• If you compare the one source presented for this opinion to the overwhelming citations on the entire page, I think it's reasonably clear that the perspective being advanced here is WP:FRINGE; mainstream coverage overwhelmingly supports the description of Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Gender identity can correlate with a person's assigned sex at birth or can differ from it. Gender expression typically reflects a person's gender identity, but this is not always the case and the rest of the lead as uncontroversial. Questioning essentially an entire well-established and otherwise uncontroversial field of study requires better and broader sources than this. --Aquillion (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a dubious application of FRINGE. It's very easy to recognize "personal senses" as things that can be unfalsifiable and unverifiable. This isn't even "questioning" GI, understanding things in terms of verifiability and falsifiability in psychology is very much a part of that field. Maneesh (talk)

Okay I think y’all are getting upset over something that’s technically not controversial. I mean if gender identity is subjective that technically means it can’t be verifiable nor can it be disproven. I mean it feels like y’all are interpreting all of this in the worst possible way.CycoMa (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there a policy-compliant reason to include "unfalsifiable" or "unverifiable" in this article? I haven't seen one, and have seen only one (poor) source that uses that language in this context at all. That does not make its inclusion WP:DUE, and certainly does not allow those terms to be included in Wikivoice: which is what Maneesh attempted to do. Newimpartial (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

You're trying to invoke policy when the matter is much simpler. The section is titled "measurement", falsifiability and verifiability related in an obvious way to measurement. Maneesh (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

This is all getting into TL;DR territory, bordering on the disruptive, but I'm going to add a little to the verbiage to say that "unfalsifiable" and "unverifiable" are massively non-neutral terms when discussing subjective personal experiences around something that is socially constructed. These are highly loaded terms that strongly imply doubt and I am unclear as to how anybody could think that they might be appropriate here. The correct, neutral, language for explaining this is already in the article. The Measurement section is clear, succinct and easily understandable. It already covers the fact that this is about personal experiences. Adding "unfalsifiable" and "unverifiable" provides absolutely no additional information. It is just restating what is already said in far less neutral terms. It would serve as nothing more than ominous mood music. It is indefensible and it is probably time to draw this over-long discussion to a close. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the reason for including 'unfalsifiable' is that gender identity is unfalsifiable in a way nothing else about a person is. For example, if I were to say I support Liverpool F.C., you might think 'favourite football team' is a subjective matter and therefore also unfalsifiable. But you would be wrong; in principle it is possible to discover what team someone supports, such as by a brain scan (remember, I said in principle). It is therefore possible to say 'actually, you are lying, I know you support Manchester United'. That is not possible with gender identity, there is no possible grounds for refutation. In that way it is I think uniquely unfalsifiable. LastDodo (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why gender identity would be uniquely immune to a theoretical lie detecting brain scanner. Either way, WP:NOR means we (sadly) cannot use thought experiments to justify inserting non-neutral language. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 17:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The claim is not OR, look at the cite in the article As a pure subjective experience, it may be overwhelming and powerful but is also unverifiable and unfalsifiable.". Quite relevant under the Measurement section. Maneesh (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I’m not entirely sure how saying gender identity is unverifiable or unfalsifiable is non-neutral language.CycoMa (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Maneesh, it would be as WP:UNDUE to include this statement in this article based on a lone RS as it would be to include your view that only a small minority of people have gender identities. These are WP:FRINGE perspectives, akin to the Simulation hypothesis in terms of the weight WP articles should give to them. Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. "Unfalsifiable and unverifiable" is a well known way of criticizing fields like "psychoanlaysis", where GI originates from. Religious adherents may not believe that we don't have souls, not believing that one has a soul is not WP:FRINGE. Maneesh (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial it isn’t fringe to state that gender identity is subjective tho. I mean even pro trans scholars from various fields have stated gender identity is subjective.CycoMa (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I suppose one way to prove that it is not unfalsifiable would to be to give an example of how someone's proclaimed gender identity might in principle be falsified, such that people could respond 'you are incorrect / you are mistaken / you are lying' etc. LastDodo (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

These are all OR arguments, though. What we would need to consider editing the article to include this perspective would be relevant, reliable sources to give evidence that it would be DUE to do so. Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m not arguing against that. The reason I bring up the fact that gender identity is subjective is because things that are subjective technically can’t be verified or falsified.

Sources like [this], [this], [this], and [this]. Have stated gender identity is subjective.CycoMa (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

But to use sources for subjective to back up unfalsifiable and unverifiable is precisely what WP policy calls WP:SYNTH. Editors are not supposed to do that. Newimpartial (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I recommend you look up the definition of subjective.CycoMa (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Using a dictionary plus a specialist source to make a new claim is also WP:SYNTH. Newimpartial (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Well that depends if that specialist source and a dictionary are using the same definition.CycoMa (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

A determination that would typically require a novel reading of the source, i.e., WP:OR. Newimpartial (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what I take to be the consensus so far - namely that it is premature to assert that gender identity is unfalsifiable and unverifiable. However, it might be worth mentioning that it is not yet clear whether someone can sometimes be wrong about their own gender identity, or whether everyone always has perfect epistemic access to their gender identity and can therefore never be mistaken about it. What do you think Newimpartial? Nero Calatrava (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Need for separate section about definitions and etymology

At the moment, there is little discussion on definitions and etymology of the term, which is relegated to a subsection of section 5 (on History and Definitions). This is unusual for Wikipedia, which usually includes a discussion of definitions and etymology as a separate section (not subsection), and places this section first.

I therefore propose making the discussion of definitions and etymology a full section, and placing it first.

I think it could include a mention of the desiderata that any good definition of gender identity should meet. For example, Katharine Jenkins has proposed the following:

D1: The definition should render plausible the idea that gender identity is important and deserves respect.

D2: The definition should be compatible with a norm of First Person Authority.

D3: The definition should be compatible with the idea that some trans people have a need for transition-related healthcare that is based on their gender identity.

D4: The definition should be clear and non-circular.

D5: The definition should apply equally well to binary and non-binary identities.

D6: The definition should combine well with broader critiques of current gender norms and social structures.

If inclusion of this list is thought to be UNDUE, then perhaps it could simply be referenced, or maybe there could be a brief mention of the circularity problem. As Jenkins has pointed out, common definitions suffer from a problematic circularity. For example, someone who asks what it means to say that a certain person ‘has a female gender identity’ may be told that it means that that person has a sense of herself ‘as a woman.’ If the questioner then asks what a ‘woman’ is, they may be told that a woman is ‘a person with a female gender identity’. Thus, the questioner is none the wiser as to what it means to have a female gender identity.

Definitions that avoid the circularity problem do exist, and perhaps one could be cited here. For example, Bettcher writes:

″The cleanest move may well be to avoid [the issues raised by other accounts of gender identity] altogether through an appeal to sincere self-identification. Admittedly, this means trans women who don’t yet self-identify as women aren’t yet women (in this sense). That said, once she does self-identify as a woman, she may well re-assess her entire life by saying she’s always been a woman (something we should respect too). (Bettcher 2017: 396)″

I won't go on any further here, as I just want to open up the question for discussion and see what other more experienced editors who know more about this topic than I do have to say. I'm thinking particularly of Newimpartial and Crossroads Nero Calatrava (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I generally support the idea that the article should have an H2 section on def/etymology. Thanks for the good-faith inclusion of the Jenkins D1-D6 attributes of a good definition, but I don't think we need to strictly follow any set of rules that aren't part of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and any definition would follow naturally from such policies as WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUEWEIGHT. In a word, I would oppose any mention of Jenkins or any of those points in this article as irrelevant and not supported by any sources about gender identity and more in the nature of original research here, but you could certainly add a comment at Talk:Definition and argue for inclusion in that article. Mathglot (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue that Jenkins desiderata should be included. It was just a suggestion, and Mathglot makes a good case that they should not be included. We could cite a few definitions, however, such as those by Jenkins and Bettcher. More importantly than referring to either Jenkins or Bettcher, however, is the circularity problem, which many common definitions seem to suffer from. What do others think about this? Nero Calatrava (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

There's something important to understand about how Wikipedia works, and what we do (and don't do) as editors, here. In general (at any article), we identify WP:Reliable sources, and then summarize the majority (and significant minority) opinion on a particular point in our own words, with citations attached. That's about it. We don't worry too much about definitions we believe are circular, or irrational, or illogical, or ones that we believe fall into rhetorical fallacies. In particular, we don't evaluate the WP:TRUTH of what the sources say; if most of the reliable sources say the sky is green, then so do we (along with a citation). You can make a case that some source or another is unreliable, but that has a specific meaning in Wikipedia, and first stop on that path is probably the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard.

I just get the feeling you are trying to evaluate the sources according to some scheme or idea of what you feel a definition should be like, whether it's based on Jenkins, or non-circularity, or some other ideal type of definition. But that's not how we choose our sources, based on our own ideas of how they should say something, or what standard we think they should live up to.

This talk page is about how to improve the Gender identity article. The approach to writing a good definition of gender identity, is to survey the WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY literature about gender identity, assess what the majority opinion is (if there is one), and what significant minority opinions also exist that may differ, summarize that, and write it up. In addition, because this is a topic that has biomedical implications in some facets of it, you should also familiarize yourself with WP:MEDRS, which has even stricter guidelines about how to choose proper sources, although for a definition section, it perhaps does not apply; nevertheless, you should know about it. And now I'll step back and perhaps you'll get other responses on some of your questions. Mathglot (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It sounds to me like the Jenkins material is specifically about the topic of gender identity? So that would probably go here - even if summarized - and not at Talk:Definition. The way I read Nero Calatrava's comments, is that they're asking if pre-existing philosophical sources that examine some of the difficulties of defining this topic can be added. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Gender identify formation

I've made an edit on this point. It's done with great respect and if it's reverted I won't argue about it. I've taken out the opening firm statement about formation by age 3 and qualified it in a second case by saying that some scholars argue that this is the case. I do not necessarily disagree personally, but the issue is far more contested that the statement makes it appear. Notably, the article itself goes on to say that while gender can be informed by genetics, it can also be at least in part a function of later social experience. This contradicts the hard and fast notion that things are mainly set at age three. My own sense of the scholarship - and I have no wish to get involved in a warring of nature/nurture on this - is that it seems likely that in many cases genetics may set a propensity and subsequent social experience may develop that propensity's expression or deny it. This, of itself, seems (to me) to make it wrong to talk of things being set at three. This would see gender in line with many other traits studied across the genetics/epigenetics/social spectrum. I might perhaps add that much of the relevant research reports and reflects the very varied experience of transgender people. It's obvious that this article has been written and edited with care and intelligence, and my own small contribution here is just to counsel (modestly and gently) not to let the Wikipedia article get ahead of consensus. All the best Emmentalist (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem like a thoughtful person and could be a good editor here. But it’s crucial to understand WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Original research, and your opinions above without the requisite sourcing is just original research and therefore prohibited. Which isn’t to say you can’t insert the same material again—you just need to come up with the sources first. Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathglot, but I really have no interest in editing beyond my comments you've reverted. I'm aware, of course, of all the policies you mention. The simple fact is that it is not widely recognised and agreed amongst scholars that gender is mainly set by age three. I could happily flag opposing scholarly views, but I suspect I would get into a war I have no interest in being involved in. At best, it might be said that there are rival orthodoxies rooted often in different epistemologies. Citing a few authors on one side (and, from a scholarly point of view, not very strong citations at that) really doesn't make a thing "widely recognised". That's essentially politics. Anyhoo, good luck with it all. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Emmentalist:, I don't understand—you don't wish to support your claims, because you predict an edit war? Or you don't want to make the effort? Why don't you just try? If you know all the policies, then you know that merely stating what you stated above isn't going to do it, it's not what we, as editors, think or claim, it's what the sources do. Why don't you go happily search for what the sources have to say about this, instead of just giving up? If things are as you claim, then it's a disservice to the article to leave it the way it is. If you can improve it, well, what are we doing here as editors, if not trying to improve articles? Mathglot (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

Judith Butler uses they/them pronouns, as can be seen on their Wikipedia page. Please change the pronoun used in their section (she) to the proper one (they) on this page. Thanks! ACPerry13 (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Verified and changed. @ACPerry13: Thank you for pointing that out. —C.Fred (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2022

Hello, you need to add that gender identity is a "Philosophical belief". It's not factual, and it's not scientifically valid as would be lead to believe reading this. We also have to weary for people who have ESL that they don't fall in to believing this is verified other than by empirical evidence. Wikipedia's biased stance towards this is frankly unacceptable. Pianistinator (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Add Criticisms section

There should be a criticisms section that outlines the main points of those who don’t subscribe to gender theory. 2607:FEA8:42E0:3840:1862:BAC1:F61A:8028 (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello​! It's not typical for articles to include sections focusing exclusively on criticisms, as this often creates a point-of-view fork and a false balance. Rather, prominent viewpoints are generally incorporated alongside the material they discuss, when relevant.

The neutral point of view involves giving due weight to "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources", without regard for the personal opinions ("original research") of editors like you or me.

Can you identify some sources which you think the article should reflect? To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "gender theory", but for the encyclopedia's purposes, the notion that gender (or gender identity, or gender as a social construct, or transgender people) are non-existent is a fringe theory, which will probably not be treated with equal validity in this article. Warm regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 04:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

But the entire page is based on the premise that gender identity is scientifically valid, where as it's only empirical and studies related to it blur the line with self-perception. Gender itself is a flawed theory so "gender identity" comes from stereotypes based on sex stereotypes and roles.

So yea, it does need a criticisms section, and MANY pages on here do.

Wikipedia is showing a clear bias and it's frankly unacceptable. Pianistinator (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

And to add, your "reliable" sources are mostly from opinions, surveys, and even one article is the ideologically inclined "pink news". Pianistinator (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. All major medical organizations in the field recognize gender identity as an actual dimension of personality. This isn't a matter of opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Criticism sections, do bring about a more balanced article. But, I'll leave that to the rest of you, to decide on how to handle that. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"Cisgender sexuality" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cisgender sexuality and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 15#Cisgender sexuality until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay 08:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Problem with last sentence of the lead

The last sentence of the lead days,

The term gender identity was coined by psychiatry professor Robert J. Stoller in 1964 and popularized by psychologist John Money.

In a narrow sense, that is true, but it misses the story about what actually happened with the terms. Taking the narrow view, yes, the term gender identity was indeed coined by Stoller. But, the concept of gender identity was not created by Stoller, it had existed under another name for a decade already. In fact, it was defined by Money in 1955 under another name, namely, gender role. Money defined gender role very clearly and unambiguously in 1955 as the concept we now understand as "gender identity". Stoller correctly renamed the concept to gender identity, as Money's choice of words was confusing. Eventually, the term gender role morphed away from its original meaning as "gender identity", and took on the meaning it has today as societal expectations. In a nutshell, "gender identity" is owned and defined by a single individual; whereas "gender role" is owned and defined by society. Flip side: individuals don't have "gender roles" (well, not since Stoller, anyway), they have "gender identity", while society has "gender roles", but not a "gender identity".

So, back to that last sentence: I think we need to clarify the evolution of gender role away from its original meaning as defined by Money, and the term created by Stoller in 1964 to take the place of the term defined by Money in 1955. In sixty-plus years, no one has ever come up with a better definition for gender identity than the one Money came up with in 1955^[107] even though he called it something else at the time. Mathglot (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe there's a half finished version of this story over at either Gender or Sex and gender distinction or both. I believe later scholars describe Money's "gender role" as "gender identity/role" (GI/R)  Tewdar  16:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aledlc19 (article contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aledlc19 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Understanding culture

How 2001:4453:57D:CF00:8D01:673:5736:7F0 (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Is that a question? If so, it is not clear what it is or how it is relevant to this article. If you have a question or suggestion about this article then please explain what it is. Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ejgrimm (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ejgrimm (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you have no "gender identity"?

Obviously, you are aware of the sex of the body you're in, but what if you don't have any particular feelings one way or the other. Society will have conditioned you to act according to what is acceptable, but what if inside, you don't really feel any 'identity' (in a similar way to asexual)? 2.98.47.102 (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Agender would be the term for that. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2022, edited November 28 2022

please change "Gender expression typically reflects a person's gender identity, but this is not always the case.[3][4]While a person may express behaviors, attitudes, and appearances consistent with a particular gender role, such expression may not necessarily reflect their gender identity." to this "Gender expression is distinct from gender identity in that gender expression is how one chooses to physically express their gender through one's "name, pronouns, clothing, hair style, behavior, voice or body features." It is thus distinct from gender identity in that it is the physical expression of an internal sense of gender but may not necessarily demonstrate a person's gender identity and may vary "according to racial/ethnic background, socio-economic status and place of residence." , "

Change "Essentialists argue that gender identity is determined at birth by biological and genetic factors, while social constructivists argue that gender identity and the way it is expressed are socially constructed, instead determined by cultural and social influences." to "Essentialists argue that gender identity is determined at birth by biological and genetic factors, while social constructivists argue that gender identity and the way it is expressed are socially constructed, instead determined by cultural and social influences. According to West and Zimmerman, gender is an "emergent feature of social situations: both an outcome of and a rationale for various social arrangements and as a means of legitimating one of the most fundamental divisions of society" rather than an innate "property of individuals. "

Change "Similar brain structure differences have been noted between gay and heterosexual men, and between lesbian and heterosexual women.[53][54] Another study suggests that transsexuality may have a genetic component.[55][better source needed]" to "Similar brain structure differences have been noted between gay and heterosexual men, and between lesbian and heterosexual women.[53][54] Another study suggests that transsexuality may have a genetic component.[55][better source needed] Such genetic component is mediated by exposure to androgens, either estrogen in females or testosterone in males which have an organizing effect on the brain. A study manipulating the exposure of rats to these specific androgens demonstrated that exposure during a specific prenatal period had an organizing effect which mediates mating behavior in adulthood. For example, the introduction of testosterone to a female rat during the prenatal period resulted in the demonstration of male patterns of mating behavior as an adult. "

Agaytann (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. TGHL ↗ 🍁 04:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

References

"personal sense" does not mean anything

What does "personal sense" mean in the definition of gender identity? 104.235.135.205 (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The phrase the personal sense of one's own gender could be rephrased as "an individual's perception of what their own gender is". Hope this helps. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 02:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Can "perception" be put in this sentence instead of "personal sense"? 104.235.135.205 (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I think "personal sense" communicates reflective interiority better than "perception" does, and the article means something more to do with the former I think. Newimpartial (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question, "personal sense" is just an expression which means the same thing here, as it does in any other sentence. I'm sure you already know this, you just don't know you know it. Here are some examples, culled from real sources, which I'm sure you'll have no trouble understanding:

• We imagine how we look to others, draw conclusions based upon their reactions to us, and then we develop our personal sense of self.
• This pretty much sums up my own personal sense of duty to make an impact.
• ...asked participants to respond to the following: 'I feel a personal sense of responsibility to help reduce global warming'.
• A deep personal sense of values can help ensure reliable nursing behavior.
• The formation of an individual's personal sense of identity. begins with their cultural and historical context.
• This allows us to learn, develop and grow as individuals and to develop a personal sense of satisfaction in accomplishment.
• In doing so, I hope students will enrich their lives by gaining a personal sense of connection with the natural world.

I think you get the point. It means the same thing in this article, as it means in any of these examples. Does that help? Also agree with Roxy, that changing it to "perception" would not be an improvement. I liked Newimpartial's turn of phrase; very well put. Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"Subjective experience" claim is dubious, can't add tag

The following claim is dubious:

"No objective measurement or imaging of the human body exists for gender identity, as it is part of one's subjective experience."

It's true that there is no imaging. It's also true that gender phenomena/ontology (whichever term you prefer) can't be directly observed. But it's almost definitely not true that gender identity is inherently subjective, as the phrasing implies. That would make it a magical exception among subjective phenomena such as pain, sexuality, color perception, etc. No topic should be mystified unnecessarily, but as this is a "hot" topic which involves a marginalized group I think it's especially important that clear and accurate language is used.

I think the citation is fine overall, just not the last clause. We don't need to invoke the metaphysics of qualia in a topic about a largely social phenomenon. 2603:7081:1603:A300:50CD:C820:2DF4:E712 (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Terminology and etymology

There is a terminology section in this article currently as the last section. It should be presented as the first section after the introduction. Where did the term "gender identity" originate, and what is its etymology? Currently, "Terminology" section addresses the term "gender" but does not in any way address the term "gender identity".

Specifically, who coined the term "gender identity", and approximately when did it come into use? This is information that should be presented very early in the article. 220.240.114.114 (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

That information has since been added. Thank you. 2603:7081:1603:A300:50CD:C820:2DF4:E712 (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Just published paper in Mind

Earlier today, a paper by Florence Ashley titled What Is It like to Have a Gender Identity? was published in Mind. I'm about halfway through reading it, it's quite philosophical befitting of the journal, and seems like it would be of relevance to this article. On the surface it seems like it would fit in the present views section, but we don't actually have a subsection there for philosophical views. There's almost certainly scope for adding such a section though, as there are other contemporary philosophical views that Ashley cites. It seems a bit odd that on philosophy we don't cite anything more recent than Butler's 1990 Gender Trouble.

While the copy on Mind is paywalled, Ashley has also uploaded a copy to her website. We should only cite the Mind copy in the article, but providing the link here for the benefit of editors who want to assess the content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

One quote I really like here, from page 12 is Gender identity is dynamic rather than static. Gender identity may demonstrate substantial consistency and stability across one’s lifetime, but this should be understood as a dynamic equilibrium rather than a crystallization. Gender identity is continuously made, remade, interpreted, and reinterpreted as one’s gender subjectivity changes shape. New gendered experiences or changes in the factors influencing phenomenological synthesis may lead to noticeable or subtle shifts in gender identity alike. It's way too long to incorporate into the article as a direct quotation, but it is something that we could easily paraphrase.

We'd also need to incorporate a sentence or two on what Ashley means by gender subjectivity, which is also discussed throughout the paper. A simplified summary quote of this starts at the end of page 7 The totality of our gendered experiences is gender subjectivity and forms the basic substrate of gender identity. It is the material from which gender identity is shaped. Drawing on the vocabulary of existential phenomenology, gendered experiences are part of facticity. They are a given, a matter of fact. But they are not who we are. Rather, it is the stance we take towards our facticity, how we interpret it, that defines who we are as gendered beings, as individuals with a gender identity. Again, it's too lengthy to incorporate, but seems something we could paraphrase. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh and for the first bit I've quoted on how Ashley sees gender identity as dynamic, we should contrast that, as Ashley does, with the paragraph at the end of page 12 Conceiving gender identity as dynamic does not entail that conversion practices—external attempts to change or discourage trans people’s gender identity—are effective. The constitution of gender identity through gender subjectivity is a complex phenomenological process that is noticeably resistant to deliberate influence, as shown by research on the consequences of conversion practices. As otherwise it could be read that conversion therapy is effective, or at least possible. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)