What does 'gender identity' really mean?

And what does 'gender' really mean?

We promise that we will get to the topic really soon, after this little announcement. This newsletter is serious work for us, for which we do not get paid. If you like what we do, please consider supporting our work by buying us a coffee:

And now, for today’s topic:

---

Whenever any trans person ever shares their story or lived experience or opinion in any form online, there is usually some skeptic or naysayer who pops out of nowhere to ask the same old worn-out question, "what does 'gender identity' really mean?"

And no, I don't mean someone who is simply curious, as any of us can be, but those who try to mansplain what we just talked about and then ask for a "falsifiable non-circular definition of 'gender identity'". (Yes, this actually happened after this interview last week)

Maybe I am being too harsh and biased. It is a valid question, and I want to answer it not just for the skeptics but even for the allies. Because as allies, it is good if we are willing to accept and stand up for those whom we don't understand, but it's even better if we understand and are informed enough to be able to logically defend our stance. So let me put aside my own queer identity for a moment, and go back to what I have learnt as a researcher about falsifiability and non-circular definitions. I promise, it won't be boring. And we will stick to examples which are easier to understand, rather than any obscure terms.

Falsifiability, Non-circular definitions, and the No true Scotsman fallacy

Many of us must have heard some version of this statement “God exists, and you can only see God if you have enough faith”. This statement can not be disproved, because one can simply insist on it being true, and claim that anyone disagreeing with it simply does not have ‘enough faith’. No evidence in support or against such a claim is needed, because such statements are beyond the ambit of logic and reason.

Or if one is asked, “what does ‘natural’ mean?” and the answer is “everything that exists in nature”, to which the counter question is, “what does ‘nature’ mean” and the answer is “everything that is ‘natural’”, one can see how this loop of questions and answers will never end.

A more detailed discussion of these concepts can be found here and here, or on the No true Scotsman fallacy.

In the case of gender identity, a stereotypical portrayal of trans people’s opinions is that we say things like “I am a woman because I identify as a woman” (in the case of trans women, and analogous statements by trans men or nonbinary people). Of course, this can look like a circular definition to a skeptic. Even if one defines it as ‘one’s innate sense of their gender / of who they are’, as it is usually defined, how does one logically prove that there’s more to gender identity than simply what we claim?

What if there’s no such thing as ‘gender identity’?

Let’s assume that we cannot prove that anything like ‘gender identity’ really exists. What will that mean? It will mean not only the erosion of transgender identities in their current form (though trans people have existed since long before the term ‘gender identity’ was coined), but also the erosion of cisgender identities, or the term ‘cisgender’ as a concept. This may not seem troubling to those skeptics and transphobes who anyway reject all of these terms, but let’s push this line of thinking a little further.

If there’s no such thing as ‘one’s innate sense of their gender’, then the only remaining basis for sex-based or gender-based differentiation is one’s anatomy, specifically primary and secondary sexual characteristics. Of course, this is exactly what the transphobes claim, but a related claim is also that this anatomy is inviolable or immutable. However, what if it isn’t? What if this anatomy can be modified, with or without the individual’s consent?

If ‘gender identity’ doesn’t really exist, then being forced to modify one’s anatomy should not cause any problems, as one’s new anatomy will simply determine how one identifies themselves and lives their life.

What if we propose an experiment?

Suppose one enrols a few thousand people for an experiment, with roughly equal representation of people whom we usually call cis men, cis women, trans men, trans women and nonbinary people. Even if one does not want to rely on definitions and categories which we have temporarily rejected, let’s just call them people with differing anatomies, and differing degrees of satisfaction with these anatomies.

Now, irrespective of how satisfied or not each individual is with their current anatomy, suppose half of them are put in a ‘control group’ where nothing happens, and the other half are put through a ‘treatment’ – a combination of hormones and surgery – which modifies their primary and secondary sexual characteristics. And after going through this ‘treatment’, each one’s satisfaction with their anatomy is measured again. If there is no such thing as ‘gender identity’, then on average, those who were satisfied with their anatomies earlier will continue to remain happy and satisfied even after the ‘treatment’.

After all, if the problem with transgender people is in our minds, as the usual tropes go, and those who are unhappy or dissatisfied earlier will remain unhappy or dissatisfied even after the ‘treatment’, then the contrapositive will also be true, i.e. those who are happy and satisfied after the ‘treatment’ will mostly be the ones who were happy and satisfied even earlier.

Even if one proposes that the ‘treatment’ in itself is harmful and unnatural and can cause anyone to be unhappy, then in the absence of ‘gender identity’, it will simply mean that on average, everyone will be equally unhappy with it.

I have used the phrase ‘on average’ because even if individual experiences and responses may differ, what is of interest in such experiments is the average outcome. For example, if I say ‘men are taller than women’, it is easily falsifiable by finding any woman who is taller than at least one man. However, if I say ‘men are, on average, taller than women’, it is a statement which requires more careful analysis as above.

The question of Ethics

The experiment proposed above may seem outlandish, but this is exactly how experiments are designed, in both medical and social sciences. Then what is the problem with this one? Of course, the answer is that it has severe ethical concerns. No experiment must be done without informed consent from its participants. And no ‘treatment’ which is known to be harmful can be part of an experiment. A few decades ago, Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo may have gotten away with questionable experiments, but they are no longer feasible.

And specifically on the question of gender, there is indeed an experiment which did not just take a few hours or days of its subjects’ time as Milgram and Zimbardo did, and caused them a little distress, but one which went on for years, and included a combination of behavioural, hormonal and surgical interventions on a child without their consent. Seems shocking? You can look up John Money, David Reimer, Milton Diamond and the story of how a baby boy was forced into one of the most bizarre experiments without his consent, and his true story hidden from the world for decades.

Historical Evidence

Not just David Reimer whose case started with a medical accident, but many other cis people used to be forced to go through the ‘treatment’ we described above, as a matter of law and policy in most of the world. Surprised? It was because they were punished for homosexuality, and what now constitutes HRT for trans people, was forced in a different form onto unwilling queer individuals under threat of a long prison term if they refused. A very famous example of that is Alan Turing, whom we mentioned earlier this week as well.

On the other hand, we have decades of historical and current evidence from trans people’s lived experiences that forcing us to change or suppress our true selves has disastrous consequences, and also that affirming our identities and allowing us to access the healthcare we need has positive outcomes.

So, if we already have historical evidence in both directions, that cis people subjected to anything similar to a ‘gender transition’ end up unhappy and suicidal, and so do trans people who are forced to live in assigned identities that they do not agree with, then don’t we already have sufficient evidence for the existence of ‘gender identity’?

What is the meaning of ‘Do No Harm’?

A well-known universal principle of healthcare is to ‘do no harm’. Its common interpretation is that if an action could cause more harm than good, then it is better to not do anything at all.

While it is a sensible principle to apply in many scenarios, what about cases where some change is already occurring, especially rapid change? Does it make sense to ‘do nothing’ if one sees someone being attacked in front of you, and has the power to intervene? Does it make sense to ‘do nothing’ if one sees a fire rapidly spreading, and one has the time and ability to put out the fire and also keep oneself safe?

If your answer to both these questions was that in such cases, it is better to act than to ‘do nothing’, then what about cases where a teenager who is severely gender dysphoric and absolutely hating the puberty that they are going through to the point of being constantly suicidal, asks a qualified doctor for medication that can block their puberty, and put a halt on any changes for a few years? A doctor who has faced this question, explains what ‘do no harm’ means in such cases.

Beyond medical interventions

So far, the discussion above has focussed a lot on medical interventions. However, being trans is not contingent on undergoing any medical interventions, or on experiencing gender dysphoria. Skeptics and transphobes often conclude from this that anyone and everyone can identify as trans if they want to, and that the growing multitude of new gender identities makes the definition of ‘gender identity’ questionable. I would conclude instead, that these growing numbers and labels and identities show how many people are unhappy with our gendered society in general.

Some final thoughts...

I know that whatever has been said above, can lead to many more questions.

Do teenagers really know for sure what their gender identity is?

What about people who ‘de-transition’, i.e. try to go back to living as they were before?

How can we be sure that someone won’t simply ‘pretend’ to be trans for some ulterior motive?

We are going to pick up all these questions one by one in the coming weeks. For now, I would like to share the story of someone about whom I heard around the time I came out to myself a few years ago. Her ‘final thoughts’ and their consequences are in the images below... (Trigger warning: Suicide)

---

If you liked what you read, please consider supporting our work by buying us a coffee:

You can also follow us on Instagram or Twitter, and subscribe to our newsletter so that you don’t miss any future editions. A new edition will be published every Saturday.

If you would like to contact us, you can message us on Instagram or Twitter or by replying to any edition of this newsletter, and we will get in touch with you.