I tend to think of genderfluid as more a way someone is describing their experience of their gender rather than a genuine gender identity. We don’t really have any scientific evidence that gender identity can change or be fluid, and in fact we have plenty of scientific evidence to the contrary, that unconscious sex / gender identity is fixed and biological. This is part of why conversion therapy doesn’t work, you can’t make a trans person cis or a cis person trans - it just doesn’t work. It also means a trans person isn’t choosing to be trans, it is part of their nature and won’t come and go.

I take issue with this line of reasoning because there are indeed genderfluid people who experience strong dysphoria that shifts and changes over time. Genderfluidity isn’t a presentation or choice it is very real for people. Also it comes off as bad faith to use the idea of brain sex to debunk it because conversion therapy doesn’t work. It’s a very VERY bad comparison because conversion therapy is other people trying to change a person by force. Genderfluidity is a person changing by themselves.

When I talk about denial of Genderfluidity in the trans community this is what I’m talking about.

Furthermore I do take a lot of issues when it comes to ideas about “brain gender” or “brain sex” because there are many situations where it falls apart when trying to describe gender, genderfluidity is a prime example there. How does that work then? One could argue that like you did that it’s simply a presentation or performative. However that doesn’t address the fact that there are genderfluid people who have gone through conversion therapy, and they haven’t stopped being genderfluid either. So the conversion therapy comparison isn’t a valid argument for brain genders and gender identity rigidity.

Other problems are that the brain sex theory doesn’t account for Nonbinary identities, like you said one could argue they are performative. Though once again that falls apart when they too experience strong gender dysphoria and also, once again can’t be converted by persuasive or coercive means.

What I think is the biggest problem when it comes to these studies, is that they seem to imply that having gender identity is related to gender dysphoria. These studies are the basis of transmedicalism. Many ignore the fact that there are trans people who lack gender dysphoria, they also do not acknowledge the conditions that are problematic for their theories like nonbinary or genderfluid people because they ultimately do not have an answer for those, even though many of them have gender dysphoria as strong as binary trans people do.

I think it is important to recognize that the evidence we have about gender identity (by which I mean the generally immutable unconscious sex that we are born with, likely due to the way our brains develop) is that it cannot be changed, that conversion therapy does not work, and that trans people cannot be made cis and vice versa. These are essentially “facts”.

Conversion therapy is wrong, it’s very easy to prove why it is wrong without promoting lies about how gender identity works that invalidate or misrepresent the experiences of nonbinary and genderfluid people, who very much do share the same experiences in terms of dysphoria and euphoria as any binary trans people. Saying that gender is locked in that is doing exactly that. Maybe instead of overthinking to the extreme and finding a reason based on biological existentialism for why conversion therapy is bad and wrong we should just point out the fact that one cannot change who someone is through coercion and abuse. It’s that simple. There is never a place for that kind of “treatment” not in gender or sexuality, not outside of it. I can’t believe that people would even consider that okay if there was even the possibility that a person could choose. If they could, it would be just as wrong or evil to try and force them.

This science isn’t some kind of inerrant rigid belief system either, by the way - but that’s not to say it doesn’t provide solid evidence that has consequences in legal and political contexts.

You are absolutely right about this. These studies do have consequences in legal and political situations, and they also have frightening implications for those who are genderfluid, nonbinary, or non-dysphoric.

None of these facts require that we invalidate others’ self-identity even when they contradict those facts, we can still hold the principle that we should respect others’ self-identity for pragmatic reasons even when there are reasons to doubt a person’s self-understanding or the way they have theorized or come to think about their gender. It is a matter of politeness and respect.

Agreed. It is paramount that we respect the identities of people whether or not they fit these rigid definitions. However like the ones I highlighted, we should also take the time to scrutinize these conclusions because there are plenty of situations that are wildly incompatible. Like a genderfluid person who may feel strong dysphoria towards her penis, yet after a shift he may feel perfectly comfortable with it, or even possibly miss it when it is gone. Such situations don’t just “not fit” they challenge the merit of it altogether. These situations really need to be taken seriously, not brushed aside for acceptance, but actually looked at to re-evaluate the conclusions that were drawn otherwise.