it would be totally false to say that these traits are determinant of gender, as many people don’t fit within those generalizations. In all likelihood, few people probably follow the trends aligning with their gender to the letter. Most women have a handful of things that they differ from other women on, and it is the same with men.

In the research I linked like the 2015 brain mosaic article, they actually find the situation is more complex than that, that most people actually don’t follow trends with their gender and the brain doesn’t fit a dimorphic model at all.

These traits cannot be understood as the cause of gender with current data, and any theory that claims to do so would be speculation at best. So whenever you look at these neurocorrelates of gender, you must recognize that they might not be due to gender itself. The differences between different gendered brains is important, but it could actually be measuring dimorphic traits instead of gender itself.

They are certainly trying to measure dimorphic traits and not the gender itself, I am not sure why you thought I believed otherwise. My statement that gender identity cannot be altered and that brain sex seems to be a reason why is not the same as claiming that we inspect gender in the brain directly or that you can’t be anything but what your brain tells you you are. Gender clearly has social as well as biological components, bioessentialism does not work as a theory at all.

Also, the way you dismiss genderfluidity as not a genuine identity is serious overreach. There are few studies on nonbinary identities in general, so saying things about them like that isn’t scientific. It seems more based on your own experience of gender than anything else.

If I came across as dismissive I think I failed in my communication, there is no such thing as a non-genuine identity so long as people genuinely identify that way. We have already established that self-identity is paramount and respected.

I do tend to think a lot of the labels and identities that are being created are early theorizing based on phenomenology, which is entirely reasonable.

Regarding non-binary identities and science, there are at least studies like the brain mosaic MRI studies that show that most people (>95%) have what might be characterized as “non-binary” brains. I think this is pretty compelling and “validating”, but no matter what the science shows we still hold the principle of respecting and validating self identification. That is fundamental and axiomatic.

For all you know, there is a constant fluidity to everyone’s gender, with some having more than others. Maybe you never dip into another gender, but how can you say others don’t?

What I said in my comment is that I do experience what I think people would classify as genderfluidity, i.e. I absolutely do experience fluctuations in my sense of gender. There are mornings I wake up as a “man”, and times where I feel completely like a “woman”. Sometimes it seems like those fluctuations match hormonal shifts. Other times it seems like it has to do with social situations and the way that I dress and whether I am wearing makeup.

My point about genderfluidity was not a dismissal but a distinction, that I tend to think people who identify as genderfluid are probably doing so based on the kind of phenomenology they are experiencing (and which I think I incidentally experience as well). This distinction is important because it separates what we have empirically established, which is that gender identity seems to be developmentally fixed, from what the phenomenology is, which is that our sense of gender can be quite complex and appear to us as not-fixed. I don’t think these two claims conflict at all, but I think some people might wrongfully interpret it that way.

We also can’t say that gender truly does not change, only that we don’t know how it could change, and that all attempts to alter it carry near certain risk of serious harm. There aren’t many elements of our psychology or personality that can never change, as our brains are physical substrates that can change in countless ways. The fact that we’ve seen little evidence of gender changing with brain damage indicates that it is a more distributed phenomenon. This makes it similar to consciousness, which does not have clear correlates either.

I do think this is a meaningful distinction of sorts, I think what you are trying to get at is that nothing is truly “essential” and it’s just a limit of techhnology that keeps us from altering something like the brain’s role in generating unconscious sex. I agree with this, but I do feel like you are skirting around the context I was in, which was emphasizing that we should take a hard line that trans identities should not be seen as “choices” but respected as based in early developments of the brain which are not readily changed. This is a way that we can use the science to back a socially humanistic approach to trans identity, and to push against reactionary elements that wish to erase trans people by any means necessary, including forced detransition and conversion therapy to force us to align with our assigned sex. The fact that this has not worked historically and that we now have good working theories based in evidence as to why it does not work is pragmatic and useful, particularly in getting a medical establishment to recognize the importance of gender affirming care and establishing that conversion therapy is contrary to scientific evidence.

We are at the infancy of understanding gender, and psychology in general is in its infancy. You’re missing the point in how you’re interpreting the evidence. It’s ok to simply not know. It’s ok to not have an answer. That’s a fundamental part of all science.

Yes of course, but skepticism will always be the strongest position to take, meanwhile we have to make inferences to the best explanation, and I think doing that based on the evidence we do have, even if early, is a good idea.