[AGTRT-BEF97] The gender profile: ramification of gender identities within gender male and gender female

Jan Bergstra & Laurens Buijs
Amsterdam Gender Theory Research Team (AGTRT).

We are now working with the assumption that for each gender male, female and neutral there is a collection of gender identities belonging to that gender. We want to try to work out the consequences of this assumption in more detail. Unfortunately, this does not happen by itself.

Structure of this blog

1. Gender profile space, gender profiles, gender profile expressions and gender profile samples
2. Examples
3. How to proceed?
4. An example: the “most common” case of treatment for gender incongruence
5. Conclusion

1. Gender profile space, gender profiles, gender profile expressions and gender profile samples

Related to gender, we can name all kinds of characteristics that a person has or does not have. We list some of these, filled in for gender “male,” and corresponding elements are there for “female” and for “neutral.” The list is by no means exhaustive; if ABGT is added, for example, then additional elements of such a list arise.

• Z(m) stands for “with certainty man.”
• Zn(m) stands for “definitely not male.”
• A(m) stands for “ambivalent toward male or not male.” This is the same as the following conjunction: “not Z(m) and not Zn(m) and not G(m) and not Gn(m).”
• G(m) stands for feeling man (the deeper “sense” as intended by APA, see AGTRT-BDF68).
• Gn(m) stands for sense not man (the deeper “sense” as intended by APA).
• GE(m) stands for “male gender experience.”
• LG(m) stands for physical gender male.
• MG(m) stands for morphological gender male (or biological gender as assessed on a morphological basis).
• BGk(m) stands for biological gender male (assessed by karyotype),
• BGgg(m) stands for biological gender male (judged by the size of gonads and gametes).
• BGfmri(m) stands for biological gender male (assessed from fmri of the brain).
• Gexpression(m): male gender expression (including the use of male pronouns).

In probability theory, the collection of possible combinations of properties (for a given family of properties) is called an event space. Here a profile space is similarly created, where a profile becomes an assertion denoting a part of the profile space, or profile sample.

An element of the gender profile space we call a gender profile, a part of the gender profile space we call a gender profile sample. We can thus think of an assertion (expression, expression) about gender profiles as a gender profile sample. More precisely, a gender profile sample can be seen as the meaning of a gender profile expression. For example, the following assertion B:

• B = A(m) & A(v) & A(n) & MG(m) & BGk(m) & G(v)

B describes (the profiles of) those individuals P who consider themselves neither male nor female nor neutral (ambivalent to the choice between male and female or neutral), morphologically gender male, and also biologically gender male (according to their karyotype), but who, when asked, feel “essentially” (more) female (than male or neutral).

But the issue here now is not whether this profile expression B describes many people (or perhaps no one at all), the issue is the illustration of the expressiveness of formalism: B describes a conceivable profile sample whose relevance one can then investigate further.

The gender profile of a person includes the classification in terms of gender of relevant characteristics of a person. For example, “has male physical gender” is part of the gender profile.

We think of P’s gender identity as a special kind of gender profile expression for P. It is a gender profile expression that does not include the explicit physical characteristics. So not GE(m), MG(m), BGk(m) BGgg(m), BGfmro(m), and not GE(v), MG(v), BGk(v) BGgg(v), BGfmro(v), and also not GE(n), MG(n), BGk(n) BGgg(n), and BGfmro(n).

(It should be noted that BGgg(n) and BGfmri(n) may indicate empty profile samples, which requires further investigation).

A gender profile expression for a gender identity may include: Z(m), Zn(m), A(m), G(m), Gn(m), Gexpression(m), Z(v), Zn(v), A(v), G(v), Gn(v), Gexpression(v), Z(n), Zn(n), A(n), G(n), Gn(n), Gexpression(n).

In this way, we arrive at the following definition of gender identity:

• Given a gender profile expression B, the associated gender identity is the (logically speaking) strongest gender profile expression C stated in the primitives for gender identities (see above) that follows from B.

This may all seem overly complicated, but if you take a moment to look at it, you will see that we are simply following the most basic setup of probability theory, albeit that we do not yet want to deal with probabilities (in other words, we do not want to limit ourselves to a probability space with probabilities 0 and 1).

In ABGT, it expands the collection of traits that span the profile space to include aspects not addressed within FGT. But there is also a case for including formal gender: FG(m), FG(v) and FG(n) for formal gender male, female or neutral. We don’t do that in the examples below. But we do see that implicatures between gender profile expressions (or subset relations between gender profile samples) provide a language with which we can try to capture views such as essentialism and co-essentialsime.

For example, essentialism is the premise that the next implication is always valid (i.e., that is a prior restriction on the profile space):

• LG(m) => FG(m) and LG(v) => FG(v)

The TERF ideology (see AGTRT-BDF43) often adds:

• BGk(m) => LG(m), BGk(v) => LG(v)

Co-essentialism states that:

• G(m) => FG(m), G(v) => FG(v) and G(n) => FG(v)

Cameron Kirk-Gianinni’s “inclusive version” of co-essentialism (see AGTRT-BDF49), following Elizabeth Barnes, assumes weaker assumptions:

• G(m) & Z(m) => FG(m), G(v) & Z(v) => FG(v) and G(n) & Z(n) => FG(n)

There are also all sorts of non-controversial implications:

• Z(m) does not imply(Zn(m)).
• Z(v) does not imply(Zn(v)).
• Z(m) implies G(m).
• Zn(m) implies Gn(m).
• Z(v) implies G(v).
• Zn(v) implies Gn(v).

Working with gender profile expressions, rather than exclusively with (assumed as an otherwise undeveloped primitive concept) gender identities, has the advantage of allowing you to use conjunctions, disjunctions, negations, and implications (and this is not so obvious with gender identities without further structure to indicate them).

The gender identity (of P) then becomes a (true) assertion you can make about the gender profile space (of P). This description of gender identity is vague, in the sense that it leaves many possibilities open, for it all depends on the implications one wants to assume between the different gender profile expressions, but we want this precisely because elaboration of the concept of gender identity requires further research.

Here it does become clear that the notion of gender identity can depend on the richness of the language in which you describe the gender profile.

2. Examples

Possible gender profile samples include the following gender profile expressions:

• Z(m) & MG(m) & BGk(m) & BGgg(m) & BGfmri(m), (“ordinary” for a man),
• Z(v) & MG(v) & BGk(v) & BGgg(v) & BGfmri(v), (“just” for a woman),
• not(MG(m)) & BGk(m) & BGgg(m) & BGfmri(m), (exceptional/intersex),
• not(MG(v)) & BGk(v) & BGgg(v) & BGfmri(v), (exceptional/intersex),
• MG(m) & BGk(m) & BGgg(m) & BGfmri(m) & GE(m) & not(Z(m)) & not(G(m)) & not(Zn(v)) (“ordinary” case of a man unsure about his own gender identity),
• MG(m) & BGk(m) & BGgg(m) & BGfmri(m) & GE(m) & not(Z(m)) & not(G(m)) & G(v) not(Zn(v)) (“normal” case of an AMAB person who is no longer in doubt about their own gender identity and thus now has a transgender identity),
• non(MG(m)) & BGk(m) & BGgg(m) & BGfmri(m) & non(GE(m)) & non(Z(m)) & non(G(m)) & G(v) & GE(v) (“ordinary” case of an AMAB person after successful medical/hormonal transition from male to female, who has thereby acquired female formal gender in terms of FGT, which depending on the jurisdiction then also translates into legal female gender).

Depending on one’s concept of gender identity, gender identity can sometimes be assigned to a profile.

3. How to proceed?

At least three questions now present themselves:

1. What does classification in terms of gender look like when we approach the gender profile with the above richness of language (or expressiveness)?
2. Given such a classification what do the definitions of essentialism and co-essentialism look like?
3. Should we approach the matter differently and assume that essentialism and co-essentialism are characterized precisely by how one classifies different gender identities in terms of gender?

Take the gender identity G(m) & not(Z(m)) & not(Zn(v)) & not G(v). This can go two ways: classify as of male gender or as of neutral gender.

The essentialist will say: when in doubt neutral or well in this case neutral gender. The co-essentialist might say: a clear example of male gender.

We do not have a conclusive theory ready here. What we can do at this point is go back to the origins of gender theory, which at this point we then refer to as dealing with the phenomenon of gender incongruence, and that is with people who are not intersex or otherwise exceptional in a medical biological sense.

4. An example: the “most common” case of treatment for gender incongruence

The most common case of gender incongruence and subsequent (successful medical) treatment from the AMAB initial situation(assigned male at birth) can be seen as a series of stages each with a different description with an appropriate gender profile expression.

At birth P is diagnosed male gender (on grounds of morphology). This includes the following profile (or to be more precise, the following gender profile expression) (with classification male), which expresses that the newborn child would not yet have an awareness of gender (something unknown).

• MG(m) & BGk(m) & BGgg(m) & BGfmri(m) &
• not(GE(m)) & not(G(m)) & not(G(v)) & not(G(n))

P’s gender identity is undetermined right after P’s birth. But after say 15 years the situation has changed, P really doesn’t feel like a man, really not neutral but maybe (but not really yet) a woman and that produces the following GP expression (still with classification man):

• MG(m) & BGk(m) & BGgg(m) & BGfmri(m) &
• GE(m) & not(Z(m)) & not(G(m)) & not(G(v)) & not(Z(v)) & Gexpression(m)

Right now, P notes that there is a problem, and that it may be related to gender. P visits a gender clinic and is diagnosed with gender incongruence. As a first step, P is now going into social transition. That is, P adopts a female gender expression.

• MG(m) & BGk(m) & BGgg(m) & BGfmri(m) &
• GE(m) & not(Z(m)) & not(G(m)) & not(G(v)) & not(Z(v)) & Gexpression(v)

Another 5 years later, P is in transition and (preoperatively) has a female transgender identity with corresponding profile (with classification female):

• MG(m) & BGk(m) & BGgg(m) & BGfmri(m) &
• GE(m) & Zn(m)) & Zn(n) & G(v) & not(Z(v)) & Gexpression(v).

There is gender incongruence in this situation, and it is evidenced by the combination of GE(m) and G(v), see also AGTRT-BDF91.

Now P is ready for medically assisted transition (we assume that all goes well in this process) with the result that P has the following profile:

• MG(v) & BGk(m) & BGgg(m) & BGfmri(m) &
• GE(v) & Zn(m) & Zn(n) & not(G(m)) & not(G(n)) & G(v) & Gexpression(v).

Now it can happen that P is sure of her case (with characteristic Z(v)) and also becomes a woman legally:

• MG(v) & BGk(m) & BGgg(m) & BGfmri(m) &
• GE(v) & Zn(m) & Zn(n) & not(G(m)) & not(G(n)) & G(v) & Z(v) & Gexpression(v).

It is conceivable that some time later a further step toward formal gender neutrality will be taken:

• MG(v) & BGk(m) & BGgg(m) & BGfmri(m) &
• GE(v) & Zn(m) & Zn(v) & not(G(m)) & not(G(v)) & G(n) & Gexpression(n).

Conceivably, a second step of gender affirmation could then be applied (now toward neutral) and thus the female visible characteristics would thereby become less prominent:

• not(MG(m)) & not(MG(v)) & BGk(m) & BGgg(m) & BGfmri(m) &
• not(GE(m)) & not(GE(v)) & Zn(m) & Zn(v) & not(G(m)) & Gn(v) & GE(n) & G(n) & Gexpression(n).

Next, this person can be so sure of this case that Z(n) takes effect (and in a jurisdiction that allows the same, legally gender neutral can be obtained).

• not(MG(m)) & not(MG(v)) & BGk(m) & BGgg(m) & BGfmri(m) &
• not(GE(m)) & not(GE(v)) & Zn(m) & Zn(v) & not(G(m)) & Gn(v) & GE(n) & G(n) & Z(n) & Gexpression(n).

This is a conceivable end point. It should be noted that with this example we by no means want to claim gender transition can only occur in conjunction with medical interventions.

5. Conclusion

What do we gain from this degree of precision? It may help to better understand the fundamental conflict between essentialism and co-essentialism, and we hope it may also help to gain sharper insights into MotR options for gender theory. It can also help with concept engineering for formal gender, and thus the ICE method (see AGTRT-BDF56).