Friday, May 6, 2016

Once again, how the deuce do you define "gender identity"?

Any definition of gender identity you can come up with runs afoul of either the claims of the transgender community or the wishes of the LGBT Alliance in general.

If you define GI by anatomy, then obviously you are contradicting the claims of women who had or still have penises. And if you define it by behaviour, dress, or any other outward appearance, then you are making gender identity dependent upon the social construction of heteronormative gender rôles. Not only does that contradict the claims of many transgender people who, despite having been raised to conform to these rôles, have struggled to defy them, it also brings back the very thing that gays and Lesbians along with feminists have sought and worked tirelessly to overcome, namely traditional gender rôles.

So, if gender identity cannot be defined by anatomy, behaviour, or appearance, then what's left? Nothing besides the individual's ipse dixit, and an ipse dixit is hardly a definition. Gender identity lacks a definition. It is as metaphysically nebulous as souls are to atheists, and if we can't ask any one to accept something for which there can be no concrete definition, we certainly can't expect people to accept the impossibly murky concept of "gender identity".

No comments: