If it can't be defined by hormones, genitalia, chromosomes, birth identification, clothing, role or sexual orientation, then what on Earth is it? Does it even exist?

The definition I work off is that gender is simply the kind of body (male, female etc.) you prefer to 'wear'.

I totally completely agree with that.
Gender has nothing to do with what you were born as.
It's how you truly completely feel,

That spectrum is so completely long and overrated.
Gender is non-existent.
Gender is just another stereotype that is another for society to keep us down.
Gender is whatever you want it to be.

gender is both internal as in the ways you view yourself, and external through the behavior, language and mannerisms. because the majority is internal, there isn't really a reliable testing media to assess the aspect of identity other then the ways it can be expressed, with bias for uprearing and social attitudes towards the sexes.

https://www.susans.org/wiki/Gender_identity
https://www.susans.org/wiki/Gender_role
https://www.susans.org/wiki/Gender_differences

There is some evidence that gender identity originates in the hypothalamus.

It's who you feel to be, and nothing more.  The origins for this are in the brain, but I cannot get more specific than that on an anatomical level.  How you should express your gender is really up to you (or should be up to you, depending on how you look at the issue).

Yes, the sexually dimorphic nucleus in the hypothalamus is only present in biological males, and is at least partially responsible for directing sexual behaviour towards archetypally 'female' attributes. People with lesions to this nucleus sometimes became bisexual.

I haven't seen anything which gives a neurological basis for gender in general aside from in terms of the empathising-systemising spectrum. But since we can have primarily empathising men and primarily systemising women, surely even neurological sexual dimorphism can't determine gender?

What I'm not sure of is, since you can have women who are completely 'masculine' in everything they do, and men who are completely 'feminine' in everything they do (i.e. people who would not blink twice if they were born in as the other sex, but still prefer the one they are in), can gender ever be accurately defined as anytrhing more than your preference for a certain kind of anatomy?


I'm fine with this being the case, by the way, because in my eyes it allows gender to be a primarily social concept, but still explains transsexualism.

See... this is why I absolutly love my psychopathology professor. She defines Sex as what you were physically born as. Gender is who you are inside. What you feel like and how you want to be seen.

I think it's important to separate anatomical 'body map' issues (maleness/femaleness), social identity (identifying as a man/woman), and behavioral preference (masculinity/femininity). Unfortunately, so far English has only provided us with two words (sex and gender) to address those three concepts. And while it's generally understood that behavioral preference falls under 'gender' and anatomical configuration falls under 'sex,' social identity gets dumped in one or the other or both boxes depending on the mood, goals, and ideology of the speaker.

I think it's entirely possible and likely that where one falls on each of those three spectra is determined by a different (but probably related) set of processes. And it would be really nice to have a different word for each of the three, so that we can know what we're actually talking abut when we talk about 'gender.' As is, it's slippery and impossible to define.

We need to make a new language. Gender-neutral pronouns galore.

If I need to use singular pronouns to describe a person, I will use plural pronouns in their place.  If someone "corrects" me, I will go with the standard "s/he" (if written) or "she or he" (if spoken).  If I am in the mood to be smarmy, I will do so ad nauseum.

Using plural pronouns is sometimes considered an acceptable alternative, and it has the advantage of not needing to define a new word.  The masses generally overlook the "mistake" (and if they do that, the conversation can flow smoothly), and the well-educated are generally easier to rationalize the point to.  Some of them will remain sticklers, but they aren't the type of people who will tend to interfere with you violently.

I tend to just use the singular they (grammaticians be damned, there's no such thing as perfect grammar anyway), but when I'm writing formally I'll use 'one is' and 'one does' to get out of tight spots.

I've seem lots of solutions to the problem of gender-neutral personal pronouns. My favourite are the Spivak pronouns (ey, eir, em, emself), because they function just like the singular they but with 'th' removed.

Sometimes they can feel jarring to the flow of a sentence, though.

Quote from: HollyHC on April 06, 2010, 05:07:57 AM
We need to make a new language. Gender-neutral pronouns galore.

Why make a new language? Just start using Finnish. Okay, it's been voted (one of) the most difficult languages to learn somewhere, but hey, challenges are what makes life worth living, right?