Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is Homosexual Identity Dependant on Homophobia ?

Yeah, I think there is a fair bit of talking at cross-purposes here, I think that there are some arguments for trans acceptance/inclusion that rely on essentialist arguments about identity being "innate" (whatever that means), but equally there are other ones that don't, I still think "Falling star" article from the Leeds lot is probably the best relatively simple, accessible introduction to an anti-essentialist trans position I've seen:

Ultimately, none of us can know the answer to any of these questions for sure - going back to the original question, none of us have ever lived in a society without homophobia, so we can't know what homosexual identity would look like in such a society, if it did exist. Likewise, on the gender identity question, I think we can say pretty confidently that it's not 100% social/nurture, otherwise the number of trans people would be 0; but if we imagine a society that didn't routinely assign gender roles to babies at birth*, I don't know what gender identities might look like in that society, other than that I suppose there wouldn't really be a cis/trans distinction, because no-one would have an assigned birth gender to start from. But I don't think we'll be in that society any time soon, sadly.

*which is, I suppose, a society that both a lot of trans people and a lot of radfem types could agree would be desirable.

A comparison with black people being racist would be stronger and more telling.

It can be awkward for white people to argue the toss over hierarchies of racism with black people who think, for instance, that anti-semitism is not racist.

Similarly, it demands a lot of bullishness for straight men to take issue with gays who feel that adolescent trans over-recognition erases gay identity, or for that matter with female gender-critical feminists.
I think that your attempt to do identity politics here are a bit complicated by what anti-trans activism actually looks like in practice. If we look at, say, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull's "Let Women Speak" event in Melbourne, is it awkward for straight men to oppose that?
 
but if we imagine a society that didn't routinely assign gender roles to babies at birth*, I don't know what gender identities might look like in that society, other than that I suppose there wouldn't really be a cis/trans distinction, because no-one would have an assigned birth gender to start from. But I don't think we'll be in that society any time soon, sadly.

*which is, I suppose, a society that both a lot of trans people and a lot of radfem types could agree would be desirable.
Been hit with that one by many, many TERFs just before they launch a full on attack against me. I actually think is bullshit - unless we stop developing different vocal ranges, breasts, genitalia, and growing muscle mass at the different rates, etc etc. at the core of trans is a need to look physically, and enjoy the feelings that come from having predominantly one type of sex-determining hormone in your body rather than the other. All the other stuff is window dressing. And i do think only trans people should be discussing this stuff - or at least we should be leading the discussion and not treated as if we can't be trusted to not be biased, and lie about shit.
 
Give over. All identities are social constructs. The fact that some transphobes may have also argued that gender identity is social doesn't make anyone who argues that the roots of our own personal identities (whatever they may be - black/white, gay/straight, British/Indian, trans/cis) are social is transphobic. That's just guilt by association bollocks.

And PTK did not say that gender identity doesn't exist :rolleyes:
If gender Identity was not Innate John Money would have been proven correct in his sick and twisted experiments on the Reimers

If gender identity was not innate Conversion Therapy would work
 
Last edited:
I


I'm not trying to underplay social constructs as I tried to make clear in my last post - that ultimately innateness doesn't really matter in terms of the significance to the individual and the impact on the way they move through the world. But this comes in the context of a broader debate in which the idea of transness as a social construct is used to undermine trans people (and sometimes LGB people). A debate in which appeals to 'basic biology' are paramout and leave no nuance or understanding of the significance of social constructs.

Which is why I'm arguing it should be used with caution and sensitivity. Because the notion of social construction is not used to undermine cis/het identities. And when you tell an LGBTQ person that their identity is a social construct what they might hear is that they are being told their own experience and understanding of their lives and bodies is not real, or worse not valid. Because that is how it is frequently employed. It kind of has been on this thread - "People do not have an innate sense of their own gender."

That is an absolutist and reductive statement. One of the reasons gender has been so enduring may well be that actually they do - not as a set of stereotypes, but perhaps as an inherent sense of themselves as male/female, or an inherent tendency to mimic those of the same biological sex (as proposed by Cordelia Fine amongst others). Maybe this sense is stronger in some than others. Maybe some don't experience it consciously, or even subconciously at all. Maybe the whole edifice of gender is purely socially formed or maybe it is rooted in something which can be felt, is biologically real, but not completely understood. We don't know, and anyone who says we do is basing their opinion on ideology not science. We know fuck all about brains really which is why it's so frustrating that people take such simplistic but insistent positions on this.
absolutely spot on there smokedout
 
Having immersed myself in LGBT community for a while, when i was in London, I lost count of the number of both gay people and straight people who told me quietly, and on the side, that they would probably more accurately describe themselves as bisexual but biphobia that exists within straight and LGBT+ communities has pushed them to identify as one of the two more acceptable binaries. I suspect without any of the phobias, and if any sexuality was equally acceptable, there'd be a lot more bisexuality and the term for it would be "normal human sexuality".
there is this angle , there is also the whole aspect of the social construction and overlay os gender oles and gender presentation ( e.g. ghigh heeled shoes were invented to prevent men from beomcing unseated when riding horses ( as if you look at medieval and earlier shoes they are often entirely flat soles and often without any form of heel what so ever
 
I think that, if you are going to report someone, you ought to read what they actually wrote. I did not deny the existence of gender identity. I identify as being of a particular gender, and I am not so solipsistic as believe that I am unique in that.

You claim that gender identity is innate.

Eye colour is innate. The number of fingers that a person possesses is innate. Something that is innate is something that a person is born with. No human being has ever been born with any kind of identity; that is a “biological fact”.

To be charitable, I think that you may have been confusing the word “innate” with another word.​
thank you for confirming you are a transphobe.

if gender identity was not innate, there would be be no trans people and no none binary people as western socities in particular are horrendously gendered and engage in the grooming of children with regard to sexuality and gender identity from a very young age ... but as usual with such things ( see also religion) the actual groomers are the ones accusing others of being groomers
 
Yeah, I think there is a fair bit of talking at cross-purposes here, I think that there are some arguments for trans acceptance/inclusion that rely on essentialist arguments about identity being "innate" (whatever that means), but equally there are other ones that don't, I still think "Falling star" article from the Leeds lot is probably the best relatively simple, accessible introduction to an anti-essentialist trans position I've seen:

Ultimately, none of us can know the answer to any of these questions for sure - going back to the original question, none of us have ever lived in a society without homophobia, so we can't know what homosexual identity would look like in such a society, if it did exist. Likewise, on the gender identity question, I think we can say pretty confidently that it's not 100% social/nurture, otherwise the number of trans people would be 0; but if we imagine a society that didn't routinely assign gender roles to babies at birth*, I don't know what gender identities might look like in that society, other than that I suppose there wouldn't really be a cis/trans distinction, because no-one would have an assigned birth gender to start from. But I don't think we'll be in that society any time soon, sadly.

*which is, I suppose, a society that both a lot of trans people and a lot of radfem types could agree would be desirable.
however the positive physical and mental health benefits of Gender Affirming hormone therapy would still be apparent ... which uis once again, yet another factor pointing to Gender Identity being an innate and durable biological reality.
 
If gender Identity was not Innate John Money would have been proven correct in his sick and tweisted experiments on the Reimers

If gender identity was not innate Conversion Therapy would work
I just looked up John Money because I'd not heard of him. Yes, that is deeply unpleasant. As for conversion therapy, it's not so much about whether it works or not, it's about the exercising of power and control by abusive people driven by ideological or religious zealotry. Either way, it's not about "identity". It's about crushing their victims' desires.

Anyway, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree over what is/isn't innate.
 
I struggle a bit with what is meant by 'identity' in terms of sexuality. I tick the box that says 'gay', because my sexual attraction/behaviour is mainly towards my own gender, and it would be difficult to have a fulfilling life without being open about that.

But as an identity that involves some kind of shared culture? I've always felt completely on the fringes of that, at times a bit more connected, at other times completely alienated. Perhaps it felt a bit more a defining aspect of my life when there were discriminatory laws etc. And there are some aspects of life experience that are unique to being gay, so at times it's useful to be able to connect and reflect on that with others. But fundamentally my gay identity doesn't mean any more than sexual preference, to me.
 
The definitions of gender roles are not fixed. They are socially determined, and they change, as society changes

If we are to talk of identifying with a gender, we have to answer the question: of what does that identification consist?

My gender is male. I believe that some of the ways that I act, and some of the ways that I perceive the world, are typically “masculine”. I was not born that way. I had no gender identity when I was born. My gender is not innate. I have been labelled as being of the masculine gender and socialised into being of that gender. I feel that I am a member of the masculine gender and I believe that most people will label me as of the masculine gender.

Some people feel their gender to be different from the gender that they have been labelled with by society. Of course such people have the right to express this identity. Of course they should not suffer any form of social disadvantage because of their gender identification.

When we say that gender identity is innate, what are we saying? We are saying that identification with certain behaviours is innate, that is, that it is determined by our genes.

This seems to me to be a logical impossibility, because there is not a fixed set of behaviours that can be labelled “masculine” or “feminine”.

What is defined as “typical masculine behaviour” in one society could be “typical feminine behaviour” in another society.

I believe that the differences between “masculine” and “feminine” behaviours and perceptions are less in this society than they once were. I look forward to further erosion of these differences in all societies. I believe that, over many generations (if there is not a catastrophe that destroys civilisation) human societies will evolve to become post-gender.

Anyone who wishes to reverse this trend, and rigidly define gender roles is deeply reactionary. An example of such a reactionary attitude was a comment on Urban 75 a while back that labelled women who did not conform to sexist gender stereotypes as “tomboys”.

Our gender is a product of social processes, not of our genetic make-up. Anyone who finds that assertion to be transphobic is either being deliberately provocative, or is hard of thinking.​
 
I just looked up John Money because I'd not heard of him. Yes, that is deeply unpleasant. As for conversion therapy, it's not so much about whether it works or not, it's about the exercising of power and control by abusive people driven by ideological or religious zealotry. Either way, it's not about "identity". It's about crushing their victims' desires.

Anyway, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree over what is/isn't innate.

I think the word “identity” is being used slightly differently from poster to poster.

At least it’s clear in the case of homosexual identity that we are talking about something quite different to both sexual preference and gender identity.

Innateness is thorny, but no one is arguing that the content of homosexual identity is inborn afaik (by which I mean that no one has DNA or epigenetic hormonally-mediated tendencies towards wearing Birkenstocks).
 
Back
Top Bottom