The definitions provided—where XXX refers to "an individual's personal and social identity as male or female" and YYY refers to "the gender that a person feels internally and individually"—seem to originate from frameworks influenced by social constructionist theories of identity, psychological understandings of self-perception, and legal/policy definitions of gender and identity. Their conceptual origins can be traced to multiple fields, including feminist theory, sociology, psychology, and policy-making.
1. Social Constructionism and Gender Studies
- These definitions align with gender studies theories that distinguish between gender as a social construct and gender as an internal experience.
- The idea that gender has both an internal and external dimension became prominent in the late 20th century, particularly with Judith Butler's work on gender performativity (1990). Butler argued that gender is not an inherent identity but rather something performed and reinforced by societal norms.
- These definitions also resemble the separation between gender identity (how one sees oneself) and gender roles or gender expression (how one is seen and expected to behave in society).
2. Psychological Theories of Identity
- In psychology, particularly within developmental and clinical psychology, gender identity has been studied as an aspect of self-concept.
- The American Psychological Association (APA) and World Health Organization (WHO) frameworks on gender identity often distinguish between how a person internally identifies versus how they are externally recognised.
- This distinction has been important in gender dysphoria research and LGBTQ+ advocacy, particularly in making legal arguments for the recognition of trans and non-binary identities.
3. Legal and Policy Definitions
- Many government policies, legal documents, and international human rights frameworks have attempted to define gender identity in ways that acknowledge both personal self-identification and social/legal recognition.
- The Yogyakarta Principles (2006), which provide a framework for applying international human rights law to sexual orientation and gender identity, define gender identity as:
- The Australian Government’s guidelines on gender recognition use similar language to distinguish between gender identity as self-perceived and legal recognition of gender.
4. Application to Ethnicity and Disability
The same conceptual division—between internal identification and external recognition—has also been applied to ethnicity and disability:
Ethnicity
- Many multicultural policy frameworks use the distinction between self-identified ethnicity and external classification.
- In the Australian Census, for example, individuals can self-identify their ancestry, but this data is grouped into predefined categories by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).
- In social sciences, ethnicity has been described as both a lived identity (internal experience) and a social construct shaped by historical, legal, and political contexts.
Disability
- The medical model of disability classifies people based on diagnosed impairments, which is an external categorisation.
- The social model of disability, which has influenced Australian disability policy, argues that disability is an experience shaped by social barriers.
- Lived experience advocates distinguish between "being disabled" as a personal identity and "having a disability" as a legal or medical classification.
Where the Overlap Becomes Problematic
- If XXX is meant to include both personal identity and social recognition, then it already covers what YYY describes.
- The definitions seem to borrow from different disciplines (legal, psychological, and sociological) without fully distinguishing what happens when identity is contested—when a person’s self-perception does not align with how society or institutions categorise them.
- The ambiguity in these definitions reflects broader debates about whether identity is primarily self-determined or socially constructed.
The challenge in distinguishing between XXX and YYY becomes even more pronounced when these concepts are applied to ethnicity and disability in Australia. The intersection of personal identity, social recognition, and internal experience is highly complex in these contexts, as both ethnicity and disability involve self-perception, external categorisation, legal frameworks, and societal attitudes.
Application to Ethnicity in Australia
Ethnic identity in Australia is shaped by both self-identification and external classification, often influenced by government policies, migration history, and social structures.
- XXX in the context of ethnicity: If XXX refers to "an individual's personal and social identity", this means ethnicity is understood both in terms of how someone personally identifies (e.g., seeing themselves as Sudanese-Australian or Greek-Australian) and how they are socially recognised by others (e.g., classified in census categories, acknowledged in multicultural policies, or perceived based on racial appearance). Social identity in Australia is often shaped by historical migration patterns, government recognition of ethnic communities, and frameworks such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) classifications.
- YYY in the context of ethnicity: If YYY is defined as "the ethnicity that a person feels internally and individually", this suggests a purely personal and psychological dimension of ethnicity, separate from societal recognition. A person may feel a strong cultural connection to their ancestral homeland, despite being legally or socially classified differently in Australia. For instance, someone of Lebanese descent born in Australia may internally identify as Lebanese first, even if they are classified as ‘Australian’ in formal documentation. Alternatively, someone with a mixed heritage background may feel a stronger connection to one part of their ancestry over another, even if society labels them differently.
The problem here is that XXX already includes both personal and social aspects, making YYY either redundant or a subset of XXX. If XXX is meant to include external categorisation and YYY is purely about internal experience, then the distinction holds, but this needs to be made explicit. Otherwise, the definitions overlap and fail to offer clear differentiation.
Application to Disability in Australia
Disability identity in Australia is similarly shaped by personal experience, external classification, and social recognition. The distinction between an individual's self-perception and the way disability is classified and treated by society is crucial in understanding the lived experiences of disabled people.
- XXX in the context of disability: If XXX is "an individual's personal and social identity", then disability identity includes both self-identification as disabled and the ways in which society classifies and responds to disability. In Australia, government frameworks such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), and Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021-2031 shape the social recognition of disability. Someone may identify as disabled due to their personal experience of barriers, while also being recognised as disabled in legal and policy frameworks. However, this external recognition is not always aligned with personal identity—some people with chronic illness or neurodivergence may not see themselves as disabled, while others with an invisible disability may feel their identity is not acknowledged by society.
- YYY in the context of disability: If YYY is "the disability that a person feels internally and individually", this concept focuses entirely on self-perception, independent of government classification, medical diagnosis, or societal recognition. A person may internally identify as disabled based on lived experience, even if they do not meet formal criteria for disability services. Conversely, someone may reject the label of disability despite being formally recognised under the NDIS or other policies. This distinction is particularly relevant in Australia, where medical and bureaucratic definitions of disability do not always align with individual experiences—e.g., many Autistic adults identify as disabled due to systemic barriers, even if they do not meet NDIS eligibility criteria.
Challenges in Distinguishing the Two
The problem with these definitions is that XXX already encompasses both personal and social aspects, making it difficult to differentiate from YYY. Suppose XXX includes both self-identification and external recognition. In that case, YYY risks being redundant unless explicitly framed as a contrast between how society sees a person and how a person sees themselves.
For ethnicity and disability in Australia, a more useful approach would be to distinguish between external categorisation (legal, medical, governmental, or societal) and internal identity (lived experience, personal affiliation, or cultural belonging). Without this clarity, the distinction between XXX and YYY collapses, making the two concepts indistinguishable in practical application.
