Talk:Gender of rearing

Determinant of gender identity?

Dysprosia, don't you find it irritating when someone argues with an assertion they accuse you of making even though you clearly didn't? You changed this:

• Much evidence suggests that sex of rearing is one of, if not the major determinant of gender identity, though when biological levels of sexual differentiation are discordant, this is less certain.

to this:

• The sex of rearing is usually the same as the child's gender identity, though when biological levels of sexual differentiation are discordant, this is less certain. with a comment "clarify this. there is obvious evidence to show that sex of rearing does not imply gender identity - consider transgender people"

Yes, in hindsight, my edit comment could be worded better.

I prefer the original version as I think it is defensibly more precise and accurate. The strongest evidence that sex of rearing is one of the major determinants of gender identity is that over the last fifty years, scores of people with apparently comparable intersex conditions have been raised two different ways (as male or female) according to medical theory of the time, differences in culture, parental preference, etc. The majority-- not all-- but the majority, continue to profess a gender identity consistent with their sex of rearing. I am sure you understand that the existence of rare exceptions does not invalidate an assertion that sex of rearing is one of the important determinants. The existence of transsexuals would only invalidate an assertion that "the gender identity is always the same as the sex of rearing." My assertion is supported by all the evidence we have and is suitably cautious, and carefully phrased so as not to be invalidated by unusual exceptions. It now looks syntactically awkward to me, so how about this:

Sex of rearing is currently thought to be a major factor in the development of gender identity. The strongest evidence that sex of rearing is one of the major determinants of gender identity is that over the last fifty years, scores of people with apparently comparable intersex conditions have been raised two different ways (as male or female) according to medical theory of the time, differences in culture, parental preference, etc. The majority-- not all-- but the majority, continue to profess a gender identity consistent with their sex of rearing. It does appear that discordances between biological levels of sexual differentiation may be associated with a higher likelihood of a gender identity discordant with the sex of rearing than in the apparently normal population. The rare exception to the concordance of gender identity with sex of rearing is referred to as transsexualism and there is currently no accepted biological explanation for this discordance.

How can you say it is the "strongest"? I'll edit the paragraph you added directly, taking care not to change the meaning of what you are saying. There's just a few stylistic problems with what you wrote, that's all. Dysprosia 01:22, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

By the way, the problem I have is that saying that gender identity is somehow socially determined (ie rearing), when you could possibly argue that there may be a biological or other determining factor involved in the development of someone's gender identity (someone who is intersexed may just have a more "malleable" gender identity than someone who is not?). I'm not one to profess to know about the inner workings of the brain, or likewise, however. Dysprosia 01:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, so I will bring my concerns here:

• I've asked you how you can say that the evidence you provide is the "strongest".
• There is a generally accepted view that transsexualism has a biological origin, with respect to brain structure studies, that are not conclusive enough to be accepted as a definite, scientific cause for transsexualism. So, the addition of the word scientifically is meant to clarify this.

Dysprosia 01:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am asserting that there is evidence that hormones, external anatomy, and sex of rearing may contribute to gender identity. The only evidence for claiming that learning plus external anatomy might be the strongest are the reports that most adult raised either sex with similar intersex conditions report a gender identity consistent with sex of rearing. I am putting the citations in the intersex surgery article. However, I won't insist that sex of rearing is "strongest" but is it certainly one of the most important determinants. Recent research in mice showed that some sex dimorphic gene expression in embryonic brain development occurs independently of sex hormone differences, so perhaps even chromosomes get a role independently of determining gonad formation-- this is recent research with no human confirmation, and the functions of the genes have not yet been determined.

Please change the wording, then, to remove the word "strongest". I had done this but you were dissatisfied with my wording, so I will leave this to you.

As far as I know, there is no generally accepted biological explanation for transsexualism. The closest reports from the JCEM in the 1980s suggested transsexuals have an estradiol-LH feedback pattern closest to their claimed gender identity rather than their biological sex, but after many years even this has not been confirmed or replicated. The hypothalamic nucleus research is weak. Villiers' recent mice research will give rise to a new set of biological hypotheses, but none can be considered proven or generally accepted, even though a biological explanation may be taken for granted or greatly desired by some members of transgender communities.Alteripse 02:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You miss the point. I'm saying that in these communities these studies are generally accepted. This makes your statement that there is "no accepted biological explanation" strictly false, unless you add the word scientifically to clarify that it is on a scientific basis that there is no explanation. Dysprosia 02:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, now I get your point. The 6 day creation and Adam and Eve are considered scientific in certain communities so I shouldn't claim there is no "proven or generally accepted" scientific explanation for human beings? I am not asserting there is no biologic basis, nor would I be surprised if we eventually prove there is, just that the evidence for all biologic differences proposed so far for transsexualism would be considered extremely weak and unconvincing if it concerned a politically neutral phenomenon (like left-handedness). If I am correctly understanding your point, I have to say I do not find it persuasive. Just because a community has an "origin" story expressed in scientific terms does not mean it is a "proven or generally accepted" theory by the wider scientific community. Go ahead and put scientific back in the sentence if you wish. Alteripse 02:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The 6 day creation and Adam and Eve are considered scientific in certain communities so I shouldn't claim there is no "proven or generally accepted" scientific explanation for human beings? - your comparison to this situation is weak. Using your explanation, what I am trying to say is that you cannot say that there is no accepted explanation because Adam and Eve is one explanation, but it may not be a scientific one. You could say that in certain communities that Adam and Eve is scientific, but you cannot rule the existence of any explanation currently out whatsoever, because there is one.

HTH Dysprosia 05:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No disrepect but you have just hijacked this brief and simple explanation of the concept "sex of rearing" and made it one more redundant discussion of transsexualism. Why don't we just leave the discussion of transsexualism to the transsexualism article and simply leave a single mention that when the gender identity does not match the sex of rearing we call it transsexualism? That's not a controversial statement, is it? Do you really think it needs to overlap and repeat so much instead of just linking to the next article? My opinion, but do what you prefer. Alteripse 12:06, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Forget it then. Sorry for trying to add some relevant content to the article. I've reverted to the pre-clarification edit, if you want to readd that section, feel free to do so. Dysprosia 22:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't want an edit war any more than you did, so I stopped to reflect, digest and check out the transsexualism articles. First, most of your suggestions for this article were excellent. Especially, I agree that the relationship of sex of rearing and gender identity deserved to be more nuanced and explained. Second, I recognized that what was bothering me most about extending the transsexualism discussion is that it is complicated and as we tried to refine its accuracy, it appeared to be becoming a disproportionately large part of this article which is connected to transsexualism but does not need to be "about" transsexualism. It is I hope uncontroversial to say that Wikipedia coverage for most aspects of human sexual behavior and psychology (especially variations of orientation, role, identity, etc) is very large and detailed compared to many other important aspects of human biology and development. So I was arguing for a smooth link to more detailed treatment of transsexualism rather than expanded treatment here. However, in restricting the mention to the direct relationship of transsexualism and sex of rearing, I tried to rephrase to a generally acceptable statement with which I hope you agree. I initially was going to excise any mention of cause of transsexualism (see further) but decided a conditional mention made your point more clearly without compromising accuracy. Third, let me explain why I am not as convinced as you are that a biological explanation of transsexualism can be considered "generally accepted or proven."

The reason why I did not accept the previous wording of "no accepted biological explanation" was on a purely pedantic (and I apologize for that pedantry) basis, not on any factual basis or my own personal views or otherwise. In hindsight, this could have been also rectified by the addition of the word "widely" before accepted.

I am old enough to have seen the discarding of previous biological explanations for psychosexual characteristics because of lack of confirmatory support. The strongest evidence I can provide is that Gooren himself, one of the senior authors of the stria terminalis differences cited [1] in the transsexual article reported a hormonal difference (different LH feedback response to estradiol) in transsexualism in the early 1980s that similarly was based on a very small study with several potential alternative interpretations. The study was cited widely by advocacy groups eager for a biological explanation. The difference was never confirmed, and Gooren himself doesn't even refer to it in his more recent articles on the subject, even though it would be both relevant and supportive if true. The recent hypothalamic nucleus studies resemble those of LeVay in the early 1990s that purported to demonstrate an anatomic difference in the brains of homosexual men. The difference has not been confirmed in the last decade and cannot be characterised as "proven" or "generally accepted." History has also made me aware of how strongly our fashionable political ideologies influence how scientific research is received. In the 1970s and early 80s, a biological explanation for homosexuality was so unfashionable that liberal academic opinion condemned even the conducting of the research (refs if you want them); nurture reigned. I am somewhat contrarian and found the biological theories appealing then. In the 1990s, nature is back on top, and look at the eagerness with which the biological theories are accepted by the interested communities. The problem is, you can see the cycle of nature or nurture in academic fashion every few decades all the way back to the 19th century. The trick is not to judge the validity of the science by the degree to which it appeals to the current fashion. The biological explanations may yet get confirmed, but they are not "proven" yet. I understand that is why you inserted the word "scientifically" but I was rejecting the implication that something could be "biologically" proven but not "scientifically" proven. This is a debate that could be conducted in the transsexualism or homosexualities articles but I am not interested. Are you satisfied with current version? Alteripse 15:15, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It looks fine. Dysprosia 04:43, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Move to Gender of rearing

I just moved the article to "gender of rearing" instead of "sex of rearing". Rearing is the epitome of gender, not a sex thing. People are brought up according to "You are a boy/girl" not "You have a vagina/penis/whatever". -- AlexR 16:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This seems more a semantic issue than a "POV issue." In this context I think that 99% of native English speakers understand no difference between the phrases sex of rearing and gender of rearing. In defense of sex of rearing, that is the phrase most used in the literature in the past. Why do you think it needs to be changed? alteripse 16:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that most people use "sex of rearing", but since the distinction of sex and gender exists, it is obviously an incorrect phrase. And "past usage" isn't much of an argument, is it? We are not writing a past encyclopedia, but a current one. Currently, we distinguish beween sex and gender. We shouldn't encourage people to use incorrect concepts by making articles about those, but rather link the incorrect phrase to the correct one. And "sex of rearing" is POV because is asserts that sex and gender are really interchangable things, which is a POV often maintained by people who refuse to acknowledge either the reality of transgender or the problems of incorrectly assigned intersex people. As to why it needed changing, well, methinks that I stated that in my first comment already, and elaborated in this one. -- AlexR 23:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's "obviously an incorrect phrase" at all. I won't contest the change as long as you leave a redirect, but past and usual usage is exactly why I entitled it sex of rearing. Wik policy is to entitle articles as most readers would look for them. Your change carries no meaningful message for the vast majority of readers and will not change the way they understand the subject in the slightest. To some of us it is just one more tedious political correctness game, where someone decides that to be politically enlightened you have to suddenly change what you call something. What will be the fashionable term in another decade that suddenly makes this one "obviously misleading" or undesirable? I think the renaming game too often mistakes the name for the understanding or the reality. Or maybe I'm just old enough to have seen too many things have their name changed for well-meant purposes but without changing much. Aren't you getting there too? alteripse 02:04, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I have no intention of removing the redir, since it is where many people would look for the article. However, I have more than a bit of a problem with the rest of your "arguments". First of all, what makes you so sure that people don't even notice the change or that it will not change their understanding of the subject? I have made different experiences. And second, the argument "it's just PC" is not an argument at all, no matter where one uses it, and in this case, it is non-applicable as well, since there obviously is a difference between sex and gender, something a person should know who has, according to his user page, edited many intersex articles. Claiming that there is none is decidedly POV, and I hope that I will never get there where I demand that reality should conform to my personal prejudices, so I don't have to bother thinking any more, but can get by repeating the same old phrases again and again. Which, incidentally, has nothing whatever to do with PCness. And unless you happen to have something like an argument in your next edit, don't expect me to reply. It seems utterly pointless and a complete waste of time. -- AlexR 17:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You know, you haven't actually spelled out what difference you understand between sex and gender in this context. Just to make sure I am reality-grounded, I checked the definitions of each in two dictionaries. It may or may not surprise you but there is overlap of meaning and it is in precisely the sense in this phrase, where sex actually carries the meaningful connotation of a conscious, imposed categorization, the sex chosen by the parents to rear the child in. I am guessing that your preference for gender over sex is to prompt a recognition that a tiny percentage of population prefers to maintain an incongruity, to assert a sense of their own gender that is distinct from their biological sex. But to my mind the more precise phrases would be gender identity and biological sex, terms in use for 40 years or so. Sex of rearing is very much something that parents choose for their children, not something one decides on or discovers on their own. Am I misunderstanding you? alteripse 23:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Instance of?

The Wikidata item for this article is currently an "instance of" "gender". Is that correct? (I'm asking here, because I guess not many people are watching the item there.) Sam Wilson 02:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Sam, I'm sure you're right about fewer people watching there. If that is a concern, the best way to do this, imho, is to raise it on the Wikidata talk page anyway, since that's where the issue resides (and also because wikidata has its own rules that aren't necessarily the same as here, but that's a lesser point), and then add a brief comment here inviting people to go have a look and comment at the (linked) Talk section there. If you want more eyeballs, you could paste the same linked invitation to relevant WikiProject Talk pages such as WT:GS and WT:LGBT. Mathglot (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)