2

Suppose someone takes a stance that gender is independent of sex, then how could it possibly be that a sex change surgery makes one feel more in line with their gender?

And, if one takes the other stance that gender is dependent, how does one explain such as a person wishing to transition or so?

Both seems like a catch-22 situation. Hence, I ask for clarificaiton: How is gender related to sex?

Reine Abstraktion
  • 2,090
  • 9
  • 23
  • According to whom? This is a very general question in a very diverse field of literature. – Philip Klöcking Aug 14 '23 at 17:48
  • 1
    They're words with no current common use that is at once long-standing and widely accepted, so you're going to have to define them if you want an pertinent answer that's actually philosophy, and not just a statement of affiliation with some particular definition. – g s Aug 14 '23 at 19:28
  • Consider also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex – CriglCragl Aug 15 '23 at 00:08

3 Answers3

0

The difficulty here is that people treat the concept 'gender' as though it is a simple, one-dimensional construct, when in fact gender is a complex phenomena involving biological processes, early socialization, and self-perception. It's misleading to say that gender is independent of biological sex, but it's also misleading to say that gender is entirely dependent on biological sex. What we can say is the following:

  • The external features of gender (what can be seen with the naked eye, pun intended) are biologically superficial. They mainly determine social perception of gender, and play into later gender identification and sexuality
  • Deep biological differences (in hormones, DNA, and the like) can produce gender-specific differences in behavior: e.g., increased testosterone can produce 'masculine' traits, while increased estrogen can produce 'feminine' traits. But not only can these be influenced medically, there is natural diversity between individuals and normal changes over the lifespan which means that men can sometimes be more 'feminine' and women sometimes more 'masculine'
  • Neurologically speaking, 'identity' in general is poorly understood; any phrase of the form "I am ..." is a linguistic gloss over a lifetime of human interactions and experiences. We don't know how gender self-perception is formed, where it is encoded in the brain, or even whether it's a fixed element or something that can change

The best we can say is that at birth a human being has a predilection for a particular biological gender. This predilection is impacted heavily over time by social interactions and expectations, and cognitive reactions to such, producing a self-reflective feeling of 'maleness' or 'femaleness' that can vary in degree and focus. That variability (arguably) can be significant enough to place the self-reflective feeling of gender in opposition to the external biological signs of gender. The rest is a sociological question of to what extent an individual is obliged to conform to societal expectations.

Ted Wrigley
  • 17,769
  • 2
  • 20
  • 51
  • What do you mean by "biologically superficial"? If you mean how people dress and act and such (i.e. distinct from biology), then sure. If you mean genitals and such (i.e. superficial in the sense that it's the biology you can see on the surface), then you may be conflating gender and sex. – NotThatGuy Aug 15 '23 at 07:26
  • "Deep biological differences" -> Note: those would be differences in sex (which "can produce gender-specific differences in behavior..."). – NotThatGuy Aug 15 '23 at 07:32
  • @NotThatGuy: The primary impact of the visible indicators of gender is psycho-social, not biological. For instance, from birth to puberty the external genitalia serve no purpose except to cue adults towards gender-specific interactions; in adult women, breasts serve no purpose when not feeding a child, but can be a significant focus in self-image and interpersonal relationships. And asserting that deep biological differences are differences in 'sex' is presumptive and argumentative. That's precisely the question under discussion, so we can't use it as a premise. – Ted Wrigley Aug 15 '23 at 14:11
  • "asserting that deep biological differences are differences in 'sex' is presumptive and argumentative" - I was referring to the definition of "sex" that we use, which refers to biological differences (between the sexes). People on both sides seem to agree with that definition. And it is just a definition, not a premise. – NotThatGuy Aug 15 '23 at 14:55
  • @NotThatGuy: I understand what you were doing, which is why I suggested it was presumptive and argumentative. The 'conventional' definition of sex and gender is what's under investigation here. I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying it's a conclusion we have to reach at the end of the discussion, not one we can assert at the beginning. – Ted Wrigley Aug 15 '23 at 15:00
0

The logical negation of "for all x, P(x)" is not "for all x, ¬P(x)".

There's no logical contradiction in supposing that the person who thinks gender is dependent on sex for everyone is wrong, and the person who thinks gender is independent of sex for everyone is also wrong.

benrg
  • 723
  • 3
  • 9
0

There is no Catch-22 of the sort you imagine. Some people take the view that identifying as a particular gender does not have any relationship whatsoever to physical characteristics, and those people would not feel the need for sex-change surgery.

Marco Ocram
  • 8,686
  • 1
  • 8
  • 28