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

Brandon Wright54 said:What thesis? I’ve already told you my take on your arguments—the same ones you just keep recycling. First off, you keep treating gender like some imaginary social contract. We’re living in an era where gender is a constant, complex discourse; it’s way too nuanced to just lump gender together with culture and sex together with nature.

You’re claiming gender theories argue that gender is merely a byproduct of culture, while culture itself is just a result of innate male and female traits—suggesting gender is just an interpretation of sex. That’s just wrong. Gender actually shapes how we perceive sex as a pre-discursive reality.

There is no such thing as a "natural" gender role. There are only gender roles. You seem to be missing the distinction between gender role and gender identity. Identity is biologically rooted—it’s how a person is perceived as male or female—whereas a gender role is a social construct, something we absorb through socialization. These roles are built on concepts of difference, usually based on myths passed down through generations. They aren't "natural." Even when talking about innate traits, nature isn't that black and white. You can find various chromosomal variations in both women and men, yet society is what sets the "average" criteria to decide which gender someone belongs to. Sex isn't just defined by anatomy; it’s a cocktail of hormones, chromosomes, and reproductive organs. Beyond just XX and XY, there are other combinations, yet Western society treats them as anomalies or illnesses, forcing everything into a binary. Society does that, not nature. As for gender identity, that’s also heavily dictated by society. It’s split between how we see ourselves and how society assigns a label to us. Physical perception alone doesn't dictate it. If the people you call "marginalized" aren't thinking within these imposed categories, then maybe it’s the society that needs changing, rather than discarding everything healthy as "insane." Why shouldn't gay people have the desire to pass on a legacy or start a family? Would I lose that right if, by some misfortune, I lost my reproductive organs or had a different chromosomal makeup but still identified as female? Of course not—I’d have the option to adopt. Would I be diagnosed with a disorder then? Would my needs suddenly be considered "insane"? No. Because despite lacking certain reproductive components, I would still be accepted within the established category that allows people to have children.

Does gender identity even exist in the animal kingdom? 😕

Hahahahahahahah...

Sorry if I'm laughing, but seriously, Brandon Wright54,

I haven't seen this much pure insanity or this many half-baked ideas in a long time. 🤣

It’s honestly no wonder you can’t make sense of anything when you’re being haunted by these... let's call them "unique"... thoughts... from these... weird little... creatures...

When a bull mates with a cow, isn't he actually just part bull and part cow? And the cow isn't fully a cow anymore either, since she's now part bull. Or maybe that bull is secretly part horse, and the cow is part mare? Who knows...

Hahahahahahahah...

Look, as far as I'm concerned, you can go ahead and believe in little green men for all I care. 😂

Hannah White2 said:Does gender identity even exist in the animal kingdom? 😕

Of course it is. Someone just bring out a pig that identifies as a sheep and let's see which idiot starts having an identity crisis. 😂😂 😂

Drew Lee7 said:Hahahahahahahah...

Sorry if I'm laughing, but seriously, Brandon Wright54,

I haven't seen this much pure insanity or this many half-baked ideas in a long time. 🤣

It’s honestly no wonder you can’t make sense of anything when you’re being haunted by these... let's call them "unique"... thoughts... from these... weird little... creatures...

When a bull mates with a cow, isn't he actually just part bull and part cow? And the cow isn't fully a cow anymore either, since she's now part bull. Or maybe that bull is secretly part horse, and the cow is part mare? Who knows...

Hahahahahahahah...

Look, as far as I'm concerned, you can go ahead and believe in little green men for all I care. 😂

Of course it is. Someone just bring out a pig that identifies as a sheep and let's see which idiot starts having an identity crisis. 😂😂 😂

Gender identity?
What even is that, really?
Just some social construct we all agreed on? 🙄

Drew Lee7 said:Hahahahahahahah...

Sorry if I'm laughing, but seriously, Brandon Wright54,

I haven't seen this much pure insanity or this many half-baked ideas in a long time. 🤣

It’s honestly no wonder you can’t make sense of anything when you’re being haunted by these... let's call them "unique"... thoughts... from these... weird little... creatures...

When a bull mates with a cow, isn't he actually just part bull and part cow? And the cow isn't fully a cow anymore either, since she's now part bull. Or maybe that bull is secretly part horse, and the cow is part mare? Who knows...

Hahahahahahahah...

Look, as far as I'm concerned, you can go ahead and believe in little green men for all I care. 😂

Of course it is. Someone just bring out a pig that identifies as a sheep and let's see which idiot starts having an identity crisis. 😂😂 😂

Like I said. With logic like that, you've officially put yourself in the "donkey" category. Congrats. 👏 Papa

Hannah White2 said:Does gender identity even exist in the animal kingdom? 😕

No. Animals lack reasoning. Are you suggesting gender identity isn't a product of thought, will, or planning, but rather something purely unconscious and instinctive?

Sandra Barrett4 said:No. Animals lack reasoning. Are you suggesting gender identity isn't a product of thought, will, or planning, but rather something purely unconscious and instinctive?

Are we even talking about biological sex here, or are we diving into this whole "gender identity" thing?

Hannah White2 said:Are we even talking about biological sex here, or are we diving into this whole "gender identity" thing?

gender identity

Sandra Barrett4 said:gender identity

So, what's the actual difference between those two things?

Hannah White2 said:So, what's the actual difference between those two things?

I don't know; I see no difference.

George Morris2 said:The whole transgender situation confuses me. For instance, a man who wants to transition usually expresses that identity by wearing women's clothing, applying makeup, maybe trying to mimic female body language, and taking an interest in stereotypically feminine things.

What's confusing about all of this is that makeup, fashion, and much of that behavior are culturally conditioned. Just like how culture dictates that women make the salad at a backyard BBQ while the guy handles the grill. 🙂
Female movement differs from male movement because women have different hip structures and less muscle mass; when a man tries too hard to imitate those movements, it looks awkward and, as people often say, gay.

Some biological differences that come to mind are that a woman can become a mother, can engage in vaginal intercourse, and is generally physically weaker, which might make her less prone to resolving conflicts through violence.

Of course, I know there are neurological differences too. Even though I'm a woman, I have a "male brain"—meaning I'm better at spatial awareness, math, logic, and technical stuff. I'm not particularly interested in interpersonal drama or social circles, but those traits don't make me feel like a man; they just lead society to label me as tomboyish because I played with trucks as a kid. But again, that's culturally conditioned.

So, looking at the big picture, I don't quite get what's happening with trans people. It seems to me like they define their gender identity based on culture. A man who identifies as a woman wants to wear skirts, wear makeup, and read Cosmopolitan—he wants things shaped by culture rather than, say, wanting to be a mother.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just identify as a man who likes to dress up, rather than being a trans person trying to change your sex?

Then again, I remember feeling like a boy when I was a child simply because I preferred playing with boys' toys. 😁 If I had grown up in a more conservative town where there was heavy resistance to that, I probably would have been even more convinced that I was a boy in a girl's body.

I understand that sexual attraction to a specific gender exists regardless of culture, and that there are "male and female brains," but is gender identity itself independent of culture? Or do we build it based on our reflection in the mirror, sexual attraction, and our interests—essentially the culture we live in because society expects us to act according to our sex?

Gender identity basically has to be shaped by our surroundings.
Since human gender is split into two,
and you can only really be one of them at a time,
you only ever experience your own gender through interacting with everyone else.
You only truly feel that part of yourself when there's someone else out there
of the opposite sex.
It's hard to pinpoint all the little signals we send each other—which is why people call it "chemistry."
And since that kind of communication happens mostly on autopilot,
our conscious minds can totally misread the situation sometimes.
People give different names to those misunderstandings, but
you know it went wrong when nothing actually happens.
One of those big misunderstandings is gender identity—like when a man identifies as female, or vice versa,
which is honestly just like claiming a certain nationality or religion.

From what I can tell, the whole concept of "common sense" isn't exactly a universal truth that everyone just accepts without question.

For most people, the term doesn't even make sense. And honestly? That’s actually logical. It only seems to click for people who are struggling with their own gender identity—either they're in the middle of an identity crisis, or they're capable of grasping abstract theoretical frameworks. Even then, you'll see them split into two camps: those who have just internalized their own issues, and those who view gender in this context as nothing more than theoretical nonsense.

What's funny is how the people who reject this idea are immediately branded as either uneducated or primitive. Oh, sure! Why wouldn't they be? We're just primitives. Hahahaha...

A few general thoughts (for Drew Lee7):
- Distinguishing between sex and gender is primarily—if we are treating it as a theory or a construct—a sociological matter (anthropological, cultural, etc.); its main goal is to explain the mechanics of socialization, identity formation, and social biases.
- If there’s any doubt about whether this theoretical approach—interpreting reality through a tangible, defined concept—actually makes sense, one might just look at other constructs, like national identity, for instance. We tend to feel those identities are real and exist independently of us, even though they aren't strictly tied to being born into a specific ethnic group; it’s also worth remembering that the very basis for interpreting society stems from these types of identificationsof distinct (independent of the individual) realities, which is an idea found in the recognition of social facts dating all the way back to Emile Durkheim.
- Transsexuality and transvestism might fall under the category of gender identity disorders in a clinical sense, simply because there is a logical discrepancy between one's assigned status and their lived experience that needs to be acknowledged and addressed; however, that doesn't mean it makes sense—or is necessary—to label such people as disordered, let alone ill.

Drew Lee7 said:Hahahahahahahah...

Sorry if I'm laughing, but seriously, Brandon Wright54,

I haven't seen this much pure insanity or this many half-baked ideas in a long time. 🤣

It’s honestly no wonder you can’t make sense of anything when you’re being haunted by these... let's call them "unique"... thoughts... from these... weird little... creatures...

When a bull mates with a cow, isn't he actually just part bull and part cow? And the cow isn't fully a cow anymore either, since she's now part bull. Or maybe that bull is secretly part horse, and the cow is part mare? Who knows...

Hahahahahahahah...

Look, as far as I'm concerned, you can go ahead and believe in little green men for all I care. 😂

Of course it is. Someone just bring out a pig that identifies as a sheep and let's see which idiot starts having an identity crisis. 😂😂 😂

First, find me a woman who can actually hold a serious conversation about gender theory without acting like some guy who’s insecure about his masculinity just because he’s a poet instead of a construction worker. Seriously, do you realize how idiotic it is to compare humans to animals on this level? Animal mating is straightforward. We’re the ones who went and built a million different rituals, a million rules, and a million unnecessary taboos around sex. 😉 It’s just not the same. It can't be. From what I can tell, those types—the cucks and the simps—don't even have the capacity to talk about sex the way we do. 😉

There are even gay dogs out there. Honestly, I’ve got a bisexual cat myself. 😈 😍

Lisa Hernandez3 said:A few general thoughts (for Drew Lee7):
- Distinguishing between sex and gender is primarily—if we are treating it as a theory or a construct—a sociological matter (anthropological, cultural, etc.); its main goal is to explain the mechanics of socialization, identity formation, and social biases.
- If there’s any doubt about whether this theoretical approach—interpreting reality through a tangible, defined concept—actually makes sense, one might just look at other constructs, like national identity, for instance. We tend to feel those identities are real and exist independently of us, even though they aren't strictly tied to being born into a specific ethnic group; it’s also worth remembering that the very basis for interpreting society stems from these types of identificationsof distinct (independent of the individual) realities, which is an idea found in the recognition of social facts dating all the way back to Emile Durkheim.
- Transsexuality and transvestism might fall under the category of gender identity disorders in a clinical sense, simply because there is a logical discrepancy between one's assigned status and their lived experience that needs to be acknowledged and addressed; however, that doesn't mean it makes sense—or is necessary—to label such people as disordered, let alone ill.

So, where does this freedom actually lead—where a man can identify as a woman, and
a woman can identify as a man?
The whole goal seems to be bypassing marriage laws that define marriage as a union between
a man and a woman.

Then you've got a guy who identifies as a woman marrying a woman who
identifies as a man—which feels a bit silly to me, but okay.
But then even a man identifying as a woman could marry a man
who identifies as a man, which honestly just feels like an attack on common sense.

Look, if the goal is just to explain how things work, fine.
But we’re nowhere near being clear about it since most people clearly don't get it.🤷

Rachel Stewart36 said:I don't really get this whole "masculine vs. feminine" thing—is it even real? From what I can see, most differences in how men and women act just come down to how society expects them to react in any given moment. It feels like we’re all just picking up habits from our surroundings—basically performing whatever role we're "suggested" should fit our gender, right?

Look at it this way—watching football is basically just a tool for guys to find themselves. It’s how we learn to value people based on pure grit, whether that’s physical or mental. Players become these avatars of strength and speed—they crush the opposition, which is exactly what little boys are taught "manhood" looks like. And I'm not talking about someone sitting you down for a lecture; it's that subtle, ambient messaging that hits way harder than actual words. You see it everywhere, too—like how differently we raise boys versus girls. I have a little girl at home right now, and the shift in how my parents treat her compared to me is wild. Already, they’re pushing the whole "girls should be pretty, quiet, and well-behaved" trope. Meanwhile, when I was a kid, I just got told I was being too sensitive and needed to toughen up. Sure, parents are only part of the equation—peers, school, and society all chip away at you through these incredibly subtle, almost invisible ways of programming us.

I wouldn't say I'm driven by anything but my own traits—I'm super emotional, intuitive, and a total introvert. I live for those deep, one-on-one conversations about big ideas or feelings (anything else is just noise). For me, life is all about harmony with the people around me and finding some sense of "purpose"—whatever that actually means. Honestly? I’m not assertive at all; if anything, I’m pretty timid and easily overwhelmed. Not exactly the "masculine" archetype, right? And yet... my word still carries weight. People respect my opinion—often more than my female colleagues—simply because I'm a man and have hit a certain social status through my career.

People obsess way too much over terminology—all this dissecting and "mechanical" defining of terms like they’re just playing with Lego bricks. To me, gender is just one slice of the whole self-awareness pie—it's just a piece of who I am. It's one of countless constructs within my own identity. At the end of the day, it only ties back to sex when you're actually accepting your own physiology.

Spot on—that’s exactly how it should be. This whole thing just brings back my old gripe about this "mechanical LEGO stacking" nonsense—you know, that obsession with over-defining everything and obsessing over terminology? Since most people can't wrap their heads around the idea that a biological male might perceive himself differently than what was assigned at birth, they use "gender" as this catch-all term for self-perception. Then, because certain people think they’re the ultimate authorities on what "real" masculine traits look like, they take those different perceptions and label them as feminine. So, we end up with "masculine" and "feminine" gender labels just because certain behaviors are being tagged with specific qualities. It’s all pretty absurd, really—but I guess it’s the only way to try and sidestep biological reality when you're trying to define who you are.

I’ve gotta disagree with that. We’re all basically hunting for "high-value" partners—it's just that we're conditioned to define "value" differently based on gender. Guys tend to hunt for aesthetics, while women look for strength—think power, success, or social standing. Honestly, it’s just how we're socialized to weigh those specific traits.

P.S. Random thought: male communication is usually blunt, direct, and almost clinical, whereas female speech tends to be more emotional, indirect, and "collaborative." There’s actually a tribe out in Africa where it’s flipped entirely—where that "indirect" style is considered the masculine norm and a sign of true manhood.

Why is there such a drive to deny the natural differences between men and women? We are a biological species, after all. We're part of a nature that's currently at a stage where science still can't fully grasp how we developed the ability to view ourselves as morally autonomous beings capable of symbolic language.

We live in societies as political creatures, learning patterns of behavior that are often gendered through socialization. But doesn't a huge chunk of human psychology deal with those unconscious, unconditioned behaviors inherited from our ancestors? Even those biologically rooted impulses that modern society tries to suppress through upbringing? Doesn't modern psychology point to a clash between the subconscious—that genetically determined stuff that exists before social conditioning—and the societal expectations designed to stifle those deep-seated drives just to create a "civilized" person? Isn't that subconscious drive exactly what exists prior to any social environment?

Reducing a human being to a mere social automaton that can't even receive genetic instructions from the distant past is a bit much. It treats everything as a reaction to a socially stimulated stimulus. The "fix" offered is almost like sociological alchemy (kind of like the attempt to engineer a "new man" under communism): identify the broken social institutions imposing these differences, and the problem is solved. But it just doesn't work like that...

If someone claims "gender" represents socially imposed differences beyond negligible biological ones, then if the goal is a theory of universal humanity, the answer isn't creating a theory of gender centered on social constructs. Instead, the way out is embracing biological differences, which, aside from anatomy, shouldn't cause real differences in social interaction or how we perceive one another. But is that true? Or is this just a way for a certain kind of totalitarianism to hide behind a mask of false humanism (again, reminiscent of communism)?

Theologians say humans are divine creations. Materialists say we're raw natural matter. So, according to gender theory, what is a human? It seems to me they aren't either of those. They're just a social construct. Is that even possible?...

goldenpuma84 said:Why is there such a drive to deny the natural differences between men and women? We are a biological species, after all. We're part of a nature that's currently at a stage where science still can't fully grasp how we developed the ability to view ourselves as morally autonomous beings capable of symbolic language.

We live in societies as political creatures, learning patterns of behavior that are often gendered through socialization. But doesn't a huge chunk of human psychology deal with those unconscious, unconditioned behaviors inherited from our ancestors? Even those biologically rooted impulses that modern society tries to suppress through upbringing? Doesn't modern psychology point to a clash between the subconscious—that genetically determined stuff that exists before social conditioning—and the societal expectations designed to stifle those deep-seated drives just to create a "civilized" person? Isn't that subconscious drive exactly what exists prior to any social environment?

Reducing a human being to a mere social automaton that can't even receive genetic instructions from the distant past is a bit much. It treats everything as a reaction to a socially stimulated stimulus. The "fix" offered is almost like sociological alchemy (kind of like the attempt to engineer a "new man" under communism): identify the broken social institutions imposing these differences, and the problem is solved. But it just doesn't work like that...

If someone claims "gender" represents socially imposed differences beyond negligible biological ones, then if the goal is a theory of universal humanity, the answer isn't creating a theory of gender centered on social constructs. Instead, the way out is embracing biological differences, which, aside from anatomy, shouldn't cause real differences in social interaction or how we perceive one another. But is that true? Or is this just a way for a certain kind of totalitarianism to hide behind a mask of false humanism (again, reminiscent of communism)?

Theologians say humans are divine creations. Materialists say we're raw natural matter. So, according to gender theory, what is a human? It seems to me they aren't either of those. They're just a social construct. Is that even possible?...

Oh, it's definitely possible...☕
Think about it—two people who are both gay basically decide how gender works within their own relationship based on their own internal rules. It’s like, "this is how we handle being male or female in this specific dynamic."
And honestly, we can toss out all that outdated, messy terminology about who's being "active" or "passive" in bed.
We can ditch the endless pile of buzzwords people throw around on this topic, but let's stick to reality for a second. We're talking about physical bodies here.
Look, let's run a thought experiment—hypothetically speaking—if you dropped two kids, or maybe a larger group, onto a deserted island somewhere in the Pacific after they were born, what do you think would actually happen?

Hannah White2 said:Oh, it's definitely possible...☕
Think about it—two people who are both gay basically decide how gender works within their own relationship based on their own internal rules. It’s like, "this is how we handle being male or female in this specific dynamic."
And honestly, we can toss out all that outdated, messy terminology about who's being "active" or "passive" in bed.
We can ditch the endless pile of buzzwords people throw around on this topic, but let's stick to reality for a second. We're talking about physical bodies here.
Look, let's run a thought experiment—hypothetically speaking—if you dropped two kids, or maybe a larger group, onto a deserted island somewhere in the Pacific after they were born, what do you think would actually happen?

Count me in for this thought experiment!

If you, say, raised kids of just one gender, would they even realize their own
sexuality?
Like, what would they even link a genetic predisposition for sexuality to—if they
never actually met the other gender?
Would they even develop a sense of sexuality without any info about the opposite sex?

If there’s actually any research out there on this, please share it
with us curious folks.

Keith Lee2 said:Count me in for this thought experiment!

If you, say, raised kids of just one gender, would they even realize their own
sexuality?
Like, what would they even link a genetic predisposition for sexuality to—if they
never actually met the other gender?
Would they even develop a sense of sexuality without any info about the opposite sex?

If there’s actually any research out there on this, please share it
with us curious folks.

Look, you know how things actually play out in US prisons. 😁
My whole experiment is built on following natural patterns—the way things just happen when you let them. 😉

Hannah White2 said:Look, you know how things actually play out in US prisons. 😁
My whole experiment is built on following natural patterns—the way things just happen when you let them. 😉

So, you've got people in prison who already have a set gender identity—just a heads up.
So, we can't really pull them into the experiment to see how things actually take shape—just a heads up.
gender identity—it's a lot to wrap your head around, honestly.

Plus, we can't have any other animal species hanging around during the experiment—it’d just mess everything up.
Maybe our guys could take a page out of their book—learn how it's actually done.😁

If gender identity starts popping up under those kinds of conditions, then I guess we can basically conclude that...
Gender identity is its own thing—it exists even without all the social pressure around it.🤷

Alright, I was just messing around. Now, let's get real for a second.

There’s absolutely no way for us to observe how gender identity would even begin to take shape in a mixed community stuck on some deserted island.
I mean, come on—you aren't exactly going to have a society made of palm leaves shaping who people are, right?