Gender, Species and Body Integrity Identities, in Light of Human Cognition, Evolution and Societal Pressures

Cognitive Perspective

Gender and Species Identities

All non-human animals easily distinguish between members of the two sexes, as well as their and other species, through behavioral, odor, auditory and visual differences.

However, there is no reason to believe that any non-human animals possess any abilities for advanced abstract thought, such as self-awareness or ability to mentally categorize external objects.

Therefore, gender identity can be defined as conscious awareness (and acceptance) of the fact that one is of one sex and not the other. Similarly, ‘species identity’ can be defined as conscious awareness (and acceptance) of the fact that one is of a particular species and not another. (Species dysphoria is a psychological condition where the individual is aware but cannot accept the fact that they are human, and instead feels that he/she is/should be a particular non-human animal or even an imaginary creature/animal species [e.g. a mermaid or a dragon]).

Hence, it can be proposed that both gender identity and species identity stem from the possession of cognitive abilities of (1) self-awareness and (2) abstract categorization of external objects.

Consequently, it can be proposed that both gender identity and species identity first appeared at some point in human evolution, in those ancestors of modern humans who were the first to possess the two relevant cognitive abilities just described.

Body Integrity Identity

All non-human animals fail to ever show any dissatisfaction with their bodily structure or function.

Not surprisingly, there is no reason to believe that any non-human animals are capable of abstract awareness of their body, its structure or obvious functions.

Therefore, ‘body integrity identity’ can be defined as conscious awareness (and acceptance) of the fact that one has a body and that body has a certain structure and obvious functions. (Body integrity identity disorder is psychological condition where the individual is aware, but cannot accept the fact that their body has a certain structure or function, and instead feels that their body is/should be different [e.g. have only one arm, be blind, etc.]).

Hence, it can be proposed that ‘body integrity identity’ stems from the possession of cognitive abilities for abstract awareness of one’s body, its structure and obvious functions.

Consequently, it can be proposed that body integrity identity first appeared at some point in human evolution, in those ancestors of modern humans who were the first to possess the relevant cognitive abilities just described.

Societal Pressure Perspective

Many sources, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, which were motivated by a desire to lend support to contemporary left wing (e.g. feminist) and libertarian politics, instead proposed that people would not form gender identity in the absence of strong societal pressures to do so. Hence, from this perspective, gender identity is an acceptance and internalization of a gender role (boy/man or girl/woman, with all their attendant behaviors, thoughts and attitudes) assigned to the individual by society.

Following this line of thought, it can likewise be proposed that people would not form species identity in the absence of strong societal pressures to do so. So, from this perspective, species identity is an acceptance and internalization of the species role (i.e. ‘human’ with all its attendant behaviors, thoughts and attitudes) assigned to the people by society.

Finally, when it comes to ‘body integrity identity’, this ‘societal pressure’ perspective leads us to believe that people would not form body integrity identity in the absence of strong societal pressures to do so. So, from this perspective, body integrity identity is an acceptance and internalization of the ‘body integrity role’ (i.e. a set of ideas about how a human body should be structured and how it should function) assigned to the people by society.

While the just presented arguments may lead one to doubt that ‘species identity’ and ‘body integrity identity’ have anything in common with gender identity, such doubts are not warranted. In fact, when it comes to their corresponding psychological conditions/’disorders,’ a study by Gerbasi et al. (2008) shows that species dysphoria has a lot in common with gender dysphoria (a.k.a. gender identity disorder). While a study by Smith (2004) shows that the body integrity identity disorder also has a lot in common with gender dysphoria.

It is worth noting, that in contrast to the cognitive perspective proposed earlier, this ‘societal pressure’ perspective presupposes that both gender identity and species identity, while requiring self-awareness, neither depend on nor involve abstract self-categorization as belonging to any particular group; since acceptance and/or internalization of one’s role do not depend on who else is ‘playing it’. On the other hand, when it comes to body integrity identity, both the cognitive perspective, presented earlier, and this ‘societal pressure’ perspective, presuppose that body integrity identity requires abstract awareness of one’s body, its structure and obvious functions.

References

Gerbasi, K., Conway, S., Paolone, N., Privitera, A., Scaletta, L., Higner, J., & Bernstein, P. (2008). Furries from A to Z (Anthropomorphism to Zoomorphism). Society & Animals, 16(3), 197–222.

Smith, R. C. (2004). Amputee identity disorder and related paraphilias. Psychiatry, 3(8), 27–30.