Gender Identity Versus Behavior

The recent hatemonger comparison of Caitlyn Jenner stating her “gender identity” and Rachel Dolezal stating a “racial identity” was used to attack transgender people.  The “usual suspect” armchair psychiatrists were quick to say that the transgenderism of Caitlyn Jenner was all in her head, that it was due to a mental disorder. I will leave it to the anthropologists and geneticists to deal with Rachel Dolezal and racial identity but I will deal with the attack on the legitimacy of Jenner’s transgenderism.

Rachel Dolezal

Now wait a minute! Identity is a psychiatric term. It is part of the psychiatry of Freud (1895-1939) and Erikson (1950-1987) and many schools of psychiatry. Erikson popularized the terms “identity” and “identity crisis.” Psychiatrists are the ones that invented the term and throw it around all the time. They are the ones who said if you do not identify with the appropriate parent at the right time, all sorts of complexes and personal disasters would ensue. So how can they be critical of their own psychiatric terms that they use constantly to explain various phenomena? Recently one of the primary hatemonger psychiatrists said that people start sharing an identity with terrorists before they join up. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot simultaneously trash the idea of identity and at the same time use the idea to explain things.

The term gender identity really got exposure with the diagnostic category of  “gender identity disorder.” It was coined by Richard Green (1974) and it appeared in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Version 3 in 1980.

The term was so disliked by transgender people and mental health professionals that it was deleted in DSM Version 5.

Although the psychiatrists originated the term “gender identity,” the term has migrated out of the therapeutic session into common parlance. Jenner either got the term from his shrink or from others who originally got it from psychiatrists. Everyone thinks they know what it means but it has no scientific definition or supporting evidence. It is one of those intervening variables that currently cannot be observed or measured. Maybe we can define it better as brain scanning technology and research improves.

In order to put transgenderism on scientific grounds I advocate use of a definition of transgenderism predicated on observable behavior. In spite of the risk of family, community and cultural rejection, if a person still presents in a gender behavior category that they were not assigned at birth then they are transgender. No one would willingly face such rejection if they were not transgender. However, I usually include expression of gender identity as weaker evidence because verbalizations are, after all, a form of behavior.  But talk is cheap compared to observable behavior.

Different types of behavioral evidence should have different strengths in terms of demonstrating transgenderism or scientific results. The strongest behavioral evidence is direct observation by an expert observer of transgender behavior (e.g. crossdressing, gender expression) in public. Even then, one has to be sure that the behavior is not for theatrical purposes (e.g. drag queen/king or political protest). Next in descending order of strength are reports by non-expert observers (medium high). Reports by people of their own transgender behavior have less strength (medium) and at the lowest strength level are expressions of gender identity (weak).

So what does the behavioral evidence tell us about whether or not Caitlyn’s transgenderism claim is valid? When she was interviewed, she reported her transgender behavior from an early age (medium strength). At the time, there were also reports by family and friends of seeing her feminine transgender expression. (medium high). Caitlyn articulated her gender identity as female rather than feminine (weak evidence) which is an understandable confusion given her inexperience. (Gender should be categorized as feminine or masculine; sex should be categorized as female or male.) Finally, Caitlyn came out for the entire world to see including expert observers (strong). The evidence from various sources is overwhelming that she is transgender. It is not in her head, the evidence is observable behavior. Transgenderism is real. We can see transgender behavior, touch it and measure it. We do not currently have such access to gender identity.

But there is more to the hatemonger comments about Jenner and other transgender people. Their implications are clear that there is no biological basis for transgender behavior and that transgenderism is a mental illness.

I have presented the evidence that transgenderism has a biological basis in many of my blog posts in TGForum, so I will not repeat it here.

With regard to mental illness, the hatemonger psychiatrists are in no position to make a diagnosis of mental illness in Jenner or anyone else that they have not examined. Notice that they always preface their remarks with something like “I have never examined this person, but. . . .” The “but” is always followed by an armchair diagnosis, in many cases a diagnosis of mental illness. It is not up to me to judge the ethics of such diagnoses; it is up to their own professional society, the American Psychiatric Association (APA). But as the APA Principles of Medical Ethics state:

On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.

Tags: featured, Identity, Transgender

Category: Transgender Body & Soul