Earlier this evening, I read a commentary by Steve QJ. He had engaged in a recent debate about the whole issue of sex versus gender with a trans activist. His bottom line conclusion was that, since the experience of gender is subjective, it has no objective reality and therefore no scientific validity.
It is not surprising that he would adopt this position since it is the one that is instinctive to most cis normative people. In turn, the gender critical crowd adopts a similar line of reasoning to discount the lived experiences of transgender people. The problem exists precisely because none of these groups have had that lived experience, and therefore no basis upon which to examine or even understand the authenticity of the claim one way or the other.
We have come along way in the last 50 years or so. Historically, mental health professionals adopted the position that being transgender (not to mention gay) was a psychological pathology that could be cured through therapeutic interventions like other mental health issues. To be fair to these practitioners, their baseline assumption was not unreasonable at the time in light of the lack of knowledge which existed regarding the nature of individuals being transgender.
After years of failed attempts to cure people of their transgender “disorder”, the mental health profession ultimately realized that certain individuals had genders that did not match their external sexual characteristics. It was not a mental health disorder, but a normal (if rare) difference in internal identity of the human species, most likely due to variations in the structure and biology of trans brains.
Part of the problem is that the objective proof of the reality of being transgender paradoxically exists in negative and subjective proofs. Attempts to treat being trans as a disorder and applying normal therapeutic methods does not work. Indeed, it often makes the patient worse, increasing their sense of worthlessness, defectiveness, and depression. When proven treatments are ineffective, it is convincing evidence that the condition has been misidentified.
On the other hand, helping affected individuals find ways to accept and live into their perceived gender using appropriate therapeutic, medical and surgical interventions, dramatically improves their subjective sense of well-being and completeness. The proof is in the results. How do we measure them? By the way that trans people feel who have been provided with therapeutically proven social, medical and surgical interventions. This very methodology, which the gender critical crowd discounts as lacking scientific validity because of its subjectiveness, is, in fact, what underpins the only effective treatments of transgender individuals. Objectively, the fact treated patients feel they work (subjectively) is strong evidence that the condition has been properly identified and understood.
This really should not be surprising. If a cis man or woman were to have their external sexual characteristics removed or replaced with those of their non birth sex, would their sense of being male or female fundamentally change? I think most people would say no. They would still consider themselves to be the biological sex and gender they had always identified with, in spite of the fact that the physical characteristics are now gone or transformed.
As you have stated (more eloquently than you may have assumed at first blush), you are a woman because you know you are. Ultimately, that is the bottom line truth and is scientifically as valid as any other explanation of gender. Indeed I would posit it is the only way to identify gender. Cis or trans, each of us are men or women because we just know we are. External biology may usually match, but not always. Medically, gender and sex are independent concepts.
