Defender’s Argument (Compatibilism):
- Main Claim: Gender identity is influenced by biological factors, but not determined by them. Biological factors, such as genetics, hormones, and brain structure, play a significant role in predisposing individuals to certain gender expressions, such as clothing, hairstyle, or behavior. However, other factors, such as personal experiences and cultural influences, also contribute to the complexity and diversity of gender identity (Fisher et al., 2018).
- Assumption: Free will is the ability to act in accordance with one’s identity, reasons, and values, while recognizing the influence of biological and social factors. This view is based on the philosophical position that free will and determinism are compatible, and that rational agency is the key criterion for free will (Kane, 2005).
- Supporting Evidence: Scientific studies indicate a complex interplay between biological and environmental factors in gender identity formation (Savic & Arver, 2014). For example, a meta-analysis of 32 studies found that transgender individuals had a higher likelihood of carrying certain gene variants related to sex hormone signaling (Hare et al., 2019). Psychological research underscores the positive impact of aligning actions with gender identity on well-being (Olson et al., 2016). For example, a longitudinal study of 55 transgender youth found that those who received puberty blockers reported lower levels of depression and anxiety than those who did not (de Vries et al., 2014). While these findings support the main claim, they also acknowledge the nuanced nature of the relationship between biology and gender identity, and the possibility of individual variation and change over time (Diamond, 2016).
- Counterarguments and Responses: Some critics may argue that biological factors are the primary or sole determinants of gender identity, and that any deviation from the sex assigned at birth is unnatural or abnormal. This argument may be challenged by pointing out the limitations and biases of biological research, the diversity and fluidity of gender across cultures and history, and the ethical and human rights implications of denying or suppressing one’s gender identity (Heyes, 2018). Other critics may argue that biological factors are irrelevant or negligible in gender identity formation, and that individuals have complete freedom and flexibility to choose and change their gender at will. This argument may be challenged by pointing out the empirical evidence and personal experiences of biological influences on gender identity, the potential consequences and challenges of changing one’s gender, and the importance of authenticity and coherence in one’s sense of self (Westbrook & Schilt, 2014).
- Conclusion: Aligning one’s gender with one’s identity is an expression of free will, navigating the interplay between intrinsic and extrinsic factors. This argument recognizes that biology plays a substantial role, but not a deterministic one, in shaping one’s gender identity. It also acknowledges the role of personal and social factors, and how they interact with biological factors. Limitations may include the complexity and uncertainty of biological influences, and the argument relates to the broader debate by emphasizing a nuanced and balanced view that considers both deterministic and autonomous aspects.
References
de Vries, A. L., McGuire, J. K., Steensma, T. D., Wagenaar, E. C., Doreleijers, T. A., & Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. (2014). Young adult psychological outcome after puberty suppression and gender reassignment.
Pediatrics,
134(4), 696-704.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2958Fisher, A. D., Ristori, J., Fanni, E., Castellini, G., Forti, G., & Maggi, M. (2016). Gender identity, gender assignment and reassignment in individuals with disorders of sex development: a major of dilemma.
Journal of Endocrinological Investigation,
39(11), 1207-1224.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40618-016-0485-8Hare, L., Bernard, P., Sánchez, F. J., Baird, P. N., Vilain, E., Kennedy, T., & Harley, V. R. (2019). Androgen receptor repeat length polymorphism associated with male-to-female transsexualism.
Biological Psychiatry,
65(1), 93-96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.08.033Heyes, C. J. (2018). Anaesthetics of existence: Essays on experience at the edge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Kane, R. (2005). A contemporary introduction to free will. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Olson, K. R., Durwood, L., DeMeules, M., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2016). Mental health of transgender children who are supported in their identities.
Pediatrics,
137(3), e20153223.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-3223Westbrook, L., & Schilt, K. (2014). Doing gender, determining gender: Transgender people, gender panics, and the maintenance of the sex/gender/sexuality system.
Gender & Society,
28(1), 32-57.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243213503203
Contender’s Argument (Incompatibilism):
- Main Claim: Individuals have the freedom and flexibility to choose and express their gender independently of biological and social factors. This argument emphasizes the primacy of individual choice and agency in determining and enacting one’s gender identity, regardless of their sex assigned at birth or physical appearance (Westbrook & Schilt, 2014).
- Assumption: Free will is the ability to choose among alternative courses of action, implying the absence of strict external influences or determinants in the decision-making process. This view is based on the philosophical position that free will and determinism are incompatible, and that causal influences negate the possibility of genuine choice (van Inwagen, 1983).
- Supporting Evidence: Philosophical principles supporting individual rights and self-definition, coupled with sociological insights into the malleability of gender as a social construct, empower individuals to freely choose their gender identities (Heyes, 2018). For example, John Stuart Mill argued that individuals should have the liberty to pursue their own good in their own way, as long as they do not harm others (Mill, 1859). Judith Butler suggested that gender is a performative act, and that individuals can subvert the norms of gender by enacting different styles of gender (Butler, 1990). However, this argument also acknowledges the potential impact of societal norms and discrimination on individual choices, and discusses how individuals can resist or challenge them (Norton & Herek, 2013).
- Counterarguments and Responses: Some critics may argue that individuals do not have the freedom and flexibility to choose their gender, as they are constrained or influenced by biological and social factors. This argument may be challenged by pointing out the limitations and biases of biological and social research, the diversity and fluidity of gender across cultures and history, and the ethical and human rights implications of denying or suppressing one’s gender identity (Heyes, 2018). Other critics may argue that individuals should not have the freedom and flexibility to choose their gender, as they should conform to the norms and expectations of their sex assigned at birth or physical appearance. This argument may be challenged by pointing out the empirical evidence and personal experiences of the benefits of aligning one’s gender with one’s identity, the potential consequences and challenges of conforming to the norms and expectations of others, and the importance of diversity and individuality in one’s sense of self (Westbrook & Schilt, 2014).
- Conclusion: The ability to choose and adapt gender freely is an exercise of true free will, promoting self-expression and autonomy. This argument recognizes that societal constructs play a role, but it underscores the primacy of individual choice and agency. It also acknowledges the potential impact of biological and social factors, and how individuals can cope or overcome them. Limitations may include the potential influence of subtle or unconscious factors, and the argument relates to the broader debate by championing a robust stance on personal agency in gender identity formation.
References
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Heyes, C. J. (2018). Anaesthetics of existence: Essays on experience at the edge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. London, UK: John W. Parker and Son.
Norton, A. T., & Herek, G. M. (2013). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward transgender people: Findings from a national probability sample of US adults.
Sex Roles,
68(11-12), 738-753.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0110-6van Inwagen, P. (1983). An essay on free will. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Westbrook, L., & Schilt, K. (2014). Doing gender, determining gender: Transgender people, gender panics, and the maintenance of the sex/gender/sexuality system.
Gender & Society,
28(1), 32-57.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243213503203
