If you think I'm wrong about something-- anything at all-- why don't you take it to the relevant thread or start a new one? I'd be willing to discuss anything and everything with you.

Did I really just witness somebody basically use the "it's 50/50, it either happens or it doesn't" meme in a real argument? This might actually be the most basic maths fail I've ever seen in an argument on this forum.

Hint: The answer to the one direct question posed in this post is trivially no and nothing Bryce or anyone else has said in this thread suggests otherwise.

Do trans people have one gender as a core aspect of self or not? If not, then what exactly is meant by trans is “who you are”?

Bryce's claim is that they do yes. There is absolutely no reason to think it is random and completely unrelated to biological sex though, which is the nonsensical assumption you made in your post.

A central claim of trans activists is that this core gender aspect of self is independent of bio sex.

I would say that if that wording was used (and I'm not entirely convinced it would be) then the claim would be that they are independent in the common usage, meaning they are separate things with different influences. I highly doubt that anybody would claim they are independent in the formal statistical sense that implies zero correlation. For example two siblings could be considered independent of each other in the colloquial sense but there is likely to be lots of factors about them that are strongly correlated. Gender and biological sex could be considered similarly - they are things that are independent in the colloquial sense but are still strongly correlated.

To be clear though, nobody had used the word independent up to this point in the conversation. Using that strict statistical definition does at least explain the wild assumption you were making though.

To me, saying that gender is influenced by biology means it’s an identity, which is what SB is specifically denying. You two are the ones who are confused.

Is gender an identity independent of self or not? Is the self gendered with one gender or not?

Most people can't even define what statistical independence means, it is one of those words that has a colloquial meaning closer to "one doesn't always determine the other" which in the case of sex and gender is completely accurate. I remember watching some Peterson thing where he acted all holier-than-thou over this exact issue as if "trans activists" are making some math mistake because the variables of sex and gender are not statistically independent. But I don't think anyone is actually claiming they are, and it doesn't hurt any arguments made by people who are accepting of trans people to note that.

I would have to believe that there was anything that could be called a "core aspect of self" that is somehow separate from what you're calling identity for that to have any meaning and I don't know that I do. At that point it's purely a philosophical question that I have no interest in delving into.

Peterson iirc was talking about the fact that parents with more than one trans identified child might be pushing them toward self identification as trans, because the odds of that happening naturally are so low, those cases should be far rarer than what they are, unless self identification as trans can be sometimes environmental

So off with you then and your ignorance.

Nono, social constructs are just things that exist and have effects because we agree they do.

The concept of legal tender is a social construct. National borders are social constructs. The concept of human rights is a social construct. And so on.

Most social constructs have a basis in reality, often a very strong one, biological or otherwise. Like a mountain range that exists in reality becomes also a national border. Or something that is often accepted as money gets affirmed as legal tender.

It's a social psych/cog psych concept that comes from those fields. If people want to expand it to include things outside the realm of psychology then I can't stop that, but when I talk about social constructs I'm strictly using the term in its original sense.

Bryce is too close to this to be objective, so don't put too much credence in what he has to say. He's going to circle the wagons.

I see where you're going with this and suspect the other people do, too. But if gender identity is disconnected from biology as Bryce says, then you're right there would be far more trans people. If biology is the driver, then that means some wires got crossed somewhere and we're back to this being a medical issue, which if you push too hard on will result in a ban.

Or we go with door number three, which is to wear as much makeup as you like and whatever color pants suit your fancy that day and maybe don't chop your dick off. Dicks in the dick bathroom and vaginas in the vagina bathroom. Buck Angel has to pee at home. People who have testicles don't intrude on sports leagues that cater to the ovary crowd. No recruiting impressionable children to your gender-bending club before the age of 16. Everyone lives happily ever after.

lol, what is this even supposed to mean

I don’t have time, but in this thread there are several hundred posts where I clarified that left handedness is innate. Ie left handedness is not a choice, it’s biological reality. This is a well established scientific fact.

I have also consistently and many many times said being transgender is innate ie a biological reality.

Gender, like race or money is indeed socially constructed. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the biological reality of being transgender anymore than directions isn’t a biological concept but left handed people are biological or innately left handed.


or as I’ve clearly stated many times. Gender is a social construction.

Being transgender is innate- ie biological or physically.

Right all his posts have the markings of JP thought.

The short answer is that although in theory there’s a 50-50 chance you could be left handed or right handed the vast majority of **** sapiens are innately( biologically if you will) right handed. It has always been that way , at least since **** sapiens evolved.

The core identity is wrong. I am left handed but it’s not something I think about or have a strong identity towards, I hardly ever ever consciously think of myself as left handed and it’s not one of the first 50 things I would use as self ID.

it just means he learned the gender and biological sex equivalent of 2 + 2 = 4, thinks that’s all there is to know and is discounting algebra, calculus, physics etc.

After much resistance throughout this thread, he finally decides to state a definition for ‘innate’.

Question: Would you agree that biology imposes identities on us? Like, that’s what it does. For instance, biology imposes dominant handedness on you as you develop. First, we are plastic but then dominant handedness becomes fixed.

Further, the dominant handedness imposed is the only biological determiner for dominant handedness. There isn’t another “innate” biological dominant handedness which is the true dominant handedness, only the singular bio imposed identity.

In the same way, there are not two biological gender identities - the one imposed by bio sex and a mysterious, innate bio gender identity which is the true one.

What do you mean when you say that gender is socially constructed? How do you reconcile the paradox of it being both socially constructed and innate?

No it's from sociology, "the social construction of reality" (1966). When sociology was still an actual attempt to understand reality.

I am using the term in the sense that book intended it

Someone might then respond, “If gender identity is imposed biologically in only one way, then how do trans people identify with the other gender?”

Answer: It’s not biological; it’s a psychological process, explained in the thread I previously linked.

If gender identity was statistically independent of biological sex, he would be absolutely correct. Biological sex is 50/50, as is common knowledge. If gender was completely uncorrelated with biological sex, 50% of the population would be transgender regardless of the actual distribution of genders.

The point the point the poster was making (in a convoluted way) is the imprecise use of the term "independent" by gender advocates when what they mean is "not perfectly correlated."

This might shock you but peterson has said more than one thing on the internet, so no this was not the thing he was talking about in the video I was alluding to.

I find it amusing how much these debates repeat. Back in anti-gay debates, this talking point about brothers both being gay and how unlikely that was ergo environmental talking points came out. I never got why it mattered one iota what mixture of nature vs nurture any of these traits had - I'm going to accept people either way - but this seemed VERY important for a certain group.

So “true gender” is correlated with biology. What else is true gender based on?

In summary, the claim is trans people have a bio imposed gender identity and then a true gender which is also at least somewhat (maybe completely?) based on biology being labeled “innate”. Do I finally understand the claim?

How many pages deep is this thread and I’m finally able to be blessed with the explicit claim?