It’s not clear to me what this means. I’ve never made any positive choice to be a man. I’ve never told anyone “I’m a man”. But everyone somehow concludes that I’m a man.
What does it mean to “identify as” something?
What does it mean to “identify as” something?
Even within the bounds of a gender (e.g. masculine), people will find themselves wanting to be seen as a particular point within that gender's spectrum. (E.g. you might want to be seen as a tough guy, or a sensitive man, etc.) It can be frustrating to feel like you are the tough guy but no one seems to treat you that way.
The point is that experience is different for different people. Many people are comfortable with whatever, others aren't and want to try to take deliberate actions to make themselves be perceived more like how they see themselves.
I guess if they suddenly changed en masse, I’d wonder what’s up.
If they’re using it in the traditional definition (someone with a uterus and XX chromosomes) then I would disagree, because they are factually wrong. If they’re using it in the more modern sense to describe some abstract “gender”, I wouldn’t disagree because I don’t really know what that means. In either case, it wouldn’t offend me.
And for most people, “man” and “male” are synonyms. This is why people always express confusion about what it means to “identify” one way or the other. Identity is irrelevant to reproductive role, and sex is about reproduction, and gender is about sex.
OK. If you call someone gay in the 1800s, it'll probably not mean the same thing as doing it today. Terms change; distinctions between similar terms get made as they're needed.
> Identity is irrelevant to reproductive role, and sex is about reproduction, and gender is about sex.
There's several bald assertions in there. I'm infertile, so "sex is about reproduction" makes me chuckle a bit, for example.
And the distinction among “man,” “woman,” and “non-binary” without referencing sex is explained... how exactly?
> I’m infertile, so “sex is about reproduction” makes me chuckle a bit, for example.
I am now infertile too; doesn’t change the fact that I know which one of only two kinds of gametes (“sex” cells) my body could produce.
No one said they're not related concepts. Just that they're not the same.
The term "butch", for example, tends to describe a female with more manly outward presentation, where "manly" describes "characteristics generally associated by society with males". Short hair isn't an inherently male thing; it's frequently considered a man thing, though.
> I am now infertile too; doesn’t change the fact that I know which one of only two kinds of gametes (“sex” cells) my body could produce.
I don't produce gametes of either kind. Am I genderless and sexless?
"Sex is about reproduction" is as silly as "people who lose their legs aren't humans", because both are clearly untrue.
If you’re asking about _sex_, however...
in the case of intersex conditions, they arise from a disorder of sexual development which by definition arises by diverging from the typical developmental pathway of one sex or the other. Much the same as someone with a much later and artificial divergence (e.g. hysterectomy), this sex is still their sex despite their intersex condition.
Being born “without genitalia” is still going to be one of these conditions, or the result of some other unspecified trauma or non-sexual-development disorder. They would still be either one sex or the other.
Mosaicism is an interesting case. It would depend on which cells were activating sexual development.
Ah, we've switched arguments. Upthread, you stated:
> And for most people, “man” and “male” are synonyms.
If you're now arguing for a distinction between the terms, we're now in agreement.
I don’t have to believe the shahada in order to conduct myself respectfully with a person of the Muslim faith, and I don’t have to believe a female is a man in order to conduct myself respectfully with a trans man.
It's the difference between "maleness" and "manliness". Those words are clearly related, but they mean different things. See also: "femaleness" vs. "feminine".
The latter term in either case describes cultural behaviors, clothing, accepted roles, and a whole bunch of other stuff that isn't the same as their sex. Someone can be very "manly" independent of whether they have XY chromosomes, for instance. I find it useful to be able to describe the cultural elements as one's gender separately from what organs or genes they have under the hood.
I actively seek to avoid that game, as it is untenable in a just society.
You seem to be confusing inspecting toys for conformity and inspecting systems that encourage (or require) conformity. And it's much easier to attack or be concerned about straw-positions than actual ones.
It's not problematic for someone to play with toys, or do things, stereotypical to their gender. It's a problem when they are encouraged (tacitly or not) or forced to stick within a predefined scope.
https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a43702/trans...
The only way this person could resolve her discomfort at her child’s inclination to play with “girl things” was to start considering her a girl.
Meanwhile where are the “gender-progressive” people sticking up for a two-year old’s right to play with whatever toys they want without sanction or punishment? Certainly not raising any concerns about this sort of story.
Combine it with the well-documented higher incidence of gender nonconformity of cis gay people at a young age, we see many supposedly “progressive” people allowing the sentiment “better a straight daughter than a gay son” get normalized without challenge.
What makes you think the mother assumes her daughter will be straight?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_sexuality#Sexual_o...
Every part of this is wrong.
First, let's look at sex. You've said sex is tied to reproduction (as an aside, this feels a bit cruel to all the infertile people out there) but that's wrong.
https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html
> Humans are born with 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. The X and Y chromosomes determine a person’s sex. Most women are 46XX and most men are 46XY. Research suggests, however, that in a few births per thousand some individuals will be born with a single sex chromosome (45X or 45Y) (sex monosomies) and some with three or more sex chromosomes (47XXX, 47XYY or 47XXY, etc.) (sex polysomies). In addition, some males are born 46XX due to the translocation of a tiny section of the sex determining region of the Y chromosome. Similarly some females are also born 46XY due to mutations in the Y chromosome. Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex.
You've then said that gender is tied to sex, but that's only true in some countries at this point in history, and it mostly stems from Christian colonialists imposing their view (often using violence to do so) across the world.
https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html
> Gender, typically described in terms of masculinity and femininity, is a social construction that varies across different cultures and over time. (6) There are a number of cultures, for example, in which greater gender diversity exists and sex and gender are not always neatly divided along binary lines such as male and female or homosexual and heterosexual. The Berdache in North America, the fa’afafine (Samoan for “the way of a woman”) in the Pacific, and the kathoey in Thailand are all examples of different gender categories that differ from the traditional Western division of people into males and females. Further, among certain North American native communities, gender is seen more in terms of a continuum than categories, with special acknowledgement of “two-spirited” people who encompass both masculine and feminine qualities and characteristics. It is apparent, then, that different cultures have taken different approaches to creating gender distinctions, with more or less recognition of fluidity and complexity of gender.
https://gal-dem.com/black-trans-lives-matter-we-cant-let-the...
> There is a particular, deep-rooted racist violence in the UK iteration of transphobia. The invention and export of the concept of a rigid and oppressive gender binary was used as a device of subjugation throughout the British empire during colonialism. This included the attempted eradication of ancient and deeply spiritual understandings and lived realities of gender fluidity, including among two-spirit people in indigenous North American cultures; fa’afafine people in Samoa; nat kadaws in Burma, and hijras in India, who were criminalised during British colonial rule by Section 377 – a law used after a rebellion to “reassert colonial authority”.
You've said that identity is irrelevant to reproductive role. That's wrong, which is why there are trans-fathers who give birth.
https://mana.org/healthcare-policy/use-of-inclusive-language
> The signatures below indicate affirmation and respect for people of all genders; full agreement regarding the use of gender inclusive language in the MANA Core Competencies and in all documents regarding the profession of midwifery and provision of midwifery care; and the welcoming of transgender, genderqueer and intersex people into safe, culturally sensitive, shame-free reproductive health care. We do not refute the “life-giving power in female biology.” Rather, we support a larger vision that includes the provision of midwifery care to all pregnant and birthing people.
You may want to read this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8
1. “Sex is about reproduction”
WHO page: “ When a Y chromosome is present, early embryonic testes develop around the 10th week of pregnancy. In the absence of both a Y chromosome and the influence of a testis-determining factor (TDF), ovaries develop.”
These are reproductive organs.
Each detailed description of chromosomal variations references “sterility,” “infertility,” or “fertile.”
2. “Gender is about sex.”
> You've then said that gender is tied to sex, but that's only true in some countries at this point in history, and it mostly stems from Christian colonialists imposing their view (often using violence to do so) across the world.
This is an absurd claim and appears to imply that pre-colonization, people could not figure out which individuals would bear children and which would sire them based on their physical characteristics, and sort them accordingly. Hammurabi’s code had bride prices, Aztec women were not permitted be soldiers, Chinese women were taught the three followings 2500 years ago. Your statement is simply profoundly absurd. All societies — even the ones listed in your citations — especially the ones listed in your citations — have been capable of distinguishing sex, and setting up different rules of behavior that depend on sex. That is gender.
3. “You've said that identity is irrelevant to reproductive role. That's wrong, which is why there are trans-fathers who give birth.”
This is again deliberate confusion. No matter what pronoun or title you afford this trans man, his reproductive role was to bear a child and not to sire one. Only female mammals produce eggs and only female mammals bear young.
Do you perceive yourself as a man?
Generally, if you'd say, "I am a ..." then you identify as that.
You might say, for instance, I am a Catholic. Or I am a Muslim. I am a man. I am a woman. I am a chef. I am a zookeeper. I am a gun owner. I am a pacifist. I am a vegetarian. etc. etc.
Whatever your "I am a ..." statements are, they are how you identify. You will find some of them you feel strongly about and others you don't really care about but you might say them anyways. "I am a man" might not be a statement that carries a lot of feelings with it for you, whereas something like, "I am an atheist" might. Some folks are proud Republicans or Democrats, others aren't.
Others might disagree with how you identify. They might say, "Well, you might think you are a Christian, but...", and that's where we all have to collectively decide where we should be policing identities of others.