The costs of trans visibility

I would have to believe that there was anything that could be called a "core aspect of self" that is somehow separate from what you're calling identity for that to have any meaning and I don't know that I do. At that point it's purely a philosophical question that I have no interest in delving into.

Peterson iirc was talking about the fact that parents with more than one trans identified child might be pushing them toward self identification as trans, because the odds of that happening naturally are so low, those cases should be far rarer than what they are, unless self identification as trans can be sometimes environmental

So off with you then and your ignorance.

Nono, social constructs are just things that exist and have effects because we agree they do.

The concept of legal tender is a social construct. National borders are social constructs. The concept of human rights is a social construct. And so on.

Most social constructs have a basis in reality, often a very strong one, biological or otherwise. Like a mountain range that exists in reality becomes also a national border. Or something that is often accepted as money gets affirmed as legal tender.

Bryce is too close to this to be objective, so don't put too much credence in what he has to say. He's going to circle the wagons.

I see where you're going with this and suspect the other people do, too. But if gender identity is disconnected from biology as Bryce says, then you're right there would be far more trans people. If biology is the driver, then that means some wires got crossed somewhere and we're back to this being a medical issue, which if you push too hard on will result in a ban.

Or we go with door number three, which is to wear as much makeup as you like and whatever color pants suit your fancy that day and maybe don't chop your dick off. Dicks in the dick bathroom and vaginas in the vagina bathroom. Buck Angel has to pee at home. People who have testicles don't intrude on sports leagues that cater to the ovary crowd. No recruiting impressionable children to your gender-bending club before the age of 16. Everyone lives happily ever after.

lol, what is this even supposed to mean

I don’t have time, but in this thread there are several hundred posts where I clarified that left handedness is innate. Ie left handedness is not a choice, it’s biological reality. This is a well established scientific fact.

I have also consistently and many many times said being transgender is innate ie a biological reality.

Gender, like race or money is indeed socially constructed. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the biological reality of being transgender anymore than directions isn’t a biological concept but left handed people are biological or innately left handed.

or as I’ve clearly stated many times. Gender is a social construction.

Being transgender is innate- ie biological or physically.

Right all his posts have the markings of JP thought.

The short answer is that although in theory there’s a 50-50 chance you could be left handed or right handed the vast majority of **** sapiens are innately( biologically if you will) right handed. It has always been that way , at least since **** sapiens evolved.

The core identity is wrong. I am left handed but it’s not something I think about or have a strong identity towards, I hardly ever ever consciously think of myself as left handed and it’s not one of the first 50 things I would use as self ID.

it just means he learned the gender and biological sex equivalent of 2 + 2 = 4, thinks that’s all there is to know and is discounting algebra, calculus, physics etc.

After much resistance throughout this thread, he finally decides to state a definition for ‘innate’.

Question: Would you agree that biology imposes identities on us? Like, that’s what it does. For instance, biology imposes dominant handedness on you as you develop. First, we are plastic but then dominant handedness becomes fixed.

Further, the dominant handedness imposed is the only biological determiner for dominant handedness. There isn’t another “innate” biological dominant handedness which is the true dominant handedness, only the singular bio imposed identity.

In the same way, there are not two biological gender identities - the one imposed by bio sex and a mysterious, innate bio gender identity which is the true one.

What do you mean when you say that gender is socially constructed? How do you reconcile the paradox of it being both socially constructed and innate?

No it's from sociology, "the social construction of reality" (1966). When sociology was still an actual attempt to understand reality.

I am using the term in the sense that book intended it

Someone might then respond, “If gender identity is imposed biologically in only one way, then how do trans people identify with the other gender?”

Answer: It’s not biological; it’s a psychological process, explained in the thread I previously linked.

If gender identity was statistically independent of biological sex, he would be absolutely correct. Biological sex is 50/50, as is common knowledge. If gender was completely uncorrelated with biological sex, 50% of the population would be transgender regardless of the actual distribution of genders.

The point the point the poster was making (in a convoluted way) is the imprecise use of the term "independent" by gender advocates when what they mean is "not perfectly correlated."

This might shock you but peterson has said more than one thing on the internet, so no this was not the thing he was talking about in the video I was alluding to.

I find it amusing how much these debates repeat. Back in anti-gay debates, this talking point about brothers both being gay and how unlikely that was ergo environmental talking points came out. I never got why it mattered one iota what mixture of nature vs nurture any of these traits had - I'm going to accept people either way - but this seemed VERY important for a certain group.

So “true gender” is correlated with biology. What else is true gender based on?

In summary, the claim is trans people have a bio imposed gender identity and then a true gender which is also at least somewhat (maybe completely?) based on biology being labeled “innate”. Do I finally understand the claim?

How many pages deep is this thread and I’m finally able to be blessed with the explicit claim?

Ok fair enough and I'll concede.

Next question: Do non trans people also have a true, biological, innate gender as well?

I realised that after a few back and forths. I am still not convinced that many people actually use "independent" in that way though, especially not in any sort of formal setting. It's certainly never been used in that way in this thread, which is why it took me a while to realise that's where craig's 50% number was coming from.

Just to reiterate, trans activists claim biology is dictating two separate and conflicting gender identities for trans people. Yet, they are somehow not independent. They are correlated, but in conflict.

What an amazing view of biology!

The simple explanation I would use is that there is the sex of your genitals (often called biological sex) and there is the gender that you consider yourself that is determined by your brain chemistry. In most circumstances these match (akin to being right handed in Bryce's analogy) but sometimes they don't (akin to being left handed) and in the latter circumstances the person is transgender.

This is a bit of a simplification and there are nuances around the edges of it but it's the framework that I think my and most people's understanding is built around.

Which brain chemical determines gender?

As far as I'm aware science is not capable of identifying what exactly determines specific parts of brain chemistry to that level of precision, whether it be for gender or literally anything else.

We do know that a large part of the development process in the brain occurs during the second trimester whereas development of sexual organs occurs earlier though, so it's entirely conceivable that there could be differences at different stages of pregnancy that result in the divergence of sexual organs from brain chemistry. I'm not claiming that that is definitely the cause, just pointing out that there are specific hypotheses for how/why it happens.

You're giving people too much credit. They don't have a framework.