Is gender identity inherent, or is it shaped by our environment?

Rachel Stewart36 said:I wouldn't be so quick to make sweeping claims like that. Looking at people and the world around me, I haven't really seen massive variations in those "facts" based on gender. It feels more like certain groups just have different "modes." Let me complicate things a bit—I'm male (biologically speaking), identify as a man, and I'm straight, yet my default mode is pretty "feminine"—non-aggressive, passive, indirect, and super focused on emotional harmony. That said, I switch to the "male" mode whenever it makes sense—you know, situational awareness. So, how do you explain my passivity given my testosterone levels (which are pretty obvious from my physique)? I think things are a little more nuanced than what you're suggesting. But hey, just my two cents. 😉

maybe it's because a person isn't just driven by hormones; they also have intellect, willpower, and plenty of other unknown factors at play.

Sexual identity is a real thing that exists regardless of what kind of environment you’re in—I mean, women feel attraction to men, and men feel it toward women, obviously (barring homosexuals). Gender identity, on the other hand, is something shaped by social norms and how society expects us to act.

Can someone please change the title to 'is there such a thing as gender identity if it isn't shaped by your environment?'

Sandra Barrett4 said:maybe it's because a person isn't just driven by hormones; they also have intellect, willpower, and plenty of other unknown factors at play.

It was more of a "quasi-rhetorical" question anyway. But hey, thanks for the input.

David Gomez3 said:I’ve already laid out my thoughts on what gender identity actually entails in my previous posts. If you're looking for a deeper dive, you can always go do some reading online. ☕

It seems you’re conflating gender roles with gender identity. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding, though it technically doesn't matter in cases where biological sex aligns perfectly with identity—like a cisgender man.

Furthermore, sexual orientation isn't an issue of gender identity; being gay simply means men love men, or women love women. You’ve managed to mix up 🤷
completely.
🤷 You’re essentially contradicting yourself here. You seem to admit that at one point in history, it was socially unacceptable for a woman to be a construction worker, yet you simultaneously deny the existence of gender roles and identities? It sounds to me like your only logic is based on 😕 biology.

While it’s certainly commendable that societal norms are evolving, the reality remains that these roles and expectations exist, and they impact people's lives—often for the worse. Just look at parts of the Middle East; you don't see men wearing burqas.

And regarding your argument about the term being unnecessary: quite the opposite is true. In the context of transgender individuals, this concept is essential for explaining the phenomenon and shedding light on the process. Even if you argue that "gender identity" is a term primarily used within transgender discourse, its existence remains entirely justified.

1. Hahaha... do you really think I'm so clueless that I can't find a definition? Also, thanks for the "explanation." But you missed the whole point: I never said those definitions don't exist, I said they're stupid.

2. Nope. Gender identity doesn't exist. It's just a feminist invention.

3. I never said they necessarily have issues. Read it again if you don't believe me. I wrote exactly what you wrote. Though, if you really want to push it, they actually do have massive issues with their biological sex. That's why this fake "gender" thing was invented—to deny that they have a problem.

4. The fact that women weren't (all) construction workers had nothing to do with it being "socially unacceptable"; it was because it's physically grueling work.

5. I never denied that gender roles exist and can change. So what you're saying is completely irrelevant.

6. Transsexuality and so-called "transgenderism" are a sickness.

hiddenhound3 said:That is hardly nonsense or feminist bluster; these are legitimate theories established by cultural and anthropological scholars.

It is an undeniable fact that fundamental biological differences influence gender roles, yet within specific cultures, eras, and circumstances, those roles can vary, whereas sex-based roles remain immutable.

Allow me to illustrate. The gender role of a man involves performing strenuous labor in the fields—which stems from the era when horticulture and agronomy first emerged, where a pregnant woman might manage solely with a hoe while the man handled the plow regardless of the epoch—and this dominance of male physical strength pushed women away from heavy agricultural tasks (an evolution that contributed to the development of patriarchy). Yet, during times of war, when men are deployed, women must step into that masculine role. This is a gender role imposed by biology but accepted by society. Thus, we see clearly how a gender role can shift from one sex to another.

Conversely, a sex-based role is unconditional; a woman can give birth, whereas a man cannot. A man cannot serve as the carrier, the birther, or the lactating parent; that is a female sex role, and it is not transferable to a man.

Do you perceive the distinction between gender and sex roles now? They are entirely real phenomena, and they are partially determined by biology. 🙂

1. "Some people." The point is what certain theorists say. And since when is that even an argument? Are we just supposed to believe that whatever some theorist says can't be stupid? Give me a break!

2. Men working the fields isn't a gender role; it's a sex role tied to a specific era and society. Nowadays, it's perfectly normal for a woman to drive a tractor and work the land, so that's part of her possible sex role today. The emergence of patriarchy has nothing to do with what you're claiming. I'll just give you a few starting points so you can go do your own research: the Iron Age and nomadic tribes.

3. Oh, wow! Thanks for explaining that to me. I feel so much smarter now. 🙄

Is sexual identity something that exists independently of our surroundings? To put it simply: absolutely...

And honestly, the same logic applies to gender too...

Nature is incredibly driven to produce men and women—it’s practically hardwired into our bodies and brains from the very beginning... there isn't an environment out there powerful enough to just override that... of course, when you have such a massive biological process at play, you get variations in certain circumstances—I wouldn't even call them mistakes, really...

vividorca9 said:You're mixing up sex and gender. Sex is determined at birth, whereas gender is more about individual psychology and sociology. Sex is "I am female, I have female reproductive organs, and I produce female hormones," while gender is "I feel female," "I present as female," or "I embrace my femininity." It makes perfect sense. That’s why a transsexual person might be biologically male but identifies with a female gender. While biological sex isn't a socially constructed category, gender definitely is—it's been debated for ages, and more importantly, it's been manipulated by politics and marketing for a very long time.

Transgender people are just sick. Honestly, they’re trying to be something they aren't, and it makes no sense. Why even go down that road?

So, let's talk about this whole "gender" debate. It’s basically just a massive argument started by feminists and LGBT groups who refuse to admit they have an identity crisis. They basically cooked up this entire concept of "gender" just to give their own issues a fancy new label and justify them. Isn't that just convenient?

Brandon Wright54 said:🤦 And you'd just let all those groups slide? How? You'd basically say: if you don't fit into the heterosexual matrix, then get lost, and you don't even have a sexual orientation? Or are you just male, female, or nothing at all? You've lumped everything together and insulted homosexuals and lesbians in the process. To make it simple: there's social sex and biological sex. You're born with the biological one, and you acquire the social one. Now there's this mountain of theories regarding gender identity configuration, starting with Freud himself, who primarily looked at sexual identification through the Eipov complex. Gender identity exists in a psychological sense through identification with one side; if that weren't true, we'd still be treating homosexuals like they were mentally ill.

Honestly, your whole take is hilarious. I’ve got nothing to add except my own two cents: the entire concept of gender was basically cooked up by feminists, and nowadays, it’s mostly just being shoved down our throats by the LGBT group.

Rachel Stewart36 said:I wouldn't be so quick to make sweeping claims like that. Looking at people and the world around me, I haven't really seen massive variations in those "facts" based on gender. It feels more like certain groups just have different "modes." Let me complicate things a bit—I'm male (biologically speaking), identify as a man, and I'm straight, yet my default mode is pretty "feminine"—non-aggressive, passive, indirect, and super focused on emotional harmony. That said, I switch to the "male" mode whenever it makes sense—you know, situational awareness. So, how do you explain my passivity given my testosterone levels (which are pretty obvious from my physique)? I think things are a little more nuanced than what you're suggesting. But hey, just my two cents. 😉

Look, gender identities haven't exactly been some unique, one-of-a-kind thing throughout history or even in the present day. But just because they've always existed doesn't mean we need to go around reinventing the wheel. Why try to make something new when the reality is already right there?

Drew Lee7 said:Transgender people are just sick. Honestly, they’re trying to be something they aren't, and it makes no sense. Why even go down that road?

So, let's talk about this whole "gender" debate. It’s basically just a massive argument started by feminists and LGBT groups who refuse to admit they have an identity crisis. They basically cooked up this entire concept of "gender" just to give their own issues a fancy new label and justify them. Isn't that just convenient?

Honestly, your whole take is hilarious. I’ve got nothing to add except my own two cents: the entire concept of gender was basically cooked up by feminists, and nowadays, it’s mostly just being shoved down our throats by the LGBT group.

Look, gender identities haven't exactly been some unique, one-of-a-kind thing throughout history or even in the present day. But just because they've always existed doesn't mean we need to go around reinventing the wheel. Why try to make something new when the reality is already right there?

I don't quite get what's supposed to be funny here. You claim gender identity doesn't exist, yet you argue it's a feminist invention—which I don't buy for a second. Biological sex is hardwired—anatomy, chromosomes, hormones—it's what we're born with (even if people try to change that these days). Gender identity, however, is shaped by culture. By claiming gender doesn't exist, you're basically ignoring how much culture actually influences us. What's your actual argument there? The split between biology and society is most obvious with gay people—they clearly developed a sexual orientation different from what was biologically assigned at birth. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist. Plus, by denying gender exists, you're stripping away their right to define their own orientation. As for the title, it hits the nail on the head because gender identity lives exactly in that intersection of biology and society. By moving away from seeing gender as a direct consequence of biological sex, all those "outcasts" you listed finally got a chance to identify themselves and step out without the centuries of stigma following them. So, yeah, your first post was pretty offensive to a lot of people. And feminism? It's not some monolith pushing a single agenda. There are plenty of different branches of feminism that clash with each other—but they all share one thing: breaking the idea that biology is destiny and that gender is as unchangeable as sex.

Regarding your claim that feminists invented the concept of gender; if you don't count Freud as a feminist, then your point falls flat. He was the first to suggest that gender identity isn't purely biological, but rather an undefined state of the subject that emerges as a social and cultural construct once someone enters society...

Drew Lee7 said:Transgender people are just sick. Honestly, they’re trying to be something they aren't, and it makes no sense. Why even go down that road?

So, let's talk about this whole "gender" debate. It’s basically just a massive argument started by feminists and LGBT groups who refuse to admit they have an identity crisis. They basically cooked up this entire concept of "gender" just to give their own issues a fancy new label and justify them. Isn't that just convenient?

Honestly, your whole take is hilarious. I’ve got nothing to add except my own two cents: the entire concept of gender was basically cooked up by feminists, and nowadays, it’s mostly just being shoved down our throats by the LGBT group.

Look, gender identities haven't exactly been some unique, one-of-a-kind thing throughout history or even in the present day. But just because they've always existed doesn't mean we need to go around reinventing the wheel. Why try to make something new when the reality is already right there?

Care to elaborate on that little observation? And while you're at it, maybe define what exactly you mean by the whole "gender identity" thing.

Brandon Wright54 said:I don't quite get what's supposed to be funny here. You claim gender identity doesn't exist, yet you argue it's a feminist invention—which I don't buy for a second. Biological sex is hardwired—anatomy, chromosomes, hormones—it's what we're born with (even if people try to change that these days). Gender identity, however, is shaped by culture. By claiming gender doesn't exist, you're basically ignoring how much culture actually influences us. What's your actual argument there? The split between biology and society is most obvious with gay people—they clearly developed a sexual orientation different from what was biologically assigned at birth. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist. Plus, by denying gender exists, you're stripping away their right to define their own orientation. As for the title, it hits the nail on the head because gender identity lives exactly in that intersection of biology and society. By moving away from seeing gender as a direct consequence of biological sex, all those "outcasts" you listed finally got a chance to identify themselves and step out without the centuries of stigma following them. So, yeah, your first post was pretty offensive to a lot of people. And feminism? It's not some monolith pushing a single agenda. There are plenty of different branches of feminism that clash with each other—but they all share one thing: breaking the idea that biology is destiny and that gender is as unchangeable as sex.

Regarding your claim that feminists invented the concept of gender; if you don't count Freud as a feminist, then your point falls flat. He was the first to suggest that gender identity isn't purely biological, but rather an undefined state of the subject that emerges as a social and cultural construct once someone enters society...

Well, your condescending attitude is what's "funny."

Let's start with Sigmund. Just because you wrote that "little guy" Sigmund thought something doesn't mean anything to me. For all I know, you didn't even grasp what he actually meant. If you want to play scientist, why don't you provide a specific quote to back up your thesis? Give me the work it came from, the edition, and the page number. Then maybe we can talk about Sigmund. But even in your own interpretation, you're talking about sexual identity, not gender. And where on earth did I say sexual identity is innate? Nowhere! Read more carefully. Sex is innate, but identity isn't. In fact, I said sexual identity depends on time and place. Being a man (or woman) 50,000 years ago, 2,500 years ago, or today is a completely different experience. It’s just like being a woman (or man) today in the US versus being one in Afghanistan. But that doesn't change the fact that whether it's then or now, here or there, we are still talking about men and women—meaning, sexes. Gender, however, can be Joseph's, Peter's, or Mary's; it can be Anne's, Stephen's, or any other variation.

And as for that bolded claim of yours? That’s just hilarious. You're suggesting I "chose" my heterosexuality the same way a homosexual "chooses" theirs. Are you for real? Regardless of the cause—whether it's genetics, hormones, or psychology—if a guy gets turned on by hairy male backsides but stays completely limp for firm female breasts, is that really a "choice"? 😕 Oh my God! Even bisexuality isn't a choice, even if it's somewhat socially conditioned—because either you're turned on, or you aren't. What kind of "choice" is that?!

Look, as far as I'm concerned, homosexuals should have all the same rights as everyone else, just not the ones that don't naturally stem from the nature of their relationships. And that's the crux of the issue. They're asking for exactly those kinds of rights. Because, at least in the West, nobody bothers them anymore except for a few closed-minded idiots. But they also have to realize that most heterosexuals aren't going to grant them things that simply don't align with the nature of their own relationships.

Rachel Stewart36 said:Care to elaborate on that little observation? And while you're at it, maybe define what exactly you mean by the whole "gender identity" thing.

Look, gender identity is basically how a man or a woman perceives themselves, paired with how everyone else—society as a whole, through those "ideal" standards—perceives them. Now, some people will try to tell you that’s the same thing as sex. It isn't! The whole reason an LGBT group needs that distinction is so they can claim: "Hey, it's fine if someone is biologically male but identifies and lives as female (or vice versa), because society's gender roles are just evil impositions." Oh, really? Sure, society imposes stuff, but definitely not in the way they want to spin it. If someone is male but feels female (or the other way around), then we're looking at a much deeper issue that wasn't forced on them by culture or society—it's nature. If a gay person wants kids but can't have them, that limitation wasn't handed to them by society either; it's nature (or maybe just a byproduct of psychological or cultural conflict). Either way, it isn't socially conditioned the way an LGBT group tries to insist it is.

It is my firm belief that gender identity is fundamentally biological. I recall watching a documentary where researchers performed brain scans on women, men, and trans individuals, and the findings were striking: the neurological patterns in trans people showed significantly more overlap with female brains than male ones.
I have seen evidence of this play out in my own life as well.
Take my friend, for example. She had always envisioned herself having a daughter. As fate would have it, she gave birth to a boy instead. However, from the very beginning, she insisted on surrounding him with things traditionally associated with girls—toys, clothing in "feminine" colors, and so on. Yet, nature has its own way of asserting itself; despite those early influences, he grew up to be a quintessential American man. Even if his first year was filled with dolls and toy doctors, today he is a young man whose entire world revolves around cars, hunting rifles, and football.

Drew Lee7 said:Transgender people are just sick. Honestly, they’re trying to be something they aren't, and it makes no sense. Why even go down that road?

So, let's talk about this whole "gender" debate. It’s basically just a massive argument started by feminists and LGBT groups who refuse to admit they have an identity crisis. They basically cooked up this entire concept of "gender" just to give their own issues a fancy new label and justify them. Isn't that just convenient?

Honestly, your whole take is hilarious. I’ve got nothing to add except my own two cents: the entire concept of gender was basically cooked up by feminists, and nowadays, it’s mostly just being shoved down our throats by the LGBT group.

Look, gender identities haven't exactly been some unique, one-of-a-kind thing throughout history or even in the present day. But just because they've always existed doesn't mean we need to go around reinventing the wheel. Why try to make something new when the reality is already right there?

I don't buy this at all. An LGBT group didn't just invent some "problem." What actually happened is that feminists and queer theory have spent years doing the intellectual heavy lifting to open a window that used to be slammed shut by our own prejudices. You can't honestly tell me that a woman taking male hormones and prepping for gender reassignment surgery is the exact same thing as a woman using IVF to deal with infertility. And look, a man could undergo gender reassignment surgery, wear heels, and take female hormones—does that mean he still identifies as male? He's male biologically, but his gender leans toward being female. Gender is a heavy, vital linguistic concept because it democratized things; it allowed for the possibility that someone might not want to be the sex nature assigned them at birth. As far as I'm concerned, that's perfectly fine. The LGBT group didn't create a problem (these things like transsexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality have always existed; they aren't modern inventions), they just brought them into the light.

Just a side note: I think people today confuse actual feminism with just being frustrated, man-hating bitter people. The first wave of feminists gave women the right to vote, the right to work, and the freedom to choose their own lives. I don't think we should spit on them or use their name as an insult. So if that makes me a "bitter man-hater" in your eyes—so be it.

*upset🤣

Drew Lee7 said:Well, your condescending attitude is what's "funny."

Let's start with Sigmund. Just because you wrote that "little guy" Sigmund thought something doesn't mean anything to me. For all I know, you didn't even grasp what he actually meant. If you want to play scientist, why don't you provide a specific quote to back up your thesis? Give me the work it came from, the edition, and the page number. Then maybe we can talk about Sigmund. But even in your own interpretation, you're talking about sexual identity, not gender. And where on earth did I say sexual identity is innate? Nowhere! Read more carefully. Sex is innate, but identity isn't. In fact, I said sexual identity depends on time and place. Being a man (or woman) 50,000 years ago, 2,500 years ago, or today is a completely different experience. It’s just like being a woman (or man) today in the US versus being one in Afghanistan. But that doesn't change the fact that whether it's then or now, here or there, we are still talking about men and women—meaning, sexes. Gender, however, can be Joseph's, Peter's, or Mary's; it can be Anne's, Stephen's, or any other variation.

And as for that bolded claim of yours? That’s just hilarious. You're suggesting I "chose" my heterosexuality the same way a homosexual "chooses" theirs. Are you for real? Regardless of the cause—whether it's genetics, hormones, or psychology—if a guy gets turned on by hairy male backsides but stays completely limp for firm female breasts, is that really a "choice"? 😕 Oh my God! Even bisexuality isn't a choice, even if it's somewhat socially conditioned—because either you're turned on, or you aren't. What kind of "choice" is that?!

Look, as far as I'm concerned, homosexuals should have all the same rights as everyone else, just not the ones that don't naturally stem from the nature of their relationships. And that's the crux of the issue. They're asking for exactly those kinds of rights. Because, at least in the West, nobody bothers them anymore except for a few closed-minded idiots. But they also have to realize that most heterosexuals aren't going to grant them things that simply don't align with the nature of their own relationships.

Look, gender identity is basically how a man or a woman perceives themselves, paired with how everyone else—society as a whole, through those "ideal" standards—perceives them. Now, some people will try to tell you that’s the same thing as sex. It isn't! The whole reason an LGBT group needs that distinction is so they can claim: "Hey, it's fine if someone is biologically male but identifies and lives as female (or vice versa), because society's gender roles are just evil impositions." Oh, really? Sure, society imposes stuff, but definitely not in the way they want to spin it. If someone is male but feels female (or the other way around), then we're looking at a much deeper issue that wasn't forced on them by culture or society—it's nature. If a gay person wants kids but can't have them, that limitation wasn't handed to them by society either; it's nature (or maybe just a byproduct of psychological or cultural conflict). Either way, it isn't socially conditioned the way an LGBT group tries to insist it is.

High and mighty? That's clearly just your subjective perception based on your own level of knowledge—or lack thereof. Regarding Freud, that's basic theoretical framework; if you aren't familiar with it, there's no point in continuing this discussion. For starters, one book—of many—that touches on this is Toril Moi’s *Sexual/Textual Politics*, published in 1999, pages 24-26.

I am talking about sexual identity as a combination of gender and sex, which is pretty obvious. You, on the other hand, are getting defensive because you feel accused of claiming sexual identity is innate. Good grief, what would it be if you stripped away its social function? Do you even hear yourself? What else is your "change over time and space" besides the social construction of certain roles called GENDER? Sex isn't gender; sex is biologically determined, gender is not. Then you claim sexual identity is "how a man or woman sees themselves and how others see them"—which is nothing more than a psychological representation or the subject's psychological position, as mentioned by Freud. With that statement, you end up denying biological sex while simultaneously failing to acknowledge gender. So what are you left with? Nothing.

When it comes to sexual orientation, we aren't talking about some conscious decision—it’s subconscious stuff. That puts the whole thing squarely in the realm of psychoanalysis, specifically regarding how one identifies sexually with a parent. But honestly, there's no point in me wasting my breath trying to explain that here—this conversation is going nowhere.

Here are a few links if you're actually interested in doing some digging:

Language, gender, and feminism

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/

EDIT: One more thing I should probably say: we’re basically standing at a crossroads right now. We're trying to adopt modern Western habits while simultaneously cutting ties with old-school attitudes and perspectives from a different era. To me, these debates mostly stem from the sheer confusion that comes when you're constantly bombarded with new info and shifting viewpoints. It's a lot to process. But honestly, having these discussions is just part of the learning curve and moving toward a more open-minded way of looking at things.

A comic strip artist who nails certain aspects of this topic perfectly:

How to be a man?

Keith Thomas21 said:It is my firm belief that gender identity is fundamentally biological. I recall watching a documentary where researchers performed brain scans on women, men, and trans individuals, and the findings were striking: the neurological patterns in trans people showed significantly more overlap with female brains than male ones.
I have seen evidence of this play out in my own life as well.
Take my friend, for example. She had always envisioned herself having a daughter. As fate would have it, she gave birth to a boy instead. However, from the very beginning, she insisted on surrounding him with things traditionally associated with girls—toys, clothing in "feminine" colors, and so on. Yet, nature has its own way of asserting itself; despite those early influences, he grew up to be a quintessential American man. Even if his first year was filled with dolls and toy doctors, today he is a young man whose entire world revolves around cars, hunting rifles, and football.

1. None of what was listed has anything to do with gender identity.
2. Male gender roles aren't biological; they are likely picked up from the environment rather than being caused by parents.

Nothing could ever convince me that I could just wake up one morning, decide I want to be a man, and go undergo surgery to have my breasts removed. No matter how hard I’ve tried to adopt a more masculine way of thinking or carry myself, it simply doesn't come naturally to me. I truly believe this is something innate—a primal, biological drive. Just as we deal with various congenital conditions at birth, I view gender identity disorder as another such biological reality.
It stands to reason that if a male child feels a sense of masculinity, he will naturally mirror the masculine behaviors he observes in his environment, even if those men happen to wear bras in that specific social circle. Conversely, if a child does not feel masculine, they will instinctively imitate whatever feminine behavior is present around them.

vividorca9 said:I don't buy this at all. An LGBT group didn't just invent some "problem." What actually happened is that feminists and queer theory have spent years doing the intellectual heavy lifting to open a window that used to be slammed shut by our own prejudices. You can't honestly tell me that a woman taking male hormones and prepping for gender reassignment surgery is the exact same thing as a woman using IVF to deal with infertility. And look, a man could undergo gender reassignment surgery, wear heels, and take female hormones—does that mean he still identifies as male? He's male biologically, but his gender leans toward being female. Gender is a heavy, vital linguistic concept because it democratized things; it allowed for the possibility that someone might not want to be the sex nature assigned them at birth. As far as I'm concerned, that's perfectly fine. The LGBT group didn't create a problem (these things like transsexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality have always existed; they aren't modern inventions), they just brought them into the light.

Just a side note: I think people today confuse actual feminism with just being frustrated, man-hating bitter people. The first wave of feminists gave women the right to vote, the right to work, and the freedom to choose their own lives. I don't think we should spit on them or use their name as an insult. So if that makes me a "bitter man-hater" in your eyes—so be it.

*upset🤣

Hahaha... so that’s not an issue now?! Like, what exactly is it then if not one massive, glaring problem? Everyone knows damn well what linguistic gender actually is. Language isn't some ball of dough that people can just knead and reshape whenever they feel like it. But honestly, what you just wrote is exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time: claiming there's a distinction between gender and sex is nothing more than a fantasy cooked up by feminist, queer, and so-called gender theorists on the principle of: "Whatever makes them feel good, makes them feel good."

Brandon Wright54 said:High and mighty? That's clearly just your subjective perception based on your own level of knowledge—or lack thereof. Regarding Freud, that's basic theoretical framework; if you aren't familiar with it, there's no point in continuing this discussion. For starters, one book—of many—that touches on this is Toril Moi’s *Sexual/Textual Politics*, published in 1999, pages 24-26.

I am talking about sexual identity as a combination of gender and sex, which is pretty obvious. You, on the other hand, are getting defensive because you feel accused of claiming sexual identity is innate. Good grief, what would it be if you stripped away its social function? Do you even hear yourself? What else is your "change over time and space" besides the social construction of certain roles called GENDER? Sex isn't gender; sex is biologically determined, gender is not. Then you claim sexual identity is "how a man or woman sees themselves and how others see them"—which is nothing more than a psychological representation or the subject's psychological position, as mentioned by Freud. With that statement, you end up denying biological sex while simultaneously failing to acknowledge gender. So what are you left with? Nothing.

When it comes to sexual orientation, we aren't talking about some conscious decision—it’s subconscious stuff. That puts the whole thing squarely in the realm of psychoanalysis, specifically regarding how one identifies sexually with a parent. But honestly, there's no point in me wasting my breath trying to explain that here—this conversation is going nowhere.

I couldn't agree more. Honestly, if someone can't even wrap their head around basic reading comprehension, why bother trying to have a deep conversation with them? It's just a waste of breath.

For crying out loud, can you actually step outside that tiny little box of textbook definitions and jargon for once? Honestly, I think this whole obsession with separating gender from sex is just pure nonsense. It’s all part of this manufactured "gender theory" that feels completely made up to me. Why do we even need to overcomplicate things like this? So, people love to talk about how social roles are built around this concept they call "gender," but honestly, I don't buy that distinction for a second. To me, what they’re labeling as gender is nothing more than just gender identity. Is that really so hard to wrap your head around? 🤷 Look, just because two people share the same biological sex doesn't mean they have to share the same gender identity. It’s common sense, really. I mean, obviously, a straight guy and a gay guy aren't going to have the exact same identity—they don't see themselves the same way, and let's be real, neither does the rest of the world. It's not that complicated.

So, we finally get to the real question: why do they insist on calling it "gender" instead of just a part of their identity (you know, the minority version)? According to this whole gender theory nonsense, biological sex doesn't actually mean a damn thing—it’s just some physical shell, while "gender" is everything. And since they claim gender is a social construct, then by their own logic, *everything* is a social construct. To them, being a "man" or a "woman" is entirely made up by society. That’s how they justify the idea that we’re somehow "forcing" boys to become men and girls to become women through different upbringing styles—like giving girls dolls and dresses while pushing motherhood, and giving boys cars and tech. This grand "gender theory" claims that's exactly how the concept of gender is constructed. But if you ask me? They’re just talking out of their asses because they can't handle their own sexual identity when compared to the majority. Half the time, these people just have deep-seated issues with themselves. I mean, if some young woman decides that motherhood is this evil social construct being shoved down her throat by some imaginary patriarchy, then honey, you've got some serious personal problems to work through.

P.S. I asked you to give me the actual, original Freudian quote, not whatever some feminist thinks he meant. You really need to get a clue here: if I told you I don't buy into gender theory, then I truly couldn't care less what someone who pushes that exact agenda has to say about it. I already know their arguments inside and out. Besides, even in your interpretation of Freudian thought, there isn't a single thing you're saying that I haven't already pointed out. So, here’s my advice: maybe try reading a little slower next time.

Keith Thomas21 said:Nothing could ever convince me that I could just wake up one morning, decide I want to be a man, and go undergo surgery to have my breasts removed. No matter how hard I’ve tried to adopt a more masculine way of thinking or carry myself, it simply doesn't come naturally to me. I truly believe this is something innate—a primal, biological drive. Just as we deal with various congenital conditions at birth, I view gender identity disorder as another such biological reality.
It stands to reason that if a male child feels a sense of masculinity, he will naturally mirror the masculine behaviors he observes in his environment, even if those men happen to wear bras in that specific social circle. Conversely, if a child does not feel masculine, they will instinctively imitate whatever feminine behavior is present around them.

1. These are biological facts that cannot be changed. Naturally, if you feel sexual attraction toward men, that is innate, and of course, you can't force yourself to think like a man or find women attractive.
2. From the surroundings refers to gender roles.
3. That is nonsense.

Drew Lee7 said:Hahaha... so that’s not an issue now?! Like, what exactly is it then if not one massive, glaring problem? Everyone knows damn well what linguistic gender actually is. Language isn't some ball of dough that people can just knead and reshape whenever they feel like it. But honestly, what you just wrote is exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time: claiming there's a distinction between gender and sex is nothing more than a fantasy cooked up by feminist, queer, and so-called gender theorists on the principle of: "Whatever makes them feel good, makes them feel good."

I couldn't agree more. Honestly, if someone can't even wrap their head around basic reading comprehension, why bother trying to have a deep conversation with them? It's just a waste of breath.

For crying out loud, can you actually step outside that tiny little box of textbook definitions and jargon for once? Honestly, I think this whole obsession with separating gender from sex is just pure nonsense. It’s all part of this manufactured "gender theory" that feels completely made up to me. Why do we even need to overcomplicate things like this? So, people love to talk about how social roles are built around this concept they call "gender," but honestly, I don't buy that distinction for a second. To me, what they’re labeling as gender is nothing more than just gender identity. Is that really so hard to wrap your head around? 🤷 Look, just because two people share the same biological sex doesn't mean they have to share the same gender identity. It’s common sense, really. I mean, obviously, a straight guy and a gay guy aren't going to have the exact same identity—they don't see themselves the same way, and let's be real, neither does the rest of the world. It's not that complicated.

So, we finally get to the real question: why do they insist on calling it "gender" instead of just a part of their identity (you know, the minority version)? According to this whole gender theory nonsense, biological sex doesn't actually mean a damn thing—it’s just some physical shell, while "gender" is everything. And since they claim gender is a social construct, then by their own logic, *everything* is a social construct. To them, being a "man" or a "woman" is entirely made up by society. That’s how they justify the idea that we’re somehow "forcing" boys to become men and girls to become women through different upbringing styles—like giving girls dolls and dresses while pushing motherhood, and giving boys cars and tech. This grand "gender theory" claims that's exactly how the concept of gender is constructed. But if you ask me? They’re just talking out of their asses because they can't handle their own sexual identity when compared to the majority. Half the time, these people just have deep-seated issues with themselves. I mean, if some young woman decides that motherhood is this evil social construct being shoved down her throat by some imaginary patriarchy, then honey, you've got some serious personal problems to work through.

P.S. I asked you to give me the actual, original Freudian quote, not whatever some feminist thinks he meant. You really need to get a clue here: if I told you I don't buy into gender theory, then I truly couldn't care less what someone who pushes that exact agenda has to say about it. I already know their arguments inside and out. Besides, even in your interpretation of Freudian thought, there isn't a single thing you're saying that I haven't already pointed out. So, here’s my advice: maybe try reading a little slower next time.

Language is exactly that. 🙂 You weren't born with the specific vocabulary you use now, nor were those terms even trending back when you were a toddler. 🤷 If we’re going to get pedantic and argue about it, then the idea that we define "masculine" and "feminine" solely by biological sex is also a fabrication. We could have just ignored physical differences entirely and never talked about them. We could have ignored—if we're allowing democracy in these matters—what science says about biological traits. That way, if some guy happened to be messing around, he could claim to be female and insist (just to spite everyone) that he'd give birth in nine months. We'd call that absurd. But some things just are the way they are, regardless of whether we want them to be. 😉 Similarly, the fact that you allow for gender identity instead of sex identity comes from the fact that you're prioritizing the physical over the intellectual/mental. You're completely ignoring the mental aspect of a person's identity and reducing everything to pure physicality. It seems to me that rejecting gender identity has a lot to do with how late this topic was even brought up, unlike the obvious biological differences that allowed us to distinguish between men and women pretty early on.

Look, can you please step outside the box of those recycled definitions for a second: for me, making a distinction between gender and sex is nonsense and a myth created by so-called "gender theory." While the social construction of roles is indeed called "gender" within that theory, I don't recognize that distinction because what they call gender is nothing more than sexual identity.

This isn't directed at me, but (with all due respect): if you don't recognize the difference between gender and sex, do you not recognize trans people or crossdressers either? OK, you're entitled to think something is wrong with them (as long as you aren't being verbally or physically abusive), but what does that have to do with their existence? If I close my blinds because I'm in a bad mood and don't feel like looking at the sky today, does that mean the sky doesn't exist for me? It's incredibly solipsistic. 🙂 The existence of gender (where we actually agree) allows for the possibility that people don't feel like who they were born as. If you refuse to acknowledge gender, it won't stop trans people, crossdressers, or anyone else who simply doesn't feel comfortable in their own skin (whether someone shoved it into their head that they aren't masculine or feminine enough, or they just have their own complexes) from existing. How else are we supposed to discuss the duality between what is biological and what is psychological? How else besides using the term "gender"? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just defending my view that gender needs its place in our linguistic, psychological, sociological, anthropological, and even historical toolkit.

Keith Thomas21 said:Nothing could ever convince me that I could just wake up one morning, decide I want to be a man, and go undergo surgery to have my breasts removed. No matter how hard I’ve tried to adopt a more masculine way of thinking or carry myself, it simply doesn't come naturally to me. I truly believe this is something innate—a primal, biological drive. Just as we deal with various congenital conditions at birth, I view gender identity disorder as another such biological reality.
It stands to reason that if a male child feels a sense of masculinity, he will naturally mirror the masculine behaviors he observes in his environment, even if those men happen to wear bras in that specific social circle. Conversely, if a child does not feel masculine, they will instinctively imitate whatever feminine behavior is present around them.

To put it simply, yeah, I agree. Sexual instinct is at the core of gender identity, and that’s innate. It’s just like how physical sex characteristics are pretty much set in stone on average. Gender theory claims that gender is just a byproduct of culture. But if you ask me, culture is often just a result of innate male and female traits, biology, and stuff like that. Culture can change the framework, sure, but it can’t change the essence. If a man has the biological potential to father thousands of kids, while a woman is capped at maybe 10 or 20, that fact is going to influence male and female behavior somehow. Obviously, culture adds a lot of variables, but certain fundamental values remain. Take this one, for example. And don't even get me started on hormone levels...

Sandra Barrett4 said:1. None of what was listed has anything to do with gender identity.
2. Male gender roles aren't biological; they are likely picked up from the environment rather than being caused by parents.

Are you kidding me right now? 🤣

So, what exactly are these "gender" roles that aren't tied to sex? Let's hear it...