Great article! One thing I’ve noticed in public conversations and mainstream media is that the existence of an unchangeable internal gender identity is spoken of as if it’s a fact. This is intentional, because if you question that premise the whole house of cards come tumbling down. One way to think about it is that I have many physical characteristics. Let’s take height, for example. I’m short. I’ve always wished I was taller, and frankly if I got to choose my body I’d be taller. So I have two choices. I can make peace with being short, shop in the petite section, and use step stools when I need them, and maybe even be proud of being short or find some benefits to it. Or I can fixate on my wish to be taller. I can wear shoes and clothes to try to hide my true height. demand that everyone call me tall, demand that the big and tall store carry clothes in my size, insist that tall and short no longer refer to physical height but my internal perception of how tall I am, have a fit if anyone tries to come up with new words to describe actual physical height because they’d be excluding me. I could have surgery to lengthen my legs. If I do all of that, will I start to feel I was born in the wrong body? Will I be more or less dissatisfied with my body than if I’d just accepted the fact that I’m short and gotten on with my life? Have I done harm to the world when it’s now harder to find clothes that fit or effective safety equipment because I’ve eliminated the language for talking about physical height when it’s relevant? It’s no different. People who fixate on disliking their sex truly believe that they have an internal “gender identity”, but really it’s just wishful thinking.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of [gender identity]. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of [Judith Butler].” 😉
But nice analogy of yours with "tall", though it seems predicated on a somewhat untenable assumption that sex=gender. Big part of the whole problem is that -- as many have argued or suggested -- pretty much every man, woman, and otherkin has a different definition or conception in mind. Fairly decent summary of that from Colin Wright here:
"1/ Most confusion about "gender" results from people not defining it. Many definitions are in circulation:
Some merit in the idea of DEFINING "gender" to be something of an amalgam of the last three -- i.e., as something of a synonym for personalities and personality types that show some differences, on average, between men and women. The British Medical Journal had an editorial that more or less endorsed that view:
In my opinion, sex has the obvious physical definition. To get really specific it’s defined by whether an organism produces large gametes or small mobile ones. Gender means the roles and stereotypes that society associates with each sex. By this definition “gender” is not a characteristic of a person, it’s a concept that’s society has. People can choose to conform to those roles and stereotypes or not (nearly everyone conforms to some and not to others) and society’s expectations for each sex vary over time and within different groups of people. It’s fine to reject the expectations that society places on people of your sex. It’s even ok to pretend to be the other sex so that people will have a different set of expectations for you if that makes your life easier. But your sex is still your sex.
So my height analogy doesn’t assume sex equals gender at all. Sex is a physical characteristic. Gender is a societal concept, but people don’t have genders.
Quite agree with you on the "produces large gametes or small mobile ones". Though there are a few devils in those details, some problematic consequences. But ICYMI, you might be interested in a quite popular article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction which echoes that definition in their Glossary:
Can't say that I've read much more than that Glossary, the Abstract, and a bit of the Intro, but it seems to make a pretty solid case that anisogamy -- the presence of those with either of two types of gametes, something which has been around for a billion years or so -- is what has driven the whole process of sexual dimorphism across literally millions of species over a span of hundreds of millions of years:
Though can't say that I agree entirely with your " 'gender' [is] a concept that society has". No doubt there are a great many stereotypes associated with each sex, but those stereotypes aren't cut from whole cloth -- they're generally the result of the fact that there are substantial differences in personalities and behaviours between men and women -- on average.
Analogously, there is the stereotype of, say, introversion, but it's also a fact that many people exhibit varying degrees of introversion. The behaviours are what leads to the perception of the stereotypes -- i.e., behaviours exhibited by significantly "large" segments of the populations in question. Although it is also true that those stereotypes can then become expectations that society imposes on individuals -- unfairly or not.
Substacker Lee Jussim had a fairly thorough analysis of those stereotypes, although it's been some years since I read much of it:
And relative to those "substantial differences", you might have some interest in an article, "No Child is Born in the Wrong Body", which provides some solid evidence, and nice illustrations, of those differences -- on average:
I’m not arguing that there aren’t some characteristics that are more common in males and some that are more common in females. There certainly are. As you point out, stereotypes don’t arise out of nowhere - usually they are stereotypes because they are true for large percentages of people. But it doesn’t follow that people have a personal characteristic called “gender” that is independent from their sex. If you were raised on a deserted island with no exposure to any culture, you’d be the sex you are, have the personality characteristics you do, and have no concept of whether those were common or not for your sex. You’d have no concept of gender. So gender can’t be some inborn characteristic of a person. It doesn’t even exist in the absence of a society.
But "some characteristics more common in males" and "some characteristics more common in females" is more or less exactly what some people MEAN by "gender". See again that editorial in the British Medical Journal, hardly chopped liver:
But there's no intrinsic meaning to the word "gender" -- some people, BMJ for example, DEFINE it to mean those different sets of "personality characteristics" -- everybody has a different set, a different personality, a different gender. Even if there are many more or less recognizably distinct types.
Are our personalities "inborn characteristics"? From those definitions they are and they mean "different genders" -- that's the way "gender" is DEFINED. But our personalities are something separate from our sexes -- some people can have a masculine personality type while being females, and some people can have a masculine personality type while being males: personality and personality type aren't joined at the hip with our sexes which denote ONLY the type of gametes we produce - or don't.
And even feminist philosopher Rebecca Reilly-Cooper more or less accepts that perspective, at least tentatively before snatching defeat from the jaws of victory:
"If gender is a spectrum, that means it’s a continuum between two extremes, and everyone is located somewhere along that continuum. I assume the two ends of the spectrum are masculinity and femininity. Is there anything else that they could possibly be? Once we realize this, it becomes clear that everybody is non-binary, because absolutely nobody is pure masculinity or pure femininity. Of course, some people will be closer to one end of the spectrum, while others will be more ambiguous and float around the centre. But even the most conventionally feminine person will demonstrate some characteristics that we associate with masculinity, and vice versa.
I would be happy with this implication, because despite possessing female biology and calling myself a woman, I do not consider myself a two-dimensional gender stereotype. I am not an ideal manifestation of the essence of womanhood, and so I am non-binary. Just like everybody else. ....
Once we assert that the problem with gender is that we currently recognize only two of them, the obvious question to ask is: how many genders would we have to recognize in order not to be oppressive? Just how many possible gender identities are there?
The only consistent answer to this is: 7 billion, give or take. There are as many possible gender identities as there are humans on the planet. ..."
I think she makes a bit of a dog's breakfast out of the concept, though maybe moot how much more than it already is. But largely because of her own feminist preconceptions and unexamined assumptions. Although I think she also makes some valid points, at least in "steel-manning" the opposition.
A real challenge to separate wheat and chaff in that mess, in the whole dog's breakfast of gender in general. But, again, DEFINING a myriad of genders as equivalent to a whole spectrum of different personalities and personality types seems to be a step in the right direction.
But one of the better points of hers bears emphasis: in the same way that we say that there's a bluish half and a reddish half to the colour spectrum -- a binary, of sorts -- with a myriad of colours between two extreme ends, so we might say there's a feminine half and a masculine half to the gender spectrum -- another binary of sorts -- with a myriad of genders between the two extreme ends, a "hypermasculine" (GI Joe) and a "hyperfeminine" (Jessica Rabbit).
BOTH a binary, AND a spectrum -- or two spectra, one in each half. How we look at the issue, and how we define our terms is rather important -- failing to recognize that tends to preclude any reasonable resolution to the issue.
But I think it decidedly moot whether the whole concept of gender has much in the way of any value at all, at least apart from drawing attention to those different sets of characteristics by sex -- some of which are more or less biologically determined, and not easily, or reasonably, modified.
Apropos of which, a rather brilliant essay at the New Yorker -- courtesy of a recent Substack post by Andrew Sullivan -- which underlines much of the above:
"Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters?
The behavior geneticist Kathryn Paige Harden is waging a two-front campaign: on her left are those who assume that genes are irrelevant, on her right those who insist that they’re everything.
'Building a commitment to egalitarianism on our genetic uniformity is building a house on sand,' Harden writes."
I accept definition #3 in your original post. Gender is “3. Societal sex-based roles/expectations”. I think it’s a slippery slope to say that a person has a gender based on how well they conform to the average for their sex, and sliding down that slope has led us to where we are today with all the gender craziness. I also don’t think it’s meaningful. Are women, on average, shorter than men? Of course. Does that mean that a 6’2” woman is less of a woman than a 5’2” woman? Of course not. Should the 6’2” woman try to become shorter or appear shorter so that she conforms to the average for her sex? Of course not. Is she really a man? Of course not. Why would personality characteristics be any different? Some may be more common in men or women but...so what? By definition if a female has a certain characteristic it is a valid characteristic for a woman to have, even if it’s less common. You could even say that by definition it’s a feminine characteristic.
I may be misinterpreting but I feel like you’re taking the scenic route toward making some kind of anti-feminist argument here. If so, please get to the point.
I still assert that sex is a physical characteristic that people have. It’s not meaningful or useful to say that people have a second characteristic called gender. If I lived on a deserted island I’d still have physical characteristics like my height and eye color and I’d still have personality characteristics like being curious and prone to introspection. But I wouldn’t have any concept of gender if I wasn’t part of a society. It’s not a characteristic of a person.
All so very interesting. I just tried to comment on the PITT Substack; my comments were removed and I have a 24-hour-ban. So much for different points of view, especially if they come from an affirming and loving parent of a transgender child versus someone spouting off rage, denial, misinformation, and conspiracy theories.
There are some good points here. There are also assumptions made for thousands of people, past and present, who have been two-spirits. What is lacking here? The voices of those with actual lived experiences as transgender or non-binary individuals. You can’t dictate their inner life or journey. The science is incomplete. In the current atmosphere in which I fear for the actual safety of a beloved child, I wish more people not
in the LGBTQIA community would, with all due respect, just shut up and listen.
I am happy to hear other points of view, including yours. What do you think a "gender identity" is? And why would it necessitate medical interventions? While I can see a reason someone (preferably a mature adult who has lived in their sexed body for years w/o denial and found this, for whatever reason, intolerable) might want to live as the opposite sex if that suits their life better, my hope is that society will get to a point where nobody feels that they cannot express their true authentic self without pretending to be the opposite sex. This, rather than medically altering those who do not fit stereotypes or who feels uncomfortable with the roles they are expected to play, should be our goal. Further, I do not believe anyone would transition as a result of a "gender identity," particularly when it appears to be an undefined entity. Again, I ask you to please tell me what it is and why it requires medical interventions. While I do not pretend in any way to dictate or understand someone's inner thoughts, my own daughter, who I love more than words can say, has been unable to express her notion of a "gender identity" or why it requires her to medically alter her body. As to "non-binary," if you read that essay, my point is that just about everyone is "non-binary" in the sense of not being entirely masculine or feminine, and a claim by someone to be somehow outside of their biological sex (ie. not "male" or "female"), and exempt from whatever pressures any other person of their sex feels, simply makes no sense to me. Instead, I would rather someone simply say that they are "male" or "female," but that they don't adhere to gender stereotypes - and go from there. Two-spirit is an idea from another culture and I don't think it means the person is not "male" or "female," but just that they are in touch with both their feminine and their masculine side - something we should all strive for! Again, I welcome your comments and, as Frazier Crane would say, "I'm listening."
"The quick answers are: (1) Gender Identity isn’t anything at all; and (2) Gender Identity is important because it is used to justify body hatred, denial of physical reality, and serious, risky medical interventions in response to mental discomfort."
For something that "isn't anything at all", "gender identity" certainly seems to have committed any number of serious crimes ... 😉🙂
Not sure if you've read Stock's Material Girls, but ran across an article of hers, which you might be interested in, in Duke Law that addresses that "criminal" in some detail:
"The Importance of Referring to Human Sex in Language":
Though she's a bit vague on what she means by the term, but I doubt she would say it is entirely "fictional", only that it denotes the psychological rather than the biological. Sort of where I think you're going off the rails, in this bit for example:
"The problem is that, if we divorce “gender” from biology and from stereotypes or societal expectations, there is really nothing left! What does it mean to think you are “male” or “female” if being “male” or “female” has nothing to do with your body or with stereotypes or other societal expectations?"
Gender is simply a range, a spectrum of feminine and masculine personality traits, roles, and behaviors. A "female gender identity" is an entirely different kettle of fish from a female sex -- which your examples of "feminine/female gender identities" joined at the hip with "male sex" illustrate.
I was speaking to the "Gender Identity" that is used as an excuse for chemical and surgical assaults on vulnerable individuals.
As you and I have discussed, if we want to use the term "gender identity" to refer to that complex and individualized set of feminine and masculine (as those terms are used in a particular society at a particular time) characteristics, preferences, and behaviors that is inherent in a given individual, I am fine with that.
However, that use of the term could never justify medical transition, except in a case where someone is at the extreme end of "masculine" or "feminine" AND one cannot accept being extremely gender non-conforming, AND society continues to be harsh about gender non-conformity. This would make it clear that the only justification for medical transition is to allow a very gender non-conforming individual to "fit in" in a society that is too harsh against those who don't "fit in." Society would be forced to admit that it is forcing these individuals to agree to assaults on their bodies to make them more acceptable to society - rather than that this is something an individual must do for their own purposes, having nothing to do with strict societal standards.
Personally, I believe that the genesis of medical transition was to bring very non-conforming individuals into alignment with societal expectations. I believe that we were heading in the (correct) direction of eliminating the need or desire for medical transition as we became more accepting of gender non-conformity and homosexuality. We then went completely off the rails, encouraging anyone who feels different or at odds with their sex for any reason, and at any age, to socially and, as soon as possible, medically alter their appearance and identity to that of the opposite sex. We tried to justify this movement with the use of the term "gender identity," but re-defining it to mean one's sense of one's "gender," a circular and, therefore, meaningless definition. It is that term that I am speaking to in this essay.
Sorry if it looked liked I had been trying to "bust your chops" on the issue -- not at all my intent as I very much appreciate that we're more or less on the same page on the sex-gender dichotomy. And particularly since this post of yours is from some 17 months ago -- lot of water under the bridge since then. 🙂
But it was kind of late when I posted my previous comment -- that's my defense Counselor, and the one I'm sticking with ... 🙂 -- and I didn't have a lot of time to do a proper review of your post here, or to address your recent comments on the topic. And I'd wanted to pass along Stock's article which goes into some detail, before going off the rails, on our discussions on workable and legal definitions for "man" and "woman", the latter in particular.
However, while I very much agree with you that "gender identity is important because it is (MIS-USED [my qualification]) to justify body hatred, ... [and criminally] risky medical interventions", I don't think the best way forward is, as you put it, "to let that phrase go". That someone misuses a tool -- and for criminal purposes -- is no justification to deprive others of more beneficial and legal uses. Better to "accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative" -- to coin a phrase. 🙂
The problem is that "gender identity" has acquired a great deal of currency and social relevance that tends to preclude its banning and anathematizing. For instance, I see a recent post by Kara Dansky which asserts Warren is "all in on 'gender identity' ..." which Warren's website more or less confirms:
But I rather doubt she could say exactly what she means by "gender identity" or what it means to have a sex in the first place. Or has a clue about the problems that are caused by incomplete or inconsistent definitions for both.
Seems the best way forward is emphasize the more scientifically, biologically, and psychologically better definition and interpretation -- as you put it, "use the term 'gender identity' to refer to that complex and individualized set of feminine and masculine (as those terms are used in a particular society at a particular time) characteristics, preferences, and behaviors that is inherent in a given individual" -- whether they are the result of nature or nurture, or a combination thereof.
At least as a starting point, though I think you're muddying the waters a bit there. In particular, there's a difference between, on the one hand, taking a battery of tests and getting back the results that might, for example, say "agreeableness - feminine; neuroticism - masculine; extraversion - feminine; etc. etc.", and, on the other hand, having some subjective perceptions of which feminine and masculine traits "define me as a person" as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it:
Largely why I really don't see that, as you argue, "gender identity ... is a circular definition", particularly if one starts off with that dichotomy between the (somewhat) subjective "gender identity" and the more objective "gender" -- based, say, on those "Big Five personality traits", at least as a starting point.
Though that's not to say that circular definitions aren't characteristic of the whole transgender clusterfuck -- no wonder pretty much everyone is riding madly off in all directions. A classic case from Merriam Webster:
MW: "female:: having a gender identity that is the opposite of male"
MW: "male: having a gender identity that is the opposite of female"
And, rather sadly, Canada's own contributions from that bastion of the Enlightenment and the Defender of the Scientific Method, Statistics Canada:
Statistics Canada:
"Male gender: This category includes persons whose current gender was reported as male. This includes cisgender and transgender persons whose current gender was reported as male.
Female gender: This category includes persons whose current gender was reported as female. This includes cisgender and transgender persons whose current gender was reported as female."
Idiots, squared. Whoever was responsible for that claptrap -- in both cases --should be fired, ridden out of town on a rail.
That's kind of the battle we're facing. And why I think it's important to be putting both gender and gender identity on something of more scientific and logical footing. "Mission Impossible"? 😉🙂
But briefly and somewhat en passant, you might have some interest in a recent debate featuring Colin Wright, described in some detail by Yassine Meskhout, another lawyer by trade:
Of particular note are several of our exchanges, this comment of his in particular 😉🙂:
YM: "My response to any kind of categorization question is always 'why does it matter?'. On the most narrowest of dimensions, I'm happy biting the 'babies are of neither sex' bullet."
I think there are two almost entirely unrelated definitions at play here, and we don't want to confuse them. One is circularly defined, largely useless, and only important to the extent that it is "mis-used" (I like that characterization) to justify bodily harm and psychological torture. I agree with you that the other "gender identity," defined as the various feminine and masculine qualities that, in varying degrees, are inherent in a given individual, is useful and doesn't need to be dispensed with.
As for those definitions you quoted, they are ridiculous and I also agree that those who agreed to put these useless tautological definitions out in the world shouldn't be working at Merriam-Webster or Statistics Canada -although it seems that these institutions have gone off the rails in many ways.
Elizabeth Warren has also bought into the idiocy, which is truly disappointing because her economic knowledge and opinions are quite insightful. Oh well, I guess everyone has things they are smart about and things they are incredibly stupid about. Warren definitely lost my admiration when she showed her idiocy with respect to all things gender.
Meskhout isn't entirely wrong. As we strive to get accurate with our definitions, we have to keep in mind what we're trying to accomplish. I know you believe the definitions come first, and correct application will follow, and you may be right, but I still think we need to keep our societal goals in mind as we argue definitions.
"I think there are two almost entirely unrelated definitions at play here, and we don't want to confuse them."
Seems like a fair assessment. Intentional obfuscation by transgender ideologues and fellow travelers of one stripe or another. Largely why I objected to Wikipedia asserting that transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard had "transitioned to female":
Maybe transitioned to a female or feminine gender or "gender identity". But certainly not to the female sex.
"As we strive to get accurate with our definitions, we have to keep in mind what we're trying to accomplish."
Absolutely agree -- more or less in any case. 🙂 But what biologists are "trying to accomplish" with their definitions -- trying to understand the roots of common reproductive abilities across millions of species -- is very different from what society is trying to accomplish with their definitions -- largely to adjudicate access to toilets, change rooms and sports. Simply impossible for any one definition to do well in performing both tasks.
"I know you believe the definitions come first, and correct application will follow, and you may be right, but I still think we need to keep our societal goals in mind as we argue definitions."
Sure. But as something of a rhetorical question, do you think that biologists should be obliged to repudiate and abandon the standard biological definitions that have been published in reputable sources like the Oxford Dictionary of Biology?
Those definitions are an intrinsic part of the warp and weft of biology. Trying to "adulterate", if not bastardize and corrupt those definitions seems little short of Lysenkoism -- the "deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable".
Short answer - No. I don't think biologists should abandon their collective knowledge or quest for accuracy in fashioning definitions for terms like "female" or "woman" or "sex," in an effort to satisfy some social goal. I don't think such abandonment will ultimately accomplish the goals they allegedly want to accomplish.
I believe that the societal issues at hand (e.g. do we divide sports or bathrooms, and, if so, why and who gets to be in each category of sport or bathrom) will be better served with scientists using their full knowledge and providing definitions for things that are as scientifically accurate as possible. Legislators should use both that scientific knowledge (deferring to scientists for this) and their common sense.
Unfortunately, I think both scientific knowledge and common sense have been corrupted as of late.
> "No. I don't think biologists should abandon their collective knowledge or quest for accuracy in fashioning definitions for terms like "female" or "woman" or "sex," in an effort to satisfy some social goal."
Good show. 👍🙂 Though the question was whether biologists should repudiate standard biological definitions published in places like the Oxford Dictionary of Biology. 😉🙂
> "I don't think such abandonment will ultimately accomplish the goals they allegedly want to accomplish."
Agreed. Though it is not mainstream biology, or at least the "hard core" of it, that is "abandoning" that collective knowledge, or the definitions that encapsulates it. It is various erstwhile reputable biological journals like Cell, Nature, and Scientific American -- with their endorsement of sex as a spectrum -- which are doing so. And as various so-called biologists and philosophers like Colin Wright and Alex Byrne are doing.
> "Legislators should use both that scientific knowledge (deferring to scientists for this) and their common sense."
"Aye, there's the rub." Exactly how is that to be done? Still think that you could make a worthwhile contribution by putting on your lawyer's hat and weighing-in on how to define "man" and "woman" in law.
> "Unfortunately, I think both scientific knowledge and common sense have been corrupted as of late."
Amen to that. Hardly any qualifications to that at all 🙂.
ICYMI, a decent article on that point from Jonathan Haidt:
"Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid:
It’s not just a phase.
The story of Babel is the best metaphor I have found for what happened to America in the 2010s, and for the fractured country we now inhabit. Something went terribly wrong, very suddenly. We are disoriented, unable to speak the same language or recognize the same truth. We are cut off from one another and from the past."
Good point! Usually, I offer my clients a tree metaphor to explain sex and gender. Where roots represent biological sex and fruits represent gender - a system of beliefs of what is man and woman. You can get different apples - red, yellow, and white, and can artificially change their colour by injecting purple or black. We are all different men and women. But it's absurd and impossible to expect oranges from the apple tree.
Firstly: Thank you for this truly excellent thesis! I hope it is okay to share it far and wide and/or refer to it! Secondly: No, I don't have a "gender identity". Such a thing doesn't exist, I have been saying this for years, albeit less eloquently than this article. To me, the idea of a gender identity more and more is to be placed in the same psychological box as "HSP" and "INFJ" and even newspaper astrology, etc: attempts to describe and compartmentalize and thus oppress billions of individuals on very fishy and shallow grounds. A lot of these confused and insecure children and teenagers and even adults are: 1) homosexual; 2) neurodiverse; 3) mentally ill as a result of early childhood trauma (typically sexual trauma); and often all of these together. The medicalisation of these children, teenagers and adults goes hand in hand with the medical device industry & practise, and all forms of organ trade, we're seeing the same scandalous malpractice there. And possibly there is, among some (rich) members of (probably predominantly Western) society a science-fiction-like idea about modifying the human race. There are authors who are investigating this. Personally, all I know for sure: human tissue, organ(s), whatever piece that is removed from a human body not always is thrown away.
Great article! One thing I’ve noticed in public conversations and mainstream media is that the existence of an unchangeable internal gender identity is spoken of as if it’s a fact. This is intentional, because if you question that premise the whole house of cards come tumbling down. One way to think about it is that I have many physical characteristics. Let’s take height, for example. I’m short. I’ve always wished I was taller, and frankly if I got to choose my body I’d be taller. So I have two choices. I can make peace with being short, shop in the petite section, and use step stools when I need them, and maybe even be proud of being short or find some benefits to it. Or I can fixate on my wish to be taller. I can wear shoes and clothes to try to hide my true height. demand that everyone call me tall, demand that the big and tall store carry clothes in my size, insist that tall and short no longer refer to physical height but my internal perception of how tall I am, have a fit if anyone tries to come up with new words to describe actual physical height because they’d be excluding me. I could have surgery to lengthen my legs. If I do all of that, will I start to feel I was born in the wrong body? Will I be more or less dissatisfied with my body than if I’d just accepted the fact that I’m short and gotten on with my life? Have I done harm to the world when it’s now harder to find clothes that fit or effective safety equipment because I’ve eliminated the language for talking about physical height when it’s relevant? It’s no different. People who fixate on disliking their sex truly believe that they have an internal “gender identity”, but really it’s just wishful thinking.
I could not agree more.
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of [gender identity]. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of [Judith Butler].” 😉
Apologies to Thomas Jefferson:
https://quotefancy.com/quote/918147/Thomas-Jefferson-Ridicule-is-the-only-weapon-which-can-be-used-against-unintelligible
But nice analogy of yours with "tall", though it seems predicated on a somewhat untenable assumption that sex=gender. Big part of the whole problem is that -- as many have argued or suggested -- pretty much every man, woman, and otherkin has a different definition or conception in mind. Fairly decent summary of that from Colin Wright here:
"1/ Most confusion about "gender" results from people not defining it. Many definitions are in circulation:
1. Synonym for sex (male/female)
2. A subjective feeling in relation to one's sex
3. Societal sex-based roles/expectations
4. Sex-related behavior
5. Personality traits"
https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1234040036091236352
Some merit in the idea of DEFINING "gender" to be something of an amalgam of the last three -- i.e., as something of a synonym for personalities and personality types that show some differences, on average, between men and women. The British Medical Journal had an editorial that more or less endorsed that view:
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735
Y'all might have some interest in my efforts to try putting "gender" on something of a more scientific footing:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/i/64264079/rationalized-gender
In my opinion, sex has the obvious physical definition. To get really specific it’s defined by whether an organism produces large gametes or small mobile ones. Gender means the roles and stereotypes that society associates with each sex. By this definition “gender” is not a characteristic of a person, it’s a concept that’s society has. People can choose to conform to those roles and stereotypes or not (nearly everyone conforms to some and not to others) and society’s expectations for each sex vary over time and within different groups of people. It’s fine to reject the expectations that society places on people of your sex. It’s even ok to pretend to be the other sex so that people will have a different set of expectations for you if that makes your life easier. But your sex is still your sex.
So my height analogy doesn’t assume sex equals gender at all. Sex is a physical characteristic. Gender is a societal concept, but people don’t have genders.
Quite agree with you on the "produces large gametes or small mobile ones". Though there are a few devils in those details, some problematic consequences. But ICYMI, you might be interested in a quite popular article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction which echoes that definition in their Glossary:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Can't say that I've read much more than that Glossary, the Abstract, and a bit of the Intro, but it seems to make a pretty solid case that anisogamy -- the presence of those with either of two types of gametes, something which has been around for a billion years or so -- is what has driven the whole process of sexual dimorphism across literally millions of species over a span of hundreds of millions of years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisogamy
Though can't say that I agree entirely with your " 'gender' [is] a concept that society has". No doubt there are a great many stereotypes associated with each sex, but those stereotypes aren't cut from whole cloth -- they're generally the result of the fact that there are substantial differences in personalities and behaviours between men and women -- on average.
Analogously, there is the stereotype of, say, introversion, but it's also a fact that many people exhibit varying degrees of introversion. The behaviours are what leads to the perception of the stereotypes -- i.e., behaviours exhibited by significantly "large" segments of the populations in question. Although it is also true that those stereotypes can then become expectations that society imposes on individuals -- unfairly or not.
Substacker Lee Jussim had a fairly thorough analysis of those stereotypes, although it's been some years since I read much of it:
https://spsp.org/news-center/character-context-blog/stereotype-accuracy-one-largest-and-most-replicable-effects-all
And relative to those "substantial differences", you might have some interest in an article, "No Child is Born in the Wrong Body", which provides some solid evidence, and nice illustrations, of those differences -- on average:
https://4thwavenow.com/2019/08/19/no-child-is-born-in-the-wrong-body-and-other-thoughts-on-the-concept-of-gender-identity/
I’m not arguing that there aren’t some characteristics that are more common in males and some that are more common in females. There certainly are. As you point out, stereotypes don’t arise out of nowhere - usually they are stereotypes because they are true for large percentages of people. But it doesn’t follow that people have a personal characteristic called “gender” that is independent from their sex. If you were raised on a deserted island with no exposure to any culture, you’d be the sex you are, have the personality characteristics you do, and have no concept of whether those were common or not for your sex. You’d have no concept of gender. So gender can’t be some inborn characteristic of a person. It doesn’t even exist in the absence of a society.
Progress! 🙂
But "some characteristics more common in males" and "some characteristics more common in females" is more or less exactly what some people MEAN by "gender". See again that editorial in the British Medical Journal, hardly chopped liver:
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735
But there's no intrinsic meaning to the word "gender" -- some people, BMJ for example, DEFINE it to mean those different sets of "personality characteristics" -- everybody has a different set, a different personality, a different gender. Even if there are many more or less recognizably distinct types.
Are our personalities "inborn characteristics"? From those definitions they are and they mean "different genders" -- that's the way "gender" is DEFINED. But our personalities are something separate from our sexes -- some people can have a masculine personality type while being females, and some people can have a masculine personality type while being males: personality and personality type aren't joined at the hip with our sexes which denote ONLY the type of gametes we produce - or don't.
And even feminist philosopher Rebecca Reilly-Cooper more or less accepts that perspective, at least tentatively before snatching defeat from the jaws of victory:
"If gender is a spectrum, that means it’s a continuum between two extremes, and everyone is located somewhere along that continuum. I assume the two ends of the spectrum are masculinity and femininity. Is there anything else that they could possibly be? Once we realize this, it becomes clear that everybody is non-binary, because absolutely nobody is pure masculinity or pure femininity. Of course, some people will be closer to one end of the spectrum, while others will be more ambiguous and float around the centre. But even the most conventionally feminine person will demonstrate some characteristics that we associate with masculinity, and vice versa.
I would be happy with this implication, because despite possessing female biology and calling myself a woman, I do not consider myself a two-dimensional gender stereotype. I am not an ideal manifestation of the essence of womanhood, and so I am non-binary. Just like everybody else. ....
Once we assert that the problem with gender is that we currently recognize only two of them, the obvious question to ask is: how many genders would we have to recognize in order not to be oppressive? Just how many possible gender identities are there?
The only consistent answer to this is: 7 billion, give or take. There are as many possible gender identities as there are humans on the planet. ..."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison
I think she makes a bit of a dog's breakfast out of the concept, though maybe moot how much more than it already is. But largely because of her own feminist preconceptions and unexamined assumptions. Although I think she also makes some valid points, at least in "steel-manning" the opposition.
A real challenge to separate wheat and chaff in that mess, in the whole dog's breakfast of gender in general. But, again, DEFINING a myriad of genders as equivalent to a whole spectrum of different personalities and personality types seems to be a step in the right direction.
But one of the better points of hers bears emphasis: in the same way that we say that there's a bluish half and a reddish half to the colour spectrum -- a binary, of sorts -- with a myriad of colours between two extreme ends, so we might say there's a feminine half and a masculine half to the gender spectrum -- another binary of sorts -- with a myriad of genders between the two extreme ends, a "hypermasculine" (GI Joe) and a "hyperfeminine" (Jessica Rabbit).
BOTH a binary, AND a spectrum -- or two spectra, one in each half. How we look at the issue, and how we define our terms is rather important -- failing to recognize that tends to preclude any reasonable resolution to the issue.
But I think it decidedly moot whether the whole concept of gender has much in the way of any value at all, at least apart from drawing attention to those different sets of characteristics by sex -- some of which are more or less biologically determined, and not easily, or reasonably, modified.
Apropos of which, a rather brilliant essay at the New Yorker -- courtesy of a recent Substack post by Andrew Sullivan -- which underlines much of the above:
"Can Progressives Be Convinced That Genetics Matters?
The behavior geneticist Kathryn Paige Harden is waging a two-front campaign: on her left are those who assume that genes are irrelevant, on her right those who insist that they’re everything.
'Building a commitment to egalitarianism on our genetic uniformity is building a house on sand,' Harden writes."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters
I accept definition #3 in your original post. Gender is “3. Societal sex-based roles/expectations”. I think it’s a slippery slope to say that a person has a gender based on how well they conform to the average for their sex, and sliding down that slope has led us to where we are today with all the gender craziness. I also don’t think it’s meaningful. Are women, on average, shorter than men? Of course. Does that mean that a 6’2” woman is less of a woman than a 5’2” woman? Of course not. Should the 6’2” woman try to become shorter or appear shorter so that she conforms to the average for her sex? Of course not. Is she really a man? Of course not. Why would personality characteristics be any different? Some may be more common in men or women but...so what? By definition if a female has a certain characteristic it is a valid characteristic for a woman to have, even if it’s less common. You could even say that by definition it’s a feminine characteristic.
I may be misinterpreting but I feel like you’re taking the scenic route toward making some kind of anti-feminist argument here. If so, please get to the point.
I still assert that sex is a physical characteristic that people have. It’s not meaningful or useful to say that people have a second characteristic called gender. If I lived on a deserted island I’d still have physical characteristics like my height and eye color and I’d still have personality characteristics like being curious and prone to introspection. But I wouldn’t have any concept of gender if I wasn’t part of a society. It’s not a characteristic of a person.
All so very interesting. I just tried to comment on the PITT Substack; my comments were removed and I have a 24-hour-ban. So much for different points of view, especially if they come from an affirming and loving parent of a transgender child versus someone spouting off rage, denial, misinformation, and conspiracy theories.
There are some good points here. There are also assumptions made for thousands of people, past and present, who have been two-spirits. What is lacking here? The voices of those with actual lived experiences as transgender or non-binary individuals. You can’t dictate their inner life or journey. The science is incomplete. In the current atmosphere in which I fear for the actual safety of a beloved child, I wish more people not
in the LGBTQIA community would, with all due respect, just shut up and listen.
I am happy to hear other points of view, including yours. What do you think a "gender identity" is? And why would it necessitate medical interventions? While I can see a reason someone (preferably a mature adult who has lived in their sexed body for years w/o denial and found this, for whatever reason, intolerable) might want to live as the opposite sex if that suits their life better, my hope is that society will get to a point where nobody feels that they cannot express their true authentic self without pretending to be the opposite sex. This, rather than medically altering those who do not fit stereotypes or who feels uncomfortable with the roles they are expected to play, should be our goal. Further, I do not believe anyone would transition as a result of a "gender identity," particularly when it appears to be an undefined entity. Again, I ask you to please tell me what it is and why it requires medical interventions. While I do not pretend in any way to dictate or understand someone's inner thoughts, my own daughter, who I love more than words can say, has been unable to express her notion of a "gender identity" or why it requires her to medically alter her body. As to "non-binary," if you read that essay, my point is that just about everyone is "non-binary" in the sense of not being entirely masculine or feminine, and a claim by someone to be somehow outside of their biological sex (ie. not "male" or "female"), and exempt from whatever pressures any other person of their sex feels, simply makes no sense to me. Instead, I would rather someone simply say that they are "male" or "female," but that they don't adhere to gender stereotypes - and go from there. Two-spirit is an idea from another culture and I don't think it means the person is not "male" or "female," but just that they are in touch with both their feminine and their masculine side - something we should all strive for! Again, I welcome your comments and, as Frazier Crane would say, "I'm listening."
"The quick answers are: (1) Gender Identity isn’t anything at all; and (2) Gender Identity is important because it is used to justify body hatred, denial of physical reality, and serious, risky medical interventions in response to mental discomfort."
For something that "isn't anything at all", "gender identity" certainly seems to have committed any number of serious crimes ... 😉🙂
Not sure if you've read Stock's Material Girls, but ran across an article of hers, which you might be interested in, in Duke Law that addresses that "criminal" in some detail:
"The Importance of Referring to Human Sex in Language":
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol85/iss1/3/
Though she's a bit vague on what she means by the term, but I doubt she would say it is entirely "fictional", only that it denotes the psychological rather than the biological. Sort of where I think you're going off the rails, in this bit for example:
"The problem is that, if we divorce “gender” from biology and from stereotypes or societal expectations, there is really nothing left! What does it mean to think you are “male” or “female” if being “male” or “female” has nothing to do with your body or with stereotypes or other societal expectations?"
Gender is simply a range, a spectrum of feminine and masculine personality traits, roles, and behaviors. A "female gender identity" is an entirely different kettle of fish from a female sex -- which your examples of "feminine/female gender identities" joined at the hip with "male sex" illustrate.
I was speaking to the "Gender Identity" that is used as an excuse for chemical and surgical assaults on vulnerable individuals.
As you and I have discussed, if we want to use the term "gender identity" to refer to that complex and individualized set of feminine and masculine (as those terms are used in a particular society at a particular time) characteristics, preferences, and behaviors that is inherent in a given individual, I am fine with that.
However, that use of the term could never justify medical transition, except in a case where someone is at the extreme end of "masculine" or "feminine" AND one cannot accept being extremely gender non-conforming, AND society continues to be harsh about gender non-conformity. This would make it clear that the only justification for medical transition is to allow a very gender non-conforming individual to "fit in" in a society that is too harsh against those who don't "fit in." Society would be forced to admit that it is forcing these individuals to agree to assaults on their bodies to make them more acceptable to society - rather than that this is something an individual must do for their own purposes, having nothing to do with strict societal standards.
Personally, I believe that the genesis of medical transition was to bring very non-conforming individuals into alignment with societal expectations. I believe that we were heading in the (correct) direction of eliminating the need or desire for medical transition as we became more accepting of gender non-conformity and homosexuality. We then went completely off the rails, encouraging anyone who feels different or at odds with their sex for any reason, and at any age, to socially and, as soon as possible, medically alter their appearance and identity to that of the opposite sex. We tried to justify this movement with the use of the term "gender identity," but re-defining it to mean one's sense of one's "gender," a circular and, therefore, meaningless definition. It is that term that I am speaking to in this essay.
Sorry if it looked liked I had been trying to "bust your chops" on the issue -- not at all my intent as I very much appreciate that we're more or less on the same page on the sex-gender dichotomy. And particularly since this post of yours is from some 17 months ago -- lot of water under the bridge since then. 🙂
But it was kind of late when I posted my previous comment -- that's my defense Counselor, and the one I'm sticking with ... 🙂 -- and I didn't have a lot of time to do a proper review of your post here, or to address your recent comments on the topic. And I'd wanted to pass along Stock's article which goes into some detail, before going off the rails, on our discussions on workable and legal definitions for "man" and "woman", the latter in particular.
However, while I very much agree with you that "gender identity is important because it is (MIS-USED [my qualification]) to justify body hatred, ... [and criminally] risky medical interventions", I don't think the best way forward is, as you put it, "to let that phrase go". That someone misuses a tool -- and for criminal purposes -- is no justification to deprive others of more beneficial and legal uses. Better to "accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative" -- to coin a phrase. 🙂
The problem is that "gender identity" has acquired a great deal of currency and social relevance that tends to preclude its banning and anathematizing. For instance, I see a recent post by Kara Dansky which asserts Warren is "all in on 'gender identity' ..." which Warren's website more or less confirms:
https://karadansky.substack.com/p/elizabeth-warren-is-all-in-on-gender
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/lgbtq-equality
But I rather doubt she could say exactly what she means by "gender identity" or what it means to have a sex in the first place. Or has a clue about the problems that are caused by incomplete or inconsistent definitions for both.
Seems the best way forward is emphasize the more scientifically, biologically, and psychologically better definition and interpretation -- as you put it, "use the term 'gender identity' to refer to that complex and individualized set of feminine and masculine (as those terms are used in a particular society at a particular time) characteristics, preferences, and behaviors that is inherent in a given individual" -- whether they are the result of nature or nurture, or a combination thereof.
At least as a starting point, though I think you're muddying the waters a bit there. In particular, there's a difference between, on the one hand, taking a battery of tests and getting back the results that might, for example, say "agreeableness - feminine; neuroticism - masculine; extraversion - feminine; etc. etc.", and, on the other hand, having some subjective perceptions of which feminine and masculine traits "define me as a person" as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
Largely why I really don't see that, as you argue, "gender identity ... is a circular definition", particularly if one starts off with that dichotomy between the (somewhat) subjective "gender identity" and the more objective "gender" -- based, say, on those "Big Five personality traits", at least as a starting point.
Though that's not to say that circular definitions aren't characteristic of the whole transgender clusterfuck -- no wonder pretty much everyone is riding madly off in all directions. A classic case from Merriam Webster:
MW: "female:: having a gender identity that is the opposite of male"
MW: "male: having a gender identity that is the opposite of female"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female
"idiots" is probably being charitable.
And, rather sadly, Canada's own contributions from that bastion of the Enlightenment and the Defender of the Scientific Method, Statistics Canada:
Statistics Canada:
"Male gender: This category includes persons whose current gender was reported as male. This includes cisgender and transgender persons whose current gender was reported as male.
Female gender: This category includes persons whose current gender was reported as female. This includes cisgender and transgender persons whose current gender was reported as female."
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/concepts/consult-variables/gender
Idiots, squared. Whoever was responsible for that claptrap -- in both cases --should be fired, ridden out of town on a rail.
That's kind of the battle we're facing. And why I think it's important to be putting both gender and gender identity on something of more scientific and logical footing. "Mission Impossible"? 😉🙂
But briefly and somewhat en passant, you might have some interest in a recent debate featuring Colin Wright, described in some detail by Yassine Meskhout, another lawyer by trade:
"There Are No Primordial Definitions of Man/Woman
Language is made-up"
https://www.ymeskhout.com/p/there-are-no-primordial-definitions
Of particular note are several of our exchanges, this comment of his in particular 😉🙂:
YM: "My response to any kind of categorization question is always 'why does it matter?'. On the most narrowest of dimensions, I'm happy biting the 'babies are of neither sex' bullet."
https://www.ymeskhout.com/p/there-are-no-primordial-definitions/comment/58549772
My chops don't feel busted. :)
I think there are two almost entirely unrelated definitions at play here, and we don't want to confuse them. One is circularly defined, largely useless, and only important to the extent that it is "mis-used" (I like that characterization) to justify bodily harm and psychological torture. I agree with you that the other "gender identity," defined as the various feminine and masculine qualities that, in varying degrees, are inherent in a given individual, is useful and doesn't need to be dispensed with.
As for those definitions you quoted, they are ridiculous and I also agree that those who agreed to put these useless tautological definitions out in the world shouldn't be working at Merriam-Webster or Statistics Canada -although it seems that these institutions have gone off the rails in many ways.
Elizabeth Warren has also bought into the idiocy, which is truly disappointing because her economic knowledge and opinions are quite insightful. Oh well, I guess everyone has things they are smart about and things they are incredibly stupid about. Warren definitely lost my admiration when she showed her idiocy with respect to all things gender.
Meskhout isn't entirely wrong. As we strive to get accurate with our definitions, we have to keep in mind what we're trying to accomplish. I know you believe the definitions come first, and correct application will follow, and you may be right, but I still think we need to keep our societal goals in mind as we argue definitions.
"My chops don't feel busted. :)"
Whew! 🙂
"I think there are two almost entirely unrelated definitions at play here, and we don't want to confuse them."
Seems like a fair assessment. Intentional obfuscation by transgender ideologues and fellow travelers of one stripe or another. Largely why I objected to Wikipedia asserting that transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard had "transitioned to female":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/wikipedias-lysenkoism
Maybe transitioned to a female or feminine gender or "gender identity". But certainly not to the female sex.
"As we strive to get accurate with our definitions, we have to keep in mind what we're trying to accomplish."
Absolutely agree -- more or less in any case. 🙂 But what biologists are "trying to accomplish" with their definitions -- trying to understand the roots of common reproductive abilities across millions of species -- is very different from what society is trying to accomplish with their definitions -- largely to adjudicate access to toilets, change rooms and sports. Simply impossible for any one definition to do well in performing both tasks.
"I know you believe the definitions come first, and correct application will follow, and you may be right, but I still think we need to keep our societal goals in mind as we argue definitions."
Sure. But as something of a rhetorical question, do you think that biologists should be obliged to repudiate and abandon the standard biological definitions that have been published in reputable sources like the Oxford Dictionary of Biology?
https://x.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441
"Eppur si muove" -- and still, it moves ... 😉🙂
Those definitions are an intrinsic part of the warp and weft of biology. Trying to "adulterate", if not bastardize and corrupt those definitions seems little short of Lysenkoism -- the "deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable".
Short answer - No. I don't think biologists should abandon their collective knowledge or quest for accuracy in fashioning definitions for terms like "female" or "woman" or "sex," in an effort to satisfy some social goal. I don't think such abandonment will ultimately accomplish the goals they allegedly want to accomplish.
I believe that the societal issues at hand (e.g. do we divide sports or bathrooms, and, if so, why and who gets to be in each category of sport or bathrom) will be better served with scientists using their full knowledge and providing definitions for things that are as scientifically accurate as possible. Legislators should use both that scientific knowledge (deferring to scientists for this) and their common sense.
Unfortunately, I think both scientific knowledge and common sense have been corrupted as of late.
> "No. I don't think biologists should abandon their collective knowledge or quest for accuracy in fashioning definitions for terms like "female" or "woman" or "sex," in an effort to satisfy some social goal."
Good show. 👍🙂 Though the question was whether biologists should repudiate standard biological definitions published in places like the Oxford Dictionary of Biology. 😉🙂
> "I don't think such abandonment will ultimately accomplish the goals they allegedly want to accomplish."
Agreed. Though it is not mainstream biology, or at least the "hard core" of it, that is "abandoning" that collective knowledge, or the definitions that encapsulates it. It is various erstwhile reputable biological journals like Cell, Nature, and Scientific American -- with their endorsement of sex as a spectrum -- which are doing so. And as various so-called biologists and philosophers like Colin Wright and Alex Byrne are doing.
> "Legislators should use both that scientific knowledge (deferring to scientists for this) and their common sense."
"Aye, there's the rub." Exactly how is that to be done? Still think that you could make a worthwhile contribution by putting on your lawyer's hat and weighing-in on how to define "man" and "woman" in law.
> "Unfortunately, I think both scientific knowledge and common sense have been corrupted as of late."
Amen to that. Hardly any qualifications to that at all 🙂.
ICYMI, a decent article on that point from Jonathan Haidt:
"Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid:
It’s not just a phase.
The story of Babel is the best metaphor I have found for what happened to America in the 2010s, and for the fractured country we now inhabit. Something went terribly wrong, very suddenly. We are disoriented, unable to speak the same language or recognize the same truth. We are cut off from one another and from the past."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/
FYI https://substack.com/@planetfubar/note/c-17359961
Good point! Usually, I offer my clients a tree metaphor to explain sex and gender. Where roots represent biological sex and fruits represent gender - a system of beliefs of what is man and woman. You can get different apples - red, yellow, and white, and can artificially change their colour by injecting purple or black. We are all different men and women. But it's absurd and impossible to expect oranges from the apple tree.
Firstly: Thank you for this truly excellent thesis! I hope it is okay to share it far and wide and/or refer to it! Secondly: No, I don't have a "gender identity". Such a thing doesn't exist, I have been saying this for years, albeit less eloquently than this article. To me, the idea of a gender identity more and more is to be placed in the same psychological box as "HSP" and "INFJ" and even newspaper astrology, etc: attempts to describe and compartmentalize and thus oppress billions of individuals on very fishy and shallow grounds. A lot of these confused and insecure children and teenagers and even adults are: 1) homosexual; 2) neurodiverse; 3) mentally ill as a result of early childhood trauma (typically sexual trauma); and often all of these together. The medicalisation of these children, teenagers and adults goes hand in hand with the medical device industry & practise, and all forms of organ trade, we're seeing the same scandalous malpractice there. And possibly there is, among some (rich) members of (probably predominantly Western) society a science-fiction-like idea about modifying the human race. There are authors who are investigating this. Personally, all I know for sure: human tissue, organ(s), whatever piece that is removed from a human body not always is thrown away.