Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?
I've been interested in this little philosophical puzzle that has popped up in regards to trans ideology and politics. I think its going to go down as a classic. I'm going to break it down here and see what people think.
A few definitions first:
Sex - A species expressed reproductive role.
Gender - A cultural expectation of non-biological behavior in regards to an individual's sex
With that in mind, what is a trans x? First we need to define man and woman.
Man - adult human male by sex
Woman- adult human female by sex
But sometimes people want to claim that man and woman are 'roles'. What's a role? A gendered label. Most of the world does not view man and woman by gender, but by sex, so the default goes to sex. However, we can modify the term to indicate 'male by gender' or 'female by gender'.
An addition to the term of 'cis' indicates 'x by gender'. So a cisman is a 'male who expresses with male gender' A ciswoman is a 'female who expresses with female gender'.
Now we get to trans. A transman is a 'male who expresses with female gender'. A transwoman is 'a male who expresses with male gender'.
So are transwomen women? Are transwomen men? No. The terms man and woman indicate a person's age and sex, not gender. Are transwomen men who act with a female gender? Yes. Are transmen women who act with a male gender? Yes.
A few definitions first:
Sex - A species expressed reproductive role.
Gender - A cultural expectation of non-biological behavior in regards to an individual's sex
With that in mind, what is a trans x? First we need to define man and woman.
Man - adult human male by sex
Woman- adult human female by sex
But sometimes people want to claim that man and woman are 'roles'. What's a role? A gendered label. Most of the world does not view man and woman by gender, but by sex, so the default goes to sex. However, we can modify the term to indicate 'male by gender' or 'female by gender'.
An addition to the term of 'cis' indicates 'x by gender'. So a cisman is a 'male who expresses with male gender' A ciswoman is a 'female who expresses with female gender'.
Now we get to trans. A transman is a 'male who expresses with female gender'. A transwoman is 'a male who expresses with male gender'.
So are transwomen women? Are transwomen men? No. The terms man and woman indicate a person's age and sex, not gender. Are transwomen men who act with a female gender? Yes. Are transmen women who act with a male gender? Yes.
Comments (855)
-confused.
-joining in a fad.
-faking it in order to be in the spotlight, or any other gain.
-the product of minds warped by abuse, societal conditioning, or whatever other cause.
Sex as a species expressed reproductive role means that terms like "man" and "woman" are sexes, not genders.
"Man" and "woman" are like "bull" and "cow", "rooster" and "hen", "queen" and "drone" - sex as expressed by each species. So then what would be the labels we place on different genders?
Correct.
Quoting Harry Hindu
We use the modifiers trans and cis to denote gender. You can be a man, and also be a cisman or transman. "Man" denotes your sex, the modifiers denote you are talking about male gender.
Words can mean more than one thing. The word "man" can also mean "human", and as a verb it refers to a certain kind of behaviour, e.g. in the phrase "man up".
Of course, and this depends on context. I am noting that in the general context in regards to sex and gender, 'man' refers to a person's age and sex, not gender.
But you defined gender as a cultural expectation. This means that for gender to change, the cultural expectation needs to change, not a person's personal feelings.
No problem. I really wasn't sure what you were after. Sorry about that
Correct, gender is a culturally subjective expectation of the behavior that a person should do in regards to their sex. This differentiates from objective behavior in regards to one sex such as bodily functions. The subjective notion may be within an individual, a small group, a city, a country, or world context if possible.
For example, wearing a skirt in America is expected to be worn by females, not males. If a male wears a skirt, they are acting in a transgendered way. They understand the culture views this as clothing that is expected to be worn only by females, and as a man they actively choose to wear a skirt despite knowing this.
Contrast this with Scottland where men are expected to wear kilts, which is basically a skirt. Wearing one fits the cultural expectation of a man, and if a woman actively wore a kilt prior to the 1800's where it was only men, this would be seen as trasngendered within Scottland.
A word's meaning is determined by how its users use it. If a sufficient number of English speakers use the word "man" to refer to both trans men and cis men, fully recognising the biological differences between the two, then the word "man" refers to both sex and gender.
There's no divine dictionary that dictates what words mean.
Not a problem, Quoting Michael
Correct. But does it make sense to do so? First, we would still need a term that denotes that a person is male and adult. It makes more sense to create a new word to indicate a gendered adult male then repurpose a term that is used without issue.
The modifiers for cis and trans take the familiar term that refers to sex, but modify it to refer to gender. And I don't think anyone has a problem with that. We have clear vocabulary that everyone understands, and we have terms that are useful.
My question to you then is, "Why should we change the term man to mean gender instead of sex by default?"
Quoting Michael
Correct, but good vocabulary should be clear, unambiguous, and logical. It seems to me that changing the term man from a sex and age reference into a gender and age reference is not necessary as we have clear vocabulary that denotes gender and sex references already, and we would then need to come up with another word to reference the age and sex of a male.
No natural language is clear, unambiguous, and logical. Certainly not English. Maybe check out Loglan if that's your interest.
Quoting Philosophim
There's nothing about language that we should do; there's just what we actually do. And what we actually do is use the word "man" to refer also to transmen.
I said 'good' language. Of course we can have poor and confusing language. Are you advocating that's a good thing? Might as well throw away the field of philosophy then, as one of its primary purposes is to reason through clear and logical terms and ideas.
Quoting Michael
We should have clear language if we want clear communication between people. If I say, "Hops congaro wit nonk tugor", that is what I spoke. But can you understand me? Did it convey the idea accurately? That's the point of language. If you cannot convey a clear idea to another person that they can logically see, your language is poor.
Quoting Michael
This is a nonsense statement. This ignores the definitions I've given above and does not try to give a reason why your use of terms is logical or unambiguous. What does 'trans' refer to then? What does 'man' without the modifier refer to? A statement of insistence is not a statement of argument.
I disagree. Philosophy is often about unraveling statements and terms to get better clarity of definitions and what we can draw from them. "What is mind?" "What is good?" "What is knowledge?" "What is a man?" I do not see any reason why this is not a philosophical topic.
Because those questions have subjective answers and argumentative grounds. Biological issues are subject to experimental and empirical truths.
It doesn't ignore it. I am simply explaining the empirical fact that your definition is inconsistent with how English speakers actually use the words.
You can argue that some word shouldn't mean something, but that's not the same as arguing that it doesn't mean that thing.
Whether you like it or not, the words "man" and "woman" are used to refer also to transmen and transwomen.
In regards to sex, yes. In regards to gender, no.
Oh boy... we're differentiating sex from gender. I see.
Well, apologies for wasting your time. I hope you find your answers.
No, it is not an empirical fact that when people generally use the word man, that they are thinking it is equally as likely that it is an adult human female behaving like a man. When you read about a man in the paper, do you think they are male, or do you think they could be male or female? You have also not given me your definition of what a man is and what a trans man is. Nor have you answered what word we would use to replace 'man' for 'adult human male'. You are not discussing, you are insisting. Meaning, you are wrong.
Quoting Michael
I have argued both for why it is, and why it should be. All you have done is insist that it is without any reason. Maybe you do have one, but you have to bring it forward.
That is the modern day terminology in regards to transgender issues, yes. I note the definitions in the OP, do you disagree with them?
Yes. To me,men and women are sex.
And what you designated as gender could be termed as hormonal traits.
:100:
A related post from 2019 ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/336888
Yes, they are sex differentials. I amended gender to be more clear:
Gender - A cultural expectation of non-biological behavior in regards to an individual's sex
In other words, physical and biological aspects of one's sex are not cultural expectations of behavior. They are biological realities. There is no 'hormonal trait' which leads a woman to wear a dress and a man not to. Those are cultural expectations of non-biological behavior in reference to one's sex.
Much appreciated!
How is cultural expression "gender"? I think you coined the definition yourself.
If society can't force expectations on you, can you force definitions upon society?
I didn't say that.
Good question for clarification. There is a difference between being male and female, and how one acts culturally in regards to one's sex. One simple aspect is clothing.
For example, wearing a skirt in America is expected to be worn by females, not males. If a male wears a skirt, they are acting in a transgendered way. They understand the culture views this as clothing that is expected to be worn only by females, and as a man they actively choose to wear a skirt despite knowing this.
Contrast this with Scottland where men are expected to wear kilts, which is basically a skirt. Wearing one fits the cultural expectation of a man, and if a woman actively wore a kilt prior to the 1800's where it was only men, this would be seen as transgendered within Scottland.
There is nothing inherent in being male or female that would drive a man not to wear a skirt and a woman to wear one. Why the culture went that way is not the question here, but that it can. Things that are not in reference to one's sex are public actions and things that a person can do without it being a reference to their sex. For example, "Supermarket cashier". It is non-biological actions, roles, clothing and any other non-biological action that a society judges in regards to one's sex that is gender.
Yes, you logically said that. If 'man' was seen by the majority of people as purely a gendered term, not a reference to a person's sex, then logically a 'man' could be equally likely to be male or female. The fact that you imply that you don't do this, tells me that when you hear the term 'man', you normally think its a male. If you truly thought man was only gendered, you would not have protested my point.
No, I didn't. I said that the word "man" is used to refer to cis men and used to refer to trans men.
I don't agree with this view. I have individual freedom to wear what I want, unless I'm breaking laws or protocols. My gender is solely tied to my sex.
Quoting Philosophim
Culture is a social construct. Sex/gender is not. Don't let society label your sex, nor let yourself get fooled by yourself by confusing your traits to be your gender (sex).
And what does the word 'man' mean without those modifiers? What do those modifiers mean when they're added to the base word 'man'?
Gender is cultural. Meaning that if you understand the culture of a place, agree with that gendered culture, and purposefully act in a way that is against the gender of that that culture for your sex, and intentionally take the gender of the opposite sex, you are acting transgendered.
Obviously a person can believe that a man and a woman can wear a dress and it has nothing to do with their sex. However, the culture will. If you insist to the culture that wearing a dress has nothing to do with being a woman, then you are having a subjective conflict about gender. That is not transgender. Transgender is agreeing with a particular viewpoint about what non-biological behavior should be done in public by men and women, then purposefully doing behavior that is expected of the opposite sex, not yours.
Quoting Copernicus
According to gender theory gender is a social construct. What definition would you like to propose for gender instead? Why is that a better definition to use than the one's I've put above?
It's an umbrella term that includes cis men and trans men.
Quoting Philosophim
A cis man is someone whose sex is male and gender is male. A trans man is someone whose sex is female and gender is male.
No offense, but that's horseshit. And as a radical individualist, I don't believe in community or culture.
Quoting Philosophim
Transgender is having both male and female sexual parts in a single body (naturally or surgically).
Quoting Philosophim
SEX. Gender means Sex.
That is not an answer. If I asked, "What is a sheep?" and you replied, "Its an umbrella term that includes black and white sheep." you would think I wasn't thinking very logically or actively avoiding the question. Define the word man without reference to modifiers please.
It doesn’t have just one meaning. It can refer to sex or it can refer to gender. This isn’t to say that it is equally likely to refer to gender as sex.
You don't believe in 'following' community or culture. Obviously you believe community and culture exist. Gender according to gender theory is the cultural expectation of non-biological behavior of a sex within that culture or community. You do not have to follow or recognize the gender of that community or culture, but you should be able to recognize that communities and cultures have expectations of behavior of people within them. Expectations of behavior in regards to a person's sex are gender.
Quoting Copernicus
There is no definition of transgender that I am aware of that uses that definition. That's normally called intersex or hermaphrodism.
Quoting Copernicus
This is an older meaning of the term prior to gender theory. When talking about trans individuals, gender is defined as I've noted above. Transgendered individuals are not transsexual individuals. A transgendered individual acts and behaves as is expected of the opposite sex within that culture. If you have not been exposed to these definitions before, I can see how they can be confusing. If you wish to use sex and gender interchangeably to refer to sex, that's fine on a personal note. If you are communicating within the context of a transgendered individual, just understand gender is not the same as sex anymore.
Neither does sheep. You are still avoiding the question. Please give me a clear definition of man. If it has multiple meanings, explain what context is required for it to change meaning.
Yes, but I don't support the idea of unions, especially the involuntary ones. Same as the social contract.
Quoting Philosophim
That's the natural transgenderism.
Quoting Philosophim
Must be a pretty stupid theory coined by confused people.
Obviously if "man" is only about sex, trans men are not men. But this "if" is what is being debated, so you're just begging the question.
The debate has been going on for years, and you have made no attempt to research it or address the arguments that defend the notion that trans women are women etc., i.e., the sophisticated arguments which try to show that the terms "man" and "woman" are more complex than your snappy definition allows.
See for example the idea that "man" and "woman" are cluster concepts:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/
Your opinion is your own, I'm not here to argue for or against the validity of it. I'm simply assuming that if the definitions are true, can it be logically claims that a transman is a man? No.
If he has XY chromosomes, yes.
I'm not begging the question at all. Clearly defining terms then thinking if claims using those terms lead to logical outcomes is a normal discussion. You are very free to define 'man' in another way, you'll just need to argue why it is and if that definition makes sense in normal language use. If you want to argue a specific counter to the point I've made, feel free.
Quoting Jamal
Now this is a proper logical fallacy called Ad Hominem. You're attacking assumptions and qualifications about my character instead of addressing the points.
Quoting Jamal
Fantastic, but I am not here to debate with an entire wiki on sex and gender. Is there a specific argument you want to make that would counter what I've noted in the OP? Just because there are discussions about alternative definitions to man and woman does not mean that you can make the existential fallacy that they are correct in reference to the discussion I've started here.
Yes, in modern day separation of sex and gender, chromosomes indicate a person's sex. I don't think we're in overall disagreement Copernicus, but I think we're talking about two different definitions in regards to gender theory. You may want to check out gender theory before continuing so we're on the same page. I appreciate the discussion regardless!
That is a really stupid post.
Ha ha! You do realize that the person who first insults the other person in a normal discussion is the one who has no real answer right? Thank you for confirming that you cannot counter my point and only an insult of dislike can be lobbed my way.
Plenty can be lobbed your way. It's just not worth it. I have my sanity and peace of mind to preserve.
I suppose discussions on a philosophy board can be tiring and not worth it. And when one isn't able to argue one's points effectively, and realizes they are at risk to be proven wrong, it can affect one's sanity and peace of mind. Go watch a few shows of Friends on Netflix or something today and don't worry your silly little head over matters like this.
I'm trying to discuss this from a logical standpoint of vocabulary, not asking for a person's motivation for wanting one or the other. I'm sure that's another philosophical discussion that could be had, but I want to focus here on the logic of the terminology and use itself. Appreciate the contribution regardless NOS.
I answered your question.
Your opening post shows that you understand the distinction between sex and gender, given that you use the phrases "female who expresses with male gender" and "male who expresses with female gender".
I am explaining to you that the English word "man" can mean "a person whose biological sex is male" and it can mean "a person whose gender is male".
Despite your apparent suggestion that words should only mean one thing, they sometimes don't. Natural languages are messy. Accept it.
Yet we have, "be a man", "what a man", "what a woman".
Quoting Philosophim
The terms are as fluid as gender is supposed to be. They are a package, containing both sex and normative role. Which meaning is emphasized depends on context. And so the two meanings blur together in our minds.
Whether or not, I agree with your answer, in the past similar types of conclusions have led to threats of banning. I don’t think this question can be honestly discussed here on the forum.
Ok, this is the first time I've seen you try to define it explicitly. So we have two definitions for the word. Then to be clear, if I state, "A trans male is an adult female by sex that acts as a gendered male," you would have to agree that in this context, this is a correct statement.
You would also agree that if I said, "Man", and meant gender only, that saying, "A trans man is a man by gender" that still leaves out the question of sex. Because we have another phrase "Cis man". "A cis man is a man by gender". Do you see that without a reference to sex, the terms trans and cis are synonyms and meaningless?
Therefore trans and cis only make sense when noting a person's gender in relation to their sex. So "Trans men are men" and "Cis men are men" cannot have man being a gender context alone if the phrases are going to make any sense or have any logical distinction between them. Thus while perhaps there can be a context in which "Man" is a referent purely to gender, it cannot be so in the case of these phrases.
That being said, I also asked you what context is needed for man to mean sex versus man to mean gender. Further, in the case in which man is used as gender, what term do we use to identity adult male by sex to differentiate 'man by sex' vs 'man by gender'?
Right, but it doesn't mean two things at once in the same context. What context is it reasonable to use man as sex vs man as gender? Note my reply above where I note that 'man as gender' does not provide clear or meaningful information when used in regards to trans and cis.
I will have faith that a philosophy board will let people do philosophy.
That’s not always the case here, but so far I guess nobody’s complained.
My thinking has changed over the years. 50 years ago, I accepted the concepts of transsexualism as a valid explanation for a profound personal dissatisfaction with life as they had experienced it. As "trans ideology" has developed, I have no confidence that it is a valid concept.
Trans men and women are engaged in an elaborate "drag" performance. Usually, drag is performed on a stage of some sort, for a short period of time. Afterwards, the performer goes back to their customary style in life. Drag can be quite elaborate, or relatively simple. I can understand extending one's man/woman drag act into one's whole life, and announcing that one is now a woman or a man. I don't know why, but some people find the opposite sex's roles and ways of being far more attractive than their own sex's ways of being. BUT, the person performing a drag act, for 10 minutes or 10 years, remains the sex he or she was born with, and no amount of costuming, hair styling, cosmetics, surgery, hormones, occupational change, etc. can change that.
I don't want to suggest that there are all kinds of drag acts that everyone is engaged in. However, many people conduct themselves in roles which are quite at odds with their everyday life. Otherwise quite conventional people may be members of political groups whose programs are incompatible with their conventional life (whether that be far right or far left). Some people's sex lives are wildly inconsistent with the sort of life they lead during work hours. Some people's literary or musical preferences are a complete mis-match with their expected choices--75 year old women performing punk rock, for instance (an actual thing).
Fine. That's what makes life interesting and meaningful for people. And it is valid as long as their preferences are not claimed to make them "different kinds of people". In my own case, I could have pretended to be a member of a revolutionary cell, committed to violent regime change. I could have pretended to be an academic scholar, committed to (oh, some standard field of study... whatever). I could have pretended to be a radical sexual renegade, engaging in wild sexual activities. So, in my case, I was a peaceful leftist, kind of academically oriented but not an academic, and a conventionally promiscuous gay guy. I have led a sober, conventional life as a gay man. My "drag act" was very tame.
So yes, trans men and women are performing an extensive drag act. I am sure this view is rejected by trans people. But it isn't so unusual for ordinary men and women to occupy unconventional roles: women who drive heavy construction equipment; men who raise children by themselves; men who are nurses; women who are soldiers. They perform these opposite sex-roles without being confused about their own actual sex role.
While I do appreciate your weigh in, I'm trying to focus the discussion on the words and phrases themselves. Whether a person agrees with trans ideology or not should be irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This is an attempt to tackle the philosophical concept of stating "Transmen are men" and how we can interpret that to mean anything logical. Would you like to weigh in on that portion of the OP or counter some who are insisting that the OP is not correct?
Quoting Copernicus
This is clearly incorrect. The difference between male and female is a biological issue. The difference between man and woman is a social and linguistic one. This is evidenced by the fact that the definitions of man and woman have changed over the years. When I was young, you had to be 21 years old to be considered a man or a woman. That has been redefined so that 18-year-olds are now seen as such.
Yet what has stayed consistent is a reference to sex and age. What we consider the age range for an adult has changed, but not that we ever considered a man as 'a female'. If I read about men and women from 100 years ago, do you think, "They mean men by gender, it could just as easily be a female or male"? Of course not. The common understanding has been that 'men' are adult males.
And thus in regards to trans men, the trans modifies the discussion to mean "the gender of male", but does not claim the sex is male. Thus "trans men are men' is not true if man is being used as an indicator of sex. In the case of trans men are men in regards to gender, theres still the issue that if man is meant to be gendered, there's no way to differentiate between "Cis men are men". The only way to have a meaningful differentiation of the phrase is if 'man' by default refers to 'an adult human male' or by sex.
I wasn’t addressing the question of whether a trans man should be considered a man or a trans woman should be considered a woman. My comment only addressed the fact that the answers to the question are not primarily biological, but are rather social and linguistic.
Ah, in that context I agree 100%.
1) A man is a male person because they had an xy chromosome, testicles, a penis, and a prostate gland at birth. His mature reproductive sex role is to eject sperm during sexual intercourse.
2) A woman is a female person born with an xx chromosome, ovaries, a uterus, a vagina, fallopian tubes, a cervix, etc. Her reproductive role is to produce an egg for fertilization by sperm after sexual intercourse, and harbor the developing fetus for 9 months.
3) Men and women both have sex roles which can function separately from their reproductive roles, so that they can engage in sexual activities for the purpose of pleasure. Men and women can engage in solitary sexual stimulation for the purpose of pleasure, and they can engage in non-reproductive sexual activity with same-sex partners.
# 1 and # 2 provide the minimal definition of male and female. Humans share this definition with the at least all vertebrates, but with many invertebrates as well. Plants also have sexual characteristics.
Men are males and women are females. I hope no one heard it here first. Men and women have biologically driven sex roles, and socially / culturally driven gender roles, which are considerably more plastic than their actual sex roles. However, a female heavy equipment driver and a male nurse are not less woman and man because their occupation crosses gender roles. A woman can be the breadwinner in a family and a man can be the nurturing parent and home maker, again without violating the standard sex role. That said, a very large share of the world's population follows gender roles typical for men and women in their society.
For the vast majority of the world's population, genitals and genders match. Sometimes individuals opt to perform the opposite sex's gender role as "drag" theater. Drag acts may be remarkably entertaining and convincing, but at the end of the show, the man in a dress or the woman in a cowboy's outfit return to whatever their "day-time" gender role is.
So, Philosophim, is this the sort of content you were looking for?
Granted, some people think "man" and "woman" refer to stereotypical roles normally performed by one or the other gender. In their view, something is wrong with both the female truck driver and the male nurse. In Archie Bunker terms, the woman is a dyke and the man is a pansy. Still, it probably IS the case, that the woman driving the semi may be a little different; like maybe more mechanically oriented than the typical woman. And it may be that the male nurse is a more capable nurturer than many males, as well as having the technical skill to perform in a hospital setting.
However much some people may be confused by men and women working in the opposite gender's field, my guess is that their actual sex role performance is completely conventional.
Sometimes people who become trans go off to another city and start over where they can be taken as their new gender. Still, sooner or later, they have to reveal to prospective partners that they're trans, and it's not a small bump in the relationship road.
So when we say that a transwoman is a woman, there's information we're leaving out. Really, a transwoman is a transwoman.
Not quite. A little too in depth for what was needed here I believe. I'm just approaching the phrasing and noting that if we define sex and gender seperately, it still doesn't make sense to say a 'transman is a man' as defining man as 'male gender' doesn't even lead to a useful sentence. This seems to be a much more in depth criticism of sex, gender, and transgender than I am intending here.
To hell with it, then.
Not everyone uses it that way. And since there is in fact no divine dictionary, nothing is set in stone. And so the battle for the meaning of a word is ongoing.
And it's not about how many people use a word to mean something in particular; it's about how powerful those who use it in that way are.
A man wearing a skirt does not mean they are being transgendered. It means that wearing a skirt is now gender-neutral.
Just as in the 80s with all the hair bands, MEN sported long hair, make-up and earrings. No one called them transgendered. They did not identify as transgendered. Sure much of society made a stink about it but eventually the EXPECTATIONS changed to where having long hair, wearing make-up and earrings is not longer a part of gender (no longer considered feminine).
Gender neutral means that we stop having these expectations of the sexes as opposed to transgenderism that amplifies the expectations to the point of being sexist.
Well, that's the debate. 'We" don't use it consistently. Some don't call transmen "men," but some do. We speak different languages in that regard. Then the question becomes who's right, which changes the debate into one of prescriptive and not descriptive language, moving from allowing varying usages to requiring certain usages.
Should someone call a trasman a woman or a transman, the objection isn't simply one of misuse (like if I called a spider an insect and not an arachnid), but it's one of ethical impropriety.
To be fully objective, it's a biological man who identifies and presents as a biologucal woman. Your definition suggests a third gender. Mine is silent to that because that is disputed.
A clarification. Crossing the gender line is a transgendered act. This is independent of one's own viewpoint. If one purposefully commits a transgendered act, knows and accepts that the action belongs to the gender of the opposite sex, they are purposefully being transgendered. If a person commits a transgendered act, but doesn't accept that the action belongs to a gender, then they are being gender neutral.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Gender is a fine line between expectations and sexism. Gender is mostly in the realm of pre-judgement, or prejudice. Healthy gender is typically a one step away from biological differences. Unhealthy gender is farther away from biological differences and is used for control. This is what we would call sexism.
That is one aspect for sure. But another aspect is the usefulness, reasonableness, and ease of use of the term. If it is reasonable, useful, and easy to change the term's meaning, people will. My point in the OP is that the term man meaning 'adult male' not only is historically the correct use, it is reasonable, useful, and easy to use. Whereas it may be that in certain contexts man can mean, 'male gender', in the general phrase of 'transgender men are men', the context of 'male gender' for man leads to unclear, illogical, and hard to use language.
Quoting Hanover
The OP is not an argument of ethical impropriety as I note in my reply here to Baker. Its simply poor grammer, does not convey a clear idea, and is ultimately inferior to using man as 'adult male' for the reasons I've cited in the OP.
I believe his definition implied a tautology. "A trans man is an adult female that purposefully acts in the gendered way society expects of an adult male.' = itself
Only if one is in some position of power or a member of an elite. Like there are photos on the internet of some fancy banker who is evidently a man and goes to work in a skirt and high heels; or some male members of the elite who wear high-end fashion skirts.
But if an ordinary man were to wear an ordinary skirt, it would be just foolish, inappropriate, certainly not gender-neutral.
Things that are okay for the upper class are not automatically okay for everyone.
Heh, we used to have a moderator who warned he would ban anyone who said what you just said, as if that was hate speech or something. I guess times have changed.
I don't think so.
Actually, yes.
So I actually have to ask you to point me to where it was said, or to explain what was said? Because I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
You really want me to look it up?
It's not outrageous to ask someone on a philosophy forum to back up an eccentric and implausible statement.
Did you know we had a longstanding member who became trans and subsequently committed suicide?
My God frank, you are mightily obnoxious today. I am very well aware of the opinions of the moderator in question. But Hanover didn't deny that transwomen are women, not did his statement imply it.
In any case, saying so on its own isn't grounds for a ban, but it can be a red flag, i.e., it might be an indication of bigotry so would warrant a closer look.
Quoting Jamal
He most certainly did.
Lets be polite please. Also lets stay on topic with the language argument of the OP please.
Quoting Jamal
Jamal, you are adding personal attacks and not encouraging people to remain on topic despite being an administrator. This topic obviously is highly emotional for you. If you cannot control that, please refrain from posting in the topic.
I'll post in this topic as much as I want. That said, since it became clear yesterday (or whenever it was) that you were, in an arrogant and ridiculous manner, refusing to think through or face up to some important challenges to your obviously fallacious OP, I have avoided the discussion and intend to stay out of it. My discussion with @frank was off-topic, and just a short diversion. I shall leave you to do your thing.
Quoting Jamal
No actually. I'm going to reach out to some other moderators and request that you not.
Quoting Jamal
Remember this one sentence post you did yesterday? If anyone on this forum posted such a troll response and I forwarded it up to a moderator, they would be warned. You are an administrator and you need to act as the example that other posters are supposed to follow. You are the one who first introduced insults and personal attacks against posters in this topic, namely me. It is your responsibility to be BETTER than a troll, and you lapsed in judgement here.
I'm in a leadership position in my job. If I had someone call me out for breaking my own rules, I would apologize and tell them I wouldn't do it again. Not tell them, "I do what I want" right? Lets see if you have what it takes in your next post. Show the forum what kind of person you are.
This is very childish. You actually chose to ignore these comments:
Quoting Jamal
Quoting Jamal
I suggest you carry on discussing your OP, because I won't be posting in this discussion again.
Fantastic, thank you.
If transwomen are women or transmen are men just because of cultural or habitual identity, does carrying a gun or shooting down schools make a Norwegian an American, or does loving KFC chicken make a caucasian man an African American, regardless of ethnicity or nationality?
Because it's pretty much stereotyping. We're stereotyping sexes here.
That's not the argument he was making. He was noting that the term 'man' may rely on biology, but it is not a fixed biological definition like 'spleen' for example. Since a man is 'an adult male', the definition of adult can change based on the culture. He was not arguing against the point I was making that we use man to reference a biological male, or indicating we should change it to mean a gendered one. He really wasn't addressing the OP, just noting that 'male' is a strict biolological referent while 'man' is a definition that can change due to the addition of the socially constructed identity of 'adult'.
I didn't counter him. I responded to the fact he presented.
Ah fair. My apologies, I'm just trying to clear up the vocabulary. I'll let TClark respond.
I think you're just misreading my comment and not keeping it contextualized. My comment was responsive to yours, which started off with the word "really" as if to imply you were offering a moment of true objectivity. I pointed out your comment included certain assumptions, namely of a third gender, which was specifically the topic of debate.
I offered no opinion on the subject other than to say that you offered an opinion on the subject, which may or may not itself be correct, which means your use of the word "really" did nothing other than to assert you could see it more clearly where others couldn't.
Then you suggested we've banned people for such commentary, resulting in whatever just followed, which really is not helpful, considering it incorrectly asserts inconsistency on the mod team and sends the message to others, to the extent they listen to you, that we will not tolerate any opinion that even subtly questions mainstream liberal progressive views on trassexual speech or categories.
Worst. Argument. Ever.
Quoting Hanover
My point was that meaning is found in use, which is why I told a story about a particular case. I didn't claim to know something about it that isn't known to us all, and I don't even know what a third gender is.
So I see that you do believe a transgender woman is rightly called a woman. Thanks for the clarification.
Quoting Hanover
I correctly asserted that in the past a moderator stated that he would ban people for disagreeing that transgender woman is a woman. That's a fact. I misunderstood your comment to be saying that a transgender woman should rightly be called a biological male. My point was that attitudes have changed drastically in a short amount of time.
Does anybody else want to vomit all over frank? This is the day for it.
I think in the interests of being on scope with the OP, we shouldn't call out moderators or accuse the site of being overly restrictive in the past without a citation and context. Today I'm able to post a discussion about the question of the phrase 'trans x is x' without any threat of banning or moderation. That's a credit to the site and the people who run it.
Frank, do you have any criticism or addition to the OP's argument? I promise I won't vomit all over you. :)
My take is that 'transgender' needs to be read prima facie. transgender. In this way, we simply carve sex off from gender. They are related in many ways (even on relatively flimsy ideological takes) but are clearly, imo different things. Again, even on ideological grounds (one example is the scientifically inaccurate claim that there are some points other than male and female on a sex spectrum for humans that doesn't cause a link between sex and gender to emerge).
Males can never become pregnant. But females can. So if males(sex) can be women(gender), we don't run into a contradiction until we conflate sex and gender. But it would seem to me males cannot be female. So if you hold anything essentially male or female to constitute 'man' or 'woman' then that's an issue for your terminology.
There are other comments to make about merits and the continuing effects of policy, but I think this is a non-problematic way to think of it intellectually. It seems perhaps people such as Jamal are not really in a position to make comments on this subject, if unable to stray into wanton disregard for reason, civility and differing views.
My point is that the contexts in which we would say a transwoman is a woman are usually political, and that scene in presently in flux.
Nice to have you back, dude.
This is the OP's take as well.
Quoting AmadeusD
Correct and in agreement with the OP if man is taken as pointing out the sex of an individual, not 'man as gender'.
The alternative that the transgender community proposes is that 'trangender men are men' is more tautological in the fact that they say 'man' in this instance refers to 'male gender', not 'male sex'.
The question then is, "If 'man' by default without modificaiton is defined as 'male gender' and not 'male sex' is this a clear linguistic phrase that makes logical sense and that we should switch to?" The answer is no. There are already modifiers to 'man' that switch it from 'sex' to 'gender'. Cis and trans. If 'male' is defaulted to 'male gender', then the terms cis and trans no longer have any meaning.
"Cis men are men and trans men are men" conveys no pertinent or useful information in this case, and trans and cis would effectively be synonyms. Cis and trans only have a differential when referring to gender in relation to the sex of the individual. When saying cis man we have to note the full definition of, "A man by sex who acts as a male by gender"
If male defaults to sex, there is no additional word needed to correctly communicate the phrase 'transgender men are men'. If it defaults to gender however, we need some new word or addendum that indicates we are comparing sex and gender. Since we already have a perfectly good word, "male" that denotes sex, and a man is 'an adult male', we are simply overcomplicating the language.
So the clearest and most logical use of the word 'man' in relation to the term trans man, is 'adult human male by sex', not 'by gender'.
I am looking at is a linguistic argument. Does it make sense to say the phrase, 'trans men are men' and change 'man' in the second reference to indicate gender and not sex? No. I find the phrasing a great philosophical word play to analyze.
Your argument implies the difference between a Norwegian and an American is biological.
Social realism holds that a social fact (like money) gains its meaning through social acceptance (referred to as "anchoring") and the existence of certain metaphysical facts (referred to as "grounding"). So money has value because it is anchored in laws, rules, beliefs, and other culturally relativistic ways and it is then anchored in an actual thing, like paper and ink.
What this means is that the entirety of that dollar bill's value and meaning is dependant upon social rules and then those rules are designated to an actual thing.
Your question asks "what anchors a man?" by pointing out it can be anything and then you provide absurd suggestions. You are correct in the sense that society could make "man" mean whatever we want, but not correct in the sense that social facts are anchored only in whim and in constant flux to eliminate any stable meaning at all. As with money, it's value and how it works could change, but society has imposed laws, customs, and other mechanisms to stabilize it. Money today can be expected to be money tomorrow, but not be unchanged forever.
But (big but), when it does change it's anchoring, expect massive social fallout during the transition (pun intended).
The debate then becomes what do we ground "manness" to? Do we ground it only upon biological entities of certain makeup, or do we ground it upon certain entities of psychological makeup? That is the debate, but keep in mind that it is your anchoring that determines your grounding, but no one suggests the grounded entity metaphysically changes based upon what it is anchored to it.
Where this differs from a pure social constructivism is that it holds gender real. That is, a man isn't just a social construct or linguistic tool, but a real thing under certain conditions.
It also denies essentialism, that man is a natural fixed entity.
But don't misunderstand any of this to suggest a winner in the transsexual debate because this is purely abstract philosophizing. If you hold that what is a man is socially anchored in the ability to impregnate a woman, having certain legal documents, and having certain genitalia
and you ground those traits to only XY humans, then you have a real man only under those criteria.
By the same token, you have a real female if your anchoring relies only upon psychological belief of the person. However, for that anchoring to count, social acceptance of that anchor must exist (which is absent in your counter examples). But, should being an American one day be socially determined by gun ownership, then that will one day be so.
So, the question becomes whether gender anchoring is changing, and the answer is that it is for some but not others. That is a social battle, with lines on both sides, seen as a matter of civil rights by some (comparing it to a time when all ethnicities weren't thought fully "human") and by others as a clear, obvious historical designation being altered only to satisfy personal psychological issues.
But, to the point of social realism, whatever the anchors and whatever the grounding, the man or woman is a real man or real woman at the conclusion.
Are you commenting to me or @Copernicus? I said that the difference between male and female is a biological one, but that the difference between man and woman is a social and linguistic one. I can’t tell whether you’re agreeing with that or disagreeing. Whichever, you certainly are taking more words to do it than I did.
Whom am I stereotyping when I say the distinction between male and female is biological, but the distinction between man and woman is social and linguistic.
Correct. To assist for Copernicus, "You can call something whatever you want, it doesn't change the reality of what it is."
Quoting Hanover
Great explanation. The goal of the OP here is not to address the social aspect of the man and trans. Its addressing what makes most logical sense if one is to phrase the words into the sentence, "Trans men are men." I'm viewing it as a puzzle of wordplay, and what makes most sense given the phrasing. It is instantly erased if someone states, "Trans men are females who act in as the gender assigned to males", but it is the insistence of the trans activism community in phrasing it exactly as "Trans women are women" that interests me. If we remove any ulterior motive for wanting to do so, I simply find the grammer inadequate and flawed if one insists that 'man' in this situation should only refer to gender.
Quoting Hanover
To clarify on the OP, this is more, "Is it logical for it to change from a grammar and definition standpoint." No, not really. And if it doesn't make any sense to by grammar, then we can assume its intentionally crafted for an emotional outcome. Considering I've been attempting to make the conversation about grammer and everyone makes it about something else, this shows its not really a problem of grammar. Any ideology that insists on poor grammer and ambiguous definitions for its ideology is essentially circumspect. Its very similar to religious arguments about God that use ambiguous terms and phrasing that must be repeated as truth.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, I might make a topic on this idea later. I've never understood the idea that changing a word to mean gender instead of sex is some type of civil right. I can see debating about letting a trans person into a cross sex space as a right, but definitions of words themselves are not rights nor should enter into moral debates. Words are about conveying ideas accurately and clearly. Anyone who wishes to muddy the waters is trying to lie, obfuscate, and push an outcome a person would not agree to if the idea was clear.
Quoting Hanover
Correct me if I'm wrong in your intent, but I think you're trying to convey that no matter the label of a man or woman society chooses, your existence doesn't change. There is no 'real man' as a definition apart from social construction, there is only the existence of an individual no matter what society labels them.
If I'm following, your approach is one of conventionalism, just trying to find the conventional use of the term without regard to the social implications attached because you think those implications ought be irrelevant. That is, there's an obvious difference between cis and trans men, so why blur that distinction with a single term of "man."? The answer you suggest for why people blur that distinction is for improper political purposes to advance an agenda, without regard to just objectively providing conventional use of words. It should just be about grammar you submit.
What I'm getting at is that social rules have ontological impact. Money isn't just paper due to the fact we (society) attribute meaning to it and that meaning attributed to it is real. A dollar bill is intrinsically different than a counterfeit due to what we make it.
The same holds true for all entities in a society. This means that society can (without violating a holy decree) ascribe the necessary requirements to a biological male and a biological female such that both are really, truly both men. That would require a different set of gender rules than what were traditionally used, but if we anchor gender in psychological belief and ground it in people who have that belief, then we have real men and women.
But as I said, I don't suggest society has changed its anchoring to the extent the left thinks it has, nor do I argue there's a particular need for it, nor do I concede there's an altruistic, non-agenda based reason for it, which I do think aligns with your comments. I remain skeptical in that regard because this appears as much a left/right power struggle as much as anything to me, particularly in light of the microscopic sized populations directly impacted.
If also add that if we change our anchoring of gender, we're not required to leave remnants, but the entirety of the entity can be recategorized. This means that just because we once allowed women as once defined to compete athletically with other women, that doesn't mean that social norm must remain immutable. We would simply have sport divided not upon gender, but upon biology, if that distinction is felt by society as needing to be preserved post definitional revolution.
But, to the point, a beaver pelt can be money if anchored by societal rules to make it so, and it literally changes what that beaver pelt is. And a Confederate dollar lost its meaning as currency once the Union prevailed. And from there draws the analogy.
EDIT: I think this tracks Searle's views on social constructs as well as Epstein's (the Ant Trap) more so with its claim of ontological realism arising from social designations. I point this out for those who might have a better understanding of me of that.
I mean you said my comments were ban worthy and when asked why you double downed but didn't clarify, and you wonder why no love? Anyway consider it hugged out, so now I can get back to my carrying on and on about social ontology, which is really all I'm trying to sort out.
I'm talking to myself. Butt out.
For the purposes of this discussion, yes.
Quoting Hanover
True, but does that apply to speech? Let me give you another example. There is a religion that is oppressed in society for the longest time. Eventually the society gives freedom of religion. People are now free to believe what they want. The members of this religion begin to ask for more. "You must now claim God is real. This is because despite giving us legal freedom, people don't believe that God is real. This is causing them to still discriminate against us and say we are delusional."
"But lo", some of the members of society say, "We know that God is a construct of the mind, not reality."
"You are merely asserting that God is not real to assert control over us despite us being legally recognized as having the right to worship and declare we believe God is real. Because God is simply the advent of creation, we will simply note that if you believe in the Big Bang, you believe that is "God" We will convert the people emotionally to the word "God" so that way they give us what we want and treat us with respect.".
And so it was decreed in this society that not only could this religion now worship without oppression, the rest of society needed to use their words and phrases to not offend them and make up for all the harm that had been done to them over the years. To utter, "God is not real" would result in banning, job loss, social shaming, and accusations of a person being bigoted. All of this was done in the name of good, of making sure the oppressed minority would finally have the respect and acceptance of its belief not only allowed, but forcefully accepted by everyone else.
If you wish to persuade someone that they should change their view of things, you can either try to manipulate them through language and rationalization, or use rationality. Rationality of course is often times crude, painful, doesn't respect social norms, and might end up in a result that people do not want. But isn't that what the goal of philosophy is? To challenge the church? Our notions of knowledge? To question if a transwoman is a woman?
Quoting Hanover
Of course society can, just like they can get you to say, "If you believe in the big bang, then you believe in God." But is that what society should do? Creating a term of male and female as both 'men' seems to remove specificity and clarity to the language, not add to it. And that is the point of language. Not moral or social change. The point of language is the clear communication of ideas. And to me anyone who interferes with that is attempting to control how other people think. And I think an undebatable civil right is the ability to be able to think and speak as you wish.
Quoting Hanover
By sex. It was never divided by gender. And the transgender community knew this. They wanted to redefine it so they could get in because the real goal was never to recognized as 'the gender' of another sex, but recognized as the other sex itself. When JK Rowling commented that she accepted transgender people but she thought sex separated spaces should remain sex separated, she got the pushback that she did.
Its the game. To get you to say they are the opposite sex without saying they're the opposite sex. This is why there's the need to get people to repeat the mantra, "Trans women are women". They want you to view them as the opposite sex without saying they are. Otherwise they would simply go, "Oh, you're right, I guess a woman is by sex, and we're really one sex just taking on the gender of the opposite sex. We don't mind you pointing out this fact at all." The problem isn't that the word woman means sex. Its that they need you to say it so they can get you to think they are, but they know people will push back if the word woman is explicitly seen as sex. Gender is used for good ol' equivalency fallacy here.
That tells you I don't take your logical conclusion in hand.
The use of 'gender' has its place and obviously describes something other than Sex. They can be totally divorced and useful, individually, when that's the case.
You raise the very good point that the use of 'man' and 'woman' is then fraught. Fine. It need not be: man and woman are 'adult' genders (akin to boy and girl) and describe cluster types of behaviour. Male and female applies to all, at any stage, and describes something non-behavioural.
The problem I see is that that requires that gender is a social construct. If gender is a social construct, you, personally, cannot choose your gender.
And I think anyone running the line that you can be born in the wrong body may not require to be taken seriously by adults.
I didn't say it's your fault. I just reacted to the facts you presented.
This is a pet peeve for me. Though people may use the word "construct" to deny the reality of a thing, that's not the philosophical meaning of the word. A constructivist's complaint about realism is that the realist is reifiying something that actually exists as a million diverse interactions between people.
A common example from political philosophy is the idea of global influence. A realist sees the USA as an agent, struggling to obtain influence in the world for the sake of its own well-being. A political constructivist says that the global influence of the US actually arises from a million little things like someone in Germany buying a bottle of Coke.
In terms of gender, a realist would treat gender as a thing. So your own gender would involve contact with that gender thing. A constructivist would say gender is dynamic (I'm sure @Joshs would approve) and made of countless interactions, some of which involves heritage.
Note that when I refer to heritage, I'm showing why we might have trouble escaping reification. Heritage is also made of a million tiny interactions, but in order to talk about the world at all, I need to do some reifying. As opposed to thinking of a construct as something that isn't real, think of it as a reminder that the world isn't made of comic book outlines. It's fuzzier than that.
I may not have understood your exact meaning then. According to the definitions above, sex and gender are two different identities. One's sex is one's biological embodiment, gender is a cultural expectation of how one of that embodiment should act culturally in relation to their sex. When you mean you didn't take my conclusion in hand, did you not agree with it or was this merely a separate proposal?
Quoting AmadeusD
To clarify, it is not clusters of biological behavior that are gender. So for example, on average men are more aggressive than women. But that's not gender. Gender is if society expects men to always be more aggressive than women. So a timid man might be insulted by someone claiming, "You're not a 'real man'. In this case man alone does mean gender, not sex, as the person clearly did not change their biology.
The case I'm making is that linguistically, the context of 'transman are men' having 'men' mean gender isn't clear or logical. And since a transman is not a male by sex, the statement is false.
Quoting AmadeusD
Yes, again the grammar is a mess isn't it? If its a cultural expectation that sex A behaves in X way, and sex B behaves in Y way, sex B behaving in X way does not mean that they changed societies gender expectation. You cannot choose 'a gender', you can choose to act with your gender, or against your gender. The reality for the strange grammar is the game of, "I want you to say I'm the opposite sex without you realizing you're saying I'm the opposite sex". Obviously a person can act however they want despite cultural expectations. A 'transgender' person actively chooses to behave in gendered ways of the opposite sex not because they've chosen their gender, but because they want society to see them as the opposite sex. But because its not possible to change your sex, and people were already familiar with transsexualism, they attempted to disguise the term into another set of language phrases to 'rebrand' it.
Quoting AmadeusD
This is the power of unclear and manipulative language. You can convince people God exists and they'll live forever in bliss if they do good things, or suffer forever in agony if they do bad things. Oh wait, you only live forever if you believe in God, but, isn't suffering forever also living forever? The point is to elicit an emotional response loyal to the vocabulary and phrasing to control their aims instead of clear and rational language.
I did not mean to imply that constructs are not real. They are real ideas. God is a real idea. It doesn't mean that 'God' as an identifying and existent entity is real.
Quoting frank
I tend to avoid terms like realist and constructivist because according to you, a realist would interpret what a 'realist' is differently than a constructivist would interpret a 'constructivist' as. This adds unnecessary terms and confuses the point I think you're trying to make.
Very simply gender is an expectation of one or more individuals in how a sex should act culturally in relation to the reality of its own sex. It is culturally sanctioned prejudice. "A man must be aggressive. Oh, you think a man can be timid? 'We' do not sanction such behavior." When gender is taken too far, it becomes culturally sanctioned sexism. So gender is very real. But its real in its culturally accepted prejudice about one's sex, not real as in a dictate that one's biology must follow because of the laws of physics.
This completely ignores the fact that society's expectations have changed. Having long hair and wearing earrings is no longer considered feminine, so a man that grows their hair long and wears earrings is no longer transitioning because those traits have now been taken off the table of transgenderism. The members of Motley Crüe were not transitioning to females. They were going against the grain (the social expectation), breaking down the sexist barriers and making a statement that MEN can have long hair, not that they are now women with long hair.
Quoting Philosophim
Transgenderism is putting people in boxes based on their biology when those boxes have nothing to do with their biology, just being racist is putting people in boxes based on their skin color when the boxes have nothing to do with their skin color. There is nothing that prevents men from growing long hair or wearing earrings, but there are things that prevent a man from getting pregnant.
This might have once been true, but now anyone can claim (even if you were a man that was just convicted and being sent off to prison and now want to identify as a woman) to be the opposite sex and they get all this special attention and treatment.
All society has to do is abandon these sexist expectations and then transgenderism no longer has a leg to stand on. Transgenderism only exists in societies with sexist expectations.
Correct. While a biological male and female do not change with time and culture, gender does. It is a subjective and flexible expectation that can vary over time, culture, and even individuals.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Of course, because sex, or biology, is how people reproduce. A transgender woman is not a woman by sex, period. Any honest transgender person should have zero problem with this. Anyone who does is using an unclear gender/sex distinction and the equivalence fallacy where it benefits them personally. The people who generally do this are not simply transgender, they are transsexual people. Or people who want to be seen as the opposite sex, and see crossing genders as part of that goal. Does taking on a cross gender imply you are the other sex in any way? Of course not.
The purpose of the term transgender for transsexuals is to hide the term 'transsexual' as that has a largely negative connotation in society. Transgender is seen as more normal, as everyone crosses the gender divide at times, and some people just like to cross a little more right? So much more that they need to try to change their biology and be seen as the other sex.
The logical conclusion for a person who wishes to be 'transgender' is 'be what you want'. As long as you don't think it has anything to do with your actual sex in anyway, its fine. Its not where the issue lies. Its with transsexuals who wish to use and confuse gendered language as a euphamism to hide the fact they want to change their sex. These are the people who insist, "Trans men are men". Non transsexual transgender people generally have no disagreement with the distinction that they are one sex taking on the gender of another. It is those who take on the gender of another, and that is driven by consequence of wanting to be the other sex that wish to insist on you using terms traditionally used for sex for them. The insertion of, 'but gender' is a ploy to get the emotional fulfillment of hearing that word and emotionally equating that with sex. Since they know you won't do that if you see the term as a sex term, they use duplicity and unclear language to make you think its 'gender'. A fantastic example of tricking using another person for one's own emotional self-satisfaction.
This is only so in a temporally relatively short time-frame. Prior to this, for centuries, both men and women wore long hair, earrings, elaborate clothing, and high heels.
Social norms seem to have a tendency to be extremely short-sighted.
Not just sexes, pretty much everything is being stereotyped. Modern culture, especially American culture as the forerunner, appears to be obsessed with quantification, normativization, standardization. A person can only be this or that (or the other), and they have to decide right now, and this decision has to stick forever and in all contexts.
While it's understandable that quantification, normativization, standardization are done for administrative purposes, legal purposes, liability purposes, insurance purposes, they seem to easily lead to absurd consequences because of the simplification they entail and because of the weight they carry.
Just the other day, a male relative of mine commented that he has "legs like a woman". He's very athletic, and some forms of exercise can lead men to have legs that seem more typical for women. But he certainly didn't think, much less have I thought, that this somehow means he's "a woman trapped in a man's body". I think that in a normal culture, it's normal to have such "cross-gendered" observations about oneself and others without this leading to doubts about one's sexual or gender identity.
In contrast, in modern culture obsessed with quantification, normativization, standardization, and with sex/gender issues, such observations are not innocent anymore. On the internet, there are these heartbreaking videos of mothers basically forcing their young sons into thinking they are really girls trapped in male bodies and that a gender-reassignment surgery is in place -- and all this because the boy was a little curios about dolls.
This eagerness to jump to conclusions happens with so many things, whether it's placing children on the "autistic spectrum" or with the "epidemic of ADHD" or transgenderism.
It seems that transgenderism and the increase of people with mental health diagnoses are actually at least in part a consequence of the urge and pressure to stereotype.
Many people may see this blurring as a problem. However, identity is complex and individuals may identify differently from assigned and biological sex. To try to fit such identities into the binary of gender distinctions may show the limitations of the binary of gender.
well said
Gender by the modern day definition is not a biological given. It is a set of social expectations how one acts non-biologically in relation to one's biology. For example, if boys were supposed to wear pink and girls were supposed to wear blue. There is nothing biological about that besides a cultural reference to one's sex. So things like 'males are generally more aggressive' is a biological outcome. Its not a cultural expectation. The expectation would be that a man be more aggresive than most woman, a man comes along who in a normal statistically reasonable outcome, is not, and is lambasted for being 'weak'. There is nothing innate in biology that ensure all men are 'strong', so therfore its a cultural expectation, not a biological reality that being born a man makes you strong.
Quoting Jack Cummins
No one is officially assigned a gender. Your sex is identified, and the people around you have culturally accepted levels of prejudice in how you should act apart from your biology in relation to your sex.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I'm very open to considering all angles, but I have never heard a single person be able to identify what non-binary means in any coherent way.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Its not. It was made complex by transsexuals trying to sneak in a more societally acceptable term they could use to justify what they do. Gender at its clearly defined core, is socially acceptable prejudice and potentially sexism in how a person should behave non-biologically in relation to their biological sex. Gender identity is simply deciding what prejudices and sexist expectations you have for yourself.
Alam, T. B. (2025). The Selective Universe: Order, Entropy, and the Philosophical Paradox of Natural Rigidity [Zenodo]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17341242
If everyone crosses the gender divide then that means the society is gender neutral and that there is no such thing as gender as everyone in the society wears what they want regardless of their sex, and there are no expectations of society for people to act differently because of their sex. You are conflating transgenderism with gender-neutrality. As I pointed out - transgenderism's existence depends on a society having sexist expectations. If there are no more expectations then there is no gender (based on your own definition of gender as societal expectations of the sexes).
100% agree. But that is not the society we live in.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Society in general is a combination of individuals who have varying degrees of discomfort with crossing gender divides in public. Small and/or temporary crossings can be disliked or even seen as amusing and not typically the label of 'transgender'. Transgender comes about when a person understands the societal gender for men and women, and decides to actively cross that boundary in hopes of being treated by society as they see them treat the other sex. Its of course an incredibly naive task, and no one is obligated to do so in any way. That is the argument for then wanting to change their sex through hormones and body modification. They want to be treated like the other sex by society, so changing their body will hopefully do so.
If has nothing to do with sexism.
In the future this tech will likely advance further. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g2vyee0zlo
It is a change and popularization of medical tech. This is also why the AI discussion is so prolific because it now exists since the 2020s.
You can use different words to describe trans phenomena, "hrt femboy" (for those of you under 30 will understand) but it won't vanish without the tech being removed.
It is the society we should be striving for.
As I have said, expectations have changed. Having long hair is no longer considered feminine. We were headed in the right direction until the left saw another group of victims in the trans community to use for their own ends. The left just jumped on the trans bandwagon without fully understanding what was being said, or the ill logic of the arguments being made. It wasn't about logic and reason to them. It was about having another group of victims to use as a weapon against the right.
Quoting Philosophim
This leads me to ask, what kind of expectations are we talking about here? Are people jailed for wearing clothing inappropriate to one's sex? If not, is it fair to say that society has no expectations of the sexes? What is an expectation that isn't enforced? Society might not enforce the dress code but there are still people that may judge, but that is on the level of individuals, not society.
A fantastic question that likely requires its own topic. Why does society enforce prejudice and stereotypes when it comes to sex? I imagine its a combination of many things from sexual dimorphism emphasis, power dynamics, and sexuality. There is a thin wall between biologicaly expectations of a sex vs gender expectations of a sex as well. We are very willing to accept biological expectations, and perhaps its easy to cross over into sociological expectations because of it.
All you are doing is conflating sex with gender, so of course gender as the same thing as sex can't be sexist. It is gender as societal expectations that are sexist.
Quoting Forgottenticket
Which means that those hormones have nothing to do with defining one's sex. Humans have other hormones other than testosterone and estrogen and they are not defined as sexual characteristics precisely because both sexes have them in roughly the same levels.
To be clear, this is transsexualism. There are the terms transgender and transsexual, and 'trans' shortens to make it unclear which you are referring to. Which of course is the goal of the activist community to make you say, "You're the other other sex" without you realizing you're saying, "You're the other sex".
It becomes easier when the expectation is enforced over generations. Being a woman eventually becomes more than just having certain biological parts, it now entails wearing a dress, makeup, etc. This is where transgenderism makes its mistake - in assuming that society is defining a woman as someone with not just the biological characteristics, but the expectations as well. But society is not saying that (and people that use language in this way are misusing it) wearing a dress makes you a woman. Society is saying because you are a woman, you wear a dress. In a society that expects, and enforces, people to wear clothing, we need a way of distinguishing between males and females for the purpose of mating. Society is not saying that to be a woman you must wear a dress. Transgender people are misinterpreting what society is saying, and trans-people are identifying as an expectation, not as an objective, biological entity.
Correct. I believe most transsexuals know this. Transgender is a convenient way to justify their need to be seen as the other sex both for themselves, and a tool to attempt to persuade society. It is all about that need, and they are willing to do whatever it takes, even if its dishonest language, to have that need fulfilled. I believe letting this happen is actually harmful to transsexuals. They need to accept the reality they cannot be the other sex as the technology isn't there yet. They need to be ok with everyone not accepting them as the opposite sex, and that they shouldn't be trying to trick or cajole society into this desire. It is at its core, immoral.
Secondary sex characteristics absolutely have to with hormones. The longer the body is dominated by T the more it will masculinize and the longer it is dominated by E the more the body will feminize to the point of heterosexual attraction. That is what puberty does to you and why puberty blockers are given to buy time for the teen to make a decision.
The proliferation of this treatment, puberty blockers and so on is why you're discussing it. That is why it is frequently in the news of "irreversible changes". A recent trans story (the Kirk shooter's trans girlfriend) had nothing whatsoever to do with clothing as the person wore hoodies.
If trans was defined as crossdressing this would not be a discussion as the phenomena would not scale as it has.
Quoting Philosophim
Give me an example of a trans-celebrity or child of a celebrity who isn't on hrt and is just a crossdresser. Transgender is obviously more scalable than transsexualism which doesn't roll of the tongue at all so that term is used.
See gender affirming surgery replacing sexual reassignment surgery, that is why I disagree.
In my experience actually being in the community (I am not LGBTQ, I just visited to see things for myself) yes. For the one's that transition, that is what they truly want. The language is all to obscure this fact. We are of course getting a more inbetween version which is typically a highly sexualized and cosmetic version of body alteration too.
Femboys for example don't want to change their sex, but want to have people view them in the visually sexualized way they look at women. For these individuals, I think the definition of transgenderism as intended fits quite well. Its not an entire encapsulation of the opposite sex's gender, but a selective desire to (sexual in this case, but not all cases) get a particular reaction from people that they see society giving the opposite sex.
For example, men in Western society are not given the allowed public sexual expression that women are. Sexy or even mildly sexually stimulating clothing and behavior are often encouraged, where as in men it is often discouraged. To escape this, some men want to be seen as women or emulate the way women sexually express because they think they'll get more attention from society in a positive way, and they may not know how to do so within the 'male gender' expectations of the people they are around. For them they are happy being male, they just want the gender acceptance of sexual expression and attention that they see women have.
But why??
It would be understandable if transgenderism would be primarily the domain of artists, actors, performers, who, simply due to the nature of their work, are trying to be special and provocative somehow. But so many cases of transgenderism are perfectly ordinary people of one sex who medically transform themselves and who then look like perfectly ordinary people of the other sex.
Why would anyone go to such lengths just to be -- ordinary??
Why would anyone go from being an ordinary guy to looking like an ordinary gal?
Incorrect. This can happen, but this is most likely due to attraction that already exists. AGP is an autosexual orientation that can be gratified by men seeing the AGP as female. This is well documented. For a modern summation of this check out Phil Illy's book "Autoheterosexual" online, as well as his interviews with confessed AGPs. I do not judge AGPs, and I advise getting to know about them first.
The other side is that many trans individuals are actually gay or lesbian and use transsexualism as a way to cope with the cognitive dissonance of liking the same sex. Studies on pre-pubescent children who exhibit gender dysphoria are found 70-80% of the time to end up identifying as gay and bisexual by age 18 if not medication or transition measures are given.
Quoting Forgottenticket
No, hormones still don't change your sex. They can change your secondary sex development, which to me is quite frankly disgusting and pedophilic to push on kids. Kids should not be sexualized period, and such decisions should never be pushed on a minor. My apologies for my more emotional response here, I can break down further in a more detailed post about why if you are interested later.
Quoting Forgottenticket
No, transsexualism was familiar to people and had a certain emotional connotation to it. The trans activist community has attempted to eliminate the word to 'rebrand' and disguise what they are trying to do, which is change sex. Its thought control by denying an objectively innoffensive word that describes what is happening.
Transgender - someone who wants to take on the gender of the opposite sex.
Transsexual - someone who alters their body in an attempt to change it to be or more resemble the other sex.
Quoting Forgottenticket
Right, if you study the history this was done to rebrand transsexualism. This was to get sexual identity disorder out of the mental illness category, and allow medical insurance to treat the issue. It does not eliminate the reality that this is transsexualism.
I believe that is a question for those that have the mental health condition. I'm out of time for now, but off the top of my head:
1. To avoid societal expectations of their sex
2. To be more comfortable with being gay
3. "Grass is greener" mentality
4. Confusion about sex, gender, and stereotypes
5. Actual mental illness
6. Sexual desire.
But that's highly biased, based on an idealization of a very particular category of women. Statistically, it seems few women get that kind of sexualized attraction you mention above that these men are seeking.
I never implied it wasn't highly biased. I'm just noting what is. And many in the femboy community receive plenty of sexual adoration online and in their isolated communities. For them, they get what they want.
I'm not sure you can. You can edit it though and change what it said.
Blocking hormones erases sexual differences, just as removing societal expectations removes gender differences. When you remove the distinctions you no longer have a spectrum to move along, thereby erasing trans because there are no longer any distinctions to transition between.
So it seems that the ultimate goal here doesn't seem to be conductive to the trans-community. Erasing the distinctions erases the trans-community and diversity and makes us all the same.
This seems to square up with what I was saying about the expectations society has of the sexes is a means of attracting the opposite sex. A woman might wear sweat pants and shirt to the supermarket because she has no intention of trying to attract a mate. She is simply there to buy some groceries and not making a statement about her sexual identity, but about her sexual motivations, or lack thereof.
The problem arises when one's sexual preferences are taken advantage of and manipulated because another is trying to identify as the opposite sex but isn't. Is it moral to fool another of your sex in the context of seeking a mate that fits the other's sexual preferences?
It doesn't always have to be about sexual attraction, but other indicators like wanting to be viewed as 'sweet' and having doors held open for you, etc. A large amount of gendering is about sexuality, but there is plenty of gendering that also has nothing to do with sexuality, and a person can be transgender because they want those non-sexual expectations that come with it.
Quoting Harry Hindu
That's a fairly loaded question. If one is attempting to be perceived as the opposite sex purely for their own purposes, and but does not hide the fact when they would benefit from a sexual interaction, this is not immoral. If they hide the fact for the benefit of a sexual interaction they know an individual would not give to them if the other person was aware of their natal sex, then yes this is deceiving another person into doing something they wouldn't do if they saw the truth of the matter for personal gain. That would be immoral.
I am a man, but my avatar is a woman. Does that offend you? Does that make me transexual?
This 'is' a statement that the transgender community insists is true, so I think its a viable thing to look at linguistically.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
Technically you had to have people tell you that you're a human being, or at least learn it from somewhere. The OP is pertinent to telling other people who you are.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
The OP does not have any moral judgement on personal identification. It is a critique to note that the statement, "Transgender men are men" is an unclear and poorly phrased sentence if 'men' is intended to represent 'male gender' and not the default of 'male sex'. "Transgender men are men by gender" is the correct way to communicate the idea with clarity.
this is probably the most interesting criticism of my post: but it's still not technically true. Naming and labeling (yes, necessary for human interaction) does not require excessive categorization. Transgender people and their sympathizers are mostly reacting to bullying that relates to not being a "normal person" with their moralizations and positions.
For example, you know your name not because someone said "____is your name", but because you got accustomed to people referring to you that way. I don't need anyone to remind me that "i am man", overtime i just grew comfortable. This is why i'm confused by (yet kinda indifferent) to your main question, even though the topic itself is very interesting. If someone were to tell me that they were a man, yet looked like a woman, or whatever, i wouldn't be like "oh, so i don't believe you. You must must be a man because i say so."
Quoting Philosophim
yeah that's true, i just personally get sick of the "is" and "isn't" dichotomy, and i appreciate your line of questioning for reasons listed above. This is also the case with "society", if you have a penis, you are a boy/man. If you have a vagina, you are a girl/female. Apparently, males/females are supposed to think a certain way and act a certain way. The "gender" question is extremely confusing, and these "roles" you mention largely do not exist.
Quoting Philosophim
the transgender people seem to just want people to accept their story as true, since we tend to accept a lot of narratives as true. Those statements aren't poorly phrased to me, but i do agree that transgenderism is confusing.
Anything is true if you believe it to be.
Correct. I sympathize with this greatly. Does using poor language structures in phrasing fix this? No.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
It depends. One of the things that people have to check when conversing with someone else is whether their words are
1. Clear definitions that we both agree on and understand
2. The other person is being honest in what they tell us
Lets say in this case there is a transman who believes they are a man. Further, they believe 'man' unmodified means, 'adult male gender'. There is nothing innately wrong with this if the person they are conversing with also agrees that man unmodified means 'adult male gender'.
However, in the context of the above statement it is more logical and historically accurate for a person to interpret the statement of 'man' alone as referring to 'male sex'. Now if a person is trying to avoid bullying or disrespect, they should avoid poor grammar and unclear communication. These tend to engender disrespect and lower social status as either uneducated or unintelligent.
Thus, the phrase, 'trans men are men' should not be used in broader society. A simple adendum to the statement 'trans men are men as gendered' or some variation that avoids confusion and clearly conveys the intent unambiguously, the phrase wouldn't be as much of an issue. This assumes of course that the issue is grammar and not the intent to use the term 'man's' double meaning to squeeze in the idea that 'a trans man is a man by sex'. Because this is a tactic of dishonest people, which also does not engender good will if that's what one is trying to do.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
One way to make it less confusing is that gender is a group subjective opinion about non-biological behavior in relation to your sex. "Are you man enough?" In this case man refers to gender, or the expectation that as a male you must act in a certain way or be seen as failing in your sex. The expecation of an adult male may very from person to person, group to group, city to city, onto the world. It is a purely subjective opinion that is culturally sanctioned prejudice and sexism among the group.
Some people learn not to let the opinions of other bother them. Some crave the opinions of others, or may even crave the gendered expectation of the other sex. As such, they take on these gendered expectations for themselves in hope of getting this treatment and expectation from other people. Finally some crave to have the actual opposite sex, and use gender as a mask and part to get the culture to view them as the other sex.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
I have no problem accepting a story as true as long as the two points I flagged above pass. Are they being clear in their communication, and is there evidence to trust they are being honest with us? I would say most good people will accept a person's story if these two things align. If the trans community wishes to be accepted, they would much better be served dropping the poorly worded 'trans men are men' slogan and adjusting it to more clearly communicate to others what they mean.
unfortunately i have to go, but i do want to respond to this, as it's important: i tend to think of people as manipulative and sinister animals, so just because i don't question someone's statement, it doesn't mean i "believe them". The "is" and "is not" way of looking at things, without further elaboration (like definitions) is pretty empty. I think survival largely depends on what we do or do not say, and pursuing dishonesty puts one in danger, even though lying is not "wrong".
Huh. The preceding comments tells me we agree, so let me try to work through how I came to that..
Quoting Philosophim
I think, more discreetly, what I didn't take in hand here was that there's a logical reason to use the word this way. I think it's absolutely fine for 'man' to refer to gender (recognitiion of clustered behaviours, lets say) where male can be the biological counterpart. For me, this is the clearest and less-easily-fucked-with way of using the terms. I don't have much of a problem with how things shake out,. as long as we're not running into contradictions and redundancies (which conflating the two would do - and I think circumscribing 'man' in that way would, generally, deny a certain level of legitimacy to trans identity (although, I have thoughts there anyway...)).
Quoting Philosophim
Hmm. While i understand the impulse, I don't think this is quite accurate. The fact that men are, on average, more aggressive (using it as a biological term (both 'man' and 'aggressive')) is, as you say, not gender. BUT being more aggressive than the average female is one of the cluster behaviours that tends to be borne by a 'man'. The problem is that half of the ideology behind Gender Theory wants us to both take that on (cool) but also want the concept of 'man' to encompass typical female cluster behaviours. That wont work (though I assume you already see this). So I think the fact that males tend to me aggressive is a different fact from the level of aggressive one identifying as a man might represent.
Quoting Philosophim
I tend to think this is simply a polite way of saying "you have no balls" (the most common, and variant insult men face really - particularly from women). It strikes me a biological insult. Not too important, I wouldn't think.
Quoting Philosophim
For slightly different reasons, I run the same track to the same station. 'transmen are men', to me, simply means the term 'man' encompasses those who identify as such. Given my first little clarification in this response, that should sit relatively comfortably in my framework. I am unsure whether I would argue this if I were given the reigns of policy. But it, socially, seems totally fine to me. I don't see a problem with using 'man' for gender and 'male' for sex with only tenuous link between the two. I posit that Trans community (and TRAs more properly) want to see the link strengthened philosophically to the point of equivalence. That seems totally linguistically and socially untenable to me. I also note that the majority of those making these arguments (the only two examples hereabouts I've seen are Mijin and Banno) tend not to even engage the meat of the matter before simply saying "Well, bigots gonna bigot" type stuff. It makes explanation impossible, and compromise objectionable in some sense.
Quoting Philosophim
These are key points. I think I view 'being trans' a bit different to you. My experiences with trans people is not that they want anything specific. My take is that (delusion or not) they truly believe that gender is something constructed internally and projected, but not by choice. Lets avoid the 'sexed brain' type arguments, as I do not take those too seriously (as our next little exchange will make clear) but even without that, if the point is that you have some inherent tendencies, and those tendencies are other than your body's sexed tendencies, that there must be a social arena for that to be expressed. I have no problem with this. Gender seems a fine way to go about it. The conflict comes when policy is affected by personal perception (similar with hate crime, digital comms restrictions etc.. "perceived x" is usually the benchmark and that is almost fascist in nature). In this way, I fully, entirely agree with the final little stab. I think that is what's happened. Its a fig leaf.
Quoting Philosophim
I'm unsure whether we're agreeing - I think the point is to ensure there is no credible objection, because its posited as a metaphysical fact. If I say "No one is born in the wrong body" this is somehow scientifically ignorant. Which is, itself, not only ignorant by manipulative (as you say) and pretty dishonest. It is a fact no one is born in the wrong body. There is literally no benchmark that could possibly be used other than "God put you in the right/wrong body" that could get me there. No arguments i've heard are even worth traversing beyond genuinely listening to them and having to think "Good grief, this is a bit of a joke isn't it?".
Quoting baker
Wildly, the fact that the opposite of this is the case is one of the biggest reasons I've bene intent on movinv to the US for some time. As a third party looking in, it seems to me that takes such as this come from being embedded in the extant information ecosystem present in the US (well, present if you've bought in). I could always be wrong, just thought it interesting to note my diametrically opposed view on that lol.
Quoting baker
Having discussed this with several psychologists (friends, to be fair) the younger generation (honestly, mine included - im 35) enjoy collecting diagnoses. Anything that makes you interesting, quirky, out-of-the-norm etc... is desirable. They are socially pressured into not being normal. This is why there has been (and I am not saying this is wide-spread necessarily, but I've seen this with my eye owns so don't even start..) genuine bigotry against being straight, white, male, cis, conservative etc.. etc.. etc...Anything "predictable" is jettisoned. Ironically, this has caused a couple of cohorts to become completely predictable in their behaviour around these issues. They all expect each other, morally, to not be 'normal'. My time at University as an older student has been really eye-opening crash-course in the inanity of social politics among those below 30. The extreme and utterly perplexing response to "trad wives" has also been indicative. This report is one of many (and there are plenty of formal policy documents in the UK, Aus and NZ at least which support this) which outline how traditional values (basically "normal shit") are forms of radical content which push young people toward the right. This wouldn't be an issue except that it is standard to assume "the right" means bad, boogeyman, bigot, racist horrible deplorable. This is utterly unacceptable in a free society. It is fascism-lite. I know this has been long-winded and tangential - I am sorry for that. It strikes me as important that the social context is on the table too. With all of the above laid out, I think its pretty clear that the encouragement (there is plenty, and some of semi-criminal - Eli Erlick i'm looking at you) of transgender identities is an attempt for people with unstable or at least, socially undesirable traits and identities to pull otehrs into the realm of slight deception they find themselves in to assure social opinion is in their favour. Mill would be rolling.
Fwiw, on some more of Philosophm's comments - I wanted to be a girl most of my life for practical reasons. I now see that I felt oppressed and abused as a male and wanted to escape. I still feel that is what society wants, but I don't care anymore. Men kill themselves at such a high rate that I refuse to allow society to push me into that basket. It hurts too much.
Quoting Philosophim
I suggest that this is the basis for the deception. I don't think sympathy is necessarily the best move. It would be far more reasonable and sensible to simply be more demeaning of bullies. Make it easier to call people out, and easier for those 'in charge' to make a move. It shouldn't be possible for a person to make fun of you for being feminine and not being told that's wrong - if they do it again, up the ante. Don't convince someone their body is wrong. That's cruel and absurd.
Yeah, and unfortunately that is not enough sometimes. Sometimes you also need to not look "suspicous" or "sketchy".
I don't get your grammar/phrasing issues as they relate to trans though: to me trans is confusing because i can't relate to "a man being trapped in woman's body" etc., or needing to advertise pronoun preference. I can, however, relate to being deeply uncomfortable with describing myself, and that's as far as i need to go with my empathy in these matters.
I'm in Europe. Modern culture, and esp. American culture as its forerunner strikes me as extremely puritan and totalitarian. Sure, they encourage diversity -- but only under the condition that the differences are skin deep.
Americans invented the multiple choice test. They invented the extreme quantification and statistics in sports. All those checkboxes on insurance forms. Itemized medical bills. The DSM. Those social games where you're supposed to choose between just two options. Massively drugging little children with Ritalin and such so that they would appear more "normal". Forcing little children into medical chemical and even surgical procedures, so that they could fit neatly into either category "male" or "female". Denoting weight on personal documents. Denoting race on personal documents. Expecting from people to know their "net worth" at all times. Calculating a person's credit score. Measuring a person's attractiveness on a scale of 1 to 10.
What is this, if not evidence of an obsession with quantification, normativization, standardization?
How do you up the ante??
Pretty much everywhere, people operate by the principle "Casting the first stone makes you innocent".
How do you propose to defeat that?
Just you look at the sexism: Women are constantly being criticized, and often told they don't look feminine enough. And this is never such a problem as when a man is told that he's not looking masculine enough. Women are expected to hate themselves by default; you can't be a good girl unless you hate yourself. But the same does not go for men.
To be clear, I have nothing against man meaning gender or man meaning sex based on context. My argument is that in the context of 'transgender men are men', reading 'men' as 'male gender' in this case is the less clear and logical interpretation of the word.
For one, 'transgender men' has already modified the term 'man' to indicate we're talking about gender. To mention 'man' alone is a pointless tautology if it 'man' means 'male gender' in this case. Add in the sentence, "Cis men are men" and this seems to be an unclear synonym between trans and cis. Trans and cis are supposed to refer to gender, but the only way they make sense here is if they refer to gender in relation to sex. Otherwise why bother saying it?
A more proper phrase would be, "Transgender men are men as gender" or some type of clarification that the 'man' in this case is not the context of 'male sex'. To insist on the previous phrasing is simply poor grammar.
Quoting AmadeusD
If the 'man' in question means, 'adult male sex', I agree. I do not agree that 'man' as indicating gender applies because of the biological reason. To be clear, "expecting" a man to be more aggressive when they are not, and claiming that they need to be more aggressive within the culture as a choice, is a gendered view of 'man'. A man naturally being more aggressive than a woman is a perfectly normal statistical outcome. A man being less aggressive than most woman is also completely normal. The
expectation that a biologically non-aggressive man should be more aggressive in their actions is a gender expectation.
Quoting AmadeusD
Absolutely. Its like watching a child lie badly and think they've fooled everyone. And watching someone hear correct pronouns and think they've passed as the opposite sex vs the obvious pity or fear of offending that the majority of people fear is embarrassing to watch personally.
Quoting AmadeusD
Its a gendered insult because that person has not risen to the social expectations put upon a person who is male. Only if the person literally lacked balls in a jeering manner would it be a biological insult.
Quoting AmadeusD
The 'want' that I'm referring to in this instance is a response from other people that treats them as if they are the opposite sex with the gender expectations that come with that. It may be that this want comes form wanting to avoid the expectations of their own sex. If a trans person had no wants, they would have absolutely zero consideration of how other people viewed them. But they do.
Quoting AmadeusD
I have a very dear friend who has been in the process of transitioning for the past few years. His reason is primarily sexual. He has had terrible luck with women all of his life and felt there is something wrong with him. He began to become obsessed with lesbian romances and fan fiction, writing porn stories about female characters. It came to the point where he no longer could envision himself as a male with a woman, but only a woman as a woman. Especially before he got on his pre-estrogen medicine which lowers his physical sex drive, he was also fairly sexually inappropriate with it.
We have talked about it but he goes into complete rage denial mode when I point out the obvious sexual reasons he's already confessed to me. His choice of course. He's as the age where he's not likely going to find an attractive woman (he's obssessed with younger women still) much less marry. Considering the loneliness has only been an oppressive despair and oppression for him, this at least gives him a sexual outlet to get past that. And for him, it might be the best call. It was like watching a captive parrot in heat as he would breath in through his mouth and lustfully talk about lesbian relationships.
At least with his sex drive lowered he doesn't have the intense need driving him, now its more the romantic and ideological side. His sex drive is still existent, its just reduced in the intensity that only an agonizingly sexually deprived male can have. I appreciate you sharing your experiences.
I hold doors open for others, regardless of their sex, to be polite. It has nothing to do with gender. To hold doors open for one sex and not the other is sexist. Would you not hold a door open for an elderly man? Being sweet has nothing to do with gender. Any sex can be sweet, or nice. What you are describing are simply human behaviors, not gendered behaviors, as these are not traits specific to one gender or the other, except if you are sexist.
Quoting Philosophim
The first part makes no sense. The immorality is in fooling another about your sexual identity which does not allow others to realize their own identities as either gay or straight. The intent is irrelevant because anyone with an ounce of brains would know that other people might be fooled by your charade, meaning that you would need be up front about what sex you actually are, so there will always be some intent to fool others in cross-dressing.
Notice I did not explicitly say "to get people to hold the door for me". If you're being honest when you see a woman vs a man, you do have a different initial impression and treatment of them. Some of this is likely biological, but part of it is also culture. A person who is dressing in a way to emphasize their sex may be desiring these other smaller interactions they see others doing (or they do themselves) like being gentler with their voice, not talking about sports, etc. It is not one specific objective action they desire, but a collective subjective treatment that they see.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Again, you're only emphasizing encounters of sexuality, not mere differences of sex expectation. In most general cases non-sexual gender treatment is mostly harmless. As you noted, most gender treatment should be equalized to people as a whole, and not merely given to one sex or the other. That is an ideal, but often not a real. In these cases, if someone mistakes a transgender person for the opposite sex in a quick public encounter, no one is wiser or cares. I do not view this as immoral, as the person may very well feel better and happier presenting as such for themself.
In the case of situations that impact the other person directly, like direct sexual interest, a trans individual should immediately let the other person know that they are in fact trans. To not do so would be sexual abuse.
See, this seems patently unrealistic to me. The entire point of the American project is to promote diversity, you're right, and the intention is that this diversity is genuine - from socialists, through to just-short-of-bigots can get along in one place without shooting each other. Apparently, that is unacceptable to some and in fact, when differences are deeper than skin, it becomes an hilarious caricature of a moral panic. This usually ends in utter destruction (BLM, Jan 6, Charlie Kirk (and surrounding issues since)). I do not think it is "American culture" doing this, but actually the proportion of activists (this, unfortunately, is what is exported via the media generally) who want to dismantle American culture and re-homogenize it under the guise of kindness. Its utterly preposterous and it seems to me an intentional scam to grab power. That said, these are opinions. Take them as such :)
Quoting baker
What's the issue, sorry?
Quoting baker
Enforce a policy which restricts that behaviour. Actually do something about it - exclude, remove, penalize etc... rather than just words. Eventually, it would become a criminal issue ideally (actually, it is. People just refuse to enforce these laws against certain groups for fear of being seen as the exact thing the laws are designed to stop you being).
Quoting baker
I'm unsure I understand the question properly. I agree, most people operate on that principle, but i disagree that it is genuine. Anyone who casts the first stone in this sort of context knows they are questionable and is getting out ahead of a fair assessment. I don't see any significant set of people who are doing what you suggest in good faith.
Quoting baker
This is, to my mind, utterly preposterous to the point that it feels redundant to address it, sorry that this is quite rude. The bolded is just bare-faced falsity that might have been true 40 years ago. Women hating themselves is one of the least helpful aspects of any society we have ever known about. It is ridiculous to suggest that this is encouraged in modern Western society - particularly when women are lauded, praised and lifted up over absolutely everything and anything (unless conservative, in which case fuck you, we will make fun of your appearance and everything we claimed to be principled against). If you mean to suggest this is true in places like Russia, the Middle East and South East Asia, I could agree.
Quoting Philosophim
That's definitely the case - and it conflates the two concepts. Untenable. We agree.
Quoting Philosophim
I don't understand how this is clearer or easier to carry through than my solution. Just don't use man to refer to sex. Simple. No confusion exists in this framework.
Quoting Philosophim
That was quite unclear I'm sorry. I should have simply said 'male' but my point was to sort of the language as it's used. So "a man is generally more aggressive than a woman" could (should IMO) apply to the gender, but on the basis that heightened aggression (in terms of above a mean, or something) is a typically 'male' trait and so goes into the cluster we use to determine 'man'.
Quoting Philosophim
Well, i disagree. It's just another way of making a biological jab at males for being less than to my mind.
Quoting Philosophim
Most do not. I think you are describing TRAs. Most trans people are not demanding anything (except to not be harassed, which is fair). This might just be differing experiences. There's also the argument that those behaving the way you describe are not trans but something like autogynephillic, sexually deviant but high-intelligence etc... that lead them to the same arguments and demands that others sexually objectify them.
Not everyone uses the word "slay" to mean "impressive" (or whatever it means to youths these days), but that is nonetheless one of its meanings.
If you don't want to use the word "man" to refer to anyone whose gender is male, regardless of sex, then don't. But it's bizarre to suggest that other people are wrong if they do use it that way. It's prominent enough to warrant being considered another meaning.
Earlier, you talked about being a fool for battling others on how to use words. Then, given your contibutions here, you must be talking about yourself ...
It is a readily observable fact that people fight over what a word means. And despite what might be new trends in lexicography, some people still believe that dictionaries should have a normative function, and that a word shouldn't mean whatever anyone chooses it to mean.
It's foolish to argue that words should or shouldn't mean something, or to deny the empirical fact that they are used to mean certain things.
Quoting baker
Well, they don't. Even the Académie Française, which is putatively the "authority" on the French language, can't do this. Natural languages just aren't the sort of things that can be dictated in this way. You can pretend, or say "well, it's not recognized by such-and-such an organization" but why should anyone care about that? I'm going to continue to slay despite your protestations.
The issue is that man is used both to indicate sex and gender depending on context. In this context its more grammatically sensible to read man as referring to sex when its alone and unmodified by the trans adjective. Since this is historically the way man has been read when unmodified, and it makes cis and trans modifiers, and we know the need for transgender people to conflate with sex where possible, we clearly point out the difference and no one should have an issue.
Quoting AmadeusD
This is still lumping biology in with gender. Gender as clearly defined is purely a social construct, a prejudice or expectation that someone with a particular biology should act a certain way purely based on culture, not biology. Statically expecting a male to be more aggressive than a female because of biology is not gender, that's simply ascertaining a likelihood of secondary sex traits. To be gender, it must not involve biology. For example, there is no biological incentive that a woman wear a dress vs pants. That's purely a social construct. If that social construct expects that only one sex should wear dress or pants, this becomes gender.
Quoting AmadeusD
You may be correct. The circles I have been around and in wish to push trans people into opposite sex spaces and be called particular pronouns. I think the community would have much less push back if they didn't care if they were denied entry into sex divided spaces or minded that people used pronouns as sex referents instead of gender referents.
*sigh*
No, it is not foolish at all. That's the entire point of English class. Present participles, conjuctive disjunctions (What are you functions?) are all a means to ensure that we have stable rules and approaches to grammar and communication. Because the entire purpose of language is to clearly communicate a concept in a way that can be easily understood by other parties in the language without debate.
And of course people will deny that words mean certain things. If I started calling the Big Bang God and told you, "You believe in God", you would have an issue. It is quite reasonable to debate why we should or should use certain language and meanings for those words. If I said "subjectivity" was actually the same definition as 'objectivity', there would be a lot of people on these forums telling me, "No, you're wrong".
To paraphrase Captain Barbossa, they're more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules. And, once again, natural languages just aren't the perfectly logical, consistent, and unambiguous things you seem to want them to be.
The above paragraph is a prime example. You "shouldn't" start a sentence with a conjunction. Except I do it all the time.
Quoting Philosophim
Get enough people using a word in a different-than-normal way and its meaning changes. That's how languages evolve. Imagine how silly Shakespeare would seem if we brought him back to life and he bitched about us not speaking Ye Olde Englishe properly.
That's not what I said. I said that the idea that because language can evolve a certain way, doesn't mean it should. If English evolved rapidly into an ambiguous and locally defined set of terms and meanings in each state, we would have a difficult time talking to one another at all. Just because something can occur, doesn't mean its the best outcome for what language's purpose is.
Quoting Michael
Of course, I never denied this, nor does this address my point. What I'm noting is that there are more beneficial and less beneficial ways for language to evolve. Its a constant balance between clarity of communication, efficiency in effort, and applicability to a wider audience. Thus, it is not foolish to debate whether words should mean something.
I don't know what culture you live in, but here in the U.S. chivalry is dead, and has been replaced with politeness towards all. I hold the door open for anyone that is right behind me when opening a door. Are you seriously saying that if I was right behind you, you wouldn't hold the door open, but let it shut in my face?
The way I might adjust my tone or avoid certain subjects with others has nothing to do with their sex. I have talked about sports with women, and spoken gruffly to them as much I have any man. The things you are saying are simply sexist.
Quoting Philosophim
Exactly. The quick public encounter is gender/sex-neutral - where one's gender/sex is irrelevant. That is why I am focusing on the scenarios where it is relevant.
Quoting Philosophim
Exactly.
So it's not wrong when other people use the word, "God" in a way that implies that it is male living in another dimension that wants you to do its bidding and exists? Mass delusions exist which can make many people say the same wrong things.
Me saying someone is wrong is not what makes them wrong. It is the distinction between the words they use and the reality of the situation that makes them wrong. Me saying they are wrong is just representative of that truth, but is not what makes it true.
Exactly. The thing is: According to you, so far, the trans community and its supporters are free to advocate for their particular language uses. But other people are not supposed to advocate for their own particular language uses??
I'm saying that words can have more than one meaning, and that one of the meanings of the word "man" is "someone whose gender is male".
I'm not sure what you mean by "advocating" for a particular language use. If you don't want to use the word "man" to mean "someone whose gender is male" or the word "slay" to mean "impressive", then don't. But to argue that these words don't also mean these things is factually incorrect. Such usages are sufficiently widespread that they count as alternative meanings and not (intentional or unintentional) misuses, e.g. using the word "cat" to mean "dog".
What you literally said, and what I am replying to, was "the terms man and woman indicate a person's age and sex, not gender" and this is factually incorrect. The terms are sometimes used to indicate a person's sex and sometimes used to indicate a person's gender.
Whether or not you think they should be used this way, and whether or not I think the word "slay" should be used to mean "impressive", is irrelevant to the factual matter of how English-speaking people actually use these words.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
Someone is wrong if they claim that God exists but they're not wrong if they claim that the word "God" means "creator deity" (or whatever).
And I don't understand how this relates to the topic under discussion. Are you saying that English-speaking people don't use the word "man" to refer to those whose gender is male (regardless of sex) or are you saying that people whose gender is male (regardless of sex) don't exist?
Are they wrong if they say "God" is the universe? Isn't that the point - that anyone can use the word the way they want, but does it make them correct in any instance of their use of the word? IS God the universe? "God" is a nebulous term, unlike "man" or "woman". They have a scientific basis, and any cultural expectations that exist are just that - expectations of the culture as a whole, not an individual's personal feelings. You're trying make these terms as meaningless as the word, "god" in that it means whatever anyone wants it to mean. Communication only works when we agree on the terms being used. So if you want to use words in a certain way it would only be in your own private language, or a small group that thinks the same way you do.
Quoting Michael
Male is a sex. Man is a specific sex of a specific species. We use those terms to refer to one's biology, not how they dress. If one does refer to a female as a male then they are either confused by the way they are dressing, because in a society where it is illegal to be naked in public we have established expectations of the sexes to tell the different for finding mates, or a someone who has simply jumped on the trans-gendered bandwagon without thoroughly reflecting on it.
That’s the whole ball game.
In order to speak at all, we need to objectify, to fix, something external to us both.
Is it gender or sex that can be fixed? Or both? Or neither (and to conclude neither, we must fix something else from which to measure the fluidity of these.)
The question of gender is a new flavor of “what is justice” or “what is good?” Or what is a banana?
What is it, about which you speak?
And I have never denied that. The argument has been noting that the issue is that the phrase 'trans men are men' implies 'man as sex' and is both grammatically incorrect and less logical to have the unmodified man be read 'as gender'. If you would like to give a reason why you think it should be read 'as gender' I welcome that discussion.
Quoting Michael
You are referencing slang which is terminology restricted to a context or group of people. Slang is not the general usage or meaning of the word. If I start using the term 'pizza' for apples as a formal word, this does not suddenly make my use of the term pizza correct in the English language.
Again, an assertion that 'some people (at least one) use it this way' is not an argument that it should be used that way if the intent is clear and unambiguous language that fits within what people generally would expect within the language structures.
The confusion stems from what the expectation of society is. The expectation is not that people that dress a certain way makes them men or women. This isn't even an expectation. It is a definition.
The expectation is that they are already men and women and we expect them to dress in a certain way to be able to tell the difference since their body is now covered. This is why there is a surprise when a man finds out his date is a man when they expected a woman.
If gender was actually the "expectation" (actually definition) that what you wear makes you a man or woman then there would be no surprises.
Right. Gender comes from and is defined by sex. Sex does not come from nor is defined by gender.
Long time no see, Philosophim! I hope you are doing well.
I know you are stipulating this definition for the sake of the OP, but it is worth mentioning that this precludes the main usage of the word throughout history. Gender has always been the upshot of biology (nature). With gender theory, we see a new development of trying to cleanly separate the two so that people that claim to be a woman or man without committing themselves to the absurdity of claiming to be biologically one when they are not.
If by ‘woman’ and ‘man’ you are referring to merely a set of social cues and behaviors that at person gives off that are typically associated with the given sex (of man or woman), then why semantically refer to these ‘genders’ as men and women? It seems like a blatant equivocation that muddies the waters—don’t you think?
I mean, if it really is the case that being a ‘man by gender’ is completely separable from being a ‘man by sex’ and this is a new distinction one is making (that has very little historical precedent), then why not call it ‘being a loto’ or some other word that isn’t deeply entrenched in biology?
I think that is what the ‘is a transwoman a woman’ political debate comes down to: conservatives do not want to reuse the biologically entrenched words to refer to something totally different, whereas liberals want to use it so they can piggy-back off of the various ways we deal with sex in terms of gender instead (like bathroom assignments).
You as well Bob! I hope life has been treating you well.
Quoting Bob Ross
True. But having been in the community for a while and seeing their desire to cleave it, I'm willing to do so and see if certain things they say make any sense even after this is given. I have no issue with new terms or approaches, but are the statements involved in these approaches valid?
Quoting Bob Ross
100% Part of the approach here is to demonstrate the poor grammar involved in this attempt. If someone actually felt that gender was completely divorced from sex, I would likely see an argument somewhere saying, "You're right, we need to be more specific," or trying to justify the grammer. The only reply I've seen so far is, "Well people talk this way now, and we shouldn't debate what words should mean."
Quoting Bob Ross
Agreed.
Quoting Bob Ross
Sounds fair to me, though I would be willing to listen to anyone who has a different opinion.
I don’t think it succeeds, because they don’t really divorce male and female as sex from as gender. They still refer to, e.g., female qua gender as what socially we expect normally out of female qua sex; so they are still viewing it through the prism of “what should we expect this being of this nature to behave and represent?”.
Let’s say it is purely social though and that what we expect a sex to behave like is purely based off of unrelated factors to their nature. Then the view does succeed in divorcing them, but now it falls into superficiality. If gender is just some particular trope of expression that any person could decide to exhibit, then it is just a personal personality that someone is deciding to become; and then this would be utterly meaningless for important aspects of how we treat people of different natures. For example, is it meaningful to divy up bathrooms based off of purely subjective personality types? Not at all. We separate the bathrooms based off of natures to properly respect their dignities. Divvying up the bathrooms on personalities would be like having a chess player fanatic bathroom only, a gamers only bathroom, the ping-pong addicts bathroom; etc. This isn’t a meaningful differentiator for driver licenses, prisons, bathrooms, etc.
This is why, going back to my point about the political tension, the important aspect of gender theory is not itself but, rather, what it is being developed for: it is being used to peddle treating people in the sense of gender as if it is in the sense of sex. Neo-liberals want to be able to present themselves as if they are the opposite sex so that they now get treated as if they are one; and they came up with gender theory to try and justify it. The common view on gender theory isn’t merely that “gender” is analogous to social personality types and expressions: it’s the attempt of subverting normal gender (sex) roles for personality traits and social expressions. E.g., I am now a woman because I present myself as one, so now you should treat me as if I really am a woman (in terms of how we would treat one that is biologically a woman); and is the real meat of the disagreement.
If a person could truly change sexes, then this wouldn’t be a political issue; but it not is the case that they can’t but also for conservatives it doesn’t help that they normally hold that the soul has a gender (sex) which cannot be changed without killing the person.
Fair enough. If I were playing devil’s advocate, I would say that gender is purely social; and sex is biological. How we decided to treat people based off of sex is truly social. So if you are treating a biological woman in X manner it would not be related to the woman’s biology or nature; if that is true, then if someone who isn’t a biological woman presents the same social cues that you use to determine how to treat a biological woman, then you would rationally need to treat the non-biological woman the same way.
Agreed. I view gender as socially enforced/acceptable prejudice and sexism.
Quoting Bob Ross
Agreed. I mentioned to another poster here that the game is to get you to say a trans person is the other sex without having you think you're saying a trans person is the other sex. I find it beautifully twisted and deceptive.
And that was part of the experiment. Unveil the deception a bit. Force someone to come to the table and talk about it as if we took the distinction seriously and see if they agreed. So far, no one really has. Just a few individuals fooled into thinking it is virtuous to get people to play the game. I may post another thread later about whether transgender rights are really rights. A little tied up this week though and I would like some more time to address it properly.
It is explicitly not running them together. It is explicitly saying that biological tendencies are required for a 'socially constructed' gender to obtain. Otherwise, there is no such boundary line under which 'a gender' could be captured. Yes, sex and gender are different, but 'gender' is closely tied to sexual expression (i.e sexed behaviours and tendencies). You cannot tease these two apart and get anything coherent under the term 'gender'. This is why I am quite sure your use of these words is no better than current uses. They are conflatory (and, though neither of us puts much in this, also essentially means we cannot refer to trans people in a way they are comfortable with. My solution allows both: trans women are women, but female is the category any institution should be bent to care about). I am sorry if it was unclear enough to have this be missed.
Quoting Philosophim
Hm... I'm not suggesting that this is gender. I was quite purposefully separating this type of indicator from the tenuous claim that [i]behaving that way makes you a man[/i]. It can be one of the clustered behaviours (which are biologically derived) that constitutes 'a man' without any direct recourse to biology. It is gender. Because a female who shows male-level aggression isn't trans. But a trans-man probably wants to include that in their behaviour to fit the construct's criteria.
That said, if you do not openly expect a transman to be more aggressive than a non-trans female, I can't quite see what 'construct' we are suppose to be thinking of here. Genders are constructed from biological expectations that are applied to the categories not represented by those biological expectations. A female presenting typically male behaviours could conceivable transition 'properly'. A female who is exceptionally feminine in behaviour will never been taken even vaguely seriously in their transition other htan by sycophants and TRAs.
Quoting Philosophim
This also applies, as noted above, to biologically typical behaviours between sexes. If the only criteria for the construct are made-up nonsense then there is no basis for even discussing 'transition'.
Quoting Philosophim
Definitely agree and there are plenty of well-known trans people who do not think that way. Brandi Nitti, Blaire White, Debbie Hayton, Buck Angel etc..
Uh, im going to have cry fowl on this: when i was a teenager, i liked girls...so sometimes i would say stuff like "sweetheart" to them with sexual overtones. I realized later i sounded like "a creep", but the point is, my kinda grubby/masculine appearance is what made it look malicous. It doesn't carry the same overtones when a 40 yo woman says that to people affectionately, regardless of their sexual feelings.
The coding with is subtle in modern times, and is far from universal, but it does exist. Trans seems to be about personal preferences...
According to many on the gender side of the discussion, it is correct that there is no boundary line under which gender can be captured. Keep going with them and they'll start to say how even 'sex' doesn't have any boundaries either. Because the entire point is to get you to see them as the other sex without you realizing you're saying that.
Quoting AmadeusD
Correct. Gender is incoherent when you break it down into the meaning they want you to. It truly boils down to culturally enforced stereotypes and sexism.
Quoting AmadeusD
No apology needed. One of the main issues with gender ideology is its incoherent and unclear vocabulary. This is intentional, as it is meant to be conflationary. I did give plenty of people a chance to clear up any ambiguity who tend to support the ideology, and almost without fail they double down on it or reject clear distinctions. That's because its not about clear vocabulary or distinctions. Its a tool to rationalize, not a tool of rationality.
I disagree with your solution, though understand its good intention, because it only serves to allow this conflationary communication to continue. The only reason trans individuals want the phrase 'trans men are men' is because they really want to hear the idea that now they're actually the other sex. That's it. They don't want to clarify it to clearly mean gender. Its a deception that asks a person to have poor grammer, poor thinking, and is used by them to argue why they deserve to be in opposite sex spaces. Imo, its not only poor grammer, its a lie with wiggle room.
Quoting AmadeusD
And this is where the confusion lies. According to gender theory, gender is not constructed from biological expectations. It is purely cultural expectations. So prejudice, stereotypes, and sexism not based on biology, but culture alone. Think of someone wearing a suit. You make cultural expectations of that person because of that suit by observation alone. You think, "A person in a suit would never jump." The person jumps. They have defied your 'suit expectation'. That's gender in gender theory. It is a suit that you put on and take off like any other clothing. And you expect that when you are wearing that clothing, that other people will treat you as you personally feel someone should be treated while wearing that clothing.
Yes, gender when fully defined and understood is essentially the way a child views the world.
Quoting AmadeusD
Just a suit. Are they wearing male clothing and slouching like men should in public? That's a man.
Quoting AmadeusD
It doesn't matter. She's just a feminine behaving man because she's wearing male clothing. Don't be a bigot. ;)
Quoting AmadeusD
Correct! Because gender was simply a rationalizing tool to justify transsexualism. Transitioning your body to align with your 'gender identity' was always word salad gibberish to avoid the word 'transsexual'. Its a repackaging of transsexualism to be a more hip, modern, and virtue signaling identity so that way we can get you to agree with us having those surgeries funded by the medical community and hope we won't be seen as strange anymore.
Quoting AmadeusD
Correct. They're speaking to the truth of transsexualism as the mental health issue that it is. They don't want special treatment, they just want to be a part of society without bothering other people. I have massive respect for these individuals and hope that the loud trans activists who want special treatment don't ruin the peace and accepted place in society that many honest transsexual already have.
Sure, there are still sexist people in today's society, just as there are still racist people in today's society, but that does not mean sexism and racism are universal or systemic.
Don't we actually have laws to not discriminate, as in treating people differently because of their sex? Then what is gender as an expectation of the sexes, if not discrimination?
Some girls like to be called sweetheart. Some don't. My wife sometimes wears my lounge pants and my t-shirt to relax around the house. She is not making a statement about sex or gender. She is merely trying to be comfortable. So yes, it isn't universal now, even though it used to be, and what will happen is that we become separated as different groups use the terms how they want and stop communicating with anyone else that sees them differently. What would be the point when we would just end up talking past each other anyway?
According to the definition of gender, that's all it really is. Its simply culturally accepted prejudice and/or sexism.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Also correct. Because the point is to use the term 'gender' as a rationalization and rebranding of transsexualism. Its the reuse of common language to conflate and confuse people into thinking that gender bending, which is normal, can justify a transsexual as also normal who should be allowed into cross sex spaces in society.
Its quite brilliant really. They piggy-backed off of the good will shown to gays (which they deserve both morally and rationally), and appealed to people's good nature in an attempt to get people to see them as normal too. The difference is that the transsexuals behind all of this used deception because they believed honesty wouldn't get them what they wanted. Cross sex space access. Its been the entire focal point of the trans activist community.
Looking at the history, the denial of access to cross sex spaces is where the anger, revolt, and cancelling of people always pivots around. Look at JK Rowling. She wrote an immensely supportive letter to the trans community, but drew a line in the sand that being a transsexual doesn't give you a right to be in cross sex spaces. Pronouns are used by people to describe the sex of an individual, and the trans activist community insisted it be 'gender'. Of course they know that pronouns refer to sex for people. Its all a plan to get you to say it to convince you that 'they are the other sex' without you realizing you agreed to it. Because once you realize that's what they want, the only logical conclusion is to say, "But you aren't actually the other sex, you don't belong in cross sex spaces."
To me, the transgender issue is a fascinating use of words and terms to manipulate a population. It mirrors a secular religion in many ways, as well as a political entity. Philosophers should be pouring over these definitions and reasons to really see what works here, but they successfully cowed people to not think about it because they first painted it as a moral issue that should not be questioned or debated. It is a secular religion, and even many atheists fell to its message. History will likely look back and say, "How could people be so stupid back then?" like we always see in history when people fall for objectively stupid ideologies and outlooks. But we aren't stupid. Its just a reminder that you always have to be diligent with word use and rational thought despite the pressures not to. Especially for social conformity and cultural claims of virtue, the temptation and pressure to conform and not think about it is powerful.
A female that shows "male-level" aggression is non-sensical. The simple fact that a female is exhibiting the aggression is evidence that aggression is not a male thing. It is a human thing to show aggression. It is human behavior that is on a spectrum. If both sexes can exhibit the behavior then the behavior is not a criteria of one sex/gender or the other.
Transgenderism is like religion in many ways: It's a mass delusion and it makes people talk in non-sensical ways as they abandon all reason and logic in their discourse.
that's an excellent point that gender itself is a form of sexism: however, the laws to discriminate only apply to jobs and services, and the discrimination has to be openly spoke. Any employer can refuse to hire a pregnant woman ("she may not be as useful as someone who isn't expecting"), but the employer can't tell them it has anything to do with them being a woman.
Quoting Harry Hindu
this very well may be the case, yet as you were basically arguing in the quote of yours i just used, the more normal ways of looking at gender are also religious mass delusions. For example, women have always been prized by their societies for their effeminate looks, yet now adays the beauty standard is so high for some people that it basically alienates everyone (women and men included). I think our extreme attachment to youthful looks and beauty also has negative side effects like encouraging pedophilia, which people are ironically too childish to talk openly about....
Also, outside of school age I've found the expectations people have about me "being a man" are pretty much trivial and non-existent. However, there's that domineering attitude that men are supposed to be regularly having sex with women and that masturbating is the sign of "a loser". Luckily I don't have to talk to make friends with guys like that anymore. "Toxic masculinity" is one of those things where men tend to weave their own webs of destruction through more brutal attitudes about themselves and others, and it has a lot in common with the extreme attachment towards youthfulness and effeminate beauty.
I have differing views here.. but I see the issue you're raising.
Quoting Philosophim
I don't think you've understood what I've said here: It is that this isn't hte case and there is a totally reasonable use for the distinction, albeit derivable from sexed expectations.
Quoting Philosophim
Once against, it explicitly reserves the two words for independent use. There is no conflation, and it clearly demarcates when one is talking about sex or gender. There is no conflation. It is not confused. It just may be not hte preferred option.
Quoting Philosophim
They might not. That's a non-issue for this part of the discussion though.
Quoting Philosophim
I am not talking Gender theory, though. I am discussing solutions to the obvious problems it presents. I am not particularly interested in simply bagging on a prima facie absurd ideology. The problem you raise, I have acknowledge. I am trying to get around them so as not to have to kow to obviously incoherent policy thinking.
Quoting Philosophim
This is not my circus. I'm going ot have to ignore this type of stuff going on.. I'm not arguing about those issues. I get the distinct feeling you're not looking for solutions or coming-to-terms at all?
Quoting Harry Hindu
This is patently disingenuous. I said the italicised. Not the bolded(well, the inverse as makes sense given you're replying to me). They are extremely different things to claim. Females sometimes exhibit typically male levels of aggression. This is not controversial, nonsensical or any other bollocks you want to throw out. It's a psychological/sociological fact that is well-understood by behaviourists, sociologists and anthropologists. I have no further to talk about here.
Quoting Harry Hindu
You just conflated sex and gender, entirely jettisoning the purpose and fundamental ground of the discussion. That explains a lot.
Quoting Harry Hindu
It seems perhaps you are not giving as much of the good old faith as you'd like.
To a certain extent I could see that when it comes to the more loosely associated aspects of gender to sex (like hair style); but a lot of it seems to be legitimate to me (such as feminine vs. masculine traits and behaviors).
In post-modern society we are very inclined to treat people as if by being a person they are the exact same as every other person; but a “person” is an abstraction: not a kind of substance. Having personhood is an aspect of certain natures—not a nature itself. Although men and women have the same moral worth, they are not equal in nature. They have different roles (teleological) in the human species: they are the yin and yang that solidify the survival and harmony of the species. To discriminate based off of sex just means to differentiate—to treat differently—based off of sex; and this is not per se wrong. You get a woman flowers when you wouldn’t have if they were a man; you draft men and not women for wars; etc.
Exactly! Or it is a convoluted game of noting the superficial point that there are an indefinite amount of personalities that someone would express.
It sounds to me that this is an example of there being no general, overarching expectation of the sexes in our society as a whole and that it is only among smaller groups, such as your friends or local municipality or state, where these types of expectations exist and change from one group to another. Hence gender is not a social construct on the scale of society as a whole, but among certain groups that might have been raised a certain way, which in a free society can differ from one person to the next and from one region of society to the next. So, in western societies, one's gender is determined by the small group you are in, not in society as a whole, and your gender only changes when you transition from one group or region to another where there are different expectations (like moving from New York to Texas).
You're missing the point that I made quite clear. If a female can exhibit male-level aggression then why is it called male-level? The level of aggression between a male protecting its territory and a female protecting its young seems about the same level. So what exactly do you mean by "male-level"? Let the mental gymnastics begin!
Quoting AmadeusD
This is like saying that someone saying "god does not exist" jettisons the purpose and fundamental ground of a discussion about the relationship between god and nature - a discussion that assumes a premise and you not liking any type of statement that jettisons that assumption.
To me this is correct, even though the political left usually refuses to see things this way as it would unravel their worldview. The midwest is different from more metropolitan areas of the U.S., yet even with those areas, there are still major differences of opinion. It is a large scale construct, but not in interpretation.
For example, when i said "guys like that", i wasn't referring to the masturbation thing, but a trend within my party going social environments to rate people on how much they get layed. Sometimes i would have to talk to people like that through association. The shame over masturbating is only something me and one of my later friends noticed about the internet masculinity preachers, but i coupled them just because the mindsets are very similar...you see "getting layed" as some sort of spiritual status that's a sign of how important you are.
The fact that there are people that do not fit neatly into our conceptual boxes is evidence that those conceptual boxes don't actually exist. In other words, the transgendered notion of man and woman do not exist because much of western society no longer has those expectations, so there is nothing to transition between - which is why they are now making it about sex because sexual identities, compared to gendered ones, are real.
Aren't you a daisy! The foundation of American culture isn't some profound humanist insight that "all men are created equal" or some such. It's just pragmatism: declare all the various factions to be equal under the law, so that they won't have legal grounds to fight for supremacy to the point of destruction (and so there will be no collateral damage from those fights that someone else would need to clean up).
Then read again.
So you didn't up the ante and you don't have an effective policy. Hm.
So what? It obviously works, even if it's done in bad faith.
Well, a double daisy you are!
It's not confusing times - just some confused people. Logic and reason is what clears the confusion. It's just that some people do not value logic and reason, or are inconsistent in their application.
That, and overtime applying the logic and reason to understanding politics/power was helpful to me personally, but that also gives you a sense that "we live in confusing times", with the fragmented and separated nature of human activities.
I think that's right. There are local expectations which are essentially one of the organizing traits of a society. I don't personally see a problem with that, except that people tend be indoctrinated where those expectations are particularly strong. That can be a serious problem.
Quoting baker
I'm not quite sure what's going on here. Yes. That is a fundamental 'American' objective. All humans being created equal isn't profound, but its extremely important to enshrine for a wide-reaching society. I can't quite tell - this sounds like an objection? Is it?
Quoting baker
I have. I don't see an issue. It seems that you have a problem with those aspects of a society. I do not see why (that's not to say applications, and ways of going about it for <400m people is probably not going well...)
Quoting baker
I can't understand how you could say this. I literally explained how to up the ante (with examples of such) and this is an effective policy. It is hte strongest, most effective social policy ever used by any group ever - and it is ubiquitous. This goes to my reply to Harry - those local expectations are enforced by this social "ante-upping" until you get public beheadings. It seems like you might genuinely be trolling here?
Quoting baker
This doesn't butter any bread. I still can't understand what you were asking. Doing things in bad faith doesn't work.
Mindy Kaling is a source of utter drivel. That quote is patently false and I have no reason to take it seriously. I live with women. I hear their experienced. I watch media. I watch (in an observer type of way) social media. Women are encouraged at every stage of life to the detriment of men and boys. This has been fairly well established in the last 10 years. Women (females) are predisposed to anxiety.
To be honest, I'm not going to debate that issue with someone posting memes to support it. I will stick with the experiences of women I know, conveniently reflected in the statistics relevant to the questions.
Calling me a daisy just makes it seem like you have nothing..
My apologies for getting back late to you on this. I am curious about your view points on another thread I started analyzing which trans gender rights claims are human rights. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16233/are-trans-gender-rights-human-rights/p1 then
Given your final line, do you expect a good-faith response? Or would it be more reasonable to simply not be a dickhead, and then expect to not have a dickhead respond? Consider that.
it is the level of aggression typical of males on average. This is not rocket science. This is uncontroversial, and well-known in the psychological literature.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031938496800308
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6318556/
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/711705
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-024-06859-9
I cannot conceive of how its upsetting to hear about hte typical differences in aggression between males and females. Where females exhibit heightened levels of aggressive, this is a 'more masculine' trait as compared to being less aggressive which is a seen as feminine, given the difference is typical between the two sexes on average. Conceding, as one must, that this is simply hte result of the research that's been done and not a knock-down, all-time answer to the issue - Its beyond me why this is getting your panties twisted.
Quoting Harry Hindu
You're going to need to figure out how to work language into making the connection between "God" and "nature" and "sex" and "gender" on the other, workable. This response just tells me you're happy to conflate separate concepts and just keep going as if anyone adequately discussing the issues must be wrong somehow. That seems, sorry to say, childish. Sex and gender are not hte same thing and that is the entire basis for the discussion. IGnoring this explains why you're not making much sense.
You are free to interpret the line how you want and to respond in any tone you wish. All that matters to me is if your response is sensible or not.
Quoting AmadeusD
None of your articles use the phrase "levels of aggression", and they all seem to support that aggression is biological, not social - that males are more aggressive because of their levels of testosterone.
If sex and gender were not the same then why do trans seek hormone replacement therapy to exemplify the sex they are trying to identify as?
Quoting AmadeusD
It's not upsetting to hear about the typical differences. What is upsetting is to equate these differences to differences in gender and not sex.
If you want to say sex and gender are different- fine, but then stop conflating sex and gender.
If sex and gender are separate then that means that gender has nothing to do with our physiology or our behaviors dictated by our physiology - like the level of aggression males have vs females. Males can't give birth and females cannot exhibit male-level aggression.
I do not respond well to children with fingers in their ears saying "I know you are, but what am i?". So I'll just not.
You must be delusional as I didn't see any children participating in this thread saying such things - just full grown adults that do not value logic and reason.
Because they are wrong (on my view, obviously but its a pretty widely-held one). It is hard to understand how you could ask this question. It requires a metaphysical leap that is simply not open to us, I think.
Either Gender and Sex are the same - in which case trans people literally do not exist, they are just deluded - or they are not the same - and trans people in fact, exist, and attempt to artificially appear as though they exemplify typical features of the opposite sex. I contend the latter is correct. Given the balance of logical considerations, it seems relatively unassailible that if "trans people" exist as some 'true' category, then it relates to gender (and explicitly, not sex). Are you wanting to say that trans people are born the wrong sex? That seems totally incoherent. In either case, the reason a male who wants to be female takes what's called 'cross-sex hormones' is to make it easier to behave the way they expect women to behave. Its all quite sexist.
This is what makes sense of the fact that trans women tend to be as aggressive as non-trans males(and represent similarly in crime stats (although, trans women are more likely to commit a sex crime than non-trans males). Because its typical of the sex (including the paratheses). They do, though, routinely repress that aggression to appear more feminine. This is pretty clearly an example of behaving in a way typical of the other sex. This is why I have always maintained that gender does not vary independent of sex (i.e genders themselves are obviously derived from clusters of typical behaviours attributed to the two sexes into clusters of "expected" behaviours rather than observed ones - though, as will be clear these rarely come very far apart) but is not sex and only requires sex as a reference point. The fact is sex is an extremely robust metric in humans, so the variance is quite low - despite it being theoretically possible to say "I'm trans" and present/behave 100% typical for your sex it is not possible to take that seriously, unless Gender is meaningless entirely.
Quoting Harry Hindu
It is possible you have either entirely misinterpreted me.
The differences between males and females have to be exemplified in the behaviours of trans individuals to even get on the ladder of being trans. A trans person who literally does nothing to alter their sex-typical behaviour is not trans. Plain and simple. They are not 'on the other side' of anything. Their sex is still their sex, and their presentation is still their presentation. This leads to the problem that there are only really two ways "gender" can go: Either gender refers to sex. In which case , you do not have a choice. You cannot self-identify as a sex, and therefore you cannot identify into a gender either.
The other way it could go is that gender is a social construct. In this case, society tells you your gender. You also do not have a choice here.
The argument which is made to circumvent this is that gender is self-identification. Ok. If that's so, then it is literally invented and not a description of anything but a desire, or thought. That's also fine. In this case, no one is required to participate in your self-image. At all. At any time. You can request, and polite people will acquiesce but no one is required to accept your self image. You can say you're trans all you want, but if every single person who interacts with you clocks a male who is also a man, you have failed and are not trans.
Are you trans? If not, then are you saying that you know better than the trans person in this instance? And is it that they are just "wrong", or are they "delusional"? What if they aren't identifying as a gender, but as a sex? How would you know? How would they know?
And why would it be hard to understand to ask this question when hormone replacement therapy is called "gender-affirming care"? :roll:
Quoting AmadeusD
No. I'm saying that is what trans-people appear to be saying. I'm asking what it means for a man to claim to be a woman.
Quoting AmadeusD
Which just means that our behaviors are rooted in biology.
Quoting AmadeusD
Then sex and gender are intertwined.
Quoting AmadeusD
...or that you have misinterpreted trans-gendered people, or that trans-people and their supporters have no idea what they are talking about and aren't really disagreeing with the idea that sex and gender are the same.
Quoting AmadeusD
Is gender a social construct or a self-identification that runs counter to the social expectation? It can't be both because one is the anti-thesis of the other.
If gender were a social construct then why is most of society surprised to see a man in a dress? If gender were a social construct then a man wearing a dress would simply be abiding by the expectation and there would be no push back from the rest of society. But there is and it is because the man is not following the rules - that women wear dresses, not that wearing a dress makes you woman.
If gender is merely a social construct then wouldn't that mean that transgenderism is a social construct? Wearing a dress does not require one to take hormone treatments or have any kind of surgery at all. The only way for a person to determine their gender is to choose one’s gender based on gender stereotypes present throughout a culture. If gender is a social construct, then it describes the expectations and stereotypes historically linked to biological sex — expectations that feminism worked hard to overcome. To say one can “identify” as another gender is to say that those outdated expectations still define what it means to be male or female. In other words, self-identifying as another gender merely re-affirms the very stereotypes that we're supposed to have been rendered obsolete.
I think probably most telling is the bold. Prefacing by saying it was "on my view". I know plenty of trans people, a couple quite intimately.
Yes, my position is they are wrong. You cannot change sex. They want to exemplify typical phenotypic traits of the opposite sex and there's nothing wrong with doing that, imo, for an adult (we both discuss this elsewhere, and itll come up further down here). But it is factually incorrect that they can change sex, as far as I know and think.
Quoting Harry Hindu
That's why its hard to understand. It affirms gender, not sex. Running sex and gender together as one thing doesn't seem a move open to any type of thinker on this topic. If they were the same, we would be saying humans can change sex. Is that what you're saying?
Quoting Harry Hindu
Ah, well fair enough. I don't think many of them are claiming that, but yes, some do. That's definitely true. There is speak of womb transplants. (I have deliberately put this response here, after my question, because I think they run together - if you don't think trans people are 'born in the wrong body' I suggest you can't claim humans can change sex).
Quoting Harry Hindu
To some degree, yeah definitely. I have no issue with that - i was speaking about this at some length recently. Females and males have average behavioural profiles, and the introduction of cross-sex hormones is to (ostensibly - it doesn't seem to work) engender a change of behaviour in the individual to be closer to the sex they want to be. They cannot be that sex, so the care affirms a "gender", rather than a sex. Does this make sense?
Quoting Harry Hindu
Conceptually, yes (as described above). But one can, apparently, claim a gender without any notable or visible change in phenotype, behaviour or anything else. I presume based on your responses you do not think that person can be considered trans? I'm unsure, and not trying to corner you - I just see some trip-ups in these sets of claims. For me, too. I don't see that sex and gender need be practically intertwined. But that said, I think "gender" can only go three ways. They are all quite well-defined and I presume you're about to respond to them :P
Quoting Harry Hindu
yes, that could be true, but I 100% reject that sex and gender are the same, and I stand behind this claim entirely based on my pretty thorough understanding of the concepts and discussions thereof. There is nothing to suggest that a person can change sex, but there is plenty to suggest one can change gender. They are patently, observably, not the same. The majority of trans people acknowledge this (as best I can tell.. don't shoot me for going on that haha). Perhaps five or six years ago there was more of that, but not only is identification as trans nosediving, the overblown claims about it are also dropping away - we have plenty of visible, public trans people agreeing with me (no, that doesn't make me right, but as I see it, the logic does).
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yes, that's what I'm trying to illustrate. It could only be one of the three possibilities:
1. Sex
2. Social construct
3. Personal choice (maybe that's a disrespectful work, but it seems true if we're taking self-ID seriously as a concept.
Quoting Harry Hindu
This is exactly what one would expect from a social construct. Society expects X due to its construction, but sees Y and is perturbed (or whatever word.. for me, its more amused or excited (in the general "Hey, that's interesting" sense)).
Quoting Harry Hindu
This is getting dangerously close to the point: Wearing a dress doesn't make you a woman. I mean, my position is that a woman is an adult human female and gender is a different use of the word woman, which is never adequately parsed, so perhaps we're both barking at the wrong tree here? But, Ill address for the sake of clarity: If Gender is a social construct, then society tells you your gender. If most people treat you as 'a woman', that's what you are. Doesn't matter what you think or feel. Same for being 'a man'. This accords with (2.) above. For my part, I find this one a good argument to get beyond claims that gender is fully variant and choosable. If its a social construct, you, personally, don't get a say. This means that if you're a man, and society treats you as a man, and you turn up in a dress, you'll turn heads. That fits perfectly with gender-as-social-construct.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yes, that would be the case. I think it's the case even with (3.). With that, you are making a personal choice derived from social expectation still. That seems to me a social construct, the same way something like lawyering is considered a 'male' job. There's nothing particularly male about it (as opposed to oil drilling, let's say). The difference between (2.) and (3.) is that you tell society your gender in (3.) but the opposite in (2.).
Quoting Harry Hindu
It should be clear that to me, this is (3.) and not a social construct, per se.
Quoting Harry Hindu
For both (2.) and (3.) this is one of the realizations that prevented me from continuing down the gender theory pathway. It is senseless and counter to progress. It is misogynistic and sexist in ways that somewhat explain why it seems more prevalent among males and children (its something like four times more likely in someone under 18 - but data between sexes it not available, I am speculating with decent data sets).
Quoting Harry Hindu
Hmm, I don't think so - but that's because for me sex and gender come entirely apart at this stage of discussion. I thnk I've adequately defended that position, though. So seems reasonable to say on this that I entirely agree, but those stereotypes are (while derived from biological expectations) no longer reasonable, and so bled into 'gender' expectation like being quieter as a woman, or less defensive.
False. They are "transwomen" (typical XY) and "transmen" (typical XX). Period. Usually they suffer from gender dysphoric disorder (GDD). Otoh, men are adult males (typical XY) and women are adult females (typical XX). Ergo: e.g. it's reasonable (i.e. fair) to prohibit "transwomen" (typical XY) from physically competing against women (typical XX) in organized sports.
Addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/336888 (re: the Junk)
Transitioning children seems... dubious at best. Abusive at worst.
It was a bad idea.
Modern day research demonstrates it seems to be medical malpractice on children. First, the research that showed kids with gender dysphoria were more likely to kill themselves was shown to be false. When comorbidities such as depression and other mental health issues were isolated, it turned out the suicidality rate was equal to the expected rate of those comorbidities. Gender dysphoria itself has no significant suicidality rate.
We've also know for decades, with the last paper published in 2021, that if kids are not actively transitioned from 12 to 18, 50-80% of them do not transition as adults. Other research shows that around 80% of those who do not transition turn out to be gay.
Finally puberty blockers are an off label use of the drug to block puberty for kids with gender dysphoria. The theory was that if their puberty was blocked for a year or two, that it would give the child time to figure out if they really should transition or not. A deep study found out that 99% of kids put on puberty blockers transitioned, basically making it a pathway to transition whereas 50-89% of them would never have transitioned at all.
There is still a powerful faction of transgender activists that are still pushing for puberty blockers and medical transition for minors despite the above research. Reasons I've seen: "If I could have stopped my puberty prior to transition, I would look more like the opposite sex today". "Its just transphobic research. (No counter research, only an opinion)" "Trans is a natural state of being that you have when you are born and can't be changed"
Its very much a "We have to save the children" mentality that seems to stem more about 'saving the ideology' than a fact based approach. I've commented that trans ideology in the activist community is very much a secular religion, and going after kids to secure ideas and 'make trans normal' also seems to be a part of it. I also want to be clear that trans individuals who transitioned purely due to gender dysphoria generally do not seem to be pushing transition for kids. It is those who seem to enjoy transition, 'gender euphorics' who want to push this on kids as a reflection of their own desires. Finally, in case anyone thinks I'm 'transphobic', I supported puberty blockers initially and believed that in rare cases transition for kids might be the best medical practice. As more research has come out and I got to see the community personally, I have naturally changed my position.
There's something going on there. Why is being put on a puberty blocker such a powerful determinant for transitioning? Is the puberty blocker a casual agent for transitioning? Why? Why not just stop the blockers sometime in the future and be part of the 50-89% that don't transition. Is it a correlation? Are kids who get puberty blockers also the kids that are very serious about transitioning?
Again, this isn't my view. I have not known any children who have transitioned (or teens, for that matter) whcih I take to be a good thing (largely because this indicates the prevalence of gender dysphoria among children is perhaps lower than posited by activists).
The current argument that makes the most sense to me personally is that you need to go through puberty to really understand what its like to be male or female. Because being male and female is primarily about sex, and puberty is coming to terms with sex.
The thing is. In this discussion people often become less fair. They make assumptions about such an OP..and as a result they suddenly stop being philosophers. Deeply unfair offcourse. To be unfair and then not engage in proper discussion and project unfairness.
That said. If it is really so that I can be a woman (sex) in a male (sex) body. (I know one could define it as being a different gender role in a different body. But most people wouldn't fully be man or woman then if we strip the need for genitals, and additionally, eventually people often do they to assume they are truly more then just the societal role in a different body, they often tie it to hormones) Then some form of dualism must be true. then that's not so hard really. And how do we track this dualism? If it's a soul
Good luck. If it's property dualism arising from the brain also good luck. That will get messy. Because in the end the premises and logic used to derive one is a woman (sex) in a male (sex body) is likely to be very very problematic.
But what people tend to do is either believe that somehow it's possible or that possibly something is going on that goes beyond bad logic and actually touches on something about the brain that is yet unknown. And that we should have empathy for whatever this something is. Because if we are wrong and deny their claims, that's a moral horror. Whereas if we are right and their claims about being x in a not x body are wrong. Then it also feels bad for them.
The problem though is that there are many other cases where people believe something very strongly and if they are denied assent on their beliefs they can also feel very alone. Some even get institutionalized for other types of beliefs. Maybe they'd also feel better if we played along? I guess the key difference is the other beliefs (non gender or sex related) are usually less trivial more dangerous.
I however don't think that an entire society should lie. It's best we make a a clear difference between my mom who's born with a vagina and can have children and someone born with a penis who can't ever have children , who has to take hormones to bodily become more like a woman (sex). We can call them 'woman' (gender) in most social contexts (for empathy and reason). But we also should refrain from calling them genetic or biological women. (As to not become unfair, unrealistic, nor commit philosophical suicide)
You could tie it to hormonal levels. But most have to take hormones to change. Showing that they weren't already thanks to hormones other then their body. But yes. We can choose to call them whatever they like to be called. It's not a big deal. But let's be fair.
True, but I understand that. There's a lot of emotion that can be wrapped up in this, and I try to have patience and guide it back to 'just thinking about things'.Quoting Jack2848
I agree. For me, terms are for conveying accuracy of intent, not to cater to someone's emotional reaction over those words. So if someone told me, "I'm a doctor" but it was just that they really desired to be a doctor, me replying, "You're not a doctor", is not intended to insult, demean, or make them feel bad. Its just a correction to align with reality. If a person gets upset over an observation of reality that is not intended to demean, insult, or diminish an individual, but is truly intended to describe reality, I don't think anyone is under an obligation to change their terms.
Quoting Jack2848
I suppose this is an issue for me. Someone feeling bad about other people's perception of reality just doesn't seem to be a viable argument of obligation. I want to be clear, I don't mean bullying abuse, or intentional disrespect. Its about feeling bad about reality. That's just life. Reality has its ups and downs, and there are many realities that are uncomfortable that we have to learn to deal with.
To show this is not an armchair claim, I have bad facial scars from years of acne. I have rolling scars not only over my cheeks, but my forehead. I take people's breath away. My initial reactions with most people are wide eyes, a bit of panic, or the inability to look at me at all during the conversation. My face is literally something you would see in a horror movie, maybe worse.
When I was young and immature, I became despondent because I realized how shallow people are and that I would forever be cut off from humanity at a fundamental level. Anyone who tells you looks don't matter is a naive idiot. Fortunately, I might be ugly on the outside, but I've fostered not being ugly on the inside. Not that anyone cares, I do it for myself. I thought about it a while. Do other people owe me special treatment because my face is messed up? No. Do I have the right to be angry at them for it? No.
You see that's MY problem. And that means I have to deal with it. Not others. The guy who's uncomfortable looking at me doesn't have to look at me. The person who has panic is blameless. The person who is uncomfortable is ok. No one has to call me handsome or good looking. No one has to pretend I'm attractive. People can believe they are superior to me. Its all ok. Because its my problem, and I have to deal with it.
Has it been painful over the years? Of course. "Hell" is an apt moniker as I'm shy on top of it. I hate to be noticed by people in general, and it is impossible to blend in. I do not question that there would have been other people in my shoes who would have ended it. So when I hear of the anguish of a trans gender person and talks of suicide, I know. Not in theory, but in life experience.
It does not excuse me to demand other people treat me differently. The solution is not to 'pretend everything is ok and I really don't look that bad'. The solution is to recognize the reality of the situation, and learn to emotionally and rationally come to terms with it. That makes you strong. I could wear a mask, make up, or even visualize myself as having a clear face when I was younger. All of that is delusion that will eventually break down and leave you in a far worse state than if you just accepted it.
Quoting Jack2848
Agreed. I think a nice compromise has been 'trans woman'. Its an indicator that a male is trying to live their life as a woman. It might be painful for a trans person to acknowledge that they can't ever truly be the other sex, but that's just delusion otherwise. To become strong in character one must face the challenges of their life head on, honestly admit what they are, and deal with them understanding what they are doing. Anything else is shameful and makes you a burden to others. Asking others to call you something that you and they know isn't real is you making yourself a burden onto another person. I feel bad for the person taking that burden, but I also feel bad for the person who is so weak in character that they think being a burden is an entitlement on others and not a big deal. It is a big deal for many people.
I want to be clear, I understand both the pain and the desire that many trans people go through. But it doesn't make them special. It doesn't mean society has to treat them with anything more than the legal respect everyone else is entitled to in society. So 'trans woman' works. They aren't women. Trans men aren't men. They and society should acknowledge the reality of the situation, and learn to accept each other best we can despite our differences. That's what wins respect in society.
And that is why this topic exists. I wanted to chat about it with other people with a philosophical viewpoint. If you want the outcomes in life that you think 'should' be, you must 'do' instead of relying on others to do it.
As this is a philosophy board nothing is assumed to be true. If someone wants to argue what a true identity is, and why trans is one, they are more than welcome to make their case.
I assume everyone agrees with the biological distinction between male & female. The next question is, should all biological men realize their potential as men & should all biological women realize their potential as women ? This is a matter of ethics & politics. The answer from strict Aristotelian virtue ethics is a categorical YES. So a man being woman-like or a woman being man-like would be defective. On top of this, [free] men & women have different roles to play in the polis of Aristotle
Not self flourishing, lacking virtue, not attaining required happiness, not fulfilling one's purpose etc. You can check Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics for more details.
Trans is a 'true' identity, and has existed historically everywhere. It's just that this modern iteration of that identity does not align with how it has existed everywhere else. The simple fact that trans girls and women are more common today than trans boys and men - who, historically, have made up two thirds of trans people, indicates that we are no longer talking about a 'true' trans experience.
The public debate - my impression of it anyway - is that it is almost exclusively conducted by those with no training in metaphysics and it shows, for there seem to be two camps, both fairly obviously false. The two views seem to be either that you're a woman if you identify as one (so, identifying as a woman constitutively determines that one is one), or alternatively a biologist determines whether you're a woman. So, it's either you, or a biologist.
Both views are silly. It's true that both are reliably proxies for being a woman. Virtually all people who identify as women are women (just as virtually all people who identify as lawyers are lawyers). And virtually all people who satisfy the biologist's criteria for being a woman are women too. But being a reliable proxy is not the same as being the thing one is a proxy for.
Let's do some entry level metaphysics: first, not every concept can be defined, for that would generate an infinite regress in which it turns out nothing can be defined.
Thus, if there are true definitions, then there are concepts that cannot be defined.
Most people don't realize this and believe - fallaciously - that unless one can provide a definition for a concept, one doesn't understand it or have it. That's demonstrably false. But becausea they believe it, they will not believe they grasp a concept - even one of those basic concepts that are unamenable to definition - unless a definition is provided. And the first one that presents itself or is offered, will normally then be the one they cleave to thereafter, refining it if necessary but not giving it up. It's so common it's got a name: the definist fallacy.
Here's how one might fallaciously arrive at the conclusion that being a woman is constitutively determined by one's own subjective states: virtually everyone who believes they are a woman is a woman, therefore believing you're a woman is what makes you a woman, and thus a woman is just someone who identifies as one.
The other 'side' notices that there are clear counterexamples to this thesis - there are clear cases of men who are identifying as women, yet are not thereby becoming women (for they still seem to answer to the concept of a man, despite their identifying otherwise). And so they offer a different definition: that a woman is someone with immobile gametes, because when biologists look in detail at women's bodies, they find they all have that feature. And biologists - who are not metaphysicians and are just as capable of fallacious reasoning as the next person - reason that as all women they've examined have immobile gamates, then that must be what makes a woman a woman. That's fallacious. All square things have a colour, but that doesn't make the definition of a shape 'coloured'. Plus we can easily imagine someone who answers to the concept of a woman, yet does not have immobile gamates or any at all. So, it's as plainly false upon reflection as the individual subjectivist view about what makes someone a women.
But both sides think understanding comes from definitions and so they just double down on their own and get increasingly angry at the other side (as is typical of the ignorant).
The truth seems to be that we have the concept of a woman without being able to define it. It is in this respect like the concept of a mountain or a tree. Those are not amenable to definition either. In fact, there are loads and loads of concepts like this, or seem to be (we know there have to be some, remember).
We have evidence that we have an indefinable concept - though one that we nevertheless 'have' and are adept at applying - when our best attempts to define it fail. And we know that our best attempts at defining it are failing when there seem to be things that clearly answer to the concept in question, yet do not answer to the definition (and vice versa).
Is there currently a huge debate over the correct definition of a woman? Yes, that's obvious. So, the very existence of the debate - and the fact that both definitions in play are quite plainly false (which is why the debate continues, for each side can correctly highlight the absurdity of the other's defintion) - gives us reason to think that the concept of a woman is indefinable. A woman is someone who answers to the concept of a woman - that, it seems, is as much as can be said. And we already know well enough how to apply the concept - for we judge the credibility of a definition by whether or not it delivers verdicts consistent with the concept. It's just the definist fallacy prevents people from recognizing that they have the concept prior to any attempted definition - and then they feel themselves obliged to substitute their concept for the definition instead.
So, are transwomen women? Well, if a transwoman is someone who identifies as a woman but would not be considered one by a biologist in the grips of the definist fallacy....then some of them might be, and some of them might not be. It depends on whether they answer to the concept of a woman - a concept that is not amenable to definition and that biologists are not authorities about.
But as you will see, these fora are the natural home for fallacies of definition.
Not quite. 'trans' hasn't existed many places at all. Most instances quoted are, in fact, torturous attempts to relitigate instances of historical homophobia. What's happening now isn't too far off, as you've noted elsewhere. Most trans youth resile into being gay at puberty.
What I meant by true is 'verifiable'. Claiming to be trans is nonsense, on it's face. Not that it can't mean anything at all socially, but on it's face, its like claiming to be a rock. Your second point is taken, and the sudden drop in identification in the last 18 months seems to suggest something along those lines.
Patently untrue. The definition of a woman as an 'adult human female' is not false in any sense of the word false. This entire post just prevaricates and ignores the problem.
It may be uncomfortable, and that's fine. It's not exactly the one I would use, simply because I'm happy to call polite, non-imposing people what they want to be called. That would require me to violate that definition.
So, let's actually get to some meat, and point out where what you're saying is entirely bogus:
Quoting Clarendon
"if" does so much lifting, that you've done nothing more than anyone else in this thread to even broach the topic. You're saying in the bolded that you simply take self-identity as rote, or alternately that there is no answer. So be it. But that's bollocks and I'm sure you know it.
The concept of a woman is either defined, or meaningless. I don't care which. Female does the job I need it to do.
Good point, but you'll need to demonstrate that woman cannot be defined.
Quoting Clarendon
I agree. First there's the experience of something, then we go about using words to better communicate that concept to another person. Words that cannot be defined rely on a shared understanding. For example, "Sight". To understand the word, you must be able to see. I cannot define your subjective experience of sight more than mine, but we both have a shared experience that allows us to definitively separate 'sight' from 'sound'. Thus an example of a word that cannot be defined, but also isn't nonsense and useful in language. After all, a nonsense word is a nonsense thought and can be dismissed as such.
Quoting Clarendon
How is that fallacious? If there is a shared objective experience that people can point to independent of one's subjective experience, then that's a viable word. Language is at its heart a series of signs and symbols to represent concepts which can be shared with other people. There is a physical aspect that is common to an adult human female which is clearly different from an adult human male, so we point out that difference as a means to separate the sexes. If we didn't use definitions, women are the only one's who can naturally birth babies and men are the only ones who can impregnate women. While we can understand that without a definition, a definition can help clarify and add to our understanding of the physical separation of men and women.
A fallacious term would be something that was contradictory in its statement. "A bungle is a mime bigger than itself" is an example of the fallacious term 'bungle'. You can't be bigger than yourself, so its dismissive nonsense.
Quoting Clarendon
Yet if we have a proper definition and understanding of a woman in our shared language, and someone incorrectly identifies as that definition, wouldn't they simply be wrong? Surely if I claimed you were Mr. Rogers I would be wrong? Surely if you identified as Mr. Rogers, who is long dead now, you would be wrong as well.
Definitions often have flexibility in their terminology which I know has always fascinated me. When does a molehill become a mountain? Except we don't have the question, "When does a canyon become a mountain?" Why? Because a canyon is a direct opposite or contradiction to the fundamental of a mountain. Mountains go up, canyons go down.
And thus why a man is not a woman. They are opposite and contradictory in matters of sex, which is the entire point of pointing out that an individual is a male or female. Defining a man as a woman would be fallacious if they were intended to be different concepts, as different concepts cannot be synonyms. You don't need a definition for that either. I think you have provided the means to counter the oft stated, "But what really makes up a woman anyway?" Simple, it is counter in sex functions to a man. No words or definitions needed.
Quoting Clarendon
No, I don't think there is. There's no debate that the term woman in the normative context means "Adult human female". There is a faction of people who want to create a context in which 'woman' should mean 'someone who acts in the sociologically (non-biologically) expected way some people think an adult human female should act in public' Or bizarrely, "A woman is a a person who acts like society expects a woman to act irrelevant to their biology". This is of course unclear language, which is a larger point of the OP.
"Trans woman are women" is simply unclear language. I'm also not debating that with modified adjectives to the word 'woman', we can get the context of woman as 'gendered woman'. That's what "Trans woman" does. If the normative and traditional definition of woman is "Adult human female", there should be a good reason why we replace that as the normative term with the gendered one. As there is not, and most people see 'woman' when unmodified by adjectives as "adult human female", a trans woman is not an adult human female.
Further, the language supports this separation. We have cis and trans to denote the context of woman as "sociological' expectation of adult human female cultural behavior, whereas woman unmodified means adult human female. So the proper sentence should be "Trans women are adult human males who take on the cultural behaviors associated with women" "Or if we wanted to shorten it, "Tran women are gendered women". This clearly denotes that the sentence does not imply trans women are women by sex.
Would you like to point out any fallacies I've made Banno? Or do you think I've done a good job?
But let's see how proceeds.
It's a vast area - indeed, almost all my posts are on this very topic.
Have you read the OP? I did think I made a decent argument at giving explicit meaning in the phrasing of the term. I also note that woman can take on a gendered meaning, just when it makes sense linguistically to import that in the phrase. Since it is such a focus of yours, I would be glad to hear your take as to the problem in the OP. Part of me writing this is to also be challenged Banno. I have enough of my own ideas after all.
The thread might best be understood as a negotiation between the players here, looking for agreement on a way to use the words women, man, gender, male, female, and so on. But folk talk as if there are correct and incorrect ways to use the term, to which each has some private access, their use being the right one, the other uses being wrong for various reasons.
But I'm saying too much. I want to see were goes. Cheers.
Gender is one thing, sex is another. Sex is obvious and always has been. There are always exceptions, but they are very rare indeed, and one need not bend over backwards to change perfectly good language because of them.
What is being presupposed by the word “trans” anyway? From what to what? One sex to another, or one gender to another, presumably. I still hold that the latter is absolutely possible — the former isn’t.
What I think is sad is that so many bigoted people use what I’ve said above to justify the mistreatment of trans people, and it’s this use that the community and its allies are truly fighting against when they argue that sex is a “concept” or that “woman” is undefined. But it’s a fool’s errand and a political trap, and in my view has set back the movement by a decade at least.
We can define things any way we like. There is not one “true” definition of anything, except maybe in mathematics. But in everyday life, will my response to your saying “It’s a beautiful day out today” ever be “well there’s not a true definition of ‘day,’ and your standard of beauty is subjective”? Not unless I’m insane, despite there being perhaps some merit to what I’ve said “philosophically.”
I’ll call anyone what they wish to be called. I’ll call you Janus the Great if you prefer— but before I actually believe it, I’d need to see some evidence or a convincing argument. In a trans case, I’ve yet to see such an argument.
On the other hand if gender has a real biological/psychological basis, then it seems at least imaginable that there could be people born with a penis but who are nevertheless psychologically or neurologically "female".
For what it's worth, I don't think gender is entirely and exclusively a social construct, and I believe a large fraction of trans people have some biological, neurological real explanation for their transness that science has yet to discover.
Quoting Banno
I think I see your point. It is true that terms hold personal meaning to us. My point with being explicit is taking that context into standard English. Languages have rules and intents that allow an explicit standard of communication and vocabulary to start from. I am not denying that there are not implicit definitions to words people use, but I'm also not denying there are explicit uses either.
In a language one can use an implicit personalized version of a term as long as it does not counter the explicit use of the term in the language. Thus if I'm speaking English, I cannot state, "The sun is the moon." If I have some personal meaning behind that, I need to either add new meanings of the terms, demonstrate its a metaphor, or add more context to explain my meaning. In standard English without these things, "The sun is the moon" is an illogical statement.
The phrase, "Trans women are women" is an explicit claim within the language that demands other people who speak the language accept the phrase. Whenever you involve other people into accepted terminology, it must be the case that an explicit standard is formed between all speakers of that language. Yes, there can, and will be implicit wiggle room, but if there is not an explicit agreement between people in at least some core of the term, then communication simply cannot occur. If I hold "the moon means the sun" and you hold "the sun means the moon" we aren't using the same concepts while talking to each other and will each think the other is spouting nonsense.
So the point of the OP is to establish two definitions of women, and explain when using English properly, "Trans woman are women" is most logically interpreted as "Trans women are adult human females". This is of course wrong. So the phrase needs to adjust to be more accurate among English speakers. "Trans women are men who take on the gendered role of women" is a proper sentence that clearly explains the honest explicit meaning of the phrase.
Quoting Banno
I hope you see this is not an argument for personal implicit use, but an argument about proper explicit meaning within an established language.
Philosophy is employed here for thinking about a topic that confuses many people. The goal of philosophy has always been to get to a clear and logical understanding of matters about the world. This is ontology in the philosophy of language. Calling it 'an agenda' would be true if it was inflexible preaching, a lack of rational discussion and responses, or a means to simply demean, insult, or threaten people into submission.
This is just a topic to think about. You are free to disagree, point out flaws, ask questions, etc. That is the goal of philosophy. To take the issues of the day within language and being and ask, "What does this really mean?"
Quoting Mikie
It is the later. The OP essentially notes that 'woman' without adjectives or modifiers normatively means "Adult human female". "Trans" adjusts woman to mean, "A person who takes on the non-biological gendered behaviors that society expects an adult human female to exhibit".
Quoting Mikie
Not even in math. Math and language are both symbols that represent concepts. When I say the word "One", what do you imagine in your head? Its not the same as what I'm imagining. When I say the word "tree" its the same. However, this is not a discussion about the implicit meaning behind words within a person's personal context. This is about explicit meaning within an established language. Just like 'one' can have a personal meaning to you, when taken in the explicit language of mathematics, it has a clear explicit definition that must be agreed upon by all parties for the term to have any useful meaning. As long as when one is using the explicit meaning of the language, their implicit term does not contradict or violate that explicit meaning of the term, implicit meanings are highly flexible in an explicit conversation.
Quoting Mikie
True. You're essentially saying, "You have an implicit meaning behind that phrase, and as long as that phrase does not actually counter the explicit meaning it would imply in an objective language, I'm fine with that." You would of course have issue if this person rear ended you and gave you "Janus the Great" as his legal name when it is objectively not. When you are both in the explicit context where both parties need to have a common understanding, the phrase matters greatly. Asking your insurance company to find "Janus the Great" is going to give you problems collecting the claim.
If someone wants to implicitly say, "Trans women are women", they can of course mean whatever they choose. But the moment they start demanding that it is explicitly true within the language, "I am Janus the Great, and as such you will kneel before me or die", people have full logical recourse to say, "No, you're Percival Smithers with no title or power to demand what you want of others." Implicitly, Percival might be offended and angry, but his implicit claims of reality can always rightly be overruled by explicit claims to reality.
Correct.
Quoting flannel jesus
Gender has a real psychological basis. It is a culture's prejudgments or expectations of public behavior that it either believes or imposes on each sex that are apart from the biology of the sex itself.
For example, there is no biological basis behind only men wearing top hats. But we can imagine an individual who thinks, "Women should not wear top hats." That's gender. Of course, we can also imagine a person who thinks, "Men should not wear top hats." That's also gender. This is because gender is not objective, but subjective. You can of course get a group of people to hold the same subjective outlook. This is seen multiple times on culture such as, "God is real" or "Step on a crack and you break your mother's back". We often have group beliefs and rituals that have no objective basis behind them. Gender is a belief system behind the behaviors and actions of a member of one sex in public.
Thus in terms of gender, one cannot be psychologically female objectively, only subjectively. That is because one's view of gendered behavior could very well contradict the definition of another's. A woman might say, "Only men wear top hats, but I'm going to anyway," and in their mind they are trans gender. However in the mind of another who believes, "Only women wear top hats," she's not trans gender.
In terms of neurology, that is not trans gender, that would be 'trans sexual'. Sex is the biological reality of a being, gender is the sociological cultural expectations it is under depending on who it is surrounded by. To demonstrate that someone has neurology associated with the other sex, there must be an objective study to find what areas of the brain are exclusive to one sex and not the other in almost all cases.
The jury is still largely out on this. Our understanding of the brain isn't in the stone age anymore, but its not exactly going to the moon yet either. My readings on the issue have generally concluded that there are neurological differences that more resemble what is female in the brains of homosexual men. We of course do not say homosexuals are 'women in men's bodies'. When heterosexual men who have gender dysphoria have their brains examined, there is no statistically significant difference between heterosexual men who have gender dysphoria. Same with homosexual men in comparison to other homosexual men. After men are put on estrogen, the brain does actually begin to change its structure in limited ways to brain structures that are more often associated with females. But again, brain science involving sex differences is still natal.
As for what we know now, there is no indicator that someone having trans gender issues has a brain difference, but a psychological difference. Just like you can I can have the same brain type but process the color 'orange' in our head differently. I may like the color orange, you may not. You may be very enamored with the social expectations of the other sex, I don't care. It seems that a trans gender individual has a combination of being enamored with the social expectations of the other sex vs disliking the cultural expectations of their own sex that they attempt to reject the gender of their own sex and take on the gender of the other.
I think this largely boils down to semantics and modern discourse not having the words to talk about this in a way that makes sense. To my mind, this discussion makes more sense if you equate "sex" with biological sex and consider "gender" as a type of social class that is different from but heavily informed by society's interpretation of the roles a person should fill based on biological sex. The gender/sex split has, in my opinion, greatly confused modern discourse on this as people constantly conflate the two.
I agree. I also believe it is the job of philosophers to step forward when current language fails us.
Quoting MrLiminal
Fortunately that's the actual definitions used. I am referencing gender theory and the formal understanding of these terms according to that context.
Quoting MrLiminal
And that is part of the purpose of this question. How do we use terms correctly in a formal sentence? How do we avoid ambiguity and conflation? I think I've pointed out answers to these, but do you agree with the reasoning behind them?
Who’s confused? I didn’t see much “confusion” about sex until recently. Ditto for many issues which are motivated not by science or philosophy, but by cultural and political agendas. So in the same way that there’s “confusion” about vaccines, I suppose you’re right. But the point stands.
Cool, then in that case I agree. If that’s truly what’s being argued for, then I have no objection.
There's some daylight between how we see the trans community being treated. But that's by hte by for the thread. Thanks for your input :)
I should preface this by saying I mostly don't think gender should exist at all, as it places unnecessary limitations on people for acting outside of what we as a society consider normal or expected for a certain sex. That said, this discourse seems like it's not going away anytime soon, so I think it may be necessary to create new words to meet the problem. Currently the question "Are trans men/women men/women" feels like it falls into the same trap as "Is water wet?" The question itself is inherently vague in a way that invites misinterpretation and arguments.
I think gender as a concept is fine. What I don't think is fine is elevating it in importance beyond what it is, which is a subjective societal prejudice at best, sexism at worst. And any idea that it should be elevated in importance or priority over a person's sex itself is simply irrational.
Quoting MrLiminal
Agreed. The point of the OP is to point this out and note that the phrase is poor English and should not be used as a meaningful phrase. Instead, if people want to communicate the issue they are trying to convey clearly, they should alter the phrase to be less ambiguous in its intents.
To be honest, I'm not sure how it can be overcome. People on all sides of this issue get so oddly defense about gender stuff that really does not matter in the grand scheme of things and seem to look for reasons to get upset about it. And yes, I agree gender can be a useful shorthand for snap assumptions about a person's lived experience in much the same way race can be, but we all know what people say about assumptions. I think everyone here knows that individuals can and often go against expectations. But even if one did invent new words to better clarify their meaning, I suspect it would devolve into the same old confusion and arguments. I used to really want to engage in good faith on this topic and gender topics in general years ago, it just doesnt really seem worth it anymore. The most carefully constructed phrasing will get torn apart or misunderstood, intentionally or otherwise. We've seen it in this very thread, when you seem to be very clear you are mostly speaking about semantics. I mostly see our meat as a medium for who we are anyway, so getting hung up on the biological prison our minds are trapped in seems kind of like a waste of time to me. That said, I appreciate your honest attempts at a discussion.
I'm wondering what you are yet to see a convincing argument for. The question "are transwomen women" is meaningless unless we are told what 'women' is supposed to mean in the context of the question. A "transwoman" is already presupposed by the terminology of the question itself to be a kind of 'woman'.
First, one point I would make is almost the opposite of your "terms hold personal meaning to us". Better to drop the idea of a "personal meaning" altogether, and instead of introspection of any sort, look at how the word is actually being used, both in the thread and in the wider community. This form Wittgenstein.
Moreover, it is not true that there are "...rules and intents that allow an explicit standard of communication and vocabulary to start from", if by this is meant that language functions by following rules. This is put to the lie by the fact that we often communicate by breaking the rules. Davidson's Nice Derangement of Epitaphs ably demonstrates this, but it is also in accord with Wittgenstein's views on rule-following; in the end to follow a rule is a practice, and can be honoured in the breach as honestly as in obedience.
Consider: “To me, she is impossible to understand — the sun is the moon in her: brilliant yet hidden, warm yet distant.” Or “In that moment of grief, the sun was the moon — everything familiar turned strange, reversed, uncanny.”
These make sense, and are standard English. Metaphor an novelty are not outside of plain English, but central to it.
The issues in this thread concern changes in the use of "gender", which was previously a grammatical term. THere's a brief potted history at Gender terminology. We have found it useful to differentiate physically determined attributes of males and females from social norms relating to men and women. At issue is how we might maintain consistency in this new usage.
And there's a hint in what I just said. We can differentiate males from females on the basis of physical characteristics, and separately differentiate men form women on the basis of social norms. This works for most purposes. So a transexual is a male who adopts the social norms of a woman, or a female who adopts the social norms of a man.
We ought keep in mind that neither the classifications male/female nor man/woman are exclusive nor complete.
On this account, "Trans women are women" is a tautology, or a category mistake. Contrast "Trans women are male", which will be true in most cases.
The remainder of the SEP article is worth a read, as it sets out some far more philosophically interesting issues.
Having very recently written on this specific piece, I think you are very much overreaching on the implications of it's content.
All it really shows us is that rule breaking can come under the same banner as the rules. Rules work without breaking them - not so the other way. The irony of the Jabberwocky isn't that language doesn't operate on rules - its that humans perceive much more nuanced rules than that which is on the page, making dogma seem stupid - not that language operates on rules. Donnellan was getting at this, I think, in Reference and Definite Descriptions. More explicitly outlined in Grice's co-operative principle - that principle is just further rules for interpreting the breaking of semantic rules. I think.
Quoting Banno
Which cases would it not be true? Curiosity only.
I want to go a step beyond that, to include, along side Davidson's point, the one made in Philosophical Investigations, §201; that there are ways of following and going against a rule that are not said, but shown; and this I take to be indicating that it is the activity that is at the core, not the rule.
All of which is almost to observe that the rules of language are all of them post hoc; inferred after the fact
Language will always be bigger than the rules folk seek to use to circumscribe it.
And that, perhaps, is also the lesson of the incompleteness theorems.
Language is not algorithmic.
:up:
I'm not talking about woke types retconning trans identities on famous figures. Historically, anthropologically, there have been people who we would label trans today - although they would most likely have been simply viewed as 'gay'.
There are also some societies that had an identifiable 'third' role, the 'gay uncle' is one example I recall.
This history is fraught. Perhaps some of the examples I've seen have been politicized research? I know that here in Canada some contest the two-spirited designation of indigenous Canadians as a retcon.
There is also the confounding group of those with atypical biology.
None of these groups would have been claiming 'trans' identity though, a modern conceptualization of a human characteristic. And all together, we are still looking at a much smaller percentage of people than those who identify as trans today.
Trans may not be verifiable, but it is arguably universal. Which, to me, is yet another reason to insist on honest, accurate conversations about the topic, as you and others here do - it also helps the 'historically' trans people, those consistent with long-term data about characteristics (early, persistent onset, for one)
highly predictive of 'trans' identity in adulthood.
This seems to me the best benchmark available for judging how 'real' a trans identity might be.
The title of the thread. I’d say false. Using “trans” preceding man and woman makes sense, but you cannot change your sex. But it has already been mentioned that “woman” is being used in the same way as gender. Fine. I wouldn’t define it that way myself, but with that meaning in mind then there’s really no issue.
Hmmm. Intriguing thoughts. Intuitively, they don't strike me as particularly powerful. The conclusion, for instance, runs against my experience with conversation generally. As someone who has been essentially a linguistic person my whole life (working with words has always been an extremely easy "flow state" type thing for me) it feels wrong. I'll have to think further.
Sure, but those for whom it is an issue because they are trans are unfortunate victims of unthinking prejudice. For the rest, it is an issue for those who are prejudiced and moralizing on account of their prejudice. The point is that an OP like this, and online philosophy forum discussion, will not change anything much.
As I said earlier, apart from transwomen in womens' sport, it is a very simple issue?people just need to live and let live, but of course they won't until the prejudices die a natural death.
The philosophically interesting part is the use of erroneous accounts of language, especially flawed accounts of definition, in order to push particular attitudes and prejudices.
And yet, Wittgenstein was a social conservative who wasn't pleased with women having voting rights. I imagine he would be even more disappointed to see people using his philosophy in defense of transgenderism. You can't disconnect the man from his ideas.
Wittgenstein grounding language in the forms of life is not in your favor. If anything, like Hegel, Wittgenstein is an advocate of master-slave rule forming dialectic. For him, all of us blindly following traditions is essential to mastering rules of all kinds. One of the unintended or intended consequences of this is deeply rooted traditions are never going to dissappear anytime soon. Progressivism is nothing more than a secular myth, which once had some sense & direction when it was backed by Christian humanism.
"Wittgenstein was a social conservative… therefore his philosophy supports conservative conclusions." - an instance of the genetic fallacy.
Wittgenstein does not ground meaning in blind traditionalism. A form of life is not a tradition; it is the pattern of activities within which language-games have sense.
“Deeply rooted traditions never disappear.”
Nuh:
"Wittgenstein is an advocate of master-slave rule forming dialectic"
Nuh. Wittgenstein's approach to rule following says nothing about domination; it says you cannot follow a rule privately. The point is public criteria, not authority or obedience.
Claiming that "Progressivism is a secular myth" is mere assertion. And even if granted, says nothing about contemporary linguistic and social practices around gender; certainly not that they are illegitimate.
To exclude trans women from “woman,” the conservative must say: “The real meaning of ‘woman’ is fixed by biology alone.” But a Wittgensteinian asks: “Where is this real meaning? In what practice? Which rule? Which criteria?” If the linguistic community already has multiple criteria for “woman”... biological, social, legal, phenomenological - then there is no single essence to be preserved.
Not impressed. You post reads as a Dead Cat rather than a critique. Something thrown on the table to distract us from the topic from Wittgenstein’s arguments—language as use, rule-following, forms of life—to Wittgenstein’s private political views, which have no bearing on the logical point at issue.
I'm surprised you are unaware of this. I can't count the articles I have read which established solid links between Wittgenstein's philosophy & his social conservativism
Forms of lives are not just any activities. Picking your nose, farting, pooping, drinking etc are also activities. But clearly not DEEP enough to ground language.
Let me quote Wittgenstein himself
[quote=Investigations, 18]Our language can be seen as an ancient city: a maze of little streets and squares, of old and new houses, and of houses with additions from various periods; and this surrounded by a multitude of new boroughs with straight regular streets and uniform houses.[/quote]
Want some more. I will give it to ya
[quote=Investigations, Ilxi 225]It is, however, important as regards this observation that one human being can be a complete enigma to another. We learn this when we come into a strange country with entirely strange traditions; and, what is more, even given a mastery of the country's language. We do not understand the people. (And not because of not knowing what they are saying to themselves.) We cannot find our feet with them.[/quote]
Quoting Banno
1. There are plenty of kings in the Muslim world who use the Quran & Ahadith to justify their rule
2. Afghanistan (need I say more)
3. Israel & recently South Africa (yes, it's blacks against whites this time)
4. Homosexuality is still punishable by death in many (Muslim) countries
5. Once more, I have yet to see it being separated in the Muslim world
I'm obviously ignoring the West here for now but if you look at 20th century & just imagine for a second if the guy with the mustache had won, things would have turned out very differently. This always remains a future possibility & there's no guarantee of anything.
6. You had to go there. But guess what ? Aristotelian physics is a surprisingly good approximation of Newtonian physics, of material submerged in various fluids
Check this Article
https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057
Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look
Carlo Rovelli
I show that Aristotelian physics is a correct and non-intuitive approximation of Newtonian physics in the suitable domain (motion in fluids), in the same technical sense in which Newton theory is an approximation of Einstein's theory. Aristotelian physics lasted long not because it became dogma, but because it is a very good empirically grounded theory. The observation suggests some general considerations on inter-theoretical relations.
In any case, you should go & read Aristotle's physics because most of the topics it treats fall under contemporary metaphysics or philosophy of physics & the arguments there are as relevant as ever
I also recommend Feyerabend's Aristotle Not A Dead Dog
Quoting Banno
Lol. Except it is. I'm gonna quote Wittgenstein once more.
[quote=Investigations, 206]Following a rule is analogous to obeying an order. We are trained to do so; we react to an order in a particular way.[/quote]
[quote=Investigations,219]When I obey a rule, I do not choose.
I obey the rule blindly.[/quote]
Quoting Banno
Well...myths based on blind following (prog liberalism) & emotions etc aren't solid grounds. Especially when the fascists are better at this game. Do you still wonder about the rise of far right politicians & politics across the West ?
You should seriously reconsider the use of Wittgenstein in your politics. Check One Dimensional Man by Herbert Marcuse. Philosophers like Wittgenstein represent the perfect bourgeoisie philosophers, whose philosophy can be used to justify anything
A dreadful reply. Pile on the dead cats. It doesn't help your case.
Rest easy. I never attack those who raise the white flag. I'm no ordinary man, but I'm not a monster either.
Good night.
Quoting Banno
No problem there. I would think my viewpoint is not counter to Wittgenstein. I agree that there are two contexts, or meanings behind a term based on situation, culture, or use.
Quoting Banno
To be clear, there is no innate rule of language that exists apart from people. But there are more and less effective ways to communicate when we include anyone who is using the language. The point of the OP is to indicate that the phrase 'trans men are men' is unclear when any speaker of the English language is exposed to it, regardless of culture or background.
Quoting Banno
Agreed.
Quoting Banno
Also agreed.
Quoting Banno
I disagree with this. Male and female are not defined apart from one another, but by the comparison of one to the other. If there was only one 'sex', then that would be 'the being'. Sex is indicated by biological differences in potential reproductive capability and roles that are exclusionary of one another.
In this they are complete.
Quoting Banno
Also agreed. I think we just have a slight difference of viewpoint in how we get there. Good post Banno, thanks!
Prejudice is not a reason to have unclear, conflationary, or deceptive language. Blacks used to be discriminated against, and this didn't end by pretending they had a different skin color. It was acknowledging real difference while demonstrating that difference did not rationally matter within greater society. There is no rational reason why having a different ethnicity means you need to drink from an ethnic fountain. Prejudice and racism are unreasoned beliefs enforced by action.
It is not prejudiced to note that a trans gendered man is an adult human female. It is not prejudiced to ask whether a person's gender should allow access to cross sex spaces. It is prejudice to stop people from questioning this. And it is abject stupidity to say we cannot converse about a subject as if conversation and thinking about the subject is necessarily prejudiced.
Quoting Janus
Excellent, then there is no problem with trans people staying out of cross sex spaces. Because when you ask for access to cross sex spaces when you are not that sex, you are asking other people to not live and let live, but to bend the rules in how they live for you. Do you really want to live and let live, or do you want to force other people to bend to a certain ideology?
I disagree entirely. Let me be clear, author's are absolutely irrelevant to ideas. The idea is all that matters. If it is rational, clear, and useful, then it stands apart from the author. If the author made a misstep due to a misapplication of that law they crafted, then the author is incorrect. This is an immense logical fallacy we need to get over in society. It does not matter what a person has done. if their idea is correct, it is correct. If it is wrong, it is wrong. A murderer who gives a dropped wallet back to the person on the street has done a right action, while a saint who steals that wall has done a wrong action.
Quoting Sirius
I think this is a misunderstanding of Wittgenstein. Witt believed in webs of language that worked. Not that were merely traditional. The reason why Wittenstein supported science was simply because it was an immensely successful web of concepts and ideas. Not that I think Wittenstein gave a reasonable answer to 'what web should we choose', but he most certainly would have frowned on the idea of following traditions for tradition's sake.
Because public toilets are separated by sex, not gender. A trans woman by definition can have male genetalia and male hormones. The trans demand is that gender override sex differences in society. Do you agree with this?
In any case if a transwoman looks like a woman how are the others in the toilet to know she is not a woman? Women don't see each other's genitals in public toilets. So, what's the problem.
If a transwoman looks like a man, so what? Some women look like men. People in women's toilet have no way of knowing what sex the others are...that is possible, if impolite, only in men's toilets. It's a non-issue.
Because sex separation is based on biology. Women's bathrooms do not have urinals. Females have periods that they need to take care of. Heterosexual norms put female nakedness at risk to male nakedness.
Quoting Janus
So you are saying it is ok for someone to deceive another person, and as long as they are not caught, the deception is ok? That doesn't change the fact the spaces are divided by sex. Further, trans gender demands do not require a male or female to have transitioned in any way to override the sex difference. A man in men's clothing who appears to be a man in all intents and purposes should be allowed to use the female space because they feel like a woman internally. Remember that gender has nothing to do with one's sex. So a person can be a gender of the other sex, but looks wise appear stereotypical to their sex.
Quoting Janus
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying you can enter or not enter cross sex spaces because of your looks. I'm noting that sex divided spaces are divided by the reality of your sex.
Quoting Janus
Turns out its not. When you have a rule divided by sex, and someone not of that sex defies that rule, people have issues.
I'm going to ask again, because you need to if you want to have traction to your argument. Do you believe that gender should override sex in both culture and law? I clearly say no. I'm awaiting your answer.
It is not when we have divisions based on sex. I need to declare my sex on my license. I need to declare sex for medical care. We divide sex in all sorts of ways proving that your sex is NOT only your business. I do not mind you claiming "It shouldn't be anyone else's business" and you give your reason why. But by fact, it is societies business what sex you are in many situations.
Quoting Janus
I clearly did. I'll repost:
Quoting Philosophim
What you have not done is answer my direct question to you, "Should gender override sex in the law?" I've demonstrated clearly we have spaces separated by sex, and you have not given me reasons explaining why they are not separated by sex. I doubt you'll be able to do this, so you'll need to agree with me that we have spaces separated by sex. Its on you to explain why this is wrong, and why gender should override sex separated spaces.
Quoting Janus
You are again ignoring my rejoinder to this:
Quoting Philosophim
It does not matter whether someone knows that you are a male or a female in a sex separated space, if its separated by sex, you do not belong there. It is up to you to explain why gender should override sex separation. If you cannot, then my point is explained, rational, and stands.
Quoting Janus
Yes. You should not have had to ask that. If a space is divided by sex, then if you are not that sex, you do not belong there. I am waiting for you to explain why this is not the case.
Thanks, you too - but that American holiday is one of the few not to make it big Dow Nunder. We don't celebrate it.
I'm pleased we have so much to agree on. But as always, the stuff about which we disagree is the more interesting bit. I said "neither the classifications male/female nor man/woman are exclusive nor complete", to which you replied:
Quoting Philosophim
We agree, it seems, that male and female are understood in relation to each other, that the one makes no sense without the other. When I said that they are not exclusive, I had in mind such things as the existence of hermaphrodites, and intersex organisms, both human and otherwise. These are physical characteristics.
And with incomplete, I was allowing for the unknown, allowing that we might change our usage of "male' and "female" for some reason, or use these words in novel ways in novel situations.
The use of "male", "female, "man", and "woman" is not fixed immutably by nature, but chosen by people in order to do certain things. Now this is not to say that there are no males and females, and no men and women. It's just to note that what is salient is chosen by us, and for our purposes. So e should ask where and to what end we might say something such as "Trans women are women", or otherwise.
And it is often about the acceptance or rejection of people who's behaviour differs from our own, or from our expectations.
I might need a more detailed understanding by exclusive. Do you mean that men and women (by sex) are not exclusive of hermaphrodites? Because a hermaphrodite has both male and female gametes ('egg and sperm'). A hermaphrodite would not be male or female, but contain the gametes of both.
Do you mean that man and woman (by gender) are not exclusive of hermaphrodites? Since one can behave in a gendered way regardless of sex, and gender is purely subjective, there are no limitations on what body can act in a particularly gendered way.
Quoting Banno
I see. I agree with the concept, but not necessarily the word choice. Words are the capturing of concepts, and concepts can vary between individuals. To me, an incomplete term denotes a concept that has not been fully fleshed out yet. But the concept of "An adult female" and "A person who behaves in the gendered way a society expects females to act" seem to be complete concepts. A person can attempt to add a new concept or adjust an old concept, but I do not find this makes a concept incomplete, this is simply how language works.
To give an example of what I would consider an incomplete concept, "A God". Because it is merely an idea and has no concrete indicator of existence, it is a flexible and difficult to ascertain what it means without further context. Because there is no underlying reality, it is a concept only, and based purely on the whims of the individual.
Incomplete concepts like the above are difficult to discuss because the real key is first to come to agreement what the concept is before one can ascertain the concepts usefulness or truth. I see the contexts of women and gendered woman as complete, identifiable, and clear in use. But maybe I am wrong.
Quoting Banno
I agree, but that's every single word we use. The question is whether we can apply the concepts underlying the words rationally. Irrational contexts generally lead to irrational results, which are outcomes of reality that are independent of context. I may note that a 'rotten apple' (concept) is 'healthy' (word), but if I believe the term describes a concept that is healthy, the reality of the rotten apple will end in a contradictory result.
The question in analyzing the term 'trans men are men' is if it results in unclear or contradictory concepts of use based on context. "trans men are adult human males" results in a contradiction because by sex, they are adult human females. The flexibility of contexts in language doesn't mean that anything goes or that we cannot come to rational outcomes. Our terms and personal concepts may remain flexible, but real outcomes do not.
[b]Quoting Banno
But do you believe I am doing so in my approach? Does the clarification of the terms entail in any way a rejection of a person simply because they have transitioned?
I'd not be so quick to affirm this. As we agreed, I think, applying "adult human female" is to an end, and not immutable. Taking it as immutable seems reassuring to those of a conservative leaning, but it leads to its own set of issues. There are, as an extreme example, genetically female people with male sex organs.
A better approach might be to treat the reality as much more flexible, and classification as mutable.
All of which brings with it issues around who and what gets to decide how we use the language hereabouts.
The philosophical point is that, as we have seen, appeals to essentialism fail.
And so we might go back to the common courtesy of addressing someone in the way in which they prefer to be addressed.
This is not to say there are no difficulties here. The issue of sports is obvious. Dividing people on the basis of gender was convenient, but is no longer a simple task. What alternatives there are will have to be worked through. It's tempting to grasp simple responses such as essentialism, but we've seen that it is unfair.
We can fix many issues around toilets by getting rid of the urinal. It is the item in the toilet that precludes certain genitalia.
The discussion continues.
This is not a rational argument. This is apologetics. I am not asking for an appeal to a secular religion. I am asking rational questions.
How does that person feeling like they are a transgender woman address the OP?
Quoting frank
When I heard Saint Michael explain the love of God, I understood it fully. I was inclined to honor God, God's grace, His story.
Your phrase is an attempt at assertion without an argument. This does not belong on these forums. Please explain how this either supports or counters the OP, or this is off topic preaching.
Do you want me to delete it?
Notice that you could equally well say that a hermaphrodite would be both male and female.
We might say they are male and female, or neither male nor female. There is no fact of the matter; there is a choice in how we talk about these real, actual people. Yes, "Words are the capturing of concepts, and concepts can vary between individuals", but what a community choose to say tells us about that community. Will we be inclusive or exclusive? Will we "other" some people in an arbitrary way?
Why do you need to put your gender on your driver's licence? It was presumably for purposes of identification. If it no longer works to that end, then why continue the practice?
Why do we divide runners based on their genitals? What other division might we use - weight, muscle mass? What is it that we consider to be fair?
My use of the term "incomplete" is borrowed from logic. The categories do not exhaust all possibilities. Just as in formal logic a system can be incomplete if there are true statements it cannot express, our categories do not cover every possible biological or social configuration. This is why intersex humans, hermaphroditic organisms, and potentially novel or future ways of being can exist without breaking the logic of our classifications.
But that is not the case with essentialist classification systems. They stipulate a classification and then reject the individuals who do not fit that classification. They are exclusive, and authoritarian.
That we are having this discussion shows that the usage of the terms at issue is not settled.
Can you argue that they are wrong here? Can you show that they are mistaken?
IF you can't present an argument showing that they are wrong, then is it reasonable to insist that they present an argument that they are right?
All this by way of showing that "This is not a rational argument" is irrelevant to "I feel 100% like a transgender woman".
Female toilets provide facilities for taking care of tampons and sanitary pads and male toilets have urinals because men can piss conveniently standing up. Those facts have nothing to do with the issue. I don't even know what your last sentence is intended to mean.
Quoting Philosophim
It's a trivial point since no one really knows in public toilets (except at the urinal) what another's sex is. Also you haven't said where it is written that the division of toilets is one of sex rather than gender.
More than a few blokes are pissed at the absence of sanitary disposal containers in male toilets.
Segregating toilets on the basis of gender is an odd fetish.
I don't. It's relevant. And it's now a part of the discussion.
And it humanises the too-cerebral discourse here to have a transgender person visible.
Here's another video to consider, from the most famous children's program Dow Nunder.
Is there a problem? If so, where is that problem located - with the performance, or with the audience?
But it is a complete concept. I'm also not seeing that as a counter to my point that noting that concept is not prejudiced. Can you explain how with would be prejudgment apart from application? If a group of people agree that woman means, "Adult human female", and that is the only way they apply it, how is that prejudiced?
Quoting Banno
What does reassurance have anything to do with this? It is not a conservative or liberal concept. Its merely a concept. It is as simple as me stating, "An example of a capital letter a is "A"." It is not exclusionary to another font type of A, but it is accurate within the context of this font type.
Quoting Banno
Sure. You should read my knowledge context paper by the way Banno. Don't be dissuaded by the simple start, its intended to appeal to people regardless of their philosophical background. I would be interested in your view on it.
I am not pointing to essentialism, but rationalism. And what is most rational? Non-contradictory outcomes in reality. There is no contradiction in using the term woman to mean 'the gendered actions of an adult human female", nor any contradiction in the concept of woman as "adult human female" when we adjust for context. The contradiction comes in when one context attempts to express its superiority within the other's context. For example, claiming that because we have a sex context for woman, this invalidates a gendered concept of woman and vice versa.
My point is that once you clearly define the terms, "Trans men are men" is not enough to define the proper context within the broader language. The only context which makes rational sense is if the phrase means, "Trans men are adult human females that act in the gendered way of a man".
I understand the flexibility of language well, but that doesn't mean we can't come to correct and incorrect applications of concepts when addressing each other. Since language's shared rational goal is to communicate ideas clearly to another person, language that is unclear, conflationary in intent, or confusing should be criticized and readjusted. Arguably, its a key tenant of philosophy itself.
Quoting Banno
I don't see why it is common courtesy. If someone claims God is real, is it common courtesy for me to agree with them? Is it wrong and rude of me to disagree with them? Should I choose what I perceive to be the less rational idea simply because someone will be upset that I don't choose it? I'm not sure how your argument so far leads to the above conclusion.
Quoting Banno
We divided people on the basis of sex. The push was to allow someone's gender to override the division of sex. Meaning that a man or a woman who is not on hormones nor had any surgery, should be able to access sex divided spaces due to an internal feeling that they act in a gendered way associated with the other sex.
Quoting Banno
Right, if we change the context of male and female once again. We do a lot of shorthand in language, but we should take care not to lose accuracy in intent. The rational full expression would be, "A hermaphrodite has both male and female gametes". But they aren't actually a male and female within the context we have been using thus far. They just share the reproductive parts. A key to rational discussion is to put a 'lock' on the context of terms and explicitly note when the context changes. Otherwise we commit the fallacy of elevating the term over the concept that we're actually discussing.
Quoting Banno
Right, and it is about clear and rational concepts which can be communicated in a useful language. There are very real outcomes of a body being male or female. If we are to accurately capture the biology behind it, we need objective concepts. That's sex. Gender is the concept of a sociological opinion of how a sex should act in a group. This is a clearly defined term which can be used rationally as well. The 'matter of fact' is the accuracy to reality. We didn't have to use the terms "2+2=4" to capture the reality behind it, but those terms accurately capture the reality behind it to great success.
Quoting Banno
I feel like a step was missed here and you've lost me. How are these clear terms that describe rational concepts 'othering'? These are not arbitrary terms. No where in the definitions themselves is there any concept of status, rights, or arbitrary exclusions.
Quoting Banno
It is your sex, not your gender. Gender as the modern day concept came later. And I want to be clear that gender is 'locked' to the sociological expectations we put on a sex's actions in public, not a synonym for sex.
We could also ask the same about eye color and height. The reason is statistic data collection and identification, especially before pictures. If I had my ID stolen for example and my name was "Jesse", it could be used by either a male or female.
To keep the scope of the discussion from exploding at this time, can we for now simply assume that society has identified people's sex as important in certain areas of legal life? This will allow us to first discuss gender in regards to sex, and if you think it should be more important than sex. If we can conclude there first, we can then go back to ask whether society should divide by sex at all. Do you find it fair to table that aspect for now?
Quoting Banno
Let us instead note that we do. Now lets add, "If we divide based on sex, should we ignore that and divide by gender instead?" I'll let you answer that first.
Quoting Banno
I'll let my earlier points stand with one addition. This also does not deny that these terms and future ways CAN break and/or contradict the logic of our classifications.
Quoting Banno
I feel we are in agreement that the contextual meaning of male as sex and male as gender are not in debate. I feel the debate has evolved into the question of whether we should elevate gender division over sex division.
No, I want you to do better. You're a long term forum goer and I expect a post that addresses the logic of the OP and discussion, not an emotional appeal that does not address the topic.
No, nor am I. That's not what the topic is about. So far I have not included in any of the discussion that sex or gender has anything to do with feelings. Sex is an objective existence, gender is a subjective view of societal expectations for one sex and your actions as a trans gendered person are to act in the expectations of the opposite sex while rejecting your own.
That's why its off topic. I don't see the relevance. Feel free to point out how it fits in the current discussion.
Quoting Banno
Not at all. If we were debating whether a person feels trans or not, then yes. That's not the topic. Their feelings are irrelevant to the context of the OP.
Also give me a moment to respond, you spammed like 3 posts. :D
But I might not respond point by point, if you don't mind. Our chat has been quite civil, but I suspect a call-and-answer reply might be a bit too confrontational. Instead I might let the ideas here settle a bit.
Quoting Philosophim
Yep.
It might be better to go back to the core of the thread. I'll leave that for you.
I said, "Bathrooms are divided by sex" You said, "How do you know that?" That is my answer. That is a direct answer to your question unlike your avoidance of mine.
Quoting Janus
Then your answer is, "Yes, its ok to deceive another person as long as they are not caught". I find this immoral. If a person dressed as a girl scout asked for a donation to the girl scouts, and I never found out my money went to them instead of the girl scouts, is that ok?" If not, what's the difference? Why is it ok to deceive in this instance, but not in others?
Since you seem to be avoiding my other questions and points after them being pointed out again, the default is that you are avoiding them. And if you are avoiding them after a gentle reminder (accident's happen after all), that is the same as conceding them. I'll list what you've conceded and you have one last chance to counter them if you wish.
"Your sex is not your own business in many areas of life, and some of these places are separated by sex"
You have note answered "Should gender override sex in the law?" Since my point is "Yes" and you have not countered it, then be default you are implicitly saying "No".
Quoting Philosophim
I noted that one does not have to disguise their sex if gender overrides sex separation. I have noted gender does not override sex separation, you have not countered that, so whether one is recognized or not, you have not given an argument why gender should be more important legally than sex in sex separated spaces.
Quoting Janus
I have never said where it is written. Gender as a sociological concept was created long after bathrooms were separated by sex. The evidence of sex separation has been given two times now. Both the provided mechanisms of the facilities, and the fact that 'gender' was not a concept when separated bathrooms were invented. Since it is also not written that bathrooms were separated by gender, for one major fact that the concept of gender did not exist prior to this separation, what argument are you giving that it was separate by gender?
Of course! It was a good couple of posts and worth response.
Quoting Banno
Please do not fear from my end. I only get confrontational if someone else does first. Feel free at any time to simply say, "I feel we've heard from each other on the issue, we can agree to disagree." As long as it does not become personal my way and a good faith effort in respect is made, I'll discuss as deep as you want it to go. Take your time on a response as well, I do not take it as any admittance or weakness of an argument from your part.
As to your 'deception' argument?if it is not possible to know what sex others in the public toilet are, in the absence of asking there is no deception.
You will need to provide actual arguments and evidence to support them?simply repeating the same assertions will not do.
As to the origin of the term 'gender' I searched and found this from the Online Etymology Dictionary at the top of the page:
[i]Historical Context
The term "gender" has its roots in the Latin word "genus," meaning "kind" or "sort," and was historically used to categorize individuals based on biological distinctions, primarily male and female. This usage dates back to around the 1300s, where it was synonymous with sex, referring to the reproductive functions of individuals.[/i]
:up:
Quoting Philosophim
I think the answer to the OP has been made. Language use is determined by a community. Look at how people use the words.
The trans woman in the video says "Cis women know things I will never know."
I learn from this to refer to people who were female at birth "cis women ."
So it looks like we have different types of women, trans and cis.
:smile:
Janus, if you're unable to come to an argument in good faith, just thank the person for the conversation, agree to disagree, and move on. Your second line admits the answer I gave you for your first line.
Quoting Janus
No, if toilets are divided by sex, you disguise yourself as the other sex and enter anyway, that is defacto deception. Your entire argument is, "But they can get away with it." That doesn't invalidate the fact that its separated by sex, and you're not supposed to be in there if you aren't that sex. We can debate whether it should be separated by sex, whether sex separation is enforceable, or a whole host of other issues from here, but if you are not going to concede that hiding what you are to enter somewhere you're not supposed to be is not deception, then you're not discussing in good faith and have nothing substantial to add to the discussion.
Come on Janus, I like you and have been patient. Be honest and good faith or just leave.
If gender and sex were equivalent in the past then the separation could be said to be for either. You chose to say it was for sex, because that supports your argument. Someone else can say it was for gender, and since the two concepts are now disentangled your argument, on that interpretation, fails.
I don't know why you are talking about "good faith"?do you take disagreement as a sign of bad faith?
Quoting Philosophim
Even if that were so, which I think is questionable, since a person's sex is no one else's business, your argument fails since it can now be said that the division is gender, and not sex, based.
That is not addressing the OP. I'm guessing you didn't actually read it. Quote or point out what you're addressing instead of a straw man please.
Quoting frank
And how does this address the OP? You're off in somewhere else land.
Quoting frank
Great. What does cis woman mean? Why do we add cis to women? Did you think that I didn't know what that means, or say it doesn't exist? Where does that matter in the OP? Where does it matter in the topic?
Quoting frank
If you are referring to the adjectives that change the context of woman to mean, "The gendered expectations that society places on an adult human female", then yes. You have not added or detracted from the OP in any way. You basically said, "2 is a number" then gave me a smiley face like a child who first learned how to count. No duh boy, this is an adult conversation.
Not reading and addressing the OP is amateur hour Frank. You have over 18 thousand posts. If you want to act like it, read the actual post and address it. You know, basics?
Thank you for being genuine in the conversation. So yes, the original separation of bathrooms was by sex. So now we can go to what I think your real question is. Should we continue to separate bathrooms by sex, or now by gender? Why or why not?
Quoting Janus
Not at all. Can you admit you might have been a bit evasive of some of my points and tried skipping past them? That's my frustration. I'm trying to engage with you honestly and I feel like you're not trying to discuss with me, but against me. Discuss with me as I am you Janus, and I have no issue with disagreements.
Quoting Janus
No, it is so. An intent to disguise oneself in a way that makes people think you are something you are not is deception. You may agree its a reasonable thing to deceive in this case. You may say you think its ok to deceive. What you cannot do if you are being reasonable and honest with me in the discussion, is deny that it is not an intent to deceive someone else.
And finally, you are still dodging the larger point. I said it doesn't matter that you look like the opposite sex. If gender is more important than sex, and we are to divide bathrooms by gender and not sex, then you can be a 6 foot tall hairy neanderthal looking man with fully intact genetils and higher than average testosterone. It doesn't matter, because a person's internal gender has nothing to do with their sex. Meaning if gender is more important than sex for separation, then this man can walk into female spaces without any issue.
You keep harping on the deception part when deception is practically a non-issue for the discussion. I'm putting forth the idea that if we do separate by gender, you don't need to deceive. Is this what we want? Should it be that we separate spaces by gender instead of sex, and can you please give me a reason why?
Quoting frank
Yep. Usage isn't fixed, it's chosen. And we perhaps ought seek consistency. So if "woman" is used to pick out someone who adopts the relevant social conventions, then a trans woman is a woman. And this even if we also choose to maintain that they are male.
What I'm not sure of, is whether this was actually @Philosophim's view as well, if somewhat ill-parsed.
I have a question, for anyone that cares to answer.
If there is an accepted difference between sex and gender, how do we prove them?
Sex seems to be pretty obvious, just look between their legs!
But how can gender, in the sense that it is being used here, be proven?
So:
Quoting https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/#NewGenRea
And so it goes. Charlotte Witt is also interesting here, taking an Aristotelian Essentialist view, but one at odds perhaps with the more conservative views expressed hereabouts. For Wit, we each have one social essence that structures our possibilities for social functioning. This is not a biological essence, not an eternal metaphysical form, but a social essence that determines how one enters and is positioned within institutions, roles, and norms. Very different to the conservative authoritarian pronouncements concerning Aristotle that dominate the limited conversations here. Witt breaks the She the false equation “Aristotelian = Essentialist = Conservative = Biological Sex = Immutable Categories.”
Witt is a classicist and philosopher.
I know what it's like to be disappointed that no one read my OP, but you're going overboard. Take a breath and chill out.
True.
No, the view of the OP is that woman in neutral without modification is most rationally read as "adult human female". "trans" or "cis" woman are adjectives specifically to modify woman to mean, "Gender of a an adult human female". Meaning that if those modifiers were missing its most reasonable to assume 'woman' is referring to what it has referred to prior to the introduction of gender, "Adult human female".
A later post added that if 'woman' meant 'gender of adult human female', then the cis moniker would be worthless. Instead we would need an adjective to denote that 'woman' is talking about sex if the default of gender were assumed.
So by adjectives and normative language, the way people would expect the phrase 'trans women are women" to be understood in English is "Trans women are adult human females". This is false. If the phrase is to avoid conflation or an incorrect interpretation by most people using the English language, they should mare accurately change the phrase to "Trans women are adult human males who take on the gendered role of women".
First, you have to grab one or more people and ask them how they think men and women should act. Once there is an agreement by the group, then you can test to see if a man or woman is following those gendered expectations. If a group of people say, "Women should work in the kitchen and men should work outside of the house" that's gender for that group. If another group of people say, "Men should work in the kitchen and women should work outside of the house," that is also gender that we can test against.
The problem is not proving if someone is matching a particular gender in any particular moment of observation, the problem is declaring an objective gender. That is because gender is subjective in singular or shared among a group. This of course also makes gender a terrible thing to make laws about. This is because it cannot responsibly codify exactly what gender is objectively. It must take a subjective form of gender and codify it without any objective reasoning behind it.
Both prejudice and sexism are gender for example. So if a town created a law that stated, "We believe the male gender must wear hats, while the female gender should not," then you could not be considered a gendered man if you did not wear a hat, nor a gendered woman if you did wear a hat. Gender at the end of the day is subjective prejudice at best, and sexism at worst.
Ok, maybe I did a little. You still made me mad when after I called you out on posting preachy straw man crap to my post you doubled down. I expect that of immature posters here, not someone like you. Engage with the topic and you can disagree all you want with me being chill. Behave like a troll and you'll get the call out you deserve.
uh... ok.
In my experience Banno, anytime words are used for politics it is a twisting of the intent of language. Language is about the clarity of communication and ideas. That allows free thought and good faith communication of concepts. Politics is about power manipulation. It twists words to suit who holds power instead of displaying clear ideas that let people choose what should be empowered.
I do not agree with any political manipulation of language. Whether this be for the advantage of conservative political viewpoints or liberal viewpoints, I find it leads to corruption and irrational outcomes. Power should be won by truth in communication and reasoning, not language manipulation.
Quoting Banno
I hope you're not implying that I am holding a conservative Aristotelian view here. I would think in our brief conversation its clear that I am not. Considering mentioning such things would normally imply the OP, please be more careful in your words about general accusations of people in the thread.
Looks essentialist to me. I might come back to it, though, again rather than rattle off another brief rejection.
Quoting Philosophim
No, indeed I mentioned Witt as someone that might spike your interest. I had in mind other players who have been around the traps. There’s a familiar group in these discussions who read Aristotle through a heavily conservative lens, reducing him to biological determinism and hierarchical natural kinds. Not having studied Aristotle as closely as some, I'd taken them at their word; but I now find that they are not at all representative of the Man, nor of the present state of classical studies.
I don't think it is, I view it as a rationalist argument. But I would be interested in hearing your response to my points later if you think that's wrong.
Quoting Banno
Appreciate it.
As I said, sex and gender were not separated at the time when the first gender separated toilets were created. Now for many people gender has been separated from sex. So what you wrote below, which I provided a citation to correct you have not acknowledged.
Quoting Philosophim
I think you should do some research into the history of public toilets, and you will find that initially there were public facilities only for men. I don't have the time to tell you more, but you can do the research yourself.
I think your argument about "deceit" is woefully weak, and you know my position as to whether transwomen should be allowed to use women's facilities. I am not inclined to discuss this any further with you, as it seems to me that you will only double-down on your assertions, and I have little interest in the subject anyway.
Have fun researching.
Well, we went over how words usually do not have a single default meaning. In the case of "woman" there's the biological use, of course. There's a social-gender sense. There's the sense of personal identity that includes trans people. There's the various legal definitions. and so on. Polysemous patterns, well-documented in the literature.
It won't do to just assert the hegemony of "adult human female". Affixing "Most rationally read" is a slight of hand evaluation.
Quoting Philosophim
Adjectives do not always leave the meaning unchanged. Consider "car" and "toy car", or "lion" and "sea lion". With "trans woman", the adjective modifies the gendered sense, not the biological-sex sense. it is now an established compound term for a woman whose gender identity is female and who is socially recognised as a woman, but whose sex assigned at birth was male. What you are suggesting runs against the apparent linguistic facts.
Quoting Philosophim
This works only provided we adopt the stipulation that "woman" means "adult human female"; but since there is accepted usage that does not adopt this stipulation, we are not obligated to adopt it here. It's a choice, not a conclusion.
That is, it appears you assume that woman has one fixed “default” meaning, that of "adult human female". You also assume that adjectives like trans or cis merely attach to that biologically sexed core.
But this is not how English works. "Woman" is polysemous: it has multiple senses. In phrases like “trans woman,” the gendered sense is the operative one. English regularly uses adjectival modification to shift a noun’s meaning.
Importantly, “trans woman” is a standard compound meaning “a woman who is transgender.”
The phrase “trans women are women” uses the gendered sense of “woman,” not the biological-sex sense, and is perfectly coherent in that established usage.
So "Trans women are women" is true.
No need to do research. You didn't counter the point that if it they were only for men, it was only for one sex, not gender.
Quoting Janus
Its correct and you were unable to demonstrate why it was wrong. Your position is irrelevant to the discussion. This is not about opinions or emotion. This is about a rational discussion. You once again for the third time ignored a question in this conversation.
Quoting Philosophim
I'm assuming you can't agree to the above, but you understand that puts you into a bind. Think about it Janus.
Agreed.
Quoting Banno
We didn't really go over this. In fact, it hasn't been a part of the conversation at all. How someone identifies themselves is irrelevant. I'm assuming a trans man or woman is observable and identifiable in their gendered actions.
Quoting Banno
Adjectives are words that describe or modify words. The trans adjective indicates to the user that woman is meant to be read in the gendered sense, not the biological sense. Woman has been used to describe sex until the concept of modern day gender came along. As "woman as gender" is a new concept that is localized and just now becoming part of the broader language, the adjective clearly differentiates what concept of woman we're talking about.
"The woman went to the park." Very few people would see this by default as 'Adult human male". This can also be seen again by the fact that we need to have both 'cis' and 'trans' to modify the word woman. If woman by default was seen in the culture as 'the gendered actions of an adult human female', 'cis' would be a pointless adjective.
The point Banno, and I think its not uncontroversial to agree with this, is that the general English speaker is going to see the term 'woman' unmodified in a sentence and think, "Adult human female". And as such, my point stands. I don't think you've necessarily disagreed with my logic if 'woman' by default is seen in the larger culture as adult human female. I think what you're advocating for is that this should change. That what you want is the default of woman to represent the gendered actions of an adult human female, instead of the noun. Woman as verb instead of as thing.
If we are to read 'trans men are men" and men is the verb (gender is an action of an individual, not a state), that's not a proper verb tense. A better phrase would be, "Trans men are menning." By default the sentence "trans men are men" most rationally resembles a noun assertion. So once again, to clarify that we are not talking about men in the noun state, but the performative action society expects of adult human males, it once again makes more sense to add to the sentence to avoid the implication of a noun. Trans women are womening, works to keep the phrase tight without allowing any possible conflation or ambiguity to the phrase.
My question for you Banno would be how to make the intent of the phrase, "Trans men are men" more clear in its intent if we intend 'men' in this instance to be the expected actions of an adult human male? Because the point is not to manipulate, fool, coerce, or trick a person into an incorrect concept. Its clarity. Perhaps we can keep do something to the phrase 'trans men are men" for more clarity, but as it stands currently it is impossible to figure out without greater context beyond the phrase itself.
Well, not to them.
That's kinda where Witt comes in, in pointing out the place of identity in these proceedings. Her point is that identity is not a private whim but a socially operative category. In societies where gender structures our possibilities, expectations, rights, and obligations, one’s gender identity is not unimportant, but central to functioning as a social agent. In a gender-structured social world, identity is one of the primary determinants of how a person can live, act, and be recognised.
"Woman as gender" has it's origin in the middle of the last century, with such authors as John Money and Catharine MacKinnon. But it's seen clearly in Simone de Beauvoir's "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman". It's not that new. At the very least, I hope we can agree that there is a sense in which "trans women are women" is true.
Quoting Philosophim
I am indeed disagreeing with that, in so far as you take it to be fundamental. “Adult human female” is one salient use of woman in many contexts. But I’m rejecting the claim that this use is somehow the foundational, default, or conceptually governing one in English. And this along the lines of the discussion we have had over the last few pages. This is not how language functions. Words don’t come with a single privileged core meaning; they have families of uses, and which one is operative depends on what we’re doing.
Quoting Philosophim
Well, what is " the intent of the phrase"? It's whatever you intend to do with that phrase. Yes, you can use it divisively, by insisting that it "means" only "adult human male"; but that's your choice. If you meant that trans men ought be treated as men, the choice is clear here, too.
Perhaps it comes down to why some folk are unwilling to treat trans men as men.
Ah, we're taking this to a new place! I think its important to point out that there is personal identity, and social identity. it is also important to note that an identity is a claim that can be true or false. For example, I can identify as a waiter, but unless I wait tables, I am not actually a waiter. Further, I can act like the social identity of a waiter, but not personally identify as a waiter (I'm not actually hired, I stole a uniform and served one table).
Gender can be a personal or social identity. "I believe females should wear top hats, but society believes females should not". If I wore a top hat, I would be acting as my personal identity, but against the social identity of the gendered role of a woman. Personal identity is performative, not being. Society is also not obligated to recognize anyone's personal identity. Just because I perform as what I identity as a waiter, does not mean society will agree that is the performance of a waiter.
When talking about 'woman' as a gendered expectation of action, and we want society to agree that our personal gender identity of a woman should be what society believes a gendered woman should be, because society has the final say. They are under no obligation to change for an individual.
This is why I have not considered personal identity important to the conversation. If we are to speak of woman as a gendered action, and woman is a shared word among speakers of the English language, the actions which would entail someone matches that identity would be the social perception of a woman, not the individual opinion.
Now, if you mean that a person 'Chooses to act as society expects a man to act", that is a personal decision to take on the gendered role of a woman. But that does not mean one gets to decide what the gendered role of a man is, act on it, then say they have acted as the male gender the way society views it.
So to this, I agree that a person may act in a way that society agrees a woman should act. So if society states, "Only men wear top hats," and as a woman I choose to wear a top hat, then I have behaved contrary to societies expected gender of myself, and instead acted in cross gender identity. I did not become a man by sex. I simply acted in the way that society wanted to restrict solely to men.
All of this to say that I don't see how its relevant to the discussion beyond this observation. If society believes the gender of a female should be not to wear top hats, but you personally think females should, society has the final say. If you believe you perform as a gendered female, and you wear top hats, society is going to state you are not performing the gender of a female. The only way personal gender matters is if you observe what society states is the gender of X or Y, then you perform X or Y to the exclusion of the other.
Quoting Banno
Again to my point, this entails that woman is performative. Meaning we must clarify in the phrase "trans men are men" that 'Trans men are females acting like men". "trans men are not men by sex, or by being".
Quoting Banno
Ah, this may be a fundamental disagreement then. Woman meant sex for hundreds of years prior to the idea of gender. It is only in the last couple of decades that gender as a separate term has been established in niche areas of study, and only recently become a consideration in broader culture.
We could test this easily. Poll 100 people like so. "Imagine a woman". Wait. Can you describe her? Get the answer. "Did you view them as a male?" The results can give us how society views the term by default. I am supremely confident that most people will say they did not picture a male. Meaning they view woman not as a societal performance, but as the sex of the individual. i think this is such a clear position to take, I do not need to see the experiment in full. Unless clear evidence is given, I'm standing with the point that 'woman' without pointing out a gendered context, is seen as sex by default. On this we will have to agree to disagree if you do not.
Quoting Banno
Correct. My point is that the way English is spoken, the default for woman unmodified entails its a noun sex category, not a gendered action. I don't think I'm disagreeing with your fundamental position here, as perhaps in the future this could change. You could also give an argument that is should change. My point is that as of today, this is the way 'woman' is seen in a sentence without some type of gender indicator involved.
Quoting Banno
Right, but that doesn't mean I will have that phrase accepted by other people. Language is intended to be a reasonable means of communication to clearly get a strangers mind to understand a concept we hold in ours. English is a structure that anyone can refer to when attempting to get a base understanding of what another human being is trying to say. If I write down a phrase that follows the rules of English, I can reference the rules to get a base understanding of intent.
If I say, "The cheese is the moon" and intend to communicate "The moon is made of dirt that looks like cheese", my intentions have not lined up with the common definitions and understanding of English. If I had a friend who understood me, this would work. But it would not be accepted in the larger language.
To this, it may be that people in transgender circles desire the phrase "Trans men are men" as a slogan or small group context. If they intend to bring it to broader society, they need buy in. The community asserts that it is so, and if society disagrees with them, they are wrong. But the rules of English and the broader understanding of the terms involved do not make society wrong, they make the phrase unclear and in need of clarification when brought out of local context.
If society rejects it, has has reason to by the sentence structure and the commonly understood terms involved. It is not an insult to the clique. It is simply a note that it needs to be more clear in its claim. So my question to you is this. If it is a less rational phrase to use, unclear and potentially conflationary, what reason is there to double down on it instead of just adding more clarity?
Quoting Banno
How is this divisive? And I'm also not noting that men or woman can only mean nouns, they can mean gendered expectations as well. I'm just noting that it is not very good English in the phrase "Trans men are men" and needs more clarity if it wants society to understand and agree to its intent.
Quoting Banno
Again, this is an ambiguous sentence. Do you mean that females who act like the gendered expectations of adult human males should be treated like adult human males? Because the expectations of gendered actions on an individual sex, does not entail that a person treat them like that particular sex. If a woman wears a top hat, there is no logical obligation to treat that adult human female like an adult human male and give them a prostate exam.
Or do you mean they should be treated like adult human females that act like the gendered expectations of adult human males? Because that is the observation of a cross gender individual. "That woman is wearing a top hat, but that's not what we expect adult human females to do."
Quoting Banno
This is more of the same. What does this mean? It needs to be clearer. What is the link between societies expectations of a sexes actions in public, vs the treatment of a person who goes along with those expectations or defies those expectations?
My apologies if this is a bit long. It is a habit of mine when I'm deeply interested in a topic. Feel free to condense portions of this in response. My intention is not to overwhelm, but be thorough.
Yep, but it does not answer the question. Those are ways of defining gender, but non offer a method of proving a persons gender, Do we just except their word for it?
Why not? And that's not a rhetorical question, but a request for context and behaviour.
If being a waiter involves the social behaviours around waiting on tables, if the context and behaviour around which someone claims to be a waiter matches their claim, why not accept their claim? So we should ask, why not call them a waiter? What reasons are there for this exception?
And if the context and behaviour around which someone claims to be a woman matches their claim, why not accept their claim? So we should ask, why not call them a woman? What reasons are there for this exception?
You've ased them to prove they are a waiter. But they might equally ask you to prove they are not.
It is a bit.
Do you think you might reflect for a bit on how Banno might answer your post? What's the most central issue in your post, how do you think I would respond to it?
If gender is simply the expectation of actions from a particular sex, then someone would act in accordance with the expectations of the other sex while denying their own. How many actions, how long, how accurate, and other questions are difficult to answer. But since gender is simply a societal expectation of action, how you act is how we tell.
Generally this is because we trust that the restaurant would not allow someone who is not hired by them to act as a waiter. In spy movies they often impersonate a waiter. But if actions betray what a waiter normally does, or the restaurant realizes they never hired this person, there is cause for suspicion. But I'm not sure this is what you're intending for your thought experiment so unless this is addressing your point, no need to drill into this.
Quoting Banno
If you mean woman as a noun, or sex, and there is no apparent physical or expected sex behaviors that contradict the claim of being a woman, most people would not. In legal cases or places where sex matters, it might rely on the belief that most people will not lie. But if we know that people have a reason to lie, and the identification of sex is important, there may be greater proof required.
Quoting Banno
I did not expect Banno to reply in third person. :D
Quoting Banno
I address variations of identity, how society treats identity, and a question for you about why you think a societies gender expectations entail that society will treat that individual as anything more than one sex acting in social way contrary to the expectations of their own. I hope that helps focus the ideas as you read. I cannot say how Banno would respond. If I knew, I wouldn't need to ask.
Well, he'd probably say that you are again prioritising the physical definition of "woman", and that this goes against the discussion we had concerning how language actually functions. He'd point out again that "A trans woman is a woman" has a sense in which it is quite true.
Oh, and being hired as a waiter is part of the social role of being a waiter, not seperate from it. There is a difference between someone pretending to be a waiter, and not being paid, and an unpaid waiter. The social role can be shown in the practices displayed, not in meeting some specific criteria. So an actor might pretend to be a waiter, mimic the behaviour, but only temporarily and for a purpose external to the role of being a waiter; then they stop and return to being something else.
I feel I covered that well in the longer post. I note that is how English functions today. While am very ok with you summarizing some of the larger points in the post, if the discussion is to continue you'll still want to address it when points were made there.
Quoting Banno
As I mentioned earlier, you had your thought experiment for a very specific thing, and arguing against thought experiments often doesn't let the writer of that thought experiment express their full intent. I don't want to unfairly attack a thought experiment, but would rather address an argument. Feel free to dismiss it unless its useful for my larger post's responses.
Please take your time to digest the larger post. Good conversations cannot be rushed.
What do you mean here? Seems that you are simply re-asserting, yet again, the primacy of one meaning for "woman" over the others.
So when you say something like "I have not considered personal identity important to the conversation", I don't see that you are saying any more than "I will only consider the idea of a women as being an adult human female".
Again, that's a stipulation on your part. That's fine, so far as it goes. It provides no reason for the rest of us not to understand "A trans woman is a woman" as being true.
Quoting Philosophim
I think I have, and covered it.
No, I'm asserting that as language is used today, 'woman' unmodified is interpreted to mean a person's sex, not their gender. And as such the phrase 'trans men are men' would be most rationally interpreted to intend the second 'man' as a noun, when it is really the verb version indicating gender. I feel like I'm repeating myself though at this point, so if you have nothing to add to that point there's really no more I think I can add.
Quoting Banno
I don't see how you drew that conclusion as I noted that you can modify woman to mean "gendered actions of an adult human female". Thus you can use cis or trans to indicate that it is the verb gendered version of woman, not the noun version.
Quoting Banno
The point is not to persuade you that what you believe is true is not. The point is to think through the arguments and try to come to a reasonable conclusion. Sometimes that ends up being the viewpoint of the person I talk to when they provide a good logical argument. Sometimes not. I am simply exploring why its most reasonable for English speakers to read "Trans men are men," and see the second unmodified man as describing sex, not gender. At this point in the argument, I see this the most rational viewpoint.
If you want to attempt to persuade me that this is not rational, feel free. At this point I'm not seeing anything new though. I've already addressed what you've stated before, and since I'm not seeing you address those further points that I made, there may not be much else to explore. As I noted in the post, in this we may just have to agree to disagree. Not a slight against you in any way, I've greatly enjoyed our conversation over this as you've brought intelligent and engaging points to the conversation.
Of greater interest to me is the later half of that post where I ask about the idea that someone acting as a gender role of the opposite sex in any way means a person should or should not treat them as the gendered role of that sex. To me, this isn't part of the initial conversation, but maybe that would help me see where you're coming from. I'm a big fan of isolating things down to their basics and introducing complexity once initial steps are done. I think our disagreement here is mostly how society rationally sees the phrase, and whether it needs more detail or not. But we don't disagree about sex and gender on the fundamental level. So if you are interested, we could explore that following section a bit more.
And if not, that is fine. I can easily continue a conversation deeper for months and I recognize that is not normal nor sane to ask of most people. We apparently have reached an end to the initial query, so its all bonus from here on. So if you wish to explore a bit more about your connection with gender to how society should treat people who act in or against their expected gender, that would be great. If not, its been a nice conversation and I've appreciated the discussion.
Yes - that's what I said. You are insisting on the one interpretation.
I am providing rational argument for why it is. I am not denying that it could change. I am not denying that we could popularize the word 'woman' as gender and not sex by default. Again, we're just repeating the same thing at each other Banno. We've both heard each other and if we both have nothing new to add, I think we can agree to disagree at this point.
I don't see an argument. I see you asserting it.
Here's the contrary again: there is a reasonable interpretation of "trans women are women" that is true.
It is the interpretation that "woman" is a gender role, adopted, grown in to, and not simply consequent on one's biological sex.
And, in some jurisdictions, this is enough for "a trans woman is a woman" to be taken as legally binding.
And so it goes.
This contradicts your edict.
So here's the thing: the use contradicts your stipulation.
What I would contend is that 'woman' is inexably used as a term that presents sexuality in regards to actual sexual acts and reproduction.
To say that the term woman is purely a gendered term is blatantly wrong. To say that the term woman is purely a biological term is blatantly wrong.
It is impossible to follow up on the claim that the term 'woman' is not inexcractibly linked to female and sexual reproduction (both biologically and socially). It is not reasonable to say that 'female' is inextractibly linked to the purely gendered use of 'woman'.
You have to be really careful when reading what I have said above. They are not saying the same thing. Sexual activity (society) with reproduction leads to the existence of the term woman in the first place.
I have not said that "woman" is purely a gendered term. I have pointed out that that is one way to use it.
Quoting I like sushi
Post-menopausal women are women. Infertile women are women. A woman does not cease to be a women by having a hysterectomy. Women have chromosomal or gonadal variations. And trans women in many social, legal, and linguistic practices are women. Demonstrably, the term “woman” is coherently used in ways that do not involve reproductive function.
Quoting I like sushi
Ok. SO I won't hold it against you, yet. But I'm not much impressed.
Etymologically, it's a combination of wif and man, the need for the addition of "man" showing how "man" was neutral - "person". Wif might be from a PIE term for pudenda,(*ghwibh-) hence "pudenda-person", or "*weip", to wrap, a reference to face scarves - "wrapped-person". All a bit uncertain. So it's not clear that it originally has a sexual tone.
I think you missed the point I was making.
Quoting Banno
Irrelevant to what I was saying. Women give birth to children. If someone loses all their limbs we do not cease calling them human. There are cases where there are circumstances where male chromosome people present physically in many ways as female due to congenital hormonal issues. Socially they are women and treated as women. That simple fact that women give birth to children is not intrinsic to what it means to be a woman. My point was that over all human history (regardless of whether you use the specific term 'woman') people with breasts and people with penises are generally divided socially into reasonably clear cut groups.
Quoting Banno
Well, not literally. Saying "A trans woman is a woman" is as true as saying something like "Hunting elephants can help prevent their extinction". Both are true. The problem is in both cases they need to be explained beyond ordinary assertion and in very specific circles of understanding. No doubt many would assume that hunting elephants does nothing to prevent their extinction.
Your main concern is the Truth of the statement? Is so it makes better sense to say trans 'women are women, but ...'. Bracketing out the common linguistical ground for how terms are used in colloquial circles does not seem to help highlight the Truth of the statement.
The most common term I can think of in the English langauge that carries with it a tonne of baggage is 'race'. I am in a rush so will just say that 'race' is a term that has straddled scientific and common parse alike. Now we have muddy waters that cause a lot of problems and needless obfuscation. It appears that is precisely where genders studies is going to (already has to some degree) land us.
Quoting Banno
You will have to explain further why this matters. I was refer to the concept of woman in societies. Not a huge fan of historicism other than as a curiosity. Please explain why you see it as relevant.
Yes. Men are men and women are women. Men have penises and testicles (that produce their genetically unique sperm). Men have XY chromosomes. Women have uteruses and ovaries (that produce their genetically unique eggs). Women have XX chromosomes.
Trans men are women, and trans women are men. As radical a drag act as might be performed involving the chopping off and formation of body parts, the sex of a person can not be changed.
Now, who wears oxfords and who wears high heels, who wears a bra and who wears a jock strap is more variable. High heels started out in Louis XIV France as a riding shoe for men -- the high heel made it easier to keep the foot in the stirrup. Men noticed that elevating the heel improved the looks of their calves. When women started wearing high heels, the same beneficial thing happened to their calves. Legs look nice in elevated heels -- without regard to the many disadvantages of walking around on high heels.
Even though men are men and women are women, and transsexuals are merely in drag, I don't see any reason to make life difficulty for them. On the other hand, I don't have to believe everything they say, either.
Yep.
Quoting I like sushi
Nuh. That's projecting a tidy modern anatomical binary backward over extremely diverse cultures. Social categories weren’t determined by breasts or penises; they were determined by the role-structures of a community. The biology is incidental to the social grouping, not constitutive of it.
Quoting I like sushi
Yes, literally. If "woman" is seen as a gendered role rather than merely a sex role, the trans women are women.
The discussion over the last few days was to there not being one essential meaning to "woman". On this @Philosophim and I eventually found agreement. Do we go over that again?
The etymology was in response to your "Quoting I like sushi
You didn't evidence that, so I spent a bit of time checking, and presented the result. Your assertion was not supported.
Interesting comment about historicism. The idea that women are historically bound to certain biological interpretations of that term sounds historicist...?
Well, no, not all of them do.
Can I ask what you make of the post from ? It was the trigger for my involvement in this thread.
I don’t think it’s anything so complicated. It’s just people thinking that words have some singular meaning.
The English words “man” and “woman” can refer to (usually) straightforward biological properties but they can also refer to something psychological or cultural or social that is less easy to pigeonhole.
Arguing that trans men aren’t men because they don’t have XY chromosomes is as confused as arguing that chiroptera aren’t bats because they’re not metal clubs.
Correct. My argument was to show that if we are to consider English and the language afforded to us by gender, the phrase "Trans men are men" simply isn't clear enough. The problem is you have to know the meaning of the phrase prior to saying it. Alone, it does not indicate whether 'man' in this case means the reference to sex, or gendered aspect of that sex. That is why the final argument is that the phrase is a poor phrase and needs clarity. "Trans men are females who follow the gender of men" requires no outside knowledge to understand the phrases meaning.
I think you and I largely agree on the overall approach here. I am not asserting there is only one essentialist definition for women. Simply that the phrase "trans women are women" is at best ambiguous, and when read by common culture and by the rules of English, 'women' is going to be interpreted as 'sex', when this is not the intention of the phrase. So it needs to be better.
I think that if you interpret the phrase “trans men are men” as “trans men are biologically male” then that’s on you. Given that the sentence starts with “trans men” it is immediately obvious that they are referring to those who are biologically female, and so the context of the ending phrase “are men” should be self-evident.
To my point here, most people would have no problem understanding that you are used the second women and men here as sex references. Even if this was the only sentence stated, almost everyone would know what you were intending to say. That's the point. Also if I state "Trans men are women who take on the gendered role of men", this is understood easily and requires no more clarity. No one would ask, "Do you mean the unmodified men and women mean gendered expectations of adult males and females?" There's no question the intention.
And yet there is resistance to this. Sometimes even anger. Meaning that often times to Banno's point, trans ideologists want the term 'man' and 'woman' to become gender essentialist instead of the common sex reference. My point is to eliminate any possible conflation or ambiguity when talking about trans men and women so that way we can get past debates of meaning, and instead move onto questions like, "How should we integrate trans individuals in society?" I feel the reason why there is an insistence on keeping it ambiguous is for manipulation. Trans people want access to cross sex spaces. If you clearly point out that a trans individual is not the other sex, then the trans person has to come up with a reason why they should be allowed in cross sex spaces. If you can change the term 'men' to essentially mean gender, then they can point to spaces where 'men' are allowed, and attempt to claim, "men means gendered, I am a gendered male, therefore I belong there".
Of course, it may be that there is a good reason to allow gendered men in men's spaces (when men alone means sex obviously). But that must be tackled and reasoned through without verbal tricks and conflationary logical fallacies. An honest person should have no problem asking for clear phrasing in discussion, and no one should object to the notion that 'trans men are adult human females who take on the gendered role of men' and that "trans men are not adult human males".
If you are familiar with gender theory and culture, then you understand the context. But the phrase alone divorced from that culture does not indicate this. If you go out to the wider web or bring up the discussion with people, they will assume you are saying, "Trans men are adult human males". My point is that rationally, this interpretation makes sense. Good phrases and language should not need an isolated cultural reference to be declared as being true in the broader language.
Since the gender debate has been brought to the larger society in the past few years, it should improve its phrasing to more accurately indicate the meaning of the phrase as it is ambiguous on its own. "Thus, "Trans men are adult human females who take on the gendered role of men" is a much better phrasing that allows people to think about the consequences of this thought instead of arguing with someone because they think what's being said is that "Trans men are adult human men".
Again, if you interpret the phrase “trans men are men” as “trans men are biologically male” then that’s on you.
Do you honestly believe that people who say this are delusional about someone’s sex organs? Do you honestly believe that trans men hallucinate themselves to have a penis? Common sense and even the smallest principle of charity should make it obvious that you’re addressing the most absurd strawman.
No, that is a perfectly legitimate and rational interpretation of the phrase in isolation. It is on the speaker to provide clear phrasing. Do you agree "Trans men are adult human females who take on the gendered role of men" is a much better sentence to clearly communicate the intent of the phrase? Do you think you would get in debate over the phrase itself, or would it then open the conversation to discuss 'trans men' with this clearly understood context between two people?
As philosophers, we must be advocates of clear, unambiguous, and rational phrases and language when discussing ideas. "Trans men are men" alone can be legitimately interpreted with the singular 'men' being either 'sex' or 'gendered'. Based on current culture and English rules and norms, it is more rational for a person reading the phrase without context to interpret it to mean the noun sex referent. Thus it is a poor phrase if a person coming from the still niche gender culture and language wants to communicate the concept, "Trans men are adult human females who take on the gendered role of men" to the general culture for honest and unambiguous discussion.
There are delusional people who believe this. I've been around online and in trans circles. But what is more relevant is that a person who hears the phrase is most likely to interpret the phrase as claiming they have changed actual sex. That's why its a poor phrase and needs to be clarified. "Common sense" is not an argument because to people who interpret solitary to 'man' to reference sex, that's also "Common sense" to them. Charity is given to people who are seen as rational and honest in debate, and it must be earned through discussion. Many people lie, are delusional, ignorant, uneducated, and attempt to deceive others. Consider that many in the culture think that a trans person is already mentally ill (Not saying they are, it is an observation) why should they think this person isn't claiming to be the other sex?
So I'll ask you very plainly. If its an unclear phrase to most people and is most rationally interpreted alone to reference sex when that is not the intention, why double down on it? Rationally, there should be no issue with saying, "Yeah, I guess it can come across like that. Lets adjust the phrase to be more accurate so the broader culture understands." Just like there should be no essentialist attachment to 'men' to always refer to sex, there should be no essentialist attachment for 'men' to always refer to gender. If the goal is to clearly communicate the reality of the situation, any provably ambiguous language and phrasing should be clarified. So why are you against it? Because unless a good reason is stated, people who advocate for unclear language are using language in a way which conveys they are confused, uneducated, or ignorant at best. At worst, its a person attempting to manipulate language for an outcome that they desire, which is deceptive, malicious, and wrong.
So unless you can explain to me why you're advocating and insisting that a provably ambiguous phrase shouldn't be clarified to remove its ambiguity, I have no recourse but to assume you fit one one of the adjectives above in this debate.
That some people suffer from psychosis does not justify your position. Common sense is sufficient to understand that most people aren’t suffering from hallucinations or delusions, and so the only rational conclusion is either a) other people misunderstand the (singular) meaning of the word “man” or b) the word “man” doesn’t just mean the singular thing you believe it to mean.
And I noted that its not nearly important as the follow up, which is how people are going to interpret the phrase. So a little logical fallacy of avoidance.
Quoting Michael
Are you seriously doubling down that "Common sense" is an argument? That's embarrassing. You're supposed to be versed in philosophy, rational thinking, and good arguments. You just glossed over the point that someone can easily say its "Common sense" that a man refers to sex, like countless people do today. You sound like a fool for doubling down on that.
Finally, you ignored my question. Which means you are against clarifying the language. So maybe you are ignorant despite your 16 thousands posts because you actually think a doubling down on an argument from "Common sense" would make people think, "Oh gee, he's right!" instead of imagining a conservative hick in the woods advocating against gay marriage.
But I'm going to assume you're not. I'm going to assume you're reasonably intelligent, understand common logical fallacies, and can think rationally. So this leaves me to consider that you are being deceptive with language, a malicious action that deserves no place in philosophical discussion. In terms of honest and clear discussion, I am the one holding onto clarity while you are using language for an outcome you desire.
Do you really want to come across as so afraid of clarifying language because you think it will go against an outcome that you want down the road? If the outcome you want down the road is the most rational, then it should be easily defended and argued for with clear language and communication. How are you any different from a Christian who insists on not clarifying their terms? A backwards conservative who ignores points in a discussion to double down on something they simply want? Come on Michael, I know you have a better intellect than that. Address my question. Do not be afraid.
You would not consider that biology is actually far more constituitive to social grouping than you currently believe it is? Incidental sounds weak to me.
Quoting Banno
Do you think men fighting rather than women is a 'gender role' that has nothing to do with biology? It is clearly a biological difference we are talking about here that groups men as fighters and women as non-fighters.
Quoting Banno
A boy is a young male, and a man is a mature male - not based on social constructs.
A trans boy is a trans boy, and a trans man is a trans man - these are social constructs.
I have no huge issue with conceding that a trans man/woman falls into a broader social category of what a man or woman is. Legally there are differences between a woman and a trans woman. If the law is understanding there are underlying biological conditions that group trans women differently to women then it is not really about some linguistic nuance.
Issues may arise if people start saying 'I am a man' instead of saying 'I am a trans man'. In day to day life this has little to no bearing though. No one I know has ever declared their gender to me upon first meeting and I would find it kind of strange if they did.
It’s common sense that there is no widespread mass psychosis about the sex organs of transgender people. This is most obvious given that these people are referred to as “transgender” rather than as “cisgender”. The very words people use proves beyond all reasonable doubt that they are not hallucinating or delusional.
You’re just doubling down on a completely unreasonable accusation, and then shifting the burden of proof.
Wow. Tripling down on using "Common sense" as a viable argument? I don't know what to say anymore that you haven't screamed to everyone reading your post.
Also, where in this discussion did I claim mass psychosis? Where did that even come from? Are you enjoying that straw man you're beating on in the corner to avoid the question I asked?
Quoting Michael
This is also incredibly deficient. So anytime anyone says words, that means they are not hallucinating or delusional? Michael. You're caught in something that is stopping you from thinking clearly. Break out of it. Do not become what you know you hate.
Quoting Michael
Hard to make that case when you're ignoring the question I asked and spouting logical fallacies like "Common sense" as a viable argument. Your mind is captured Michael. You're letting emotions block you from thinking clearly. Take some time to quietly think about what has been said so far and come back later. I've been where you are before. Its ok. Remember that we should carefully consider all outcomes. Remember your years of understanding rational thought, fallacies, and taking every emotion that prevents you from doing so, and put them to the side. Right now you're not at your best.
It’s very simple. Nobody who says “trans men are men” believes that biological women who identify as men are biological men. It’s absurd that this needs to be explained to you.
The only coherent objection to the claim “trans men are men” is to argue that they are misunderstanding or misusing the word “men” — that it only means “biological men” — but this objection, although coherent, is demonstrably false.
The English language, like every other natural language, has its ambiguities and homonyms, and it’s incorrect to claim that it doesn’t and pointless to insist that it shouldn’t. If it concerns you that much then go learn Lojban.
Nice.
Women fight.
So contrary to the OP, there is an interpretation of "a trans woman is a woman" that is true.
Now those here who are maintaining that this is not so are insisting that there is only one legitimate meaning for "woman". As Michael put it, they are insisting that chiroptera aren’t bats because they’re not metal clubs.
Your position appears inconsistent.
Correct.
Quoting Banno
Also correct.
Quoting Banno
Not quite. Yes, there is an interpretation of 'a trans woman is a woman' that is true. What I note in the OP is that while it might be true if one knows the context behind the phrase, for English and general culture, it is most rational to read 'woman' unmodified to refer to 'sex', and not gender. As such, it is a poor phrase to use in the general context of language as the phrase in isolation is most likely to be interpreted incorrectly. As such, the phrase should be more detailed and changed to something like "Trans men are adult human females who follow adult human male gender expectations."
I believe where we agreed to disagree was the general interpretation of the phrase in broad language and culture. I contest that 'woman' or 'man' without adjective modifiers is in most cases seen as 'adult human sex', whereas you don't.
Quoting Banno
To be clear, it is not that this cannot change, or that we can't argue it can't change. It is very possible for language norms to change over time, and maybe one day people will think of "A woman in the woods" and will envision an adult human male or female with equal likelihood. But as of today, that is not how most people envision 'woman' without adjectives. It still defaults to "Adult human female", and as such the phrase 'trans women are women' would do better by adding clarity to the phrase to avoid ambiguous intent and incorrect interpretation in the larger culture.
Cool. Which was to be shown.
Quoting Philosophim
This appears contrary to
Quoting Banno
Which you accepted. That is, you are giving an unjustified primacy to one interpretation. "Rational" just names a prejudice here.
It is not contrary to note that while there can be different interpretations based on context, one context is less likely to be interpreted when introduced to another context. "Rational" is not a prejudice, it is a claim of what the English language is like and the way most will interpret a phrase in isolation. Let me give a different example. "The moon is sweet." In general English, this indicates that the moon tastes sweet. But in the context of another conversation with a few teenagers, we might find it is a phrase where 'sweet' means 'awesome', and isn't referring to the taste at all.
If these two teenagers went to people who didn't know this context, and didn't know the teenagers at all, the phrase alone would most likely trigger people to think, "They are saying the moon tastes sweet." Notice how the two contexts can be both true, but when the sentence is taken alone one context is more likely to be interpreted than the other.
And that specific part is what I'm pointing out with 'trans men are men'. Yes, there is a context that this can be true when 'men' unmodified refers to the gender of adult human men. But it is not rationally what someone would hold to be true read alone without further context. As such, while it may be understood in a smaller group of people, most people are going to see the phrase as claiming the second unmodified man or woman as a sex reference. In my time exploring this issue and going to several different groups of people, this has also been my observed outcome. As such, the phrase is poor and causes confusion among the greater culture. It should therefore be clarified to 'Trans men are adult human females that act in gendered terms like an adult human male." If this is what the phrase is intended to mean, then there should be no objection to increased clarity of the phrase so that people outside of the gendered community understand.
There can be no "what someone would hold to be true read alone without further context". Language is always embedded in life.
You are simply giving primacy to one context - the biological one.
You can when language is stated without context. At that point we default to the general rules of English. Just like most people would do if we saw the sentence, "The moon is sweet" without context.
Quoting Banno
No, I am simply noting that given the English language and broader culture, the phrase "Trans men are men" is going to be seen as claiming that a trans man is the same as 'an adult human female', thus it needs clarity.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Michael. Is there a problem with clarifying the phrase so there is no ambiguity or confusion?
There is no language without context.
Quoting Philosophim
But this is not what you are doing. You are choosing one sense over the other.
There is language without conveyed personal or social context, and when that happens we default to the context of the language, such as English.
Quoting Banno
No, I am observing that one sense is what is rationally interpreted in English and culture as of today. It is not my choice, it is again, an observation.
As such, the phrase should be clarified to not be interpreted incorrectly to the underlying intent of the phrase.
Now, I'll ask again. If you avoid answering this time, I'm going to assume what I assumed about Michael. If the phrase is ambiguous and likely to be misinterpreted, then it is a poor phrase for accurate communication. Whether you understand it is not the point. Its that the phrase can both mean and be interpreted as a claim of sex and not gender. Is there anything rationally wrong with clarifying the phrase to convey its meaning without any ambiguity or misinterpretation? "Trans men are adult human females who act in gendered ways of adult human males?"
This amounts to special pleading - deliberately ignoring those aspects that are unfavourable to your argument.
There is always a personal or social context.
Quoting Philosophim
How to make sense of this.
You admit that the gendered version is also "one sense (that) is rationally interpreted in English and culture as of today", yet insist on the primacy of the sexed version.
And yet don't seem to see this as problematic.
The matter of fact is much harder to settle. Although perhaps too tired a point, the distinction is that between identity and sex.
One is a human-specific creation, the other is a scientific one.
No animal questions its identity, if it even has one (aside from what we attribute to it.)
Sex seems to be closer to a kind of "natural kind" distinction in biology.
The political topic is not interesting to me, the issue of identity is extremely difficult.
This is an assertion, not an argument. I'm seeing no evidence that this is so.
Quoting Banno
There is always a context, but that context can also be the rules of the language itself. I am not seeing any reason why this isn't true from your assertion.
Quoting Banno
Now you're ignoring what I just said. I am not insisting like it is my decision. I am observing it is so by the rules of English and broader culture. We can agree to disagree at this point because this requires proof at this point. I've provided the example of 'A woman in the woods" and you have not provided anything that would dissuade me that by default, people see 'woman' or 'man' unmodified as a reference to physical sex. And that's fine. None of us have the ability to do a statistical analysis and poll people like I've proposed. This is a point in the conversation where proof is needed, but by consequence there is nothing wrong with either of us holding our belief to a statement until such proof is gathered.
So on this, I'm not sure there is anything more to be said. However what did need to be said was the answer to my question. You don't even have to agree on the way most people will interpret the phrase, but it is clear there is more than one way to interpret the phrase, and as such it is ambiguous. One of the essential tenants in philosophy is a disambiguation of terminology to allow clear thinking and rational thought. Anyone who is against getting rid of ambiguity in phrasing is being dishonest and manipulative in a discussion if they are not ignorant or rationally deficient. I do not believe you are ignorant or rationally deficient.
So I can only assume at this point that your attachment to the phrase is not rational, but a need for the ambiguity. By your own approach to language, you cannot rationally claim that it cannot be interpreted in more than one way. There can be no good reason to hold onto and insist on ambiguity in terms when we have the option of clarifying them. If I do not hear an answer to the question in your next post, I will conclude that I will have won the point that it should be clarified because I am upholding proper philosophical discourse and you have not demonstrated that I am not.
And that you are choosing to prioritise one of those uses over others, calling that choice "rational" by way of an excuse, yet without providing any argument or evidence.
This is word play to avoid answering the question. There can be ambiguity over polysemous words used in a phrase correct? If the term was NOT Polysemous then you would have an argument that it is not ambiguous. All you have done is use a more advanced word when we already agree that the term woman can have multiple meanings based on context. This is not an argument against the phrase being ambiguous, just a fancy word.
As long as you avoid my question Banno, my point stands. There is nothing wrong with clarifying the phrase "Trans men are men" to "Trans men are adult human females who exhibit the gender of adult human males." Unless you are willing to answer the question, I think we've reached the end of that discussion.
The difference between woman and used as a gender term and as a sexed term is not that of ambiguity.
Polysemous does not mean ambiguous.
Quoting Philosophim
So long as you acknowledge that you are making a choice in doing so. It is not a correction dictated by the language itself; it is a stipulation about meaning that you are imposing. English already allows “trans men are men” to be understood clearly in the gendered/social sense of “man.” Choosing to redefine it biologically is a deliberate, prescriptive move — not a clarification required by ordinary usage.
No, choosing to note the difference between biology and gender is a clear clarification of the term so that the user resolves the ambiguity between sex and gender intentions in the phrase. I have not seen any argument here that indicates the phrase is not ambiguous, so nothing else to add from me.
Nor any that it is not a cat.
If you think it ambiguous, set out the ambiguity.
But if instead we can agree that trans men are (often) female adult humans who take on male social and physical characteristics, we might do better.
And that, itself, only as an approximation to the degree to which such terms are flexible.
I have. I'm not going to repeat myself unnecessarily.
Quoting Banno
No, physical characteristics are not involved. That would indicate a trans sexual who is attempting to change their biology, not a trans gender individual. A trans gender individual requires no hormones or bodily alterations. And a trans sexual is not required to be trans gendered. They are two separate terms.
That's why the unambiguous version of the phrase only mentions the actions of a sex taking on the gender of another sex, not the expected sex characteristics of the other sex.
Ok. Then the point is rendered moot.
Quoting Philosophim
Of course they are. Beards, tats, body building, breast reduction...
Quoting Philosophim
You might think of it that way. But eating is changing your biology.
Quoting Philosophim
Being transgender, perhaps, does not require it; but transgender folk do change their "biology" - your word.
Quoting Philosophim Indeed, and these are neither exclusive nor complete.
Quoting Philosophim
As I said, if you won't defend that usage, it doesn't do anything.
Back to call-and-answer, so not expecting much now. A pity.
No, this entire conversation has been referring to trans gender individuals. Whether they are also trans sexual or not is irrelevant to the discussion up until now.
Quoting Banno
No, that is not my word. That is a trans sexual. There is no requirement that changing your biology means you are a trans gender individual.
Quoting Banno
They have been exclusive in the context of this entire conversation. I understand that transgender can be short hand for 'trans gender or trans sexual' in other contexts, but I clearly defined trans gender to not involve trans sexuals to keep the conversation focused. If you want to address trans sexuals, this is separate from the conversation we've had so far.
Quoting Banno
If you mean your point that "I have not pointed out the ambiguity involved" has been rendered moot, yes.
Quoting Banno
Banno, I've been polite and respectful with you. Don't ruin that with a snide remark please.
Sure. But transgender people do change their biology. All transsexual people are transgender. Not all transgender people are transsexual. Transgender includes transsexuality.
So, no to
Quoting Philosophim
If there is an ambiguity, set it out. Polysemous does not mean ambiguous.
Factually incorrect as defined here. You can be a trans sexual and decide to follow the gender of your natal sex. You can be be a trans gender and decide not to change any aspect of your biology. This describes real individuals and is not simply theory.
Quoting Banno
Banno, go re-read as I noted, its already been said several times. I also never equated polysemous with ambiguous, please read my point again.
Quoting Philosophim
Ok, point taken.
But it remains that a transgender person may change their physiology.
Quoting Philosophim
At the very least, provide a link.
Of course. But once they are a trans gender person who is also now a trans sexual. I just want to be clear the conversation has at no point involved trans sexuals or their particular considerations.
Quoting Banno
No. There are some things so obvious in the conversation that its not worth me addressing. Your inability to address what is obvious was already indicated to me as a way to avoid answering 'the question'. Indicate to me that you are genuine in your point by actually addressing the ambiguity claims that I made and I will take it more seriously.
Quoting Philosophim
Why not? Seems odd to exclude them. But whatever.
Quoting Philosophim
Churlish. Ok.
So maybe back to this:
Quoting Philosophim
I take it that we've shown some difficulties with this paragraph:
Quoting Philosophim
That it's overly simplistic, if nothing else.
That might be an end, then.
Here it is:
Quoting I like sushi
That appears to say that there are biological reasons that women do not fight. But women do fight. If I've misunderstood, let me know how.
This is not a guessing game. I imagine both yourself and the vast majority of people reading what I wrote within the context I wrote it understand perfectly well what I am getting at.
I think you were saying what I said before:
Quoting Banno
:brow:
I fed your whole comment in to ChatGPT, and asked it what the paragraph in question said.
So. If that was not what you were saying, I'm at a loss.
The reason is what we can consider in law. I do not think there is a single viable reason to allow a trans gender person in cross sex spaces. There are viable considerations in allowing trans sexuals in cross sex spaces.
Quoting Banno
I think so. Its been good to explore.
If you insist that only sex counts, then of course only reasons grounded in sex will seem “viable.” But that is a choice of rule—part of how you are choosing to play the language-game.
Cheers.
This also ties into my question:
Quoting I like sushi
If you believe what you said then clearly this is one major difference in how we are looking at this. Fair enough.
Your choice of words. I was just rehashing what you said. I originally said:
Quoting I like sushi
Hopefully you now understand what I mean above. That biology does play a key role into how we socially divide people, because biological traits effect our roles in society. The role of giving birth is not one open to men. This is actually a rather significant part of how groups of people live together and various traditions arise due to this.
If you think the concept of 'woman' is more a social construct than something that exists more due to biological traits then we could probably go back and forth several times on this matter.
No, I think that's just logic. If spaces are divided by sex, then only sex should be considered for those spaces. Language games are attempts to use language to confuse concepts. The 'game' is manipulation of the language for an end. I'm genuinely not trying to manipulate for an end, but trying to establish clear concepts to reason through issues relating to sex and gender clearly.
When I posted my contribution on page 2, the exchange between us got heated and I stepped back. But since you seem to me now to be motivated by some idea of philosophical clarity and rigour rather than by prejudice, I think it's worth my explaining more carefully what I meant, because it's directly relevant to how the discussion is unfolding now.
This was my earlier post:
Quoting Jamal
There are two points here. I’ll start with the first: the accusation that your argument begs the question. Your OP seems reducible to this syllogism:
1. A man is an adult human male.
2. A trans man is not an adult human male.
3. Therefore a trans man is not a man.
(The same pattern for “woman”; and “male” understood biologically.)
In isolation, this does not technically beg the question, because the conclusion isn't present in the premises. But it does beg the question in the context of the debate, because the very meaning of "man" and "woman" is exactly what is disputed—and you stipulate one of the contested meanings as a premise.
And in your concluding paragraph you say this:
Quoting Philosophim
So your OP effectively does this:
1. Assume the contested definition.
2. Derive a conclusion that follows only under that definition.
3. Present the conclusion as if it supports the definition.
This is classic begging the question.
But you deny it:
Quoting Philosophim
But in the OP (and in many of your later posts) you avoid doing precisely this. You insist on one definition but don’t properly engage with the arguments that challenge it. And that brings me to the second point.
As @Michael and @Banno have been getting at, there are serious philosophical arguments—cluster-concept analyses, social-kind analyses, externalist semantic approaches, etc.—that claim "man" and "woman" do not have the fixed boundaries your definition tries to impose. Pointing this out is not an ad hominem, contrary to what you said here:
Quoting Philosophim
I wasn’t attacking your character. I was criticising your assumptions—specifically that you presuppose a contested definition and ignore the relevant existing counterarguments. That is a critique of reasoning, not of person.
This is where the two points connect. Saying "you haven't addressed X" is not personal; it is a point about dialectical completeness. My claim is that your argument stipulates the very definition of "man" and "woman" that's being disputed, and therefore does not engage with those philosophical analyses which define those terms differently.
That your syllogism is valid is trivial. The entire debate is about one of the premises. Everyone already agrees that if "man" is necessarily biologically male, then trans men are not men. To repeat, the dispute is over the "if".
NOTE: I haven't closely followed the discussion so if you have developed your argument to support the definition, I'd like to see it. But Banno seems to be mounting a strong challenge.
I'm just going to butt in here to point out that the term has a technical sense, to be found in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations:
[quote=PI]2. A is building with building stones: there are blocks, pillars, slabs and beams. B has to pass him the stones and to do so in the order in which A needs them. For this purpose they make use of a language consisting of the words “block”, “pillar”, “slab”, “beam”. A calls them out; B brings the stone which he has learnt to bring at such-and-such a call. --- Conceive of this as a complete primitive language.[/quote]
[quote=PI]7. We can also think of the whole process of using words in (2) as one of those games by means of which children learn their native language. I will call these games “language-games” and will sometimes speak of a primitive language as a language-game. And the processes of naming the stones and of repeating words after someone might also be called language-games. Think of certain uses that are made of words in games like ring-a-ring-a-roses. I shall also call the whole, consisting of language and the activities into which it is woven, a “language-game”.[/quote]
EDIT: But note that these comments are not the last word on language games in PI. The point of quoting Wittgenstein is to show that the term has a philosophical meaning that is nothing to do with "confusing concepts".
Yes. There are degrees where spaces are open to trans women that are open to women. There are contexts where trans women are not allowed in spaces (as in competitive physical sports) women occupy.
I think it is pretty ordinary to allow someone who looks and acts like a woman into a woman's space, just so long as they are not gaining an unfair advantage (hence how sports are beginning to handle this issue).
As with every area that involves personal freedoms there are bad actors and good actors. I do think this topic has kind of started to level off now, but maybe not. It would be nice to see people not acting on blind prejudices and just discussing in a reasonable manner. It can be hard sometimes though if the topic concerns yourself personally and there is an emotionally charged vibe in the room.
I was never motivated by prejudice, and I resent the assumption without clear reason. The accusation that I was motivated by prejudice is begging the question. Do you understand when you open with a line like that, that it poisons everything you're going to say afterwards? You should always assume that someone is trying to be philosophical first, and only after a discussion is properly engaged should you piece together that the person is prejudiced.
Quoting Jamal
Correct. Which means it doesn't beg the question.
Quoting Jamal
How so?
Quoting Philosophim
That's both a premise and a reason why the premise was chosen. Now you could easily come back with, "I don't think that because the majority of people think man/woman are references to sex, that this is a reason it should be defined this way." Or you could say, "I don't think the majority of the world defines man/woman as sex referents." But begging the question? If I had stated, "man means sex reference" and did not back that statement, or double down if people asked me to prove why and I provided no reason, that would be begging the question. That is not what happened.
Quoting Jamal
Where? Anytime anyone has brought forward the idea that man and woman can also be defined in terms of gender, I've agreed. This discussion has evolved over 2 months and as long as people have engaged honestly, I have engaged back honestly adjusting, clarifying, and agreeing to other points. You're making accusations again without any backing.
Quoting Jamal
They made good points and I agreed that there can be other definitions for man/woman. As you just noted, this was in the OP. And to my mind, neither of them were able to indicate that man/woman without adjectives are normally and most rationally seen as defining a gendered meaning over sex. If you've been following along like you seem to have, that should be clear.
Quoting Jamal
You're going to reference posts that weren't your own and way after you posted to try to absolve yourself of your Ad Hominim attack against me? Lets go back to the full original context of that:
Quoting Philosophim
I helped put that little bit in bold which is the Ad Hominem. You have no idea what I've researched and haven't. You directed an accusation of ignorance against me that you couldn't back instead of the position I was maintaining. Of course I didn't have a problem with you noting the debate has been going on for years. I had an issue with your assumption that I had not done research, and that just made ME incapable of addressing the argument. You could have stated, "This is part of the debate that counters your point." "I'll cite X which shows why you're wrong." Not, "You're ignorant and obviously wrong because I'm going to assume you haven't read things I know about but won't actually say."
Quoting Jamal
And "if" you actually proposed an argument of alternatives instead of trying to excuse your earlier logical fallacies, we might have had a good debate. You might have even changed my mind. I would much rather know that I am wrong then run around actually being wrong while thinking I'm holding what is right. Good philosophical debate is not inherently antagonistic but should be a partnership of thought between two people trying to determine an outcome. You got in the way of that Jamal.
Quoting Jamal
So you have been following the discussion closely enough to attempt to make claims about what Banno is saying, you seem ignorant to what I've been saying, but you think Banno is a strong challenge? I think the timing of you coming into the thread after two months is a bit suspicious. I think you or someone messaged you because they realized Banno was NOT making a strong challenge at the end when he refused to answer a question of mine. Why else wait until now Jamal? This is also not a slight on Banno. He engaged fairly, made many good points, and I have a ton of respect for him from this thread.
Quoting Jamal
I'm sure Banno is perfectly capable of referencing that if that was his intention. From my point in the context of the discussion, I did not feel that Wittenstein's term was what was implied. Its odd that out of that entire discussion you pulled one line that really wasn't key to the core argument. Was this another attempt to make me look ignorant to persuade people I'm not worth listening to? Didn't really work Jamal.
I would invite you to engage the topic in good faith, but do you have the mindset and discipline to do so? Since this is the second time you've attempted to double down on accusations of my character, and you tried to defend against a two month old accusation of Ad Hominem without referencing the full context, I don't know. A proper reset from you would be nice Jamal. Otherwise I don't think there's much to speak further on.
I think its about leveled off too. Part of the reason I made the post is to get a good conversation started. The topic was forbidden and taboo for a long time, and people were mostly afraid of thinking about it. Those are the things we need to think about the hardest. When someone tries to silence you, you need to speak up even more. As for the 'where should trans gender people be allowed topic', I feel that's a good follow up to the this thread, but probably not a great topic in the thread itself.
Nice to see we can agree on something. Have a good day Jamal, its not personal on my part.
Meaning all you have in response to an honest and friendly critique is rhetoric, so it isn't worth pursuing in the philosophical spirit in which I intervened on both occasions (page 2 and today). Each time, you respond not with argument but effectively by sticking your fingers in your ears and attempting to disguise it with bluster. I admit it’s particularly galling this time around because I was very deliberately friendly, attempting to re-open the exchange in good faith.
It seems to me that you agree with me: that the OP does not in any way support your definition, since it stipulates it. Where is the argument for the definition of “man” and “woman” which the OP depends on? I have seen you appealing to common sense and repeatedly saying that it’s the most rational definition and so on, but that’s about it. Or am I wrong?
I recall I clearly pointed out how you are NOT being friendly or honest in your critique. I have yet to see you even attempt to tackle that, look inward a bit, or even an apology or an attempt to start over. Nice try.
Quoting Jamal
No I think the citation of original context and points backed with reasons are an effective argument, because you come back with bluster instead of addressing them.
Quoting Jamal
By starting it off saying my original post was prejudiced without explaining why? Good faith wouldn't have been trying to defend yourself two months after the fact and complimenting another poster I've been discussing with as "Having a strong argument" without any reason why. Please.
Quoting Jamal
Yes Jamal. You're wrong. You were wrong on your first logical fallacy post, wrong on the second double down post, and are wrong in trying to save face instead of moving on. I really have nothing else to say to you as you have done nothing to prove to me you have any intention of an honest debate.
The old idea of Theseus' Ship comes to mind in regard to how difficult it may be to define what a human is in legal terms.
I don't think there is anything in this post—the post with which I today re-entered the discussion—which is unfriendly or dishonest. Can you point it out?
Is it because I said "the exchange between us got heated," rather than directly apologizing for calling your post stupid? I thought it was better not to bring it up, in my effort to start again. It seemed accurate at the time, because your post dismissed my critique without taking it seriously, and refused the chance to learn. I count this as classic stupidity. However, I did not say that you were stupid. Even geniuses have stupid moments sometimes.
Prejudice seemed like a good explanation for this behaviour, so maybe that's what I believed about your motivation. But as I said, I re-opened the exchange today because on the basis of other posts of yours which I've read in the interim, I've grown to believe that I was wrong about that. I was open about this; it's pretty bad form to again complain about the very thing I am attempting to reverse (my hasty and disgusted withdrawal from the discussion).
Quoting Philosophim
I specifically said that I no longer believe you were motivated by prejudice. May I humbly request that you read my posts more carefully?
Quoting Philosophim
Let's start again. I apologize for calling your post stupid. I should not have done it, because it was not conducive to reasoned discussion.
But you have not addressed my criticisms:
Quoting Jamal
And I also showed that I was not committing an ad hominem fallacy:
Quoting Jamal
Can you respond to this? Can you show in what way I was doing an ad hominem? You argue that this is the crucial ad hominem:
[quote=Jamal]The debate has been going on for years, and you have made no attempt to research it or address the arguments that defend the notion that trans women are women etc[/quote]
But this is to accuse you of ignoring the relevant arguments in what is a debate which is not restricted to this thread or TPF, i.e., it is one that has been going on for years and has been addressed by philosophers. If you fail to address the debate, and instead assume precisely what is at issue, I think it's philosophically legitimate to point it out.
Please break down how my accusation is ad hominem.
But if you want, we can draw a line under all that, because there is too much baggage in it and the result will be more petty bickering and grandstanding. Instead, I can just ask you: do you agree that the OP assumes a definition which is the centrally contested definition in the debate over whether trans men are men etc? And how do you propose to support this definition? Since you did not support it in the OP, it's fair to ask you to face up to the relevant criticisms of your definition.
Crucially, I do not actually need to argue for my own understanding of "man" and "woman" to show that your reasoning is at fault, although it's fair that you ask me to make such an argument.
No, I'm not trying to score points, just helping out by correcting your faulty interpretation, since I know @Banno better than you. There is never a time when he says "language game" and does not mean it in the Wittgensteinian sense.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there is never a time when any seasoned philosophical thinker, in the Western tradition, uses the term "language game" and does not mean it in the Wittgensteinian sense.
That is, so people can understand what the OP and the most recent poster they engaged with productively failed to instill in one another. Certainly this happened as both are intelligent people who fail to see eye to eye.
But first, this concerns me (not to say it's not accurate, hence the concern):
Quoting Philosophim
Commoners (those not raised with morals, intellectual rigor, and standards) consider their degeneracy "normal" male behavior. It's not. It's bestial degeneracy. An unfortunate symptom of moral rot ie. normalization of that which should be despised. That means comparing the two classes of males under this dynamic is going to give a false distinction of what "cultural expectation of [...] behavior" actually means.
I'll give you an example, a real world anecdote from my youth: I once had the displeasure of obtaining schooling in the city. Let's just say they couldn't even legally call it a school; it was an "educational center." They had more security guards than cafeteria staff. 'Nuff said. So. I'm sitting there eating lunch at a table with about half a dozen other boys. Somehow (or perhaps, as expected), the topic of masturbation comes up, to which I of course stay out of. The person closest to me blurts out some vulgar speech about female genitalia, to which I glance over to him with a scornful look of disapproval. Now, instead of apologizing or excusing himself for profane talk at a time and place of eating like a civilized child, he instead responds "Oh, sorry, I didn't know you were a girl!" As if I was somehow the one out of line as far as social etiquette. I didn't realize until several years later that, technically, being in a den of those raised with all the morals and standards of a small rodent, I was in fact the one out of line, or, "acting contrary to how the average male of our age (sadly) does."
My point is, just because a given society or even world has a "social expectation" of something (in this case, per my story, being vulgar or edgy, or perhaps in another time, accepting and supportive of slavery), doesn't mean it should be treated as if it has the same class of relevance as "sex", something that is rooted in the absolute.
Anyway, just wanted to express that. Moving on. Regardless, the current impasse seems to be an issue of the fact that different people can have different "grasps" of definitions, some looser and some stricter than others. This is a one-dimensional problem. Not that exciting, per se.
From my understanding, everyone in this thread who has participated thus far can agree on the following statement: "A transgender 'man' is an individual born as a female who either chooses to identify as the opposite gender or has obtained medical surgery to function as one in some degree." (And the opposite for the opposite sex, respectively).
So, that's not the issue. The issue is that words evolve over time and some people accept a looser definition of "man" and "woman" to include that of, again this, what I find absurd, idea of "gender" (not that I find the concept of gender absurd, but what it has been turned into to normalize behavior no person of any sex or society should tolerate, let alone normalize).
This (that is to say the current impasse) seems to be more of a social issue involving words and meaning of words. Not exactly a deep pool of philosophy, IMO. Unless I missed something? :chin:
That is main thing I can see.
In day to day speech people say 'woman' and refer to 'females' the vast majority of the time. I have come across scientists in the past who attacked people for even suggesting there were different 'races' because they could not think of anything else other than the biological definition of 'race' (where clearly they are correct). This is what I think may have happened in this thread. If not that I am not really sure what is going on :D
What behaviour are you referring to here?
Anything that shouldn't be normalized. In a society that tolerates and encourages slavery, for example, it might be "normal gender behavior" for males to engage and casually talk about such acts in a mocking, friendly way. That would mean, at least to me, the idea of "gender" being just a word to describe "what other people of your sex expect from you" doesn't seem to be exactly a well of depth worth discussing. It's just a benchmark or expectation of a given society. Relevant only to that society as long as that particular society exists. I just don't see how that's particularly fruitful as far as philosophical debate goes. Perhaps it's just over my head. :confused:
The reason I posted was to try and understand the impasse between OP and @Banno. Both smart people, so, it just makes me wonder exactly what the other person isn't "buying" or otherwise not seeing eye to eye is. I haven't read every single post from the beginning, so I merely offered my preliminarily assessment: "Some people have looser definitions of a word than others, so perhaps that's what the current impasse is rooted in." Just wanted to get OP's opinion on my opinion, I suppose. :smile:
For the sake of advancing the discussion and ensuring no one party is hung up on something trivial, of course.
:up:
Otherwise, I still have no idea what you meant by "behavior no person of any sex or society should tolerate."
For what it's worth, the OP's substantive claim is this:
Quoting Philosophim
Most of those who disagree with the OP therefore disagree with this claim or with its significance.
So are you saying that most people around the world when someone says woman they do not imagine a female? This is clearly bogus.
I do imagine you mean that most academics around the world would disagree. Which is likely correct and definately correct in related fields of interest.
The way I put it was inadequate. What I should have said is that those who disagree with the OP find that statement, or more specifically its role in @Philosophim's argument, to be problematic.
EDIT: It's what is implied by "the default goes to sex" that's the problem, namely that we can be satisfied with the definition of "man" and "woman" as relating solely to biology.
Quoting Jamal
It's not really relevant in comparison to the discussion.
Other than it's an attempted (and in some societies, successful) moral hijacking of social norms and words that describe social norms to include things behaviors and attitudes that were once shamed and ridiculed. For example, when someone is hesitant to do something for clearly logical reasons, one might choose to belittle him and question his "manhood" so as to ironically make him do things at the behest of another person, which actually makes him like a "woman" according to historic and many modern standards. It's the jarring disconnect that people don't realize how responding to comments of the sort in fact make them less than men but like children following the behests of others.
It's social engineering. Effectively making any person do things they otherwise wouldn't do, generally immoral, dangerous, or destructive things by suggesting if they don't they're not "normal" or "not a man" or "not a woman" or whatever it is they're supposed to "be like" per social opinion. Peer pressure. Fall of the monarchy. Rise of the darkness that is unrefined human nature.
Specifically, I'm referring to how drastic and pronounced it's become to normalize behavior that was historically shamed and punished by simple phrases such as "be a man", thus showing how far the moral rot of many modern societies has advanced. It's a passing social commentary on the state of morality, more so than anything else. But never you mind. It's being handled.
Quoting Jamal
Ah, yes. Back on track. This stands to reason since, per definition of the OP, "gender" is a reference to cultural norms. How many cultures are there on Earth? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Millions, perhaps, counting sub-cultures and small civilizations, perhaps unheard of? Sure. So, one may argue it would simply be—not just difficult or inaccurate—but impossible to account for something that varies from social sphere to social sphere ("social expectation of behavior" ie. gender, if you define it as such) in favor of something absolute and constant (sex).
That much is understandable. Isn't it? :chin:
Edit: Your money is pounds. My money is dollars. I wouldn't go around to another person in another country talking about "dollars", especially if I know their money is or might be different. I would say what is constant and universal: "money." So, yes, sometimes more broader, universal terms are to be favored over what one is comfortable with and that is generally accurate (to one's particular understanding).
Your circumlocutions are making me nauseous, Outlander. :wink:
The sentence "trans men are men" isn't ambiguous, just as the sentences "bats are flying mammals" and "bats are used in baseball" are not ambiguous. Anyone who isn't being intentionally dense can figure out the most plausible meaning of a homonym by just considering the sentence as a whole.
It is a very obvious strawman to interpret "trans men are men" to mean "biological women who identify as men are biological men", just as it is a very obvious strawman to interpret "bats are flying mammals" to mean "metal clubs are flying mammals".
Out of context, those sentences have no particular meaning.
Of course, "obvious" means easily or rather, expected to be perceived. Perception is a phenomenon of experience meets knowledge. We assume the average person in one's given society is supposed to know a certain word has multiple meanings. That's rational. But not guaranteed.
A person who lives in a territory where bats don't exist yet has experience with baseball as a recreational past-time sport might very well know one definition and not the other. Again, we rely on our own experience as if every person on Earth is supposed to, and those who don't, seemingly don't count. That's neither fair nor rational.
Yes, some people aren't fluent in English or might not understand the distinction between sex and gender, but Philosophim isn't one of those people. He is arguing that the sentence "trans men are men" is ambiguous, showing that he clearly understands that the word "men" is a homonym and yet seems incapable or unwilling to use the rest of the sentence to sensibly resolve the appropriate meaning of the word as he would do with the sentence "bats are flying mammals".
Yes. Gender is subjective to the person and the culture. If a group of individuals believe "Woman shouldn't work and be in the kitchen," that's gender. Elevating the subjectivity of gender over the objectivity of sex, at least in law, is going to run into many problems.
Quoting Outlander
Correct. Mine is an observation that the majority of society and the current default rules of the English language lead 'man or woman' unaltered by adjectives to be interpreted as a sex reference, not a gender reference. This is a philosophical study, because we can analyze how current society views terms, then argue, "But should they?" The primary issue that people have with the OP is that they believe the gendered view of the term in the phrase is clearly and unambiguously seen as a gender reference. My experience and analysis show otherwise.
My conclusion over the course of the conversation is that because the term is ambiguous when read without context, as well as not the normal interpretation of the word in such a phrase, that it makes more sense to clarify the term to clearly indicate what it means. The people arguing against me do not want to clarify the phrase to clearly explain what it means. The weak argument given is that it is "Not ambiguous" despite the fact that the phrase clearly is. Otherwise we wouldn't be having these debates over its meaning.
The reluctance to explain the phrase more fully does not seem rational, but emotional. They're afraid I think of mentioning biology at all, likely because they think this will lead to bigotry or some other silliness. What they don't realize is bigotry thrives on deceptive terms, and that honest philosophical discourse requires clear and unambiguous language for clear thought. Unfortunately there still seems to be a lot of fear and anger around really digging into the topic. My hope is that helps fix that a bit.
I don't think so. I am of course separating trans gender from trans sexual when this is often blended together in general culture. I find the terms different enough to warrant separation in the discussion. This is mainly because there are real people who are trans gender, but not trans sexual. And there are real trans sexual people who are not trans gender. So its important not to conflate the two as they are actually different.
Quoting I like sushi
Pretty much. I think people have argued correctly that man and woman can be read in a gendered way, but they have not given a good argument in that it should be read that way 50/50 or better than a referent to sex, nor given any good reason why the phrase is not a poor phrase that leads to ambiguity, confusion, and for some reason doesn't need to be clarified.
Yes, great addition.Quoting Outlander
I think an evaluation of gender is probably a good topic for another thread. But to comment, yes gender is a social prejudice on sexes to control their behavior. Is that good or bad? I think there can be a good debate here to see. My feeling is that its not always bad and that there are probably some good reasons for it. I think the bad reasons are obvious, but I don't want that to color gender entirely black.
Quoting Outlander
This doesn't quite work out because when we're saying 'woman' means 'gender of adult human females', we're not saying what that specific gender is. As long as its only referencing the concept of gender itself, it should be universal to all cultures.
Hello again Michael. The above is a statement, but I'm not seeing any reason that backs this statement. Please refer to the reason's I gave you earlier explaining why it is ambiguous, and present reasons why you think this is wrong.
Quoting Michael
Incorrect. This is begging the question. Again, this needs to be fleshed out more and address the points I made to you earlier.
Quoting Michael
It is not at all. Go out to reddit, youtube, and check. Many, MANY people are assuming that 'men' in isolation is referring to sex. Calling them idiots is not an argument. My point is that the phrase conflicts too much with the normal use of the English language, and that it rationally defaults to mean 'sex reference' without the introduction of context. Thus why it is ambiguous. Because you have to have special outside knowledge to understand the phrase as it is, in addition to the reuse of a term which is the basis of gender instead of gender itself.
But, I notice you didn't answer my question again. You see I understand that you're trying to pull the above to avoid clarifying the phrase. That's your real motivation. So I'm going to ask this: "If it is the case that it is ambiguous and difficult for society to understand based on current culture and language, is there a problem with clarifying the phrase to be "Trans men are adult human females who act in the gendered ways of adult human males?" Since you seem so resistant to it, I would rather you just answer why you are instead of avoid it again. We're here to talk about difficult concepts, not avoid them.
Oh, and I guess I should address your analogy too. Its not quite on par.
Female can mean sex, or the gender of that sex
"Bats are female"
"Trans bats are female"
That's a proper analogy. The phrases alone do not indicate what female means clearly.
It's not idiotic to believe that the word "men" only means "biological men". But if a very large number of people say things like "trans men are men" then there are two possible responses:
1. People who say "trans men are men" are suffering from a psychosis and believe that biological women who identify as men are biological men.
2. People who say "trans men are men" mean something else by "are men".
It's idiotic to assert or believe (1).
Michael if your best counter argument is calling people idiots and you still won't answer, "The question", there's really nothing you're contributing to the discussion anymore.
The critique of the OP I offered was neatly summed up by @Jamal.
Quoting Jamal
The OP preferenced one definition amongst many. Over a series of posts we saw that this was problematic, that language is better understood in terms of use than in terms of essential, stipulated and preferred definitions. @Philosophim agreed with all of this.
Then, when the conclusion was reached that there are ways of understanding "Trans women are women" that are true, @Philosophim slipped back to insisting that there is a preferred definition of "woman", maintaining that the word is ambiguous rather than polysemous while refusing to justify that claim.
That's a pattern that has been seen many times here - were a careful philosophical analysis is rejected because it doesn't fit a particular prejudice. It's a refusal to follow the argument where it leads, and accept the outcome. Sad, but ubiquitous.
A. I never 'slipped' back into anything. That was the statement from the OP on. I just gave more reasons why it was rational for people to assume that 'woman/man' is read as a sex reference, both from a stand point of English, and the ambiguity of the statement itself. I did not see you counter this point effectively at all Banno.
B. I said the phrase was ambiguous, and that your point that the term was polysemous (has multiple meanings) was not a counter that the phrase was not ambiguous. Did you think using a fancy word made the argument any less ineffective than it was? Isn't one of the key possibilities of an ambiguous phrase is that it can have 'multiple meanings"? I'm not sure why you thought this was a good argument.
C. You not only did not address my points about it being ambiguous in regards to English phrasing and culture, you also refused to answer a very simple question: "What's wrong with changing the phrase to be more clear?" You and I both know why. "Trans men are adult human females that take on the gender of adult human males." has no ambiguity, is perfectly clear, and no rational argument against it. You didn't answer, because you knew the only reason you could be against it is that you wanted to avoid the clear distinction between sex and gender.
Quoting Banno
You're talking to yourself in the mirror here Banno. I never disrespected you in the discussion despite our different conclusions in the end. But there is a fairly iron rule in debate. The first to insult instead of carefully lay out their argument is the one who lost the debate. Its because you have nothing at that point to counter the other person.
I'm sorry, but you failed to make that case that the phrase, "Trans men are men" was not ambiguous in English, or that woman/man unmodified were more likely to be read as referring to gender than sex. You gave up, which is why I won that point. I'm pretty sure that's why Jamal showed up. Because we can't possibly come to a conclusion that a slogan that is purposefully phrased to be conflationary with sex, have its intentions clearly spelled out. It must be that anyone who criticizes the phrase "Trans men are men" in any way can't demonstrate it rationally. If they did, that would destroy the poor idea that this phrase holds any special meaning or needs to be upheld in any way in the broader culture. Or maybe there's another reason. I wouldn't know because you didn't answer.
A. Quoting Philosophim
See , were I show you agreeing with the line of discussion then insisting on the primacy of one definition.
B. You seemed to think polysemous meant ambiguous. It doesn't. It remains for you to show the ambiguity of "woman" and it's relevance.
C. I am not able to address your "points about it being ambiguous in regards to English phrasing and culture" until you present them. You change the phrasing not to be more clear, but in an ad hoc avoidance of its falsification. "Trans men are adult human females that take on the gender of adult human males" is also, in context, true, falsifying your original claim. It also in turn presumes that there is a single identifiable gender role adopted by adult human males.
There's a rhetorical strategy here, repeated several times, of insisting that folk who critique you are being disrespectful. It failed when used towards @Jamal and it fails here.
See in the OP
Quoting Philosophim
More details and arguments were added to explain why the default would be most rationally read "man/woman" unmodified as referencing sex. I never revoked that so it wasn't a slip back in.
Quoting Banno
Quoting Philosophim
Polysemy (/p??l?s?mi/ or /?p?l??si?mi/;[1][2] from Ancient Greek ????- (polý-) 'many' and ???? (sêma) 'sign') is the capacity for a sign (e.g. a symbol, morpheme, word, or phrase) to have multiple related meanings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy
Basically you argued because the word woman can have multiple meanings in a sentence, the phrase couldn't be ambiguous. That's so poor of an argument I could only conclude you were hoping a fancy word would make me think the argument was more intelligent than it was.
Quoting Banno
My response:
Quoting Philosophim
Banno, the entire debate is about the question of whether it is more rational and normative to interpret the phrase as referring to sex or gender. You played dumb because I asked the question, "What's wrong with clarifying the phrase to avoid the ambiguity?" You retreated to playing dumb because you didn't want to answer the question. I'm not going to take you seriously when you're playing dumb to avoid a question. And I'm going to claim I won the point that rationally we should clarify the phrase because you never answered it.
Quoting Banno
No, that didn't falsify my original claim at all. I noted it was more rational for woman/man to be interpreted as referencing sex. I noted that the phrase "Trans men are men" by English would be interpreted without context to mean, "Trans men are adult human men." Therefore it would be better to reduce this ambiguity by properly stating the phrase as you noted. My original claim remains true because I noted "Trans men are adult human men" is false.
Quoting Banno
Not at all. It means the reference to gender in regards to males can be stated. In no way does it define what that gender is for males by the individual, culture, or human race. Gender is a social construct, meaning it is subjective and malleable. Meaning one person could view that men wear top hats, women don't. Another person can say women wear top hats, and men don't. Each has their own personal gendered view of what men should do.
Quoting Banno
Let see, what did you JUST post...?
Quoting Banno
"Sad". Was that intended to be respectful Banno? Or was Jamals accusation that my original post is prejudiced, without any reason mind you, respectful? I upheld my side of the argument at the end while you gave up. Then you tried presenting it as if you won while disparaging me? That's pathetic Banno. I'm most upset because I thought we had a good conversation up to this point. We didn't agree on everything, but we didn't try to play dumb games like this.
Quoting Banno
Again, this is playing dumb. I've mentioned English, 'cis' and 'trans', and the fact that if you ask a person "Imagine a woman in the woods" then after ask, "Did you envision an adult human female or an adult human male," they'll say, "Adult human female". I've addressed all of this already. If you don't agree that's fine, but that doesn't prove that my statements were wrong.
I've already covered all this, we've already discussed all of this, and you failed to present a coherent argument when it came time to argue against the ambiguity of the term and why we shouldn't just clarify the phrase. I'm about done at this point. All of that discussion and either you remember none of it, or just glossed over it because you want a particular outcome that you didn't earn. I think I've had enough of this drama and this is no longer about debating, but about debating what was said. I'm not interested in this beyond an initial defending of my name. Enjoy the last word, but I am done with this discussion with you now.
Quoting Philosophim
demonstrates that it is more rational to think of "woman" as an adult human female rather than a transexual. What an odd argument.
It might show that folk usually imagination a female. Fine. But some might indeed imagine a trans woman in the woods. Nothgn in the logic prevents this - so on what grounds would it be irrational?
Further, to carry your conclusion, it must bring with it a normative evaluation - that one ought not imagine a transexual woman in the woods. But of course, that's down to you and your pre-judging.
The argument is on a par with "Since most people imagine a chair as wooden, chairs must be wooden, ought be made of wood, and it is irrational to imagine a plastic chair".
At least that bit was somewhat novel. The rest of your post has already been addressed.
Not really a fair analogy. I chair must be wooden, plastic or made from a non-precious metal; and made from gold would be more fitting statistically.
Quoting Banno
I think this is not the way to go at all. We can say we ought not needlessly conflate language. That is at the heart of what is being said here. If we worked with an alternative example, liek the chair, and dropped the whole Trans issue I think this problem would become clearer.
It would be pretty stupid to imagine a trans woman in the woods just as it would be to imagine a female in the woods if you said trans woman in its place. Such a colloquial example shows colloquial usage.
I can also that one ought not do X, and then create a scenario that shows that one could go against this rule. We ought not kill people > If someone is trying to kill me and my family and the only way to stop them is to kill them, I ought to kill them.
We should imagine a female when we say woman, but in many niche cases we should not. How is this difficult to comprehend? Just like if a say banana people should assume it is the yellow fruit I am referring to, yet if this is not the case and is unclear in the context of the discussion, the onus is on me to state something like 'the banana painting,' likewise if talking about a woman in the woods the onus is on the speaker to make explicit they are talking about a trans woman if they wish those listening to appreciate the person is a trans woman.
Many chairs are plastic and many many chairs are wooden. Women almost always refers to females. I colloquial speech utterances like 'a woman in the woods' refers to a female. Where it does not it needs to be made explicit by context or literally uttered.
This is how basic communication works.
If I asked what is it like outside and you say 'it is raining outside' I imagine water is fallign from the sky. If I then go outside and find it is raining blood or orange juice I would feel that you neglected to make it clear what was going on.
This is precisely what is being contended. Conventions of language in the future MAY lead to people assuming 'woman' means practically anything in terms of gender and they may prioritse this over everything else. Then the word would likely become redundant or be converted into some form of trivial greeting like 'Hi woman!'.
If you wish for the use of language others do too. This is perfectly normal. I just do not see, in this particular case, the use. In fact, I see the opposite. I have no issue with saying 'trans gender women are women' in the context of gender. It is farcical to suggest that 'woman in the woods' vould rightly mean a trans woman. I think you will find the correct phrasing woudl be 'a trans woman in the woods'. The confusing point in amongst all of this is that I may very well see a trans woman in the woods and say I saw a woman. The very same could be said of many other items where I seea reflection and believe it is the actual item.
This is not really about essentialism. I am not some -ist. I am simply pointing out that just because you feel there are some essential rules to grammar that make this all fine, you miss the semantic issue.
I am starting to understand the OPs frustration here now. It is far more complicated than it first appears.
Quoting Banno
Because this is not how language functions. Just because I can put together a logical sentence like "the turnip flew to Mars" it does not make it so. I imagine if I talked about an elephant in the room you may insist that it is worth considering that I am talking about an actual elephant in the room. In such a case I would have to say something like 'there is quite literally an elephant in this room; you know, the actual animal, I am not speaking metaphorically'. If I just say 'there is an elephant in the room' you OUGHT to assume I mean something is not being addressed because it is making us feel uncomfortable and we do not want to deal with it right now.
Just to be clear I have no issue with the phrase 'trans women are women' in a technical sense as gender is being refered too.
I am very much saying we ought (normatively) assume a woman is female in the sentence 'woman in the woods' because that is how language functions.
Thanks for helping tme refine that point btw. Sometimes it is hard to explicate what is obviuous wihtout push back!
Quoting I like sushi
Sure. But not always. Which is enough to allow "A trans woman is a woman" in just the same way as "An ice chair is a chair".
Quoting I like sushi
But I would not have lied. What I said was true. The conventions of language were discussed [reply="here";1027108"]. broadly agreed that conventions are insufficient to explain language use
Quoting I like sushi
Cool. So what's the issue here? That was the bone of contention, wasn't it?
Quoting I like sushi
Philosophy proper is.
Quoting I like sushi
I don't see any reason to do so, and indeed given that doing so would offend many of my friends, I won't be joining you. I suppose it depends on the company one keeps. (I wonder who Jesus would've spent his time with? :chin: )
Cheers. Thanks.
(Actually, let me add an example. Suppose, instead of imagining a wood, you are responsible for hospital admissions, and a woman presents themself for admission. Is it morally correct to assume that they are female? Or should you just ask?)
Fine. I imagine in your circles people make a clearer distinction in speech between female and woman. If not, and when speaking to strangers, then I would still strongly contend that saying 'a woman in the woods' refers to the female meaning of 'woman'. If you spoke to me in my day-to-day life and talked about a woman I may forget this interaction and act on the convention.
Quoting Banno
I am not arguing his corner nor mine. I am trying to figure out what it is you mean and where you stand in your understanding of language use. The whole issue of transgenderism is academically interesting for hte reasons I stated earlier regarding how human will alter themselves in the future. This politically charged ground will likely form the foundation of how we cope with such incoming difficulties.
I may throw up a thread about this in the future if you wish to explore some possible problems with language and definitions regarding what humans are and human rights etc.,? (Augmented, implants and CRISPR).
Anyway,
Normative Ought can, and does, apply to conventions of speech. I highlighted that in the metaphorical context of 'elephant in the room'.
Regarding the rain, you would not be lying but you have certainly missed out a pretty important detail. It is perfectly reasonable that I would feel it was highly unusual you had not mentioned the nature of the rain.
Another obvious push back might be the convention of jobs. It is reasonable to assume someone who is a nurse is female; but it would be a push to say I 'ought to' assume a nurse is female. This has some relation to 'gender roles' but these are 'professional roles'. The difference being a 'nurse' is a 'nurse' and does nursing acts. It is historically associated with 'female' due to females being the ones who actually nurses babies and have commonly cared for children, etc.,. (there are caveats here, obviously, just making a broader point about the nature of 'job roles'). A teacher is a teacher, and it makes little sense to assume one over the other unless it is down to personal experience; even then there is no 'ought to' involved other than on a personal basis. Gender is descriptive not really based on actions or responsibilities. Meaning, a man or woman is not duty bound to perform this or that act or behave in this or that manner, whereas a 'job role' is defined on the basis of having duties.
So taking this to look at (A) 'doctor in the woods', versus (B) 'woman in the woods' we may easily confuse what is going on here as being identical when we hear these utterances because we may imagine a male or female, but this is not really the case at all. In (A) we can imagine a man or woman, but in (B) we imagine a woman.
If I asked you to imagine an angry man and a happy woman, you will undoubtedly imagine pretty much the same as me because conventionally men have a certain look and women have a certain look - sex is irrelevant. Convention here dictates that descriptively a man or woman almost always adheres to male and female. I can say a 'man in a dress' and 'woman in a dress' and this conjures up specific differences unless you also contend that a man is a woman. This is not a prejudice, it is just how language follows conventions. And conventions exist due to differences that are a combination of culture and innate traits.
I am by no means saying there are not grey areas anymore than I would say abortion at point x is better than point y by z amount, because we have to clamber through such messy problems in language and action to some lesser or larger degree everyday.
Pointing out an obscurity is not prejudice in and of itself. Assuming a prejudice is prejudice. We are all carrying prejudices to some degree or another. This is called being human. Pre-judging and prejudice are often hard to tease apart.
Quoting Banno
No. You should clarify sex for obvious medical reasons. You ought not assume 'woman' means 'female' in all given social contexts. This does not contradict what I am saying regarding 'woman in the woods,' as your example is a 'moral ought' rather than a 'logical ought' where clarity is sought out to prevent needless harm. I assume there are forms to fill in that cover this kind of thing? If not there should be.
This is part of the reason why this is such a contentious issue.
I personally have no issues respecting transgendered people, or simply accepting their narrative about being issued the wrong sex by nature (or "God" if you anyone wants to put it that way), but it's not easy to remember to call a transexual person the right pronoun. It takes regular habituation being around the person before you stop misgendering them entirely.
By default, gender paints our understandings of other people in fairly unpredictable and pervasive ways, so when people start saying "i want to be identified as the other gender", then it makes complete sense why other people look at it like an existential crisis. I personally, for ethical reasons (people generally don't want me to stick my nose too deeply in their business), can't bring myself to complain about how transgender people live their lives, but it's still a pretty damn sticky conundrum on a political and social basis...I wish I understood better, but I think there are reasons to believe that transgendered people are biologically different, and people not in that group can't fully grasp where they are coming from. It's easier for people to sympathize with others who come from totally different socio-economic backgrounds. I admit i will never fully understand what it's like to be a woman, so the same applies to someone who's a man, but either doesn't want to be a man or doesn't feel like they should be one.
I'll stop there and re-introduce Zaachariaha Fielding. I don't know Zaachariaha personally, but I'd be very pleased if I could call him a friend. Zaachariaha uses both he/him and she/her pronouns.
Quoting Guardian, as quoted
Zaachariaha is just being Zaachariaha . He transcends the silly stuff we have been discussing here.
Quoting Zaachariaha
No, in my circles people generally don't make a fuss about such things.
Enjoy this:
I will never fully understand what it is to be a human. I still have views and opinions about humanity and humans though.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
It is contentious due to bad actors or do gooders believing that are good actors. Where each of us fall is neither here nor there in terms of how language functions and how we ought to (normative logical sense of 'normative') use language in this or that given situation.
The deifition of what it is to be a human is going to become a serious concern in the near future. The whole issue of trans genderism will evaporate when people can genetically alter themselves to such a degree that they can become female.
To repeat, I have never met anyone who annouced their gender to me upon meeting. I would find it strange if they did. If someone walked up to me in the street and said 'I am hetrosexual' or 'I am a cis woman' I would tell them to fuck off or perhaps ask why the hell they felt the need to announce this to me (probably the latter as it does interest me, but I expect I would probably end up walking away wishing I had just gone with my first instinct :D). The person's age, attractiveness and many other factors would effect how I engaged for sure!
For now I just see trans women as a category of women. They are clearly not polysemous linguistically or there would not be two terms. Bananas are fruit! Fine. So what? I don't really care. In legal terms 'banana are fruit!' may start to actually matter if a green grocer is insisting they are advertising they are selling a 'variety of fruit' meaning 'many bananas', or in the case where foods were listed as 'organic' because they were trying to pass of the use of 'organic' in chemistry as equivalent to what most people assumed when reading the packaging. NOTE: I am not equating either of these to trans women. I am just presenting a selection of difficulties and misuses of language.
I think we have made each other reasonably clear to each other on this? My contention is based in the use of language and how people attribute meaning in given contexts.
Thank you. That was the conclusion of this discussion.
Quoting I like sushi
Correct. I've said as much several times through this discussion.
Quoting I like sushi
Correct. And this is one of a few arguments as to why 'woman/man' unmodified is interpreted to reference sex and not gender.
Quoting I like sushi
Thank you. My frustration isn't even necessarily that Banno disagrees with this point. I even noted previously in our discussion that while I personally would think most people would agree that "Woman in the woods" was a reference to sex and not gender, I had no proof. And so I told Banno we could agree to disagree here as without proof, the conversation could not really continue along that line.
My frustration is that after what I felt was one of the better discussions I've had on these boards, Banno started to play dumb. It was because we got to a point in the discussion where I believe he was afraid of continuing, likely because he knew that rationally he might be forced to say something he personally didn't agree with. I didn't belittle him for it, but I did inform him implicitly and without threat or insult that if he did not continue to put forth effort or answer the final question where we ended, that my point would stand and the conversation would be over.
He knows I've also made more arguments than this particular example, but he's still pretending I didn't because again, he's afraid of the conclusion this leads to and doesn't have any other way of resolving that. Fear leads to anger, Yoda stuff, and then an attempt to use underhanded tactics by insulting the other person and implying they did not give any arguments or bring a genuine thoughtful engagement to the discussion. That's what I'm frustrated by. Banno is an intelligent person, but he stopped acting like it.
Anyway, you have the right idea here. My overall point is the language as it is today in historical, linguistic rules, and even normative use imply that woman/man unmodified by adjectives means a sex reference. As such, "Trans men are men" as of today and without any other context as implying that trans men are adult human men. This is an ambiguity that needs to be resolved, and if you step outside of the philosophical circle, obvious. The debate rages repeatedly over social media and in talks with other people. It is creating anger, division, and a resentment towards trans individuals that they do not deserve. All because of a desire to hold onto a poorly constructed phrase. But I will replay to Banno more on this shortly as I think he cares about this aspect more than the language discussion.
The broader debate is over at this point, and I have kept out anything emotional or personal as I find these things inhibit free thought. To explain, first we discuss rationally while throwing emotions by the wayside. After we reach a rational conclusion, we reintroduce emotions. It is not that emotions, friends, family, and values of togetherness are not important. I have just observed in myself and in others that they prevent free thought. If you cannot freely consider the rational possibility that killing a puppy for fun is morally acceptable because of emotions, you're not going to come to a rational conclusion, but an emotional one. We should be against killing a puppy for fun both rationally and emotionally, and we must not fear that throwing emotions away will reveal that we cannot rationally support it.
While it may seem cruel, it is essential. I have found that examining things without emotional restrictions first helps me understand my emotions better when I add them back in. So I will do this now with the emotional appeal of why what I am proposing to think about is not prejudiced, about exclusion, or some attack on trans people to hurt them. I am doing this because I see in the world that trans people are losing good will in the world and more and more people outside of the community are starting to think they're mentally ill despite the push from doctors and upper society.
One of the issues that people are angry at is the conflationary language. "But some gender paper says...", they don't care Banno. They don't see it as relevant or important. And no, they're not stupid or bigoted. They see men trying to get into female spaces, and its pissing them off. The idea that they are being accused of bigotry because they say, "No, trans men aren't men", because they're using man as a sex reference, isn't persuading them to supporting the transgender side. And no, these are not people who 'never would have supported trans issues anyway'. This is even driving away people who initially supported the movement. Its making the trans community seem insane and controlling. When you have a people that are already seen as mentally ill, the last thing you want to do is have them support and spout irrational thoughts and phrases that only add fuel to that fire.
I think the trans community has trapped themselves in stranglehold by insisting 'trans men are men' and there is no debate, clarification, discussion, and you're a meany head if you think otherwise. The trans community needs to think, adapt, and survive. They need to start coming out of 'but my feelings' mode, and start thinking a little harder before its too late. A battle over a poorly worded phrase that creates contention in the culture is a foolish fight. Trans people should be working on how to integrate into culture and society by decreasing points of conflict. And rationally, there is absolutely nothing wrong with clarifying the phrase to mean, "Trans men are adult human females who take on the gendered role of adult human men". From my point it can be simplified even further to "Trans men are gendered men."
But baby steps because as far as I know, the only reason the community holds onto the initial phrase is because of a sort of religious ideology. Breaking it is blasphemy with the speaker being a trans apostate. This is wrong. I was hoping in the conversation here that when I got to the clarification question, that someone would give me a rational reason why clarifying was wrong. They did not. Which only confirms my observation. The attachment to the phrase is not a rational one, but an ideological one. Holding onto such things tightly is like a person who reaches into a vending machine to grab a candy bar, but cannot pull their hand out while their fist is closed. They need to start letting go.
By the way, there are trans individuals who agree with me entirely. If your interaction with others requires irrationality, they are not going to respect you. They might follow along for small interactions, but they're going to think you're crazy and look down on you. And a movement should not rely on conflationary language, an insistence that the broader culture should change how they use basic language because of feelings, or hold onto poorly worded phrases. The trans community will in my mind receive much more support if people come away interacting with them as people who understand the broader culture, speak rationally and inclusively, and have tight rational arguments that hold up on close analysis.
Finally to your friends. Offend them. Then you will find out who your friends really are. Once upon a time I was a Christian Banno. One of the good ones. I didn't use the book to discriminate, but volunteered to help people of all stripes in need. To this day I genuinely don't care what type of individual or background you have. I will treat thieves and murderers like people. But I have always been resistant to irrationality in ideologies. I took it upon myself to investigate Christianity because I wanted to demonstrate it was rational and true, and specifically went to atheists to discuss. Other people around me told me, "You can't help them," which I thought was against the message of the religion.
It is only by thinking rationally about things that I was a good Christian to begin with. And eventually I concluded decades ago that unfortunately there wasn't enough evidence there to support Christianity or even the idea of a God. The phrase, "I don't believe Christianity is real" offended many people around me. Was I intending to hurt them? No. Did I tell them their religion was a farce, they should die, have their rights to worship removed? Of course not. But many were afraid just like you are. They let emotions cloud their minds, and some no longer wanted to speak with me anymore. Would I ever compromise my logical thinking because I was afraid of not being liked by other people. Not in a million years.
The trans community can keep its internal belief systems and phrases within its own community. Everyone has the right to a belief system. But if it is going to persuade people that it isn't a cult or secular religion, its going to need to step its game up. It cannot rely on the idea that disagreement means bigotry. It is not a 'sin' to question. And emotional attachments to phrases that objectively are interpreted in ways that are not intended by society is not going to change societies interpretations. Much better to recognize pain points in communication and adjust to be more clear to get people to agree with you.
In logical terms it is just like saying "banana fruits are fruits". I see no big deal with this. The context is clear enough itis just that people have trouble with understanding the logic of sentences; nothing new there.
I only care about the logical use of language not the political baggage.
Quoting Zaachariaha
The interesting thing is that this actually reflects a non-binary attitude, rather than representing a typical trans outlook (not that I'm assuming there is such a thing). The idea that the problem is the boxes themselves doesn’t describe the experience of a lot of binary trans people, for whom the issue isn’t “why do we have categories at all?” but “why am I being put in the wrong one?”
As we know, the situation for many trans men and trans women is that they seek recognition according to the common gender binary. This is crucial to their dignity, safety, mental health and day-to-day life. So a slogan like “we just fly over the categories” doesn’t really speak for them.
That’s not a criticism of anyone; it just shows that “trans people” don't speak as one.
Because they are mistaking that people categorize by gender over sex. Its the reverse. Most people categorize by sex, then have an expectation of how you'll act by your sex. To be clear, I'm talking about trans gender individuals, not trans sexuals.
Quoting Jamal
I believe we do a terrible disservice to trans people by agreeing to this. The lessons of sexism should have taught us that the reality of our bodies should not be violated by the expectation of how we use those bodies. "Women shouldn't work" has nothing to do with the reality of their body. That was gender. When Mike gets picked on by his team members for not being man enough because he likes ballet, that's gender over the reality of his sex.
In each case I would take the individual in question and state, "How someone expects you to act based on your sex, does not change your sex or bodily capabilities."
As a man, you can like ballet despite the gender expectation that you don't. As a woman, what in your DNA says you can't have a job outside of the kitchen? You are your body, and you are not obligated in any way to follow the expectations of what you should do with that body based on your sex.
The mental distress is in being rejected by people because you don't fit in with their prejudice and sexism towards your body. I would never tell a woman, "Well, since they're angry at you for working, stop working and cook in the kitchen." I would never tell a man, "Since they make fun of you for liking ballet, stop liking ballet." If someone is having issues because they do not align with prejudice and sexist expectations of them, the last thing we should be telling people is they should align with those expectations.
Instead we should stop giving any credence to people's prejudice and sexism, or gendered outlooks. Men can wear dresses, lipstick, be flighty, and talking a high voice. The point is to get society to accept that. Not to double down on sexism and say, "Well since you like those things, we're going to say you're a woman now." I genuinely find this idea to be a doubling down on sexism and prejudice an incredible mistreatment of trans gendered individuals. We don't tell people they aren't their body because they don't fit the social expectations of what others think they should do with it. We can absolutely say that you are acting in the gendered expectation of the opposite sex, but to jump to the idea that it makes you the opposite sex or gender? That's ridiculous. It just means you're your own person and shouldn't care what people expect from you.
To be clear once again, this does not apply to trans sexuals, which people often conflate with trans gendered individuals. You can be both a trans gendered and trans sexual individual, but it is not necessary at all that you be both.
Quoting Jamal
Exactly. There are trans gender people who agree with my OP and much of what I've stated here. Its important that we have views that are not motivated by gender bias, but seek a way out of the bias that gender upholds.
The majority of trans people are not victims of anything but the unfortunate situation of having a mental illness. That does not deserve disrespect, but it explains a massive amount of what I presume you're trying to point to.
TRAS are bigoted, aggressive, regressive, sexist, misogynists. It's extremely hard to look for reasons to be sympathetic when they aren't obvious to those who run between circles. The media does a great job at making people think other groups are victims. But this is a circular discussion.
"live and let live" should apply to not having males in female spaces at all. The one's wanting to change the norms are the ones needing to justify the changes. They are unable in this case.
Quoting Philosophim
Also a disservice to language, clear thinking, cultural norms generally, sex as a concept, sex as a set of classes, females particularly, and most of our uses of the scientific method.
I waved a hand in the direction of Charlotte Witt earlier. Here's a ChatGPT response to "Summarise Charlotte Witt in a hundred words":
[quote="Chat""]Charlotte Witt argues that woman and man are fundamentally social roles rather than biological kinds. What unifies women as a category is not shared anatomy but their socially enforced position within a gendered system that organises agency, norms, and expectations. She calls this the “unified social individual”: among our many social roles, gender has a practical primacy, structuring how one is recognised and what one can do. Thus, woman is a role constituted by social norms and practices, not chromosomes or identities alone. Gender categories are relational, normative, and institutional, grounded in lived social positioning rather than biology.[/quote]
Witt is challenging to the anti-essentialist motive I've expressed here, because she uses a form of essentialism in a defence of feminism.
Gender is important to trans folk, as you say, Jamal, since they go to so much trouble to display their preference.
What isn't "fussed about" is who gets to decide. The expectation that gender follows necessarily from the contents of one's underpants is absent. There is a recognition of the separation of sex and gender.
This is found as much in Witt as elsewhere.
"Flying over the categories" is yet another option among many.
I'd like to see a direct response to this from @Philosophim, @I like sushi, @Outlander, @ProtagoranSocratist, and @Jamal as well as @Janus.
For my part, I see Amadeus as hiding his prejudices in medical language.
If there is something that you think I've yet to respond to, set it out.
I've pointed out that even if most people would understand "woman in the woods" as referring to a female, doing so is not a necessary consequence of either logic or grammar. This is shown by the fact that "the woman in the woods" might be a trans.
"The woman in the woods" is not a rigid designator.
Have another look at this. You had previously agreed that language is no algorithmic.
If you need to, go back to A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs and reconsider the place of going against the rule in language.
Then consider why I might think that you have "slipped back" to a previous way of thinking.
We are addressing concerns about language use and societal integration. We are clarifying the phrase “trans men are men”. We are engaged, I hope, in something approaching a rational discourse.
If a trans woman uses their standing in order to coerce others, the key problem is the coercion. If someone uses deception to invade a space they are not entitled to enter, then exposing the deception is entirely appropriate. But this does not justify treating all trans women as deceptive or illegitimate. The existence of bad actors never licenses the rejection of the genuine.
This is an overreaction Banno. There is a fine line between mental illness and mental health issue. Technically gender dysphoria, which is what is what transition seeks to treat, is no longer classified under 'mental illness' in the DSM V. Its now a mental health condition like depression. We need to really be careful that we're not using 'prejudices' in a boy who cried wolf scenario or a cudgel in an attempt to silence honest discussion.
I notice you didn't comment on any of his points directly. That's what I'm talking about. We need to be talking, not accusing unnecessarily. Your approach is the approach to something minor like this in a general forum is that of the totalitarian Banno, not a man of free thought.
No, I think you and I are done talking about this situation. You have not been discussing that topic in a good faith or honest manner from my viewpoint. We resolved that point a while back, then you pretended it didn't exist, were disrespectful to me and our discussion and misrepresented my points and conclusions. To my view, I have not misrepresented your conclusions. You still insist that I am taking an essentialist view or 'rigid designator'. I've been over this enough times with you. I have other things to do.
Quoting Banno
Not everyone has the mind for these things, that's ok.
Quoting Banno
You were. You did not end that way. I don't feel you are now either.
Quoting Banno
And this is evidence why. I never claimed this. If you express the inability to comprehend my points, then pull something I've never said and attack it, this is the evidence of someone who is floundering. Perhaps another day and topic Banno.
So we agree that is in error.
I don't see that I owe a reply to Amadeus, given his blatant hostility. It's a shame that you think his quite offensive post "minor" - especially given the pleading you put in to being treated respectfully.
Quoting Philosophim
Rubbish. That looks to be a merely rhetorical move on your part, an attempt to excuse yourself from the discussion.
I'm here. If you have substantive points to make, or if there is something I have not addressed, set it out.
You have asserted that trans people are mentally ill. Do you have an argument to support that assertion?
Since you asked. I think the following reply is quite reasonable:
Quoting Philosophim
I mean, just look at it from a layperson's perspective. Life is hard. People are cruel. Most adults are basically just large, wrinkled children. Mentally and morally. Freedom inherently means living an unexamined life, until one chooses (and why would someone go through the effort when lowbrow primal pleasures are so easily and readily available) to. We bully people. Sometimes without any actual intention to harm, sometimes with that being the one and only purpose (sometimes for advancement of survival and gain of resources, sometimes just for sheer entertainment, which is advancement of survival per quality of life/emotional homeostasis, despite the fact it being deplorable). Historically, women are considered weaker, smaller, "fairer" now that intelligent people have managed to survive long enough amongst the presence of mindless brutes. So, it's common for a dominant gender (currently the male gender, hence the claims of patriarchy) to express that dominance in the form of bullying (whether lighthearted or truly pointed as far as harmful intention) to other people, typically weaker or smaller persons. This makes these persons who experience constant bullying (which is actually just a buzzword for what's really happening, constant prodding of the "flight or fight" response in intelligent beings, which if done without rest can cause mental re-wiring ie. detriment or "mental illness" colloquially) to question if they "belong" (see ostracization) and so naturally makes the mind consider if they are "not like others" (since it's a common verbatim to insult a person by comparing them to another gender, per systems of hierarchy, this is what is questioned and leads people victimized by ostracization to be the first thing they "re-consider" about themself).
This is all basic, codified science. Nothing new or strange here. So, that aside. Back to a simplified laypersons view. If you're born a human (no matter what sex) and you look at a dog and start thinking "oh maybe I'm a dog". That's weird. It's irrational. It's not supported by anything observable, logical, medical, or scientific. Ergo, a delusion. It's reasonably and rational perceived as a form of unwellness. Now if you happened to take a step further and say, cut the ears off a dog and staple it to your temples because you truly insist you were "supposed" to have been a dog and this is how you have to go through life. That just makes you look violent and crazy. We are physical beings who require our bodies to maintain their integrity otherwise we die. That's why horror movies are so disturbing. It's removing or altering (or destroying) the flesh we were born into. It's not fair or reasonable to act like people who find it "odd" (or outright disturbing and explicitly indicative of mental illness) are guilty of some sort intentional or specifically non-organic, non-biologically "understandable" sentiment or ideology. Can you see the validity and truth of that last sentence, at least?
There are over 6,000 species of mammals that exist or have existed. None of them are inherently intersex. It's just not a function that mammals evolved. It's an aberration. So, someone thinking they for some reason are the first mammal out of billions of others, who show NO physical signs of "being intersex", was "supposed to have been the opposite sex" is not rational. Like a child imagining themself as a dinosaur or something they admire or wish to be. It's just not supported by facts. That makes it a mental aberration. That's a fact. Whether that aberration amounts to the level of detriment severe enough to be classified as an illness is not something I feel a need to comment on.
So you are happy to conflate transgender with gender dysphoria.
And to support that with pop scientism.
Ok. Thanks for your reply.
Amadeus is like a magic eight ball. When he gets shook up he will just say shit. Most of it doesn't stick. I don't waste my time on them anymore.
There is something to be said for social contagions and teenage girls. This has no bearing on what interests me here though.
What happened to your claim that words don't have essential meaning Banno?
Transgender can mean:
Trans gender, like defined in the OP
A person who has transitioned
A person thinking of transitioning
A person with gender dysphoria
Right? He can't possibly be conflating anything then. I would think you would defend him.
You might say that. I couldn't possibly comment...
That meanings need not be essential does not imply that words do not have any meaning.
Quoting Philosophim
He said:Quoting AmadeusD
Looks pretty clear. Most trans people have a mental illness.
You might consider what it is you are defending.
He gave you meaning. You claimed it was conflationary. Why? How could on meaning of the term have any primacy over another meaning Banno? :)
Quoting Banno
I was quoting your reply to Outlander not AmadeusD. Try to review your cited quote next time to avoid mistakes like that. You called the person in for his opinion than contradicted your own viewpoints you made earlier to slight him. Do you see why I'm not seriously debating further with you? Your bored Banno and I can take your lumps, but please don't invite people into the thread then mock them for their answer.
Quoting Philosophim
What you think your point is, I have been unable to make out.
You are under no obligation to reply to me.
Who did I invite to the thread?
Anorexia and bulimia are undoubtedly highly concurrent with instances of body dysphoria. We could suggest here that this is related to gender identity in many cases too (ie. a woman shoud look like this or that). There is always going to be lesser and greater degrees of overlap in different cases across a whole spectra of aspects.
I would call gender identity a brain variation. It is pretty damn clear in the cognitive neurosciences that neurogenesis is HIGHLY dependent upon hormonal balance. It does not take a genius to figure out that teenagers go through a rather dramatic hormonal change. It is no wonder there are instances of social contagions in teenage girls. More so girls probably due to the general difference in hormonal balance between the sexes.
The main point Banno seems to be making here is there is a clear difference between stating something is logically true and making a judgement call. Ironically he agrees with Jordan Peterson here, but doubt he would like such a comparison! :D I am sure I would agree with Amadeus on many point too, but that does not mean I think they hold much weight in any conversation.
If someone says they are gay or transgender we have to have a really good reason to frame them as suffering from some form of mental disorder > which is a separate item to transgenderism or sexual orientation as far as we currently understand these phenomena.
The same issues prevail in so many aspect of human life. What defines a human life? Is a fetus 'human'? What is a 'human'? Will augmented humans in the future be 'human'? Along these lines I think we will see a whole plethora of problems arising that mirror this whole confusion around trans women as women. So it will be that 'augmented humans' (CRISPR and/or neural implants) will be 'humans', but there will be a difference we have to take into serious consideration.
Maybe many people here do not appreciate that this century people will very likely be able to literally switch their bodies from male to female. You can guarantee that some minority of transgender activists will denounce this for various reasons, because this is how humans behave. People care about their identity. Anything that makes people question their own identity is usually met with opposition (primarily negative). This all makes perfect sense in the greater picture of humanity and how animals interact and function in general. We are weird animals!
Would be nice if someone started a thread regarding what the future may hold in regards to defining humans in the eyes of the law, the social functions and how language may change. If no one does I am sure to eventually ... WAY too busy atm.
BYE :)
I want to be clear that the desire to be the other sex is not a disorder. Being trans gender is not a disorder. It is when that desire starts disrupting your life to the point you cannot function normally that you have gender dysphoria. Yes, some people talk about it like teenagers talk about 'my OCD' in a slang way, but diagnosed gender dysphoria sucks.
It is not the desire to be another sex that is the disorder, it is when it consumes your life. Just like you can be depressed at times and not need medication, you can have gender dysphoric moments and manage it fine in your life. Transition is not a way of life. It is a medically prescribed coping mechanism for chronic gender dysphoria that does not respond to any other methods or medication. In my experience, these are usually not trans gender individuals, these are trans sexuals that desire the body and recognition of being the other sex. That is why it is covered by insurance. It is not a normal or natural thing for anyone to do. It is a treatment for an inability to regulate oneself normally anymore.
Are there people who want to make it a life style? Yes. I don't mind personally as long as they don't make insurance pay for it. Insurance is for treatment, not cosmetic alteration of the body for one's own pleasure. I would argue that if you have a desire to alter your body its a disorder of a different kind, but not gender dysphoria.
Quoting I like sushi
Could be. Stem cell research could come along finally and we could eventually change someone's sex. In science a species is considered to have changed their sex if they can serve the reproductive role of the other. So a male would shift to producing eggs which can be fertilized and hatched. A female would produce sperm to fertilize other eggs. But again, this is really trans sexuals we are talking about. Plenty of trans gender individuals have no desire to change their body. Nice contribution!
:wink:
The difference between a fact and a value has a longer history than eve that, and Peterson, for all his faults, may have some idea of what Hume had to say.
Quoting I like sushi
I'm not sure if this was a view you were attributing to someone else, or were advocating yourself.
Might be worth clarifying.
Schizophrenic people are also mentally ill. There is no prejudice in admitting to this. I cannot even begin to understand why you run to this instead of looking the statement in its face: If you have a direct break with reality that causes severe distress, that's a mental illness. It need not be intractable, or alienating, or anything worthy of anything but compassion and understanding. They are not exclusive to one another. I have nothing to hide. I could simply be wrong.
Quoting Philosophim
I'm happy to use this language, if its easier on the mind. I don't particularly see a difference between the two, personally. Although, I am fairly convinced depression is an amorphous diagnosis not pointing to any particularly brainstate.
Quoting Banno
This, as best I can tell, is pure prevarication. Transgenderism is a behaviour designed to ameliorate the symptoms of a mental condition of dysphoria as we call it. If you want to tease those two apart, fine, let's do that. I'm happy as long as the language accurate represents what I'm saying. The point is that having a mental state which sets reality (your sex) apart from yourself (your identity) then there is something aberrant going on - as with people who believe they're Jesus - just different in kind.
So with that said:
Quoting Janus
They have a direct break with the reality of their actual, objective body. If you have to quibble with the language to make this work, so be it. But semantics clearly aren't hte big issue here.
Quoting Banno
I've been overtly polite to you recently. If you've read my posts as 'blatant hostility' I think perhaps you need to take a long, calming break from talking to other humans lest your victim complex cause you to but heads with everyone. I'll continue to be polite.
Quoting Banno
You literally do not read posts with substantive points, and then call htem 'meandering'. It's impossible to get on with you in this mood.
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting Banno
Am I'm the hostile one... right oh. Theres something woefully amiss in a couple of blokes talking to each other about someone else in terms that are objectively nonsense. Far be it from me i guess.. You cannot continually be a dick and pretend its someone else's fault. Perhaps you've not had children, but none of this behaviour is foreign to those who have.
Quoting Banno
Reality. Mental illness exists. Believing you're in the wrong body is mental illness writ large. Defending that belief without recourse to the aberrant, irrational nature of it is beneath the type of discussion we're having.
It may be worth you not replying at this point. I can see there is no actual discussion possible here. There's a severe inability to divorce your feelings from what's said, and what's said from who has said it. I can't quite bring myself to get into that pool.
The assumption that all transgender people experience gender dysphoria, i.e. profound unhappiness and psychic distress, is an unfounded generalization.
I believe he's talking about transitioned individuals. The only way to be medically transitioned is to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria. There are people who transition who do it for cosmetic reasons, but from the context of his post he's not referring to them. So unless a transitioned person faked gender dysphoria or paid for it on their own dime, its a safe bet that they have gender dysphoria.
and my response was misworded and should have been referring to the "majority" rather than "all'. So, it should have read: " the assumption that the majority of transgender people experience gender dysphoria, i.e. profound unhappiness and psychic distress, is an unfounded generalization.
Not a worry at all. If you mean trans gender people, I agree. But if his intention was transitioned people, he's correct. The number of medically transitioned individuals far outweighs those who did it cosmetically.
That is, from what I have seen, factually incorrect. Meta-studies are readily available to justify this position.
Note that we have moved to empirical studies, rather then considering conceptual issues. We are no longer doing philosophy.
Banno both Amadeus and I noted that transition was a treatment for gender dysphoria.
Quoting Janus
To my understanding it is not a cure. It is a treatment that lessens the impact of it, but gender dysphoria still persists in many transitioned individuals. Its like people who are chronically depressed. Depression medication doesn't necessarily cure depression, but it does lessen its symptoms and helps one cope to live life more normally. Take a person off of it, and they'll go right back to being depressed.
Quoting Janus
Correct. The ultimate goal is to regulate your desires and dissapointments in life like a normal person. You don't want to binge on alcohol and become a perpetual drunk that becomes homeless. You also don't want to wallow in agony because you're ugly and you'll never find anyone that loves you. Generally people learn to regulate these wants and needs or use healthy coping mechanisms to regulate them.
Therapy is approached first to see if the person can learn how to manage on their own. A depressed person might be told to fix their diet, start exercising, and go outside. An addict might be given a sponsor to help them out of their unhealthy desires. Sometimes though a person's brain chemistry is too off kilter and cannot be fixed by the individual or with common methods. As such, you escalate to medince. While all medicine is innately of some health risk and impact to the body, its worth it if it fixes the larger problem in their life which is causing them much more harm.
Transition is an obvious harm to the body and mind. In males the initial medicine eventually leads to chemical castration. If estrogen is introduced in more serious cases, there is increased risk of osteoperosis and deep vein thrombosis. Brain scans reveal that transitioned people on medication have parts of their brain altered over time. But it can lead to a person who was completely unresponsive or self-destructive in life to turn themselves around. If a person goes from being an absolute mess of a human being that can't take care of themselves or is one drug abuse away from an overdose, its an overall benefit.
Quoting Banno
I'm not sure if I mentioned that here, but maybe in another thread. Its not that regret should be a factor in transition, its that it should be irrelevant compared to health outcomes for any treatment. The point of treatment is to make the patient is objectively, not subjectively better. If a person has improved physical and mental health markers, as well as living a better and healthier life than prior, their regret is irrelevant. Plenty of people didn't regret getting opioids during the opioid crisis, despite the fact many were becoming addicts with all the shriveling of mind, morals and lifespan that comes with it. You also might get a nice boost for something for five years, then later suffer poor health due to the treatment. Those five years may have given you such a high that you don't regret it, but its still an objectively long term poor health outcome.
Quoting Janus
Agreed. No one of any authority has any business enforcing subjective opinions or outcomes. It should always be objective outcomes that should be considered. Regret is purely subjective.
This could be a problem of words, again: I have never heard of a single 'trans gender' person who doesn't experience dysphoria. In fact, that is the basic fundamental boilerplate on which it rests. Else, there is literally no reason to do anything but go on about your life. Is the contention that there are people claiming to be 'transgender' who have no emotional or psychological problem with their body or 'gender' (taking this to be an internal feeling... obviously, I don't buy that, but onward..). Quoting Philosophim
Hmm. Definitely people who have, are or plan to transition yes. In Janus' take there's an equation like this "0+1=2" which I don't understand. We don't go through processes like this, particularly if we believe we're bound to experience social pressure and 'bigotry', unless its ameliorating a worse situation, no? I've been pretty uncomfortable with my gender (as a general comment) since childhood. Not once have I ever even remotely entertaining the idea of mutilating or otherwise permanently changing my body on account of that. I have some relatively severe dysphoria over a couple of specific aspects of my body. Still hasn't occurred to me. So, if we're not going to go the 'mental illness' route (understanding this is not a pejorative) what's giving us the other '1'? Personal choice? In that case, I don't care. There shouldn't be any policies regarding this and people should put up with existing policies. I take it this is untenable to most sides of hte question, so I reject it.
Regret doesn't seem to be a huge factor yet. The advent of surgeries and puberty blockers for minors around this issue has more than likely thrown a spanner in that work - and we are likely to see a trickle, growing to a flood, of regret in that demographic. It's started, but in very small numbers so regret shouldn't be used as a policy-driver. Agreed. Quoting Janus
False.
See here, here and here. The biggest problem with this question (and we may simply have to set it aside) is that clear indicators of dysphoria (depression, anxiety, self-hatred, body image issues, insecurity around social standing etc..) are post-hoc put in the category of "social consequence". This seems contrary to how we deal with most psychological states. In particular, states that are clearly and unambiguously abnormal. There is a clear, and unambiguous difference between non-trans individuals and trans individuals in terms of, lets call them co-morbidities. The directionality of these, imo, has been intentionally skewed. This is why it may need to be set aside. There is no way to decide that point, unless the future turns out as I expect (or not, obviously). But hte prevalence of symptoms in people who identify as trans says to me, and many others, that there's a direct link between the two. A basic sense check seems to support this: If you thought you were in the wrong body, it would be distressing.
If trans gender individuals (or some number) don't feel they're in the wrong body, what are they transitioning between? Gender isn't something that requires surgery and HRT unless conflated with sex. And if conflated with sex, we have a direct break with reality causing distress. I have a feeling a few balls are being hidden here.
Quoting Janus
Roughly speaking, I agree with this. The problem for me is that the public behaviour of many transitioned individuals still reads like someone experiencing mild psychosis. This is not a fair thing to say, because the overall nature of the condition is such that you will be set apart from most people around you - which is awkward, and leads to some silly behaviours. But I am also a 'if you're male don't go into the female loos' thinker so there's that issue too.
As Banno notes, we're skewing the line between conceptual analysis and empirical data. I just think the data is shit. I think that's reasonable too. Its mostly fresh, relies on self-report and for the most part is unreplicated and hasn't been followed up. I'm willing to take it on it's face with caveats only. We are also looking at an area of medicine which is almost wholly populated by activists. That's an issue.
Anyway, I asked Claude:
[b][i]Hi Claude, I wonder if you would be able tell me if there are studies which have detremined statsitics concerning how many transgender people suffer from gender dysphoria
I'd be happy to help you find information on this topic. Let me search for recent studies and statistics on the prevalence of gender dysphoria among transgender people.
Based on the research, there's an important distinction to understand: not all transgender people necessarily experience gender dysphoria, and the statistics vary significantly depending on how these terms are defined.
Here's what the studies show:
Gender Dysphoria Diagnosis vs. Transgender Identity:
Gender dysphoria (GD) as a clinical diagnosis according to the DSM-5 is relatively uncommon, with prevalence estimates ranging from 0.005% to 0.014% for people assigned male at birth and 0.002% to 0.003% for people assigned female at birth.
. However, the DSM-5 acknowledges these figures are likely underestimates since they're based on clinic referrals.
In contrast, studies find that about 0.8% of U.S. adults (over 2.1 million people) identify as transgender, and 3.3% of youth aged 13-17 (about 724,000 young people) identify as transgender
Williams Institute
.
The Key Difference:
Gender dysphoria specifically requires clinically significant distress related to gender incongruence. There is a higher prevalence of people who self-report as transgender than there are patients being treated for gender dysphoria
PubMed Central
. This means many transgender individuals may not experience the level of distress that meets diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria, or their distress may resolve with social transition and support.
So to directly answer your question: studies show that while a significant number of transgender people do experience gender dysphoria (enough to seek clinical treatment), the actual percentage who experience dysphoria varies and is difficult to pinpoint precisely. The relationship isn't one-to-one—being transgender doesn't automatically mean someone has gender dysphoria as a clinical condition."[/i][/b]
It appears, if Claude is correct, that there may be people who experience gender dysphoria but have not being clinically diagnosed as such. The other problem is that the term 'gender dsyphoria' itself is not a precise one and feelings of dysphoria could be on a spectrum form very mild to very intense. I would only class it as a mental illness if it causes sufficient distress to make life extremely unpleasant and/ or render people socially dysfunctional. So, we can only guess.
I do know one person (a fifteen year old female who is the daughter of a good friend) who identifies as a man, and shows no signs of being very distressed about it at all. That said, I don't live with her. Her father does not seem much concerned when I have talked about it with him.
This doesn't tell us anything about the question we're asking unfortunately - I had to just dig. It's simply telling us small numbers of people are in each group. We already knew that. The papers I've cited give some fairly good reason to connect symptoms with the diagnosis (as if that's not clear anyway?). If that is reasonable then there's a good reason to think that the transition is post-symptoms. Again, I can't see that this owuld be controversial except for the bullets it might present ot the activist class.
Quoting Janus
Yes, that's all quite fair. No issues.
Quoting Janus
I know several who appear that way. The ones I know well enough make it quite clear to me that this is a mask.
Quoting AmadeusD
That is of course quite possible. None of us are perfectly psychologically healthy though (whatever that might mean) so I cannot think of any more apt measure of illness than the inability to function adequately, or even at all.
I wonder what principally causes the suffering associated with gender dysphoria and the transgender state generally, if it is not entrenched social attitudes around gender, which make transgender people feel as though they don't fit in. Some might not suffer much or even at all because they simply just don't give a shit what others think. We are all different.
Sorry for the late reply. Your response was very thoughtful and effortfull and I'd love to reply.
We seem to agree technically. But I think you might have missed the case I was making in the quotes section. (Re-reading it, it was probably my lack of clarity)
What I meant was. Suppose that one day we find some configuration of a human brain (cocktail of chemicals and electrical signal tendencies or whatever) that correlate strongly with women. And a different configuration in the brain with men. And that some are born with a brain that usually correlates with women but is in a male body. As a result they would detect this.
If that were so, then our current non empathy while missing that knowledge would be horrible to say the least. That wouldn't be like people look at your scars and having various unpleasant reactions. That would be you being Brad Pitt and half the people gaslighting you into thinking that your scarred and burned and what not. And half the people saying "Don't mind those other people, you are clearly Brad Pitt. You're good as you are. We accept you"
Whereas if there isn't such a thing. Then it's one not being Brad Pitt and claiming one is. And half of the people agree to make you feel better and the other half doesn't. The question we could ask after laying out an analysis is. If we don't fully know what's what and if the goal is to produce more wellbeing for people alive and Future generations. How do we want to treat Brad Pitt and how do we want to treat Ugly Betty. Or anyone who is right or wrong about themselves?
Probably we want to not become delusional but we also want to be supportive. If a demented person truly believes they are in the 70's. And they won't reject that claim. That let them live in the 70's. While we obviously will recognize our modern day status.
But I get that ideally we would toughen up if we are the ones on the receiving end of difficult remarks. Because we have to survive. But I -wouldn't- say that you -can't- expect people to manage their emotions such that they could have this conversation in front of you without treating you like a monster. And it's relative to that prior ethical metric that we can expect that. To some degree it's reasonable to have some anger arise about the failure on their end. But an automatic response to a first sight of you is indeed unavoidable.
Not a worry! I will try to understand better.
Quoting Jack2848
Ah. Interestingly enough, it may not be a hypothetical. The brain science is still out on a final conclusion of this of course, but it seems that homosexual men have brain structures that resemble both male and female brain structures.
Quoting Jack2848
There's an old saying. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." While I definitely understand your view, what the science above shows is that having feminine parts of your brain doesn't actually make you a woman. In our attempt to be sympathetic to an unproven claim, we accidently gloss over a proven claim and unintentionally label homosexual men as "Women in male bodies who should transition."
Empathy without responsibility and rationality can result in mistakes as well. Ever been asked by a homeless man for money on the street while he holds a gas can in in his hand? Empathy would inspire you to give it to him. Responsibility would do one better and offer to bring the gas to him. Rationality is realizing he was scamming you as he gets angry and waves you off to go look for another victim.
We should not have empathy for irresponsible and unproven claims. There is no regret if later we do find that the claim was both responsible and proven. There is no shame or wrong in denying that empathy until the full story is known.
Quoting Jack2848
Exactly. I think you and I are on once again, technically in agreement. The point in your examples is we know all of the information. One person is ugly, one person is not. We assume that both of them have socially positive demeaners. Should we let our instinct to gravitate to be nicer to Brad Pitt and meaner to Crad Shit lead our actions? Probably not.
Quoting Jack2848
I've thought about it for a good long while, and this is what I've come up with. Feel free to disagree, its always good to get another viewpoint. I believe we cannot expect people to hold our own viewpoints. That people's life experience, thoughts, and education are too varied to expect complex and rationally complete behavior. It is not that people are unthinking, unfeeling, or mean by nature. It is that people are often spending most of their energy taking care of their own immediate needs and wants. Healthy and well off people generally have time and resources to spend considering things outside of their immediate survival. But even then, the amount of time they spend is charity from their part, not obligation. Many spend that 'extra time' to further better themselves through riches, entertainment, or other things they desire to pursue in life.
Which means we are often left with basic culture. A common low denominator viewpoint that allows us to have a template for easy, polite, and productive interactions in public. These are things like, "Accept a person's individual expression. Don't insult people in public just because you don't like them. Don't go out of your way to shame or harm."
When people start demanding things of culture that are more complex, problems start to happen. Generally we are taught not to stare or point out things that stick out in society with people who have deficiencies or mental problems. But imagine if we started to say, "When you meet a person with a missing leg, you must call them 'long legs'" The problem here is we've gone beyond, "Be polite by not bringing up a person's deficiency," to 'Bring it up and pretend they don't have it!'" This runs counter to normal polite interactions and also now places a burden upon someone who interacts with someone who has a deficiency. Instead of, "Be passively polite" which takes little effort, its now an extra social rule combined with a phrase you need to know. In addition, you must not pretend that what is real is not. Its an unconscionable demand in to put on individuals in a free culture.
You're demanding of the person in public that they give time, energy and effort to learning a special interaction, and putting them in a state of distress where they must acknowledge something they shouldn't have to. It would be the same as if culture required that in an interaction with me, I must be referred to as handsome at least once. That would be demeaning from my point of view to be coddled as if I have the mind of a child, and again, uncomfortable to demand from other people.
Narcissistic or mentally delusional behavior entitles burden on other people when you interact with them culturally. It is an innately selfish or ignorant view that you think you as an individual should be elevated to any special ritualistic or linguistic importance in society. What should be owed is polite acceptance where one's deficiency is not overtly pointed out or lied about. The idea that a person should see a man or a woman and be told that they should be polite by using pronouns that reference the other sex is out of line. It is a violation of normal polite cultural interaction. It should be insulting to the individual being lied to. Which indicates again, either narcissism, ignorance, or mental delusion.
It is not that I don't have empathy for transitioned individuals. It is that I also hold that they have the same responsibilities in culture as everyone else. Be polite, don't demand special interactions of others, and you can expect that most people will gloss over your deficiencis and difference. I feel it is perfectly fine to call out that a transitioned individual is not special in anyway, a human like everyone else, and should not expect anything more in society besides polite acceptance.
I think this is innately understood at some level, which is why gender was invented and used as it is. In matters of sex, its quite obvious. When you throw a confusing idea like like gender in the mix, and try to elevate it over sex, its an attempt to get society to treat you in a way that you personally desire, not accepting that the norms of society are not obligated to give you that. Again, this is either narcissism or mental delusion. And I do not think it is kind, responsible, or rational to support or allow that kind of behavior in society and culture.
To my observations, the gender experiment has largely failed. People are angry. They know the norms of society have been overriden, and feel its a burden that they're not allowed to talk about. They can't quite put their finger on it, but slowly it is expanding over the culture as more incidents of transitioned people expecting language and culture to break its norms for them continue to occur. As such trans people are not being observed as integrated into the culture, but demanding individuals that want to stand out and fight the culture. That usually ends in faliture.
The trans community in my mind should cease any demands of society immediately. Let people call your sex as they observe you. Do not demand cross sex access. Dress as you like, transition, etc. but don't require special interactions. Just 'be chill'. Go about your day, live your life, and if people are rude to you simply because you are different, the culture will protect you like it would any one else who is outside of the norm. Because you aren't really different. Still human, still a person just trying to do things in public, a nobody that no one should make a big deal over.
Right here we go with the fallen world logic. The "average man" is, historically, for all intent and purpose, a monster. A horrific abomination that failed to evolve. An existential threat to not only the world but life itself. This is evidenced by his petty wars, his illogically unappreciative nature, his petulant jealousies, his psychotic and hypocritical delight in all that he would find detestable if done to himself (violent and destructive forms of entertainment he sacrifices valuable resources crucial to his own life to even view) and above all, his unwarranted existential conflict with seemingly everything, including (if not mostly) himself.
How do we know how mankind was truly meant to have evolved? What would have brought us into a golden age of peace and enlightened society, that wasn't cut short by unfortunate packets of those who value brawn over brain. Packets that should have died out long ago that have now become the majority of the population, overtaking the world. This... excuse of a being we call the average man. We don't. Not really. We just assume because "it happened it's what was supposed to happen." A form of deterministic slavery.
Maybe we've reached a new term in science called "existential exodus" where due to the technology and innovation (likely introduced by the atypical ie. more evolved mind) and it's that these mindless brutes are controlling women with edginess, shortsightedness, fear, and above all violence, so that they themselves don't die out (which how can you blame them for trying) and so the real and proper future of advanced men, who are yes intelligent (which inherently applies an enhanced ability to connect with emotion ie. being more emotional) are left without mates (because being "smart" is "uncool") so they have little choice but to think that they're gay. When in reality, the so-called "normal" man is the "odd one out" who should be the one not reproducing, who has equal tendencies, if not greater, but has been able to convince the reproductive pool otherwise. This is why they hate educated women. Because educated women will only produce with men who advance the virtue and value of humanity.
That I'd believe. In fact I can prove it on paper, as far as who makes what inventions and who clings to them versus their own devices. So that's just science at this point. No big deal. So the question, do we look forward to an enlightened future of humanity and ensure the enlightened and intelligent surpass the outdated, self-destructive so-called "alpha" male? Or do we just let the world go to Hell? There's two options. And if you're not on the side that invented nuclear weapons and mathematics, over the side that has nothing but violence, fear, and weapons featuring a rock attached to a stick. You've made your own grave.
The biggest thing is also the greatest challenge. Educating women. Historically, women are victims of abuse. Rape, slavery, etc. The smartest stock (unless simultaneously blessed with beauty) didn't live very long, and if so wasn't matched with equal intelligence, simply brute force, so that basically counted out any intelligence in any conceivable offspring. That's just a fact provable on paper. So there's work to do, if one wants to undo the insidious death spiral that is the current course of human reproduction.
That's a personal definition of politeness.
Most would agree that calling them how they want to be called is more in line with politeness. I don't mind calling you Scarface if you ask me. Nor do I mind calling you Brad Pitt if you ask me. I'd love to.
Can you expect it of me? Expect in a sense that it must happen. No because 1. We can't prove anything must happen. I can't even prove you mustn't kill people. 2. As you say there's complex potentially deterministic I add network of stuff going on as we navigate the world.
But relative to the main metric I use to create wellbeing and happy people. I'd say yes you can expect in an idealistic sense. Not in a sense that denies the former. But more in a desire sense. Like I can't expect you not to kill me in one realistic sense. But in idealistic ethical sense I can. And for me this goes all the way down. I'd want you to not kick me for example. It's a social contract expecting.
I don't find it hard to call you Brad Pitt if you ask me to. As long as we all know who you are and how the world works. Then even thought I don't have to do anything. I love to give you that good feeling.
We have a very big amount of social contracts. Most abide by sat least some rules that in essence are ways that we try to get people to act in a way desireable to us. Not kill. Be emphatic. Not steal. Say true things. In that case we are all narcissistic.
So then one must show why a person is a narcissist if they do it with gender.
"To my observations, the gender experiment has largely failed. People are angry."
That must be an internet echo chamber thing or a national thing. Most people I know are fine with it. They move on
This implies gender was invented because transitioned people needed to be seen as special .
But whether or not that is what you meant.
Gender in some form has always existed.
In the movie the godfather the Don says to johnny Fontane "you can act like a man" . But he is a man so he is acting like a man. People might have said to lesbian women "she isn't a woman" .
So since they were women. They must have been referring to something else. Like cultural expectations and behavior that deviated from other people with vaginas.
So one can more reasonably argue that those people took the concept that ordinary people used to point out the specialness. And owned it. So then if the creator is narcissistic for pointing out specialness. It's ordinary people.
I have thought about this recently. There's nothing we can say that we have to do ethically. Agrippa's Trilemma shows that we will fail to prove it.
So I ask myself what's a good ethical metric. For me that's "everyone maximum wellbeing".
Which doesn't mean just happiness. It means potential for education, healthcare, truth and so on.
So when I catch myself saying I don't have to do something just because it's better relative to my own metric. As best I can definitely if the effort is small. I try to ask. "Given I don't have to do anything. What can help me create more people with maximum wellbeing. What helps me get closer to that"
And that's simple. It's like with the demented person. You try make the transitioned person feel as best you can. And you don't lie when asked. You thoughtfully share your view. You make sure that gender as a concept is about how one personally feels rather than biology. And you move on.
While I believe this is an interesting topic you could make a thread on, I'm not seeing how this applies to the topic of this thread Outlander.
No, that's an observed reality of polite interaction. Most people do not request to be treated in a special manner, either verbally or non-verbally, than other people in polite culture. They just want the same services and opportunities afforded others. People should be able to share the same water fountain. People should be able to receive the same services. When I get checked out by a cashier I don't tell them to address me in a special way. "No, that's DR. don't you see this lab coat that I'm wearing?" is out of line.
Now there may be individuals who do not mind this or are comfortable with this. But it is the point that it demands a behavior of a person beyond what is normal. That is something we should be gracious about when given by other people, but not something we should demand of culture and society. We do not expect the denominator of society to rise to the highest and most available of us. We expect culture to arise to the point of reducing conflict and unnecessary demands of others.
Quoting Jack2848
Again, wonderful. I'm glad you have the energy, mentality, and enjoyment to do so. That is not most people. And it is not a demand that we should make of most people.
Quoting Jack2848
No. These constructs are about letting people carry about their day without undue harassment or expectations from others. That is not narcissistic. Narcissism is the idea that oneself has the right to ask others special treatment for themselves, as an elevation of their own importance over someone else's time and energy. To demand another person give their time and energy is to assume one is superior to that other person. In some cases this is so, but it should not be asserted without strong reason.
Quoting Jack2848
"Most people you know" is not a metric of judging people. People's close circles are often similar in political and cultural outlooks. I use the internet to explore different cultures, including people with your perspective. I do not search out people who tell me what to think or 'head nod' while claiming their viewpoint is 'just right'. Turns out everyone does that to an extent. In addition, though not as much anymore, I have often stepped out and associated of people with different cultural backgrounds. It helps to give a sense of commonality across the differences, though this is still my own personal viewpoint.
Quoting Jack2848
No. The invention and study of gender goes far before any trans gender issue. I'll recant the sentence and agree it was wrong. I am trying to communicate the idea that we should not be making special demands of society for individuals or pockets of cultures. I do not need gender to do that, and it was poorly put.
Quoting Jack2848
Correct. But it has always been in reference to the fact one is a man by sex. "You are not acting to the standards that I or this group personally expect a person of your sex to act." And what is that? Prejudice and sexism. Not exactly a viewpoint of people we should encourage, much less an idea that you should be treated any differently because as your sex you act counter to the prejudices and sexism that other people have of you.
Nice points and a good discussion. I have to step away for the day but I'll try to answer tonight if you have more.
I'd initially give you this point. But a person's job title is an accidental property. Whereas a person's gender or sex is essential to one's identity.(Qualitatively). Additionally the example you give would be indeed uncalled for. As the person's job title is not important in that context, nor is he called a truck driver instead of lab researcher.
However. If a person truly believes they are a woman, And the cashier addresses them as a man although they dress as a woman and have undergone surgery and they look more female then male. Then although it looks irrational from the outside. From the inside it's not unreasonable that they ask to be called the sex or gender they believe to be or how they express. It's fine to politely ask. ''I would prefer you call me by my name or call me man'' or ''it's man''.
Or for the cashier it's also possible to take your example to not mention man or woman. Just like in the example they didn't mention the job title. And then the transperson won't ask "hey you didn't call me a woman" because there wouldn't be a reason to.
On politeness:
It would also be within the reasonably expected parameters of politeness to say "ok. Sorry there "x" if you said man to a person with an artificial or constructed vagina, makeup, long hair, feminine voice and what not. In the social context. I don't mind using a different definition then in a medical one.
So it seems here unless you accept these points. We will have to agree to disagree.
On energy
The energy is easy. It takes less energy to say. Hi woman to someone wearing female clothes and who looks enough like one. Then to do all we are doing here. That's a neurological fact.
On quantity
I would have to disagree that most people aren't fine to call a trans woman a woman when they meet them.
It might be that you're in an echo chamber or some country where my statement doesn't apply correctly.
But in my country. Almost nobody has a problem to say woman or man based on how they express themselves. Almost nobody. Except some people on the far right. But even most people that I know from the far right at my job. Or who I suspect to vote for them. Are fine with calling them that way. So again here I think we are not agreeing on the facts.
On energy
The energy is easy. It takes less energy to say. "Hi woman" to someone wearing female clothes and who looks enough like one. Or to not mention woman or man at all and say 'hello''. Or to say "she". Then to do all we are doing here. That's a neurological fact. So if energy is what concerns you. It's an easy choice.
On enjoyment
If it's enjoyment. Then one can ask. Is it more enjoyable to make someone happy or sad? That will depend on character. So it's subjective.
On quantity
I would have to disagree that most people aren't fine to call a transwoman a woman when they meet them.
It might be that you're in an echo chamber or some country where my statement doesn't apply correctly.
But in my country. Almost nobody has a problem to say woman or man based on how they express themselves. Almost nobody. Except some people on the far right. But even most people that I know from the far right at my job. Or who I suspect to vote for them. Are fine with calling them that way. So again here I think we are not agreeing on the facts.
On narcissism
If tomorrow you fully believed that you are a woman. For years you are depressed. You make a vagina where your penis is. You dress like a woman and you take hormones and so on. And you fully belief that your brain or soul or whatever is a woman. And that if you are anything that it is this soul or brain. Then if you truly can't be shaken from that belief because that's how the neurons work in your brain. Then given that you would be asking to be called what you are rather than what you aren't when people mistakenly call you what you aren't -in your reconstruction of the world-. Then it is not at all a special request. And not at all a request for special treatment. It is then a request for respect in their perception of reality. So to judge that situation you need an internal view. If a person truly believes that every single person on this planet wants to kill them. Then if that person in their delusion protects himself from something that isn't happening. Then as a judge I shouldn't just look at the external consequences. I should look at the internal experience to which they responded. And then I get understanding and of course empathy. And I would say a fairer judgment.
People are angry is universal claim. Technically i need only pick one person to prove it wrong. That would be me. But giving the claim some charity. I will take it to assume that most people in the world are angry that if they see a transitioned trans woman that if they meet them they would have to say "she" during conversation if they are near.
Well I can't speak for the world. But I can speak for every single company I have worked for so far. Most people wouldn't be angry. Additionally most people on the tv networks aren't angry. In fact. Most people that are annoyed , not angry with it. Would for far right. In my country. Yet only about 20% voted for the far right here. So again most people aren't annoyed enough let alone angry that they would vote for them.
I would bet you thousands of euros and we go on the streets to ask people. If you see a transwoman. Would you be angry that there's a social not official expectation that you call them she while they are around? And I would take your money.
I would say the opposite. We should help the less fortunate.
We should make roads more accessible and safe for blind people. We should make sure that disabled people have a large enough closed toilet. And if a person has gone through surgery to have a vagina. And they belief they have a soul or some brain composition that is female. Then I think we should take the option that takes less energy, we should choose joy and kindness over hatred or annoyance, inclusion over exclusion, creates more happiness and respect. And say "she" around them.
Exactly. As you know. I'm conceptually clear on the difference between sex and gender and biological and other social contexts and potentially different definitions per context.
So yes they are refering to the cultural expectations they had for a sex. And I can imagine lesbian women getting annoyed. After hearing ''you're not a woman. You're a man''.
On tomboys and the separation from genitalia
Well given that a lesbian woman isn't a man. Sex wise. And given they (ordinary people) would be using on their own initiative and accord what we now call gender to identify them as man qua gender. Then they might have decided reasonably so that. ''if woman qua gender is not what I am. And I am also not a man qua gender (cultural wise or whatever) (the lesbian woman might disagree that she is a man qua gender). They might then conclude that they are neither. Or thus non binary. A -non binary qua gender- lesbian -woman qua sex-.
And some or many lesbian women were called ''tomboy''. Meaning the gender they (ordinary people) used. Was already separated from genitalia. (Not to say they didn't realize that the tomboy had a vagina to be clear). But clearly calling a person born with a natural vagina a tomBOY. Is ascribing a gender based on cultural expectations separated from the genitalia the person actually owns.
But given this fact. That it is ordinary People that invented or at least significantly used such genitalia separated definitions. It is then only reasonable that annoyed or analytic lesbian or ordinary people detected this pattern. And formalized it as we do all the time.
It would then be even more horribly unfair. If the same people that would use or create such terms such as tomboy for woman qua sex. Would then claim that it is unfair to define gender mostly in cultural aspects and separate from genitalia.
Not a bad metric.
Quoting Jack2848
I argue that gender is social stereotypes about he sexes. I do not believe that social stereotypes are should be essential to anyone's identity.
Quoting Jack2848
I agree that it is not unreasonable to ask. It is unreasonable to expect that they oblige such a request. It is not a duty or moral obligation that people agree with your own internal view of yourself when it contrasts with what they observe.
Quoting Jack2848
For you. If someone is asking that you refer them as a particular pronoun, then that is because you do not see them as you wish they did. Meaning you do not appear as that particular sex in their eyes, and you are asking them to lie. Its different if you are a particular sex and someone mistakes that. Then you're correcting a person to be aligned with the truth of the situation. If it would be a lie to ask someone to call me doctor when I am not, and that's just a job title, I don't see why its any less of an issue to ask someone to refer to me as the opposite sex that I am. I see gender as sexism and stereotypes, and I am not sexist nor agree to stereotype people.
Lying to people is hard. Asking you to ignore your eyes and ears and call someone something they are not is hard. Especially with those of a moral character who value honesty. It may be easy for you. But it is not for many people. Notice how I recognize it it easy for you. You should recognize and accept those who say it is not easy for them. No, they are not far right. They are not immoral. They are not bigoted. They are uncomfortable lying to people and being told its the right thing to do.
Quoting Jack2848
Your brain/soul is not a woman. Your body is. This is the confusion. How you feel about your body does not change its reality. It doesn't matter whether I feel like my face is scarred or not. It is. That is my body. Do you see why I disagree with your view here?
Quoting Jack2848
We are not talking about letting people call you what they think you are. We are talking about people calling you what they know you aren't. If it doesn't matter that they call you something incorrect, there's no need to correct it. If of course someone interacted you in a way assuming you are a particular sex and it was important they be correct in that instance, you should correct them.
Quoting Jack2848
You are correct that is is a universal claim that I did not mean to apply as "all people". There are enough people angry about it in the world to be an issue. I won't even claim 'most' as I have no evidence of that. To be clear, they're not angry at being asked and being allowed of their own accord to call them he or she. They are angry at the demand. They are angry at the implication that transition makes you the other sex, and that there is some innate right to cross sex spaces. Anger alone of course is not a justification of that anger, but it is there enough to be a concern.
Quoting Jack2848
I want to be clear I do not view this as a political issue. I have listened to people on the 'the left' also not like that this is an expressed social obligation. This is an intellectual and societal issue. Politics cause us to ignore this aspect and quickly make it a tribal issue. We should avoid that.
Quoting Jack2848
You mean i would take YOUR money. :) I don't think there's anything to debate on here. This is either true, or false, and I don't think either of us have the evidence for it. So lets not focus on people's anger, but the social obligation issue I've mentioned.
Quoting Jack2848
In polite culture, you are not obligated to help the less fortunate. No one has to donate to the homeless person on the street. What you should not do, is place undue burdens on the less fortunate. You don't yell or mock a homeless person who smells because they don't have access to a shower. It is nice to help the less fortunate, but it is not an obligation.
From my viewpoint, I do not consider transitioned or trans gender people less fortunate. Everyone has problems, that is theirs. We live in a modern society with good medical care, and they are largely able to get that care. They can still work, own a home, pay taxes, and go into public like everyone else. I owe them no more time or energy then I do any other person walking around. Should I place undue burdens on them because they're trans? Make fun of them, mock them, or any other horrible thing? Absolutely not. THAT is societies obligation. But I have no duty to lie to them, tell them something that isn't true, or treat them in any way differently than anyone else.
To be clear, I had an eye appointment one time and found the person taking it was a trans woman. It was very obvious this was a man, so how did I react? I didn't care. I spoke about the day, asked how things were going, dumb dad jokes, the works. They never asked me to call them a particular pronoun, and I treated them like I would anyone else. That's how a good society works. We all live and work together despite our differences without special treatment.
Quoting Jack2848
Absolutely not. A person can do whatever they want to themselves. I am under no obligation to agree with it. Someone can do facial surgery to look like Napoleon and earnestly tell me they are Napoleon. I am only under an obligation not to give them an undue burden over it, not to call or treat them like Napoleon. You are elevating a person's subjective view point as an obligation for other people to agree with. You can call them Napoleon if you think that is not. I am not denying you the right to call a person by their preferred pronouns. That is your choice. But it is a choice, not an obligation. And I am just as free and not morally obliged to agree with a person's subjective view of themself.
Quoting Jack2848
Correct. Lesbians and many men do not act in accordance with social stereotypes around their sex. That's the way it should be. No one is obligated to follow subjective social stereotypes. No one is obligated to agree with a person's subjective viewpoint.
Quoting Jack2848
No, it is unfair that people used gender to tell women they aren't women. And its equally unfair to use gender to tell other people that as a woman, you aren't actually a woman. Gender is prejudice and sexism, and about control. I am advocating freedom from sexism and social control based on subjective non-biological expectations of someone's sex.
I think I followed you well, but please correct me if I did not.
PhilosophyTube
Sure, pretty common with this topic. Why the link to a video about not having children though?
Having children is in the basic animal design -- one doesn't need a manual. Raising children, on the other hand, is just very very complicated, maybe? I mean, you suddenly have an infant, and you're committed to about 18 to 22 years of careful oversight. By the time you have figured out how to properly raise a child, you have spent at least 5 to 10 years making major mistakes and the kid is doomed to a lifetime of self-help books and weird support groups.
Hey -- I'm 79 and still working out neurotic work-arounds.
I think the issue is fairly simple but the waters are muddied by people wishing to be kind and accommodating wishes that then compromise and impact on others.
The main issue is the bastardisation and manipulation of the concept of gender. The contortion of the terms woman and man.
But "woman" is a polysemous term; one established meaning is biological, and another established meaning is gender-social. Contrary to the OP, in the gender-social sense, “trans women are women” is true. Insisting on only the biological sense is a misunderstanding of how language works, not a logical or empirical requirement.
Is this kind of like how "sick" "means" "impressive" and "hot" "means" "attractive" and/or "stolen", etc.? :chin:
Yes, it can have more than one meaning based on context which we've established already.
Quoting Banno
You are ignoring the entire discussion we had earlier and not acknowledging that I'm claiming the context of 'woman/man' unmodified is most rationally interpreted to mean 'sex of the person', not 'gender of the person.' That's what the 'trans' and 'cis' modifiers are for.
Quoting Outlander
Very similar, yes.
What do you think?
Quoting Philosophim
Not at all. We went through this. There is no "context of 'woman/man' unmodified", no "true" meaning for such terms, beyond your preference for choose a "true" meaning in order to justify your claims concerning trans folk.
Again Banno, your entire dismissal of my points, either by pretending they didn't exist or ignoring them so you can spout an ideology is not what I'm interested in debating. But if you do come back later and imply a misspresentation of my stance, I will correct it for others to read. You know I never stated an essential meaning for woman, only rational arguments based on the rules of the English language, its history, and culture. And you also know my conclusion was that the phrase is ambiguous to most people, and thus should be clarified to more clearly impart its meaning.
Again, I'm no longer discussing with you on this issue, we already did that. I will not attempt to misrepresent your stance to my advantage long after our discussion, I ask you to return the same courtesy.
you did say:
Quoting Philosophim
And that's specifically what I addressed. Again,Quoting Banno
Quoting Philosophim
And I pointed out that it is polysemous rather than ambiguous. You conflate the two.
Banno, are you bored? I don't know how you can keep posting this and think this is a good argument.
Polysemous means, "A term which has multiple meanings". That's it. The 'phrase' is not a 'term'. What is often contained in an ambiguous phrase? A term with multiple meanings. And in that case, if the meaning cannot be clearly gleaned from the phrase without outside context, it is by definition an ambiguous phrase.
You keep conflating 'term' with 'phrase'. I do not.
Not really. Although this topic is not of any particular interest to me, beyond the misuse of philosphy of language I've been pointing out.
A word is ambiguous when it has two or more possible meanings, and it is unclear which meaning is intended in a given context.
A word is polysemous when it has multiple related meanings that are all legitimate and established, and the word’s meaning shifts depending on context.
It's not that hard.
Woman is polysemous, not ambiguous.
And, in the gender-social sense, “trans women are women” is true.
Basically what I said.
Quoting Banno
Ok, I JUST told you I said the term was polysemous, while the phrase was ambiguous. You keep implying I've done otherwise because you're being dishonest. Banno, if you have to be dishonest to win an argument, you're not doing a good job.
Quoting Banno
If the context outside of the sentence itself is known. I'll post this again:
Quoting Philosophim
There is no context within the sentence itself Banno. If I took the phrase and brought it to people without context, many people would rightly and logically assume due to the rules of English and normal culture that the second woman indicated 'adult human female'. That's what I've been noting all of this time. You should know that and be acknowledging that if you want to be an honest and good faith person in this discussion.
You're not adding anything new to this discussion, and you're actively ignoring or misrepresenting my position again. You're not being a good or noble person Banno, you're just being a troll at this point.
You can't maintain that while simultaneously maintaining that the One True Meaning is the biological one.
All that stuff about phrases and words is a bit of a furphy. Words and sentences are never without context.
The context of "are transwomen women?" in your OP is just the OP - after all, the purpose of a good OP is to set up a context.
Yours seems a pretty desperate account. The phrase “trans women are women” is meaningful and true in its social-gender sense; claims of ambiguity or fixed biological meaning ignore polysemy and the unavoidable role of context. Your attempt to maintain polysemy while privileging a single biological sense is logically inconsistent.
I'm not the one who keeps coming back every couple of days misrepresenting my point because they're more concerned with their outcome being seen than mine. I wouldn't mind if you decided to add something new, but its the same rehash and ignorant statements about my part of the discussion.
Quoting Banno
"Priviliging?" Well this is new. Where have I ever advocated privilege? Mind clarifying what you mean by that considering its an argument I've never made?
Exactly here:
Quoting Philosophim
You try to privilege one interpretation over all others.
Privilege meaning: a right, exemption, or immunity granted as a particular benefit, advantage, or favor
OR
a right or benefit given to some people but not others
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privilege
Where in any of the sentence you quoted is there any implication of privilege?
Quoting Philosophim
...as, for example, you give the advantage to 'sex of the person' over 'gender of a person' when you say Quoting Philosophim
I actually laughed at this one Banno. Yes, I am practicing in the fallacious art of "Posting the definition of terms so we both understand and can reference the meaning." :D
Quoting Banno
Quote the whole meaning Banno, not one word. Where is the mention of rights, exemptions, or immunity implied? While yes, gender vs sex have different rights, exemptions and immunity compared to each other, no where am I claiming if that is so or what they are in that sentence. Clarifying the difference between sex and gender also has nothing to do with privileges. But there is one point, and that is often ambiguous phrases intended to conflate two different terms with one another often want the rights, exemptions and immunity of the other for the term when the term itself cannot argue they deserve those things on their own. But you're not attempting to conflate right? And I'm sure not. So I fail to see where that sentence implies privilege at all.
If you are not doing that, then you cannot maintain that "trans women are women" is false.
Pretty simple stuff.
And again you ignore the part about 'privilege' including rights. My point stands.
Quoting Banno
What remains is that the response I've given undermines the OP, so that you now feel the need to change the topic to some feeble argument about the essence of "privilege".
So, again,
Quoting Banno
You mean your attempted restrictive use of "privilege"? It's an obvious dead cat:
Quoting Philosophim
Get back on the topic.
Quoting Banno
The argument being used here is one that leads to words like 'literally' having to be clarified by using themselves: "Do you mean "literally" figuratively, or literally?" Rinse and repeat.
I reject that this is helpful, how language works or what is best for its use. I understand this to be Phil's position. Banno seems to want words to remain ambiguous (in context of every-day use) to avoid having to make calls about other people's identities. That's fine, but clearly not the discussion at hand. That, and, the vast, vast majority of people are absolutely fine doing this because that's how language is negotiated.
And what determines identity? The mind/brain.
So - we need to consider fetal development. During the first trimester of pregnancy, the body differentiates (testes or ovaries) under the influence of genes. And then, in a completely different process, under the influence of genes and hormones, during the 3rd trimester, the brain differentiates to a male or a female brain.
In most cases, the two processes are coincident, and a cisgender person is born. The development of their brain and their body are in the same sex.
But, sometimes, the two processes do not result in the same sex. So, a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born.
Has he? He claimed that one interpretation was more rational. His reasoning was questionable, and questioned.
He claimed Woman/man unmodified is most rationally interpreted as sex.But he had previously , over the course of days and pages, agreed that there is no one “true” or privileged unmodified meaning for woman/man. Oddly, Philosophim can't bring himself to say he is privileging one sense.
He claimed normal English makes sex the default meaning. But English does not have a single “default” meaning independent of context. Claiming one is simply choosing a preferred meaning for ideological reasons.
He arguers that different uses are marked by modifiers such as cis/trans, and these mark gender, while the unmodified term marks sex. But again, words and sentences are never without context; we do as an issue of fact use "woman" to include both cis- and trans- folk.
He claimed that “trans women are women” is ambiguous without external context, but again, there are no cases that are not in a context. And addition, polysemous is not ambiguous.
I think this represents his position accurately. He can explain if that is incorrect.
When he claims that one interpretation is more rational than the others, he is doing no more than saying that he prefers one interpretation over the others. But his preferences are not a consideration here.
What I have done is to show that there clearly is a sense in which "trans women are women" is true. That undermines his OP.
You seem to be advocating an argument by majority vote. Issues of usage are not decided democratically. If a community uses a word in a particular way, then that usage exists.
You may think so. That seems counter to the exchange. A feeling he seems to be getting to. Perhaps pause a second a rethink in light of this - its extremely unlikely you have it right.
Quoting Banno
I, and He, has explained why that is not in any way a contradiction. If you don't take that, so be it.
Quoting Banno
Generally, yes it does. That's why polysemy can get so interesting. He hasn't 'claimed' one. He's reasoned to a particular use, explicitly not jettisoning others in their reasonable contexts. There is, clearly a 'standard use' for almost all words that are used by the majority. To deny this is folly. He is arguing that the standard use ought be clear, defined and useful. He has done a very good job at supporting that.
Quoting Banno
You might. Most people do not, and at any rate thats an extremely lazy, almost silly argument. The entirely point of his reasoning is to avoid such utterly unhelpful bleeding of meanings. I also intimated this issue with the 'eight year' period I referred to. There was a time when the word 'woman' was useless (nearly) for exactly the position you are putting forward. It's just... silly. The reasons are elsewhere in the thread.
Quoting Banno
It's ambiguous even with most contexts. If you, personally, import a certain meaning when yo uhear that phrase to make sense of it - well, that's an exactly, precise event for which Phil is trying to give a better accounting. Yours is not a good one - it's just what you think when you hear it. Nothing to do with standard, or wide-spread usage. I think you're in a bit of a bubble here.
Polysemous does not mean ambiguous. But polysemous words are patently ambiguous in most cases. I even gave a directly link between the use of 'literally' and 'woman'. Its a rinse-and-repeat where no one knows what the fuck is going on. We should not have to ask "what do you mean by that?" every time someone uses the term woman. Currently, we do, unless its already known. I suggest you are referring to talking to people who already agree with you. That is precisely not hte situation we're concerned with.
Quoting Banno
This is very close to putting your fingers in your ears and repeating yourself. He's given rational reasoning. You have ignored (or rejected it). That isn't on him. His reasons are sound. As your example above shows quite obviously. However, if you reject it - that's fine. Your position is your position. I think its badly supported, and mostly just a reaction to your distaste for questioning identity.
Quoting Banno
You have not. As an observer, you have not. Showing that there is such a sense does nothing to undermine the OP. The words the OP discusses are still as ambiguous as they were when we started. In the wider world, the problems of the OP are big, glaring neon ones. The fact that some communities (i suggest they are far more amorphous and internally inconsistent than you let on) use it in X way (as the default, lets say) and others use it in Y way (as the default) betrays this claim.
Quoting Banno
This is self-contradictory. The final sentence is exactly what your objection defies in the prior sentence.
I am advocating for the fact that you haven't grasped what Phil is saying, or made a reasonable attempt address it - and yet are still wholly convinced no one but you in the exchange gets it. So be it. I could be wrong; but given we're on page 19 and none of your contributions seem to have understood the problem clearly I'm not uncomfortable with this position.
My position on language, enlarging the discussion a bit so you have a better idea, is that uses are only as good as their ability to communicate to disparate groups. I don't care if your family has a series of grunts that work for you. I don't care if you use the word "wrench" to mean "apple". That's dumb and unhelpful for communication. We are talking about global use. Not in-group use. That's hte point I take it you are missing.
I have not addressed identity. A personal identity is simply an opinion of yourself. I have opinions of myself, but that doesn't mean people have to agree with it. My own sense of identity can also be objectively wrong. If I identify as Elvis Presley it doesn't actually make me Elvis Presley.
Quoting Questioner
The real answer is that the science is still in flux. As of today, there is no identifiable brain difference between a transgender person and a normal person. At one point they thought there might be, but they didn't consider sexuality. Male homosexual brains have structures that resemble female brains in some way (though this is not completely settled either). Once sexuality was taken into account, hetero and homosexual male brains are no different besides a very slight difference in one area of the corpus collosum that was observed. So no, as of today being transgender is not identifiable in the brain.
But I'm curious, what do you think of the OP? Personal identity is not needed to discuss it.
He clearly has followed the argument. You don't want to let this one go Banno. May I suggest you might be a little ideologically captured here? You keep trying to use the word privilege when you know I had no rights based arguments for the conclusion. You are acting just like a religious person does when they can't quite prove that God is real. I don't know your religious outlook yourself Banno, but any person can be easily captured by ideologies that make them behave in ways they normally wouldn't.
You're generally an intelligent person who I believe has a genuine desire to do the right thing Banno. Take a step back and look at it again. Have we not both made our points? Have we not both come to areas of the discussion in which there is nothing further to be said? You keep coming back to this thread as if its some crusade, but just like the real crusades Banno, there's nothing worth the fight.
We're people who both love philosophy Banno. Isn't it a good time now to shake each other's hands, appreciate a good discussion, and move on? You don't have to agree with my conclusion. You don't ever have to state that I'm right. You are allowed to hold your own outlook of the debate, as am I. Lets let others judge for now.
I don’t think you “do” philosophy.
No, it's the reality of who you are.
Quoting Philosophim
using this as a corollary of transgenderism is unsound reasoning - a logical fallacy - since thinking you are one particular person rather than who you are is a delusion. Transgender persons do not think they are someone who they are not - their brains truly are in reality male or female - and this is their reality, not a delusion.
Quoting Philosophim
In the way that they are both properly functioning brains, yes, this is correct. But there is ample evidence of the differences between a male and a female brain.
BTW, transgender brains are normal. They just developed with a different sex than the body.
Quoting Philosophim
I do take exception to the mention of "trans ideology and politics" - being transgender is not an ideology - but a recognition of a biological reality. And as far as "politics" go - do you mean the expectation that basic human rights are respected?
I would say instead that the anti-transgender movement is based on ideology and politics
It's really not.
No person who says "trans men are men" is saying "biological women who identify as men are biological men".
That the sentence starts with the term "trans men" is all the context any rational person needs to understand that the ending phrase "are men" is referring to gender and not biological sex.
It's quite absurd that this needs to be repeated and that this discussion has reached 19 pages.
@Philosophim would have a much stronger position if he were to just claim that without further context the sentence "John is a man" is ordinarily understood to mean "John is a biological man", but he's opted not to take this approach.
Which logical fallacy?
Quoting Questioner
No, brain scans on transgender people prior to any medical intervention have brains that are no different than non-transgender brains. Currently the science implies that male homosexual brains do have some similarities between female brains. Does that mean we call a gay man a woman? No.
Quoting Questioner
No, there is none to my knowledge. Make sure you're looking at pre-medical trans gender studies and not post. The medications can change the brain.
Quoting Questioner
If they are normal, and there's no evidence of any difference between a trans gender brain and a cis gender brain, then no, they don't have a sex different from the body.
Quoting Questioner
Ah, that was just an intro paragraph line to explain where my interest in the subject came from. No, this conversation has no concern with rights, just language and phrasing.
Quoting Questioner
Just as much as the pro-transgender movement is based on ideology and politics. To be clear, I am not anti-transgender. I am pro clear thinking, clear language, and avoiding ideology where possible.
The first three studies in a Google search disagree.
Brain Sex in Transgender Women Is Shifted towards Gender Identity
Transgender individuals (TIs) show brain-structural alterations that differ from their biological sex as well as their perceived gender
Rather than being merely shifted towards either end of the male-female spectrum, transgender persons seem to present with their own unique brain phenotype
Already pointed out that I've encountered people who intend this. There are some trans gender individuals who do use the word 'men' to indicate they have changed sex, not merely gender. You cannot know from the phrase alone what they intend without further clarification, therefore it is ambiguous.
Quoting Michael
Its quite absurd that you started calling people idiots who disagreed with you, and refused to answer my question as to why we shouldn't just clarify the phrase to "Trans gender men are adult human females who take on the gendered roles of men." Its also quite absurd that you come in and insult the discussion because the conclusion isn't what you want it to be. Obviously the results of 19 pages demonstrate this is something worth talking about unlike your desire to tell everyone they're stupid.
Quoting Michael
This is one of my many points that I've put forward in this discussion. You haven't even followed and make criticisms of things you don't know about.
Quoting Michael
Congrats on a quick google search. I've studied this issue for a while and have made comments that the brain science is still ongoing. Have you ensured that those studies separate homo and heterosexual brains? Because homosexual brains do appear to have features that are more associated with female brains. If your studies don't separate them, this skews the end results.
So let's take an incredibly reductive approach and say that a biological man is a human with a penis and a biological woman is a human with a vagina.
You've encountered people who believe that humans with a vagina who identify as men are humans with a penis?
I don't believe you have.
As I explained - mistaking a reality for a delusion
Quoting Philosophim
I'm not sure what differences you might expect to see?
Could you please provide your source?
Quoting Philosophim
Male and female brains differ in size, matter ratios (e.g. processing vs. connections), regional volumes, connectivity patterns, circuitry organization, processing styles, neurochemistry and hormonal influence.
Google “differences male and female brains” for a list of sources to find out more
Quoting Philosophim
Sorry, these three statements are not logically linked.
Would you call a properly functioning male brain and a properly functioning female brain both "normal?"
Being in a body of the opposite sex does not affect proper brain function.
This is not an argument. You need to go talk to more people. Lets make this logical to remove the obvious emotional block you have. You are stating, "All people who ever use this phrase everywhere mean this one strict interpretation." I am stating "At least one person who has used this phrase has used a different interpretation."
It should be obvious now.
Sure, but that that's the claim I'm making. Thinking you're a man when in reality you're a woman is a delusional.
Questioner, your post is a bit disorganized. I a couple of points that contrast with themselves. I feel it just needs a second pass to organize what you're trying to say a bit more please. This does not mean your wrong or imply any lack of capability on your part. I too sometimes don't organize my posts correctly and it confuses other people. Would you mind spending a little more time specifying your thoughts a bit? I'll answer then so that way I'm fairly addressing your points.
I suspect that for all phrases there is at least one person who has used a different interpretation to what is ordinary, but that doesn't mean that all phrases are ambiguous. The existence of schizophrenics, the illiterate, and those otherwise unfamiliar with English is not a good reason to avoid a little common sense to understanding widespread language-use.
A rational person should understand that people who say "trans men are men" are not saying "humans with a vagina who identify as men are humans with a penis" or "humans with XX chromosomes who identify as men are humans with XY chromosomes". You ought stop stubbornly insisting on this straw man.
Fantastic. We agree on a basic point that not everyone who uses the phrase means to indicate that the second 'man' in the sentence is only referring to gender.
Quoting Michael
You ought to stop using the implicit claim that anyone who doesn't use the phrase exactly as you say it is , is an idiot. You basically said, "Its used this way, and anyone who uses it the wrong way is incorrect. Therefore the phrase is not ambiguous." Considering an ambiguous phrase is one that can easily be interpreted incorrectly because its intention is not clear, you're not helping your case. You have not addressed the arguments I've given in this discussion as to why its ambiguous and demonstrated why they are false. You dodged the last point of discussion even after I gave you a day to calm down and think about it because you were too emotionally invested. And now you're just repeating the same points that didn't work. Please come up with a new approach Michael, or once again, please leave the thread.
This presents as a misunderstanding of the information I have shared.
Quoting Philosophim
This presents as passive-aggressive. My posts are well enough organized.
That's not what I've said.
What I've said is that if I say "trans men are men" and you think to yourself "Michael believes that humans with XX chromosomes who identify as men are humans with XY chromosomes" then either you're an idiot or you're being intentionally dishonest.
I don't doubt it. As I was reading your thread a few times I wasn't sure I understood your full intention.
Quoting Questioner
Not at all. I even went out of my way to indicate that in no way is this a poor reflection on you. You even noted in your quote of me above that I misunderstood what you were saying. Genuinely, I'm having a difficult time understanding what you were trying to convey in that particular post.
Oh, its EITHER you're an idiot or dishonest. My mistake. So basically people can't interpret the phrase wrong, because when they use it wrong, it due to stupidity or maliciousness. And yet that doesn't address my point that it could also be because its ambiguous. If you demonstrated that the phrase was always used correctly, that would be a counter to ambiguity. But you haven't even attempted that.
You see, I'm not denying those are possibilities, but those are possibilities for any phrase. That doesn't address the claims I've made about why it is ambiguous in terms of the arguments I've laid forth which you keep avoiding, something I've already mentioned twice and am tired of saying again. Either address the points in the thread, or be the straw man guy who's claiming that everyone who uses the phrase incorrectly must be an idiot or dishonest. Come on Michael. If you read a poster in another thread using that type of argument would you think they were coming to the discussion in good faith or a calm mind?
How is a male’s brain truly in reality female?
Is there a non binary brain?
Quoting Philosophim
All I can suggest is to read it again and feel free to ask me questions about it.
If a phrase could possibly mean one of two things, but one of those things is utterly absurd, then unless you believe that the person who said it is suffering from psychosis then you ought use a little common sense and understand that they mean the non-absurd thing, and so this polysemic phrase isn't actually ambiguous.
So if I say "trans men are men" then you ought recognize that I'm not saying "humans with XX chromosomes who identify as men are humans with XY chromosomes".
It's really simple. I don't know how you ever manage to communicate with other people if you don't understand this. You don't need to be a mind-reader to figure out what people are trying to say.
Quoting Philosophim
Again, this is not what I said. Try re-reading that post again.
I've never said this. If you go to the top of this page you will see my post:
Quoting Questioner
It was a direct quote
That quote says no more than that there are male and female brains
You stated some men have female brains. Or have I misinterpreted your posts?
If this is true, how does it follow that a male is not delusional to think that he is a woman?
Is a male with a female brain not just a man with some feminine (based on gender) characteristics?
Why is there a need to be seen by others to be a woman?
It all seems to be based on sexist assumptions of what a woman is.
You have already agreed that this is not how language currently works. You did this by admitting that 'woman in a forest' is generally taken to mean female.
If I am talking about apples and how tasty they are you can assume I am talking about apple devices, but that woudl be pretty silly, unless you are assuming I mean 'tasty' in a metaphorical sense. Either way, simply being able to interpret one thing as another does hold the weight of 'should' and 'ought to' in an epistemic normative sense--basic conventions of communication. It pays to understand the context, correct misunderstanding and, more importantly, where possible avoid misunderstandings in the first place. Therefore, it is perfectly logical to clarify the use of a term in a given context and have a conventional use of a term where such distinctions are unclear.
If I say I like orange this is understood as me saying I like the colour orange. If I say I like an orange people do not say 'An orange what?' unless it is relevant to the context of the exchange.
Quoting Banno
Nothing needs clarifying.
A delusion is characterized by a false reality. Here is Google's explanation of a delusion:
Delusions happen when the brain misinterprets experiences, often triggered by extreme stress, trauma, isolation, or substance use, creating strongly held false beliefs as a way to make sense of confusing or threatening feelings, involving complex interactions between genetics, brain chemistry (neurotransmitter imbalances), and environmental factors,
This is not the case with transgender persons. A male transgender person in reality has a male brain (although a female body). A female transgender person in reality has a female brain (although a male body).
The gender of their brain is not a delusion, it is a reality.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
No. In a previous post, I listed the ways in which male and female brains differ.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
I don't think it is about "being seen" - I think it is just about "being" - being who you are.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
Not at all.
It is a false reality. Males cannot be women.
Quoting Questioner
Yes. Men have delusions that they are women.
Quoting Questioner
Absolutely.
What makes a woman a woman anyway?
Is this your reasoning?
P1. Men are humans with XY chromosomes, testes, a penis, etc.
P2. Women are humans with XX chromosomes, ovaries, a vagina, etc.
P3. No human with XY chromosomes, etc. is a human with XX chromosomes, etc.
C1. Therefore, no man is a woman
P4. Some men believe that they are women
C2. Therefore, some men falsely believe that they are women
P5. A delusion is a false belief
C3. Thererefore, some men have delusions that they are women
This is a point I touched on earlier. The average person tends to be uncultured, dumb, basically borderline deficient, and so much more. To these people, anything intelligent, emotional, or refined—despite actually being above them—their decrepit minds have to consider it as being beneath them so as to function "normally." Ergo, they consider anything that isn't lowbrow, primal, and animalistic (violent or destructive ie. demolition derbies, MMA fights, etc.) as "weird" or "not normal" or "non-masculine" ie. "feminine."
And the people in charge—who actually enjoy all of the refined things—simply say "Yeah, sure. Whatever you say." Because dumb people are easily controlled by dumb things. They'd rather the average person never pick up a book or question their life choices; it makes for better more compliant slaves. If you don't know you're a fly in a bottle, you'll never attempt to escape from it. From cradle to grave under a blanket of ignorance and self-delusion. People complain when the ruling class get richer or burden the working class with an unpopular change in policy, then they go watch football or an MMA match and forget about it an hour later until the next manufactured social issue is selected.
And the thing is, they're truly happier this way. The people in charge are—at the end of the day—giving the people what they want, happiness. Despite the cost behind it. Thinking hurts for them. Or at least cultured things are mind-numbingly boring. The average layperson's mind simply isn't equipped (or at least isn't wired) to process or understand the finer things in life we enjoy so naturally, so they'll call it "girly" or "feminine" (by which they mean "beneath them", again despite it being clearly the opposite) so as to maintain their ego and sense of purpose. Part hedonistic treadmill, part "the mind will believe anything if it makes it happy" ie. psychological homeostasis.
So, yeah. A great many people refer to people with intelligence, who like intelligent things over low brow activities are first, statistically "odd" or "uncommon", which the ego of the layperson of course assumes themself to be the perfect "man" (or "woman"), therefore, it would only logically follow, that makes this "uncommon" mind "feminine", since they don't like the things they do. Basically, someone's wrong or missing out on life. "Is it me? Nah, it must be that other guy. He's just weird/feminine." This is how the ego and average mind works. Is it logical? Just ask them. To them, it's no different than 2 + 2 = 4.
A person's identity is not produced by their ovaries or their testes but by their brains.
All your perceptions, all your interpretations, all your emotions, all your thought processing, happens in the brain.
What you seem to be insisting on is that the brain must match the body. If you have any kind of evidence for this, please present your source.
What is a brain that doesn't match the body? How would it even function?
Again, per my above post, this has turned into a discussion about conformity to social norms, which inherently vary from culture to culture and society to society. Maybe there's some remote island village somewhere where men are enslaved by women and as a result men are "shy, reserved" or otherwise retain their childhood mannerisms (this is in reality what people actually refer to when they refer to "femininity" despite believing otherwise) whereas the women are brutish, crude, and abusive.
This makes discussing social norms and conformity to said social norms quite trivial. I cannot for the life of me imagine "a [functioning] brain that doesn't match the body?" What would that even mean? Now, as I said, it's possible more biological males (or females) in a given time, place, society, or culture are all similar. This is normally how it is. And those that aren't, are simply atypical. The problem is, as social creatures with a powerful often deadly need to conform, we assume if something is "atypical" it has to have a negative social context. Because different people who make different choices tend to make us question our own life choices. And the mind likes to be correct. So we'll discount the other person as "odd", which is true in the sense of regularity, but is actually a one-dimensional and superficial judgement that speaks volumes about the person judging and nothing about the person being judged. But we'll gladly think the opposite and sleep soundly at night all the same.
I have fully explained it up-thread, and it's my guess that it's not a lack of understanding that is blocking you, but rather a lack of acceptance.
With respect to "male" and "female" brains, the notion is that most biological men have a broadly similar brain structure, that most biological women have a broadly similar brain structure, and that the brain structure of the typical biological man is dissimilar in notable ways to the brain structure of the typical biological woman. So we can putatively determine someone's biological sex with a high probability by examining their brain structure, hence a so-called "male" or "female" brain.
The claim then is that transgender women have a brain structure more similar to the typical biological woman than to the typical biological man, and that transgender men have a brain structure more similar to the typical biological man than to the typical biological woman, hence transgender women having a "female" brain and transgender men having a "male" brain.
Although as referenced in a few articles above, there are studies that suggest that the transgender person's brain structure is dissimilar to both the typical "male" brain and the typical "female" brain.
Unless you prove that everyone who uses the phrase in a way different than you feel its to be read is an idiot or dishonest, this in no way proves the sentence isn't ambiguous.
Quoting Michael
I'm not going to answer anymore if you just repost the same point.
Quoting Michael
Again, if those studies did not take sexual orientation into account, the study isn't valid as it is known that homosexual brains have some similarities with female brains. Finally, even though I feel this current understanding benefits my point, I also acknowledge that the brain science across the board is very much in flux and debatable. To my point though, you would need to eliminate the sexual orientation variable for it to be a worth while citation.
If you're not going to clarify a legitimate request for clarification, I'm not going to try to guess what you're saying. I've done that before in conversations and it never works out well for either party. Please continue to contribute to the discussion but I will bow out where it seems unclear.
What part of this do you not understand:
[i]but insofar as transgender persons are concerned it is more accurately referred to as their identity.
And what determines identity? The mind/brain.
So - we need to consider fetal development. During the first trimester of pregnancy, the body differentiates (testes or ovaries) under the influence of genes. And then, in a completely different process, under the influence of genes and hormones, during the 3rd trimester, the brain differentiates to a male or a female brain.
In most cases, the two processes are coincident, and a cisgender person is born. The development of their brain and their body are in the same sex.
But, sometimes, the two processes do not result in the same sex. So, a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born.[/i]
You are misunderstanding me again. I'll try to be even clearer:
P1. Michael says "trans men are men".
C1. Therefore, Michael is saying (and believes) that humans with XX chromosomes who identify as men are humans with XY chromosomes.
Unless there are good reasons to believe that Michael is suffering from something like schizophrenia, it should be common sense to any rational person that C1 is false. Therefore, it should be common sense to any rational person that when Michael says "trans men are men" he does not mean "humans with XX chromosomes who identify as men are humans with XY chromosomes".
You're not an idiot or dishonest if you use the phrase "trans men are men" in a different way to Michael, but you are an idiot or dishonest if you infer C1 from P1 and so believe or assert that C1 is true.
It is literally a self image. There is no such thing as a 'male' or 'female' brain any more than there is 'man' and 'woman' as clear-cut categories. There are typical clusters of things like chemical balance, structure and density - but these varies in-group wildly. There is no binary to this, and we cannot say one has a male or female brain. That is, what I understand TRAs call, biological essentialism - although, that's oxymoronic given they want to rely on this to prove a trans identity (not your problem; just noting).
Quoting Questioner
This is patently an opinion. And one not supported by much of anything. Seeing yourself as trans is a personal opinion of one's situation. The same way phantom limb syndrome causes people's self-ID to cause them serious discomfort about something which does not exist. An extreme example, to be sure, but 'being trans' is not functionally different - nothing can be pointed out that makes someone trans or not other than their report of their feelings about themselves. Puts paid to this argument.
Quoting Michael
It is, though. I need to wade back into this, as I've aptly put it to Banno why this is hte case. Your particular chamber of thought isn't the wider world. In the wider world not only is it ambiguous, there are legal battles trying to sort out its ambiguity. Pretending ths isn't happening is unbecoming of the discussion. It appears to me you've simply taken on a belief about these words (nothing wrong with that) and projected it upon a world which does not conform to it.
This is a particularly bad move to make. Let's look at some other links we can bring up:
Nothing beyond clusters. There are some statistical averages, but this includes more variance within males than females, and a significant overlap between them. There is no clear-cut way to deduce a female or male brain.
More or less reads like a description of Gender but in neurological terms - i.e, not defined particularly well or notable.
Brains are 'mosaics' and do not represent meaningful groups as between male and female.
No difference beyond size (which varies with body size anyhow)
These are some of the biggest, more robust studies of the kind one can find. Its essentially a myth that there are male and female brains. This is pretty much the same logic racist biology.
Quoting Michael
This misunderstands (and as I see it, willfully so) the crux of what's being said. Those people, and they are many, believe that a 'man' can have a vagina. On a biological level. Ask them to explain, and you get abused. That you don't take this line is good. They do. That's what's being discussed. Probably good to remember. You need only look to X, Twitch, TikTok etc.. to find hundreds of thousands of people making this claim in various forms. Here's a piece of the absolute rag, Hypatia, claiming 'trans women' are 'becoming female'. Here some more (this one is particularly self-contradictory.. it rejects a 'male/female' brain dichotomy, but still argues woman is a biological category males can be in.. tsk tsk.
There's plenty more - I don't want to post hoards of people's personal posts but I included hte one Reddit post. You could peruse Reddit and lose your mind over this topic with the utter insanity being peddled - including looking toward womb transplant to complete a 'biological' transition to female from male. Again, if you don't think these are reasonable that's good. But these are views out there, and you simply saying you don't believe us is again, beneath this discusison.
Quoting Michael
This is objectively untrue. That's is why there is debate. You cannot define something using itself. I agree with that you're getting at... trans, definitionally, means the individual is the opposite sex of whatever comes next. But if 'man' is not a sex, then this is meaningless. It would be 'unambiguous' if the phrase were "transfemales are women". I fear this has been entirely missed by both Banno and yourself. It is a particularly ambiguous phrase because its self-referential using a term which should have its definition cleared: that is what Phil tried to do. I happen to agree with his approach, but I'm not stuck to it.
Quoting Michael
This proves, categorically, that you are simply wrong. That explains any absurdity you feel. Your position is not one whcih is open to the realities being discussed here.
Again, you're making a circular assumption.
Because the phrase is not ambiguous, only an idiot or dishonest person would interpret the phrase not in the way you want. Therefore its not ambiguous.
You're being very clear. I can use this, "Only an idiot or dishonest person would interpret the phrase in the way you do Michael," and it would be just as legitimate as your argument. Meaning, not legitimate at all. I'm done. You're just expressing the same thing again and again without addressing the arguments that the phrase is ambiguous. You assume it is not and declare it is not. That's not a discussion, that's circular preaching.
You absolutely have not. What you have done is put forward a theory which does not work about gender identity. You explain something contingent, and claim it is fundamental. That is clearly wrong. Beyond this, you are relying on idea that one can be born in 'the wrong body'.
I do not think, after 19 pages, that needs treating. Its is utterly absurd and childish to claim one can be born in the wrong body, unless you are a God person and believe God makes mistakes .
100%. Its so odd that htis one topic stymies people's ability to think clearly.
Here are two different claims:
1. Trans men are men
2. Under this Act, it is illegal to refuse entry to men
The phrase "are men" in (1) is unambiguously referring to gender identity, even if the term "men" in (2) is ambiguous (and even if it is referring to biological sex).
In the context of this discussion I have only ever been addressing (1). I don't deny that there are legitimate legal disputes about the meaning of (2).
And it is fallacious to argue that if (2) does not protect trans men then (1) is false, just as it would be fallacious to argue that if (1) is true then (2) protects trans men. Both sides of the political debate are often guilty of such equivocation.
Quoting AmadeusD
I don't think it does. I think you are continuing to equivocate. Here are a few different claims:
1. Men can become women
2. Biological men can become biological women
3. Humans with an active SRY gene can become humans without an active SRY gene
4. Humans born with an active SRY gene can become humans born without an active SRY gene
I doubt any (sane) person believes (4) as that would require time travel and likely introduce a paradox.
Some people may believe that (3) is possible in the future, but almost certainly know that it is beyond our current technology.
Even if "many people" believe (2) as you claim, they almost certainly don't believe (3) or (4), and so the obvious conclusion is that when they use the phrase "biological man" they don't mean "a human [born] with an active SRY gene" (as I believe you mean by the phrase).
It doesn't take much to take a step back and ask ourselves if someone really means what a superficial interpretation of their words would mean to us, or if it's more rational to accept that they probably mean something else.
Finally, we get to the meat of the issue. Two relevant questions that immediately come to mind.
1.) How intimate are you with neuroscience? Could you pick out a male vs. female brain NOT using post-birth indication/life experience (ie. mannerisms, social norms, cues, none of that stuff that develops AFTER a human is born)?
Pardon the morbidity, but, say if you had to examine two deceased babies, and you know for a fact one is male and one is female but you only had the brain to go by, could you really and definitively determine one from the other?
2.) The bold part of your reply shows you make the claim that a "transgender" person can be definitively identified by sonogram early on before birth. This isn't supported by any established, widely-agreed upon science I've heard of. Again, so far, all that science tell us is most males have average brains. This makes it colloquially a "male brain." Most females have average female-typical brains. This makes it, colloquially, a "female brain."
Why do you think just because a brain develops atypically, favoring patterns or structures generally common for the opposite gender, that human being is "transgender"? That's in a word, bollocks; pure quackery. So not really a question. But I need to hear your reasoning specifically what institution or group is propagating such "information" to you. Unless that's your own "original research" (random opinion).
--
There is a clear third option as well.
Perhaps the human brain is simply developing, human evolution is occurring (why would it not, after all?), and the male brain is becoming more refined (about time by God) and is slowly becoming more intelligent, able to recognize and associate more strongly with emotions and empathy (what it means to be human and not an animal), something previously gifted only to the "female brain". This enhanced ability, something the male mind lacks, is erroneously being referred to as "femininity" or "transgender" in a purposeful and widely-orchestrated attempt by the less than evolved (the majority) to retain their dominance at the cost of human evolution by ensuring the superior mind is kept down even before birth.
Sure, that's just a theory. But there's just as much evidence for that as there is for your "born transgender" claim. But it makes sense. Females are less violent, usually (perhaps due to different mental partitioning in regards to emotional capacity ie. a so-called "female" brain structure). Violence is the cause of most suffering, inequality, war, etc. on this Earth. So why would humanity not evolve as a whole to be less violent and more emotionally intelligent (or as the stubborn majority of people holding humanity back would say: "more feminine")? :chin:
Edit: That was more of a spitball, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense. This world is stained by war. Every civilization, every culture, every people, every land. Men didn't have to be intelligent. For crying out loud, they didn't even have to sane. All they had to do was be able to beat someone over the head with anything available, take what that person had, and use it to reproduce. That's what propagated throughout the tens of thousands of years. Junk DNA (not to be crude, but that's using their own vernacular when they refer to "smaller" or "weaker" people, so-called "beta males". So. That's in their own words). Intelligence clearly won, despite how its mocked so cruelly to this day. Are we not using smartphones and computers and modern engines or are we using wooden clubs and furs? Game, set, match. Good job, smart people. :cool: But the war is not yet over. No, not by far. :gasp:
The female brain does develop differently from the male brain. This is well established by science, and we see the differences in our own personal experiences. As I posted up-thread:
Male and female brains differ in size, matter ratios (e.g. processing vs. connections), regional volumes, connectivity patterns, circuitry organization, processing styles, neurochemistry and hormonal influence.
fMRI scans can be used to differentiate the activity of a male from a female brain
https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-events/newsroom/new-artificial-intelligence-model-identifies-brain-organization-patterns-women-and-men
Now, there may a spectrum of "how much" but the differences in the aggregate do exist.
Quoting AmadeusD
False. This is your opinion. My position is supported by science, yours is not.
Quoting AmadeusD
Please provide a source of this information.
Oh, dear, then all the following medical associations are absurd and childish, since they have all put our statements firmly in favour of gender-affirming treatment, including clinical care -
Click on this link - MEDICAL ORGANIZATION STATEMENTS - to go a page where you can click on any in the list below to read their statement -
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Academy of Dermatology
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Nursing
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Physician Assistants
American College Health Association
American College of Nurse-Midwives
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American College of Physicians
American Counseling Association
American Heart Association
American Medical Association
American Medical Student Association
American Nurses Association
American Osteopathic Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Public Health Association
American Society of Plastic Surgeons
Endocrine Society
Federation of Pediatric Organizations
GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality
National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health
National Association of Social Workers
National Commission on Correctional Health Care
Pediatric Endocrine Society
Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
World Medical Association
World Professional Association for Transgender Health
yes, it can be done with fMRI - scans of brain activity
https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-events/newsroom/new-artificial-intelligence-model-identifies-brain-organization-patterns-women-and-men
Quoting Outlander
I made no such claim.
Quoting Outlander
I don't appreciate the condescension.
Quoting Outlander
have you ever talked to a transgender person in your life?
Grifters who'd perform unneeded surgery on their own mother for the chance to get even one extra dime out of the bottomless money well that is insurance. Grifters all of them. :cool:
Seriously, though. Does money not make the world go 'round? Or do we do what's right simply for its own sake to the point of starvation? Tell me you know enough about your own nature as a human being to answer at least that.
Ok, in principle I believe that. I don't like the AI link. There's no reason it had to take "AI" to reach that conclusion. I'm not saying it doesn't take automated computer processing, but that's a basic "find the similarities" process inherently similar to the grade school matching game kids solve. They had that tech in the 90s.
Literally no reason for AI to have been involved. So now I'm suspicious if that's the only link you have. Again, I'm sure there are patterns that are more or less (if not more-so than not) accurate. But I haven't read anything in the article that suggests it's 100% accurate and no outlying "configurations" are possible. And need I remind you... what was the first step in evolution but a "odd outlying configuration." Ah, yes see we get to the root of the issue back to the theory I proposed.
Assuming you believe in all that, what if the first fish that crawled out from the water never made it to land to evolve because some fish doctors and all of fish society said "oh you're a transfish, sorry. We're going to bully you and treat you different until you take mind-altering medication and surgically alter yourself until we accept you (we won't even then, but whatever, It'll be fun to watch). That's basically, at least you haven't proven otherwise, what's happening in 2025. Crabs in a bucket mentality of low IQ people. We refuse to let one another succeed, so we drag not only ourselves but all of humanity down in the process of our insipid and backwards worship of our frail egos. I said it before, I'll say it again: that's why man must be ruled by a superior force. Call that "governed" if it satiates your ego.
Quoting Questioner
Ok, so here is why I see other people taking issue with your manner of replying. Let me illustrate.
Quoting Questioner
I don't see how you can say the above sentence and then reject the idea of ultrasound imagery immediately after. You know what an ultrasound is, yes? (I said sonography previously, which is the larger field)
I did a Google search using a specific phrase from your post.
You're one of "those" people aren't you. Yes, that's quite alright. We all have to make a living somehow. Truth is old-fashioned when it comes to a paycheck. Guess that means this place is getting popular. Good. That's good.
Quoting Questioner
What, that you might be incorrect? You must be new here. That's basically the only reasonable inference one could forcibly strain from a question. Note I did not make it a "have you stopped beating your wife" false premise question since I left the secondary option (original research/own opinion) for you to answer as well. Which you did not. You're either hearing this from an organization, one I would like to know the name of, so perhaps as to verify, or this is your original research or opinion. What in Heaven's name could be so condescending about a simple desire to verify the truth? :chin:
Quoting Questioner
That's hard to answer since you cannot seem to offer a solid fixed definition of what a "transgender" person is. First you say the process occurs and finalizes in the womb, then you say it can't be detected in the womb (which seems to imply the "transgender" baby has some sort of superpower that blocks ultrasound from observing it). Then, there's the simple definition of anyone (even just for fun or a dare) who chooses to surgically alter themself to "become" like the opposite gender. So between that widely cast net, I'd say it's likely.
But more than that. I've watched, read, and yea even studied the words, remarks, stories, but above all resulting actions and consequences of those who identify as such. In 90% of the cases the person felt "confused", was often bullied (ostracized) for not fitting in, then after cocktails of mind-altering drugs, anesthesia, pain meds (hint hint) and surgery (coincidentally right after that begins avoiding that circle of toxic people that led them to the initial state of "confusion") magically feels better. For a short period. Then whatever underlying issue was really going on tends to resurface. It's a cruel thing to watch. And it's all for money. It's a racket. And once you see it for what it is you'll have no wonder why the fate of the world must be as it will be.
No. That is clearly false. It is obvious in 99.99% of cases with a mere glance whether someone is a man or woman. How they think is irrelevant in modern society.
What do you mean by match the body? It would function perfectly well surely?
Wow. This philosophy is strange, to say the least.
Transgender people are not evolving fish.
Medical practitioners do not go to the transgender persons, the transgender persons go to them.
Medical practitioners are not the ones bullying or mistreating them, that would be a community that withholds support.
Quoting Outlander
You think transgender persons seek treatment, and others support them, to take you down? Because they are low IQ?
Quoting Outlander
When a transgender person seeks treatment, I really don’t think this is what is about. It is not about you, but them. I think when we take care of all our marginalized groups, that rather lifts society up.
Quoting Outlander
Never entered my mind. The meaning of what I wrote is simply this: transgender persons are born that way. I never said anything about detection. That would be absurd.
Quoting Outlander
I don't know what you're talking about, but it sounds like you're being condescending again. I'm just an old retired pensioner living in Canada. Is it not within your frame of reference to think my motivation is merely empathy for a much-maligned and misunderstood group?
But if there is a way to make money by posting on this forum, please share it with the group!
Quoting Outlander
No, when you insinuated that my ideas were not my own.
Quoting Outlander
That's not what I commented on and you know it.
Quoting Outlander
They know who they are and they will let you know. You don't need me for that.
I read a wonderful memoir once about a transgender person who had undergone transition and in the most poetic terms they describe the euphoria they felt once they were in the "right" body.
Let me put it this way:
To all cisgender men: suppose you are exactly who you are, all the same perceptions, motivations, interpretations, inclinations, thought processes, emotions, etc, but you had a vagina. How would that affect your psychology?
To all cisgender women: suppose you are exactly who you are, all the same perceptions, motivations, interpretations, inclinations, thought processes, emotions, etc, but you had a penis. How would that affect your psychology?
Quoting Outlander
Do you believe heart surgeons should get paid?
(I'm trying to avoid making that old joke about men doing most of their thinking with the smaller of their heads, but, anyway...)
If you are alone in a room, away from society, are you still you? Does a man live in his head, or in his testicles? The brain is the seat of our identity, and our self-image.
Its why I keep seeing it as a secular religion. I grew up Christian and broke away on my own as I started questioning. I know the patterns of thought, avoidance, and behavior that come when you ask questions that violate the tenants of a religion. Otherwise intelligent people will double down on the weirdest and most logically deficient points if accepting it possibly threatens a core belief system. Its the same thing all over again here. I appreciate your accurate responses to the subject. Again, it doesn't mean you have to agree with me going forward, its just nice to see someone who isn't being weird about it.
Well, no. Rather,
Quoting Banno
And sure,
Quoting I like sushi
But to carry Philosophim's point what is needed is that one ought not talk about apple devices being sweet.
What is salient is that we can talk about apple devices being sweet, and trans women being women.
Banno doesn't agree.
Quoting AmadeusD
What twaddle.
The specific sense of "adult male of the human race" (distinguished from a woman or boy) is by late Old English (c. 1000). Before that it referred to either sex. The phrase man as “sexed male” is just one sense of a polysemous word. Privileging a modern biological sense as a universal truth is arbitrary; it’s just one of several legitimate senses.
But apparently now one sense can be considered the default without privileging it. :lol:
What a radical idea! That can't be right...
A thread about trans people being about trans people...
:wink:
Loved your reply to @Outlander.
Thank you! that means a lot
Again, you refuse to define (and maintain a constant definition of) "transgender people". I already caught you in one backtrack you won't own up to.
You said "transgenders are born". Which due to the existence of ultrasounds that can detect even the smallest abnormalities of the brain, means "transgenderism" should be able to be "detected" early on in the womb, which no reputable science supports. Instead of admitting you were wrong, or meeting halfway and saying "I don't know, that's just what I'm parroting, perhaps I made a mistake" you arrogantly pretended like you weren't painted into a corner, trying to shift focus onto something else hoping people wouldn't notice, as if we're all stupid or something. That's offensive. All that little move did is expose the illogical nature of your argument and possibly more about your character (or agenda or purpose here).
Quoting Questioner
You said, and I quote:
Quoting Questioner
Then, when I asked if you could tell the difference between a "male brain" and a "female brain", specifically around the time a human being is born, you said:
Quoting Questioner
So which is it? Either you can "detect" whether or not a male body is allegedly paired with a "female" brain (and vice versa) or no such specific pairing occurs in the womb at all.
(Not to mention actual science that confirms the human brain isn't done developing at all until around the age of 25 or later!)
So yes, you in fact made an unfounded scientific claim not backed by reputable science. Your best bet if you want to keep going is to pull a casual "oh I didn't mean to" or maybe suggest that English isn't your first language or something. Because your wording was clear as day. You can't keep doubling down without a cop-out at this point, not without harming your own case. Which might be well-intended but nevertheless has failed to remain logically consistent. Think about it.
I'm in a good mood tonight, don't take it personally. I worry we're getting a bit off topic from the OP's stated premise. But this is not a place where you can remain logically inconsistent without being called out for it. You need to understand that.
I wouldn't debate too hard with Questioner. I get the feeling English is a second language, and they're unwilling to clarify their posts if you ask. You both could be going back and forth for a long time without any progress either way.
I'm feeling like this topic has also hit what it needed to and there doesn't seem to be much else to explore. I'll probably post another topic later this week that's going to explore another aspect of this.
Hehe. Ok Banno. You are simply not engaging with anything put to you, as is your right. I'll resile.
Suffice to say my repsonses so far are apt to respond to this reply also. If you wish to leave it there, that's fine. Your rejection of that which I tell you is actual, and provide evidence for, is bizarre.
Quoting Michael
This makes it pretty clear you do not understand the phrases being used in the way I do (or plenty of other people). The debate is over. You are wrong. These phrases are ambiguous. You just wnat everything to think of them what you do. Which is natural.
Quoting Questioner
It is not, as I provided ample evidence for. It is a myth which exists only in the minds of those who require it to support otherwise nonsensical points of view.
Quoting Questioner
My claims is in the negative. The onus is not on me.
Quoting Questioner
It literally is not, and I have provided ample evidence for such. Comments above apply.
This has become children yelling at their dad about how they are aeroplanes. I'm out.
It is salient if you are sticking strictly to normativity in the logical sense rather than the epistemological sense. You have just continued to corner yourself in the logical sense.
Quoting Banno
And as we have said, epistemology nomrativity says otherwise. It is not defeasible, but it is more than reasonable to state that we ought to believe "woman in a forest" refers to a female. You understand this perfectly well I imagine; and have stated this elsewhere I think?
Accept that there are epistemic norms just as there are logical norms. Accept that in day-to-day speech we tend to see epistemic norms in use rather than niche cases. It should also be noted that given this has been a hot topic it makes sense to actually state transwoman when referring to a transwoman to avoid confusion (you know, standard understanding so everyone knows what the hell is going on).
If I met someone who was a transwoman tomorrow I would likely mention this to my wife by saying "I met someone today who said, blah blah blah ..." and would likely add in somewhere that they were a transwoman, just like I would add in any other unique distinction, such as 'guide dog,' 'one eye' or 'wearing a clown outfit'. There is a chance I would not mention any other points as the content of the discussion we had may have been the priority rather than just idle chitchat and saying what I did in the day and who I talked to.
The politics and personal take is likely raising your hackles and clouding your judgement.
Quoting Banno
Yes. One ought not (in a normative epistemic sense) talk about apple devices being sweet if we are referring to how they taste rather than stating you like the device. This is basic stuff.
If philosophim is stating that when we hear 'woman' we ought to assume 'female' he is epistemically correct. It is defeasible, but that is not the point. If 'woman' is being used in a technical setting then the use of the term requires careful delineation as speech can become confusing. In a technical setting it goes that when referring to a transwoman we should say transwoman to more easily distinguish between how 'woman' can be used. In such cases 'cis' and 'trans' would be ideal.
Anyway, back to work ... :)
That was not the whole of what I had to say. You might address the remainder.
You have a very pre determined way of looking at the self. What do you deem to be your identity and where did it come from?
Sitting in a room alone you still are a product of every interaction you have had with others and the world and the history of thought. You aren’t an empty vessel that has a woman’s or a man’s brain.
I'm not sure I understand the meaning of the word "pre-determined" in this context. Your identity is produced by all the thought processes of the brain - producing the "self" - it all adds up to not only how you define yourself as a person, but all our experiences. Consciousness is a product of the brain.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
Again - I am unsure about the introduction of the term "empty vessel" into this discussion. if you have a brain, you are not an empty vessel. Yes, interactions affect us, but not in and of themselves - only in the way that the brain processes them.
That's funny, when it was you two who were confused by a simple post.
I'm born-and-raised in Canada.
Quoting Philosophim
I asked you if you had any questions and you didn't reply.
Yep, I told you I was. That was right as you said, "You've misunderstood what I said." I could tell at that point you weren't here to discuss, you were here to argue.
Quoting Questioner
I'm not sure how clear I can be by asking you to take a second look at your post and try to clarify your intentions. It was littered with unclear points and seeming contradictions. I was giving genuine feedback and a genuine person would have gone back, reviewed, and tried to clarify. I clarify what I mean all the time when asked genuinely because I understand the difficulty communicating through the internet and I'm trying to discuss, not argue. Not that I always succeed, but I do try. Your instant dismissal on genuine appeal meant that a discussion was impossible with you from that moment forward.
Quoting Philosophim
These two accusations contradict one another. Which one was it?
Quoting Philosophim
No, it wasn't.
Anyway, please share with me now and I will try to make it more understandable.
Female brains think like females. Male brains think like males. A bloke with a female brain will think he’s female. It’s predetermined.
Unless I’ve misunderstood your point.
Well the brain structure seems to determine how someone perceives themselves. If I have understood your point.
I'm not sure I would use the word "pre-determined" when talking about brain development. But, it may be said that brain development is influenced by genes and the hormonal environment (which may vary from mother to mother) in the uterus, if that is what you mean. To suggest development is "pre-determined" is to say that once the sperm fertilizes the egg, exactly how the brain develops is determined, and I don't think that is the case.
By birth, however, the brain has differentiated to either a male or female brain, in most cases.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
Yes, definitely. Our brains maintain a "mental construct" of ourselves. Research even shows that thoughts about oneself are processed differently than other thoughts - they are given priority. It's called a self-reference effect, "in which information related to oneself is privileged and more salient in our thoughts."
Landmark research first published in 2021 revealed how one particular brain region helps "to knit together memories of the present and future self," and:
When people sustain an injury to this area, it leads to an impaired sense of identity. The region—called the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC)—may produce a fundamental model of oneself and place it in mental time. When the region does so, this study suggests, it may be the source of our sense of self.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-our-brain-preserves-our-sense-of-self/
The claim is that there is a distinction between sex and gender and that the English words "man" and "woman" are polysemic, referring either to sex or to gender.
We can make this explicit with:
man[sub]1[/sub] = male sex
man[sub]2[/sub] = male gender
woman[sub]1[/sub] = female sex
woman[sub]2[/sub] = female gender
Now if someone says "trans men are men" then which of these do you think they could mean?
1. trans men are men[sub]1[/sub]
2. trans men are men[sub]2[/sub]
Given that the sentence starts with "trans men" rather than "cis men" then it is obvious that they mean (2). So it's not ambiguous.
And then perhaps you want to know what "trans man" means? Well, it could mean one of these:
3. women[sub]1[/sub] who identify as men[sub]1[/sub]
4. women[sub]1[/sub] who identify as men[sub]2[/sub]
(3) would be referring to someone hallucinating genitals that don't exist or being delusional about one's chromosomes, etc., and so is limited to those with legitimate psychosis. The ordinary meaning of "trans man" is obviously (4).
So the common sense interpretation of "trans men are men" is "women[sub]1[/sub] who identify as men[sub]2[/sub] are men[sub]2[/sub]".
But let's say that some Act of Parliament says "it is illegal to refuse entry to men". Which of these do you think the Act could mean?
5. it is illegal to refuse entry to men[sub]1[/sub]
6. it is illegal to refuse entry to men[sub]2[/sub]
It's not obvious which of (5) and (6) is the proper interpretation of the law, and requires some court to rule on the matter.
And it's important to note that the answer to this question has no bearing on the truth of (2). The UK Supreme Court made a point to recognize this in the ruling you alluded to earlier, saying "it is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word 'woman' other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010".
Now it may be that you just don't know what "male gender" means as distinct from "male sex", but that's a separate issue – and not an issue for Philosophim as he has accepted this distinction.
Take the following claim:
1. Trans men are men and so ought be allowed to use men's facilities
Given the four distinct terms defined in the previous post, and the proper interpretation of "trans men are men", how is this to be understood?
2. women[sub]1[/sub] who identify as men[sub]2[/sub] are men[sub]2[/sub] and so ought be allowed to use men[sub]2[/sub]'s facilities
3. women[sub]1[/sub] who identify as men[sub]2[/sub] are men[sub]2[/sub] and so ought be allowed to use men[sub]1[/sub]'s facilities
These each depend on an implicit premise:
2a. All men[sub]2[/sub] ought be allowed to use men[sub]2[/sub]'s facilities
3a. All men[sub]2[/sub] ought be allowed to use men[sub]1[/sub]'s facilities
Even if (1) means (2) and even if (2a) is true the counterargument is that there is no such thing as men[sub]2[/sub]'s facilities, and so (1) is moot.
And if (1) means (3) then the counterargument is that (3a) is false.
So the political question is: should men's facilities be men[sub]1[/sub]'s facilities or men[sub]2[/sub]'s facilities?
This is admirably clear, but do you really believe it?
The activist means something like, "This human being who says that he is a man should be viewed by all as a man, both as regards sex and gender." And in a dialogical sense what tends to happen is a motte-and-bailey fallacy, where the bailey encroaches upon sex and the motte retreats back to gender.
The underlying point is that your binary framing is inadequate. The traditional logic does not see a clean separation between sex and gender, and the logical telos of the activist also denies a clean distinction between sex and gender. The nominalistic logic of the trans movement has to do with the power of self-identification. It is the idea, "If I say I am X, then I am X." There is no intrinsic reason why that ideology would stop at "gender" and fail to go on to "sex." Indeed, we are already beginning to see this, and it will become ever more prevalent in those circles. The logic is not, "Gender is subjective and sex is objective," but rather, "Self-identification reigns." It is the outgrowth of an autonomy ethic, where one is sovereign over things which have traditionally been seen as objective or unrelated to one's will - particularly those things which bear on one's social life.
To take a simple case, if you were right then sports which obviously make distinctions based on sex and not on "gender" (such as weightlifting) would have encountered no problems with people of the oppose sex competing in those sports. If you were right and, "Transwomen are women," only meant that biological men are feminine (or woman-gendered), then there would be no biological men competing in women's sports, particularly those such as weightlifting, boxing, MMA, etc. But that's not true at all. Heck, if what you say were true then the most grievous problems would not even exist.
Well I certainly don't think that anyone who says "trans men are men" means to say "anyone who self-identifies as a man has XY chromosomes and a penis".
(Also consider the fact that "trans women/men" generally prefer to leave out the 'trans' modifier and simply call themselves a woman/man, thus allowing the sexual component to operate.)
Yes, I alluded to this in that second post above.
Given these terms:
man[sub]1[/sub] = male sex
man[sub]2[/sub] = male gender
woman[sub]1[/sub] = female sex
woman[sub]2[/sub] = female gender
It is perfectly consistent to accept that all of these are true:
1. Men[sub]1[/sub] who identify as women[sub]2[/sub] are women[sub]2[/sub]
2. Men[sub]1[/sub] ought not compete in women[sub]1[/sub]'s sports
3. All women's sports is women[sub]1[/sub]'s sports, not women[sub]2[/sub]'s sports
4. Therefore, those women[sub]2[/sub] who are men[sub]1[/sub] ought not compete in women's sports
The political dispute concerns (3). Should women's sports be women[sub]1[/sub]'s sports or women[sub]2[/sub]'s sports?
This is like saying, "We were never sure whether men's sports like wrestling/boxing/MMA excluded biological females or gendered females." That position seems disingenuous. Everyone knew that these separations were made on the basis of biological factors.
Sure, but the question is: should we continue with this historical separation, or ought our modern society introduce a new separation based instead on gender?
If you want to be propositional about it then your rational error lies in this:
(2) is false; therefore (1) is false (modus tollens).
(2) doesn't follow from (1)?
This is exactly what it boils down to.
For sports and female exclusive spaces the answer is keep it exactly as it is. Complete separation. No men2 anywhere near women1 sports or exclusive places.
For the rest, gender is irrelevant.
Quoting Michael
Here are some of the tacit steps:
[*] 2. "Transwomen are women" does not mean that biological males who identify as women are biological females
[*] 3. If
[*] 4. Therefore, those who claim "transwomen are women" do not thereby favor biological men competing in sports that are restricted to biological females (especially sports such as wrestling, boxing, MMA, etc.)
[*] (Reductio ad absurdum)
[/list]
I don't quite understand what (3) means, but it doesn't seem to follow from (1). So even if (3) and (4) are false, it is still the case that (1) is true.
It is a premise. (2) follows from (1) with another tacit premise; (4) follows from (2) and (3). I will add an edit to make this clear.
It looks like your justification for (3) is this argument:
P1. Those who say that trans women are women say that because of this trans women ought be allowed to compete in women's sports
P2. Women's sports is restricted to biological women
C1. Therefore, those who say that trans women are women say that because of this trans women ought be allowed to compete in sports restricted to biological women
If so, this analogy should show the fallacy you're committing:
P1. John says that he wants to date Jane
P2. Jane is a married woman
C1. Therefore, John says that he wants to date a married woman
C1 doesn't follow because it's possible that John doesn't believe that Jane is a married woman (and even if he does it's not what he said). You can't just substitute terms in this way.
With respect to trans women in women's sports, it's not that they favour biological males competing in sports restricted to biological women but that they favour women's sports not being restricted to biological women.
And as for your conclusion that "'transwomen are women' means that biological males who identify as women are biological females", once again nobody who says "trans women are women" is saying "biological males who identify as women have XX chromosomes, a womb, and a vagina". To suggest otherwise is to equivocate.
if I may, I'd like to comment on this. I am guessing that "P" stands for proposition, and "C" conclusion"?
Well, it seems P1 includes a conclusion?
I don't agree that people who say trans women are women do so because they ought to be allowed in women's sports. I am not sure that anyone has the reasoning listed?
I've no idea wha that means.
The rest of your post has already been dealt with.
It looks as though you are retreating back to a defense you had already (wisely) , namely the defense that says, "Ah, but none of these people knew that men's boxing excluded women on the basis of biology." Again, such a position is so implausible as to appear disingenuous. You are trying to claim that John's not knowing that Jane is married is the same as the trans activist not knowing that women's boxing excluded men on the basis of biology. :yikes:
We could draw out other absurd consequences of your view. You apparently think that, as with John, if you were to explain the situation to the trans activist then their course of action would alter. You apparently think that if you explained to the trans activist that women's boxing excludes men on the basis of biology, then they would change their views; or that if you explained to the trans activist that:
Quoting Leontiskos
...then they would stop using that phrase in connection with these sports issues or other sex-based issues. The fact of the matter is that the trans activist does not care a whit about your quibbles. Nothing they do is based on some principled difference between sex and gender, where they seek to alter norms based on gender but leave intact norms based on sex. I think you know this.
Quoting Michael
This is yet another quibble, a distinction without a difference. Trans activists want biological men and biological women to compete in the same sports leagues, even when it comes to sports like boxing. They want them to share the same restrooms, the same shelters, the same locker rooms, etc. All of this points to the same issue: your convenient construal of, "Trans men are men," is surely false. As I said in , their claim has little to do with gender. It is a claim about the inclusion of identifying individuals into the sphere with which they identify. Sex divisions in sports is just one impediment to that program of the sovereignty of self-identity. You misrepresent their position when you claim that they are speaking to gender but not sex, as if they were uninterested in changing norms around sex.
Coming back to the original post:
Quoting Leontiskos
Quoting Michael
Lots of people who say "transmen are men" think transmen should be provided with penises by the government, and they probably also think that transmen "deserve" XY chromosomes, even though they realize that such a thing is not (yet) possible. These are the sorts of facts that your skewing of the issue manages to ignore.
@Michael was engaged in a (mild) strawman. The underlying question has to do with the meaning of a phrase like, "Transmen are men." See on the matter.
Like here:
Quoting Banno
You are taking normative logical priority over normative epistemology.
Maybe now we can get into the nuts and bolts of philosophical discourse! :smile:
1- Logic should not prioritise itself above epistemology in a logical normative sense.
2- Epistemology should prioritise itself over logic in an epistemic normative sense.
No. I am saying they are both valid.
We can, not we ought.
Of course, the epistemic and logical use of 'ought' are both valid. We can use either.
You have essentially restated (1):
Quoting I like sushi
You are being very slippery here ;)
We use one in one situation and another in another?
A red apple is an apple. Logical ought says true. Epistemic ought says we should think so even though it may not be the kind of apple we are thinking of; therefore, true.
What are your thought about statement (2)?
I haven't abandoned anything. I am explaining that you are misrepresenting your opponents' beliefs.
These are different arguments:
1. a) only those whose sex is female ought be allowed to compete in women's sports, b) trans women ought be allowed to compete in women's sports, therefore c) trans women are biological men whose sex is female.
2. a) all those whose gender is female ought be allowed to compete in women's sports, b) trans women are biological men whose gender is female, therefore c) trans women ought be allowed to compete in women's sports.
You are arguing that because (1a) is true and because these people believe (1b) then these people believe (1c), but this is the intensional fallacy. They don't believe (1a) or (1c); they believe (2a) and (2b) — which is why they believe (2c).
Quoting Leontiskos
These are different claims:
1. Biological women who identify as men have XY chromosomes, testes, a penis, etc.
2. Biological women who identify as men ought be provided with state-funded gender-affirming surgery.
Even if many people believe (2) it does not follow that these people believe (1). Again, you are equivocating. Anyone who says "trans men are men" understands that these trans men have XX chromosomes, a womb, and (except those that have had surgery) female genitalia, hence why they used the term "trans men".
So the phrase "trans men are men" obviously means "the gender of trans men is male", not "the sex of trans men is male".
So trans men are female is a fair statement? So some men are female.
Which is fine if everyone is happy with using the term men to include female No issue at all (although I disagree with it and think it is ludicrous and misogynist)
The crux is should women's spaces and sports be for female's only. For sport it is incredibly unfair and sometimes dangerous to include males. For exclusive places there are very sound reasons why they should remain female only.
The rest of the issue regarding gender is getting less and less relevant the more roles of women in society changes. There is not a job they are excluded from, there are no clothes they have to wear etc etc etc.
In order to carry the case that "trans women are women" is always false, Phim has show that we ought not say "trans women are women" is true. But it's been shown that there are cases were we can say "trans women are women" is true.
In order to carry his OP, Phim has to show it is false in every case. it isn't. The OP is mistaken.
This is not true. You do not need to show something to be false in every case for it to be epistemically true.
Why can you not grasp this simple fact?
:rofl:
Ok.
Are you talking about subjective knowledge and subjective truth?
Epistemic norms are not the same as logical norms in terms of truth value. I have been pointing out , for god knows how long, that Banno is constantly favouring logical normativity over epistemic normatively--which outside the confines of techincal dialogue is basically a faulty approach.
Just like 200 years ago if you said 'doctor' you ought to assume 'male doctor' not 'female doctor' because the epistemic weight backs this up. To say we ought not assume 'doctor' means 'male doctor' is a logical normative approach not an epistemic normative use of 'ought'.
NOTE: This is not my opinion. If Banno think I am making no sense that is something he will have to overcome. Honestly I just think he is trolling now, as I assume the laughing face means 'haha!' you tookt he bait, or 'haha' you're wrong. If it is the later then he can engage is a serious metaphilosophical debate if he wishes.
There actually is something interesting to get into here if you are willing. There is literally no need to use tranwomen as an example if that is too sensitive a subject for you?
So:
Quoting I like sushi
Do you understand what I am pointing to here? I am looking at what I guess could be called a meta-normative problem here.
The word "Trans" represents that whatever follows after it, is not real.
transcription
transpositional
transnational
transatlantic
transportation
transplant
transfusion
transaction
And I am sure that are at least a hundred more.
Etymology of Trans-
Quoting Questioner
It just goes to show how misunderstanding and misusing language can lead you to come to total misrepresentation of the objects in the real world.
You need to transcend the linguistic prison at times, if you want to understand the world correctly.
The point here is not simple internet Etymology issue. It is about understanding the world objects, and how the words were matched to the objects. You must first understand the objects, and then analyse the meaning of the words put onto them, not the other way around.
We want to apply philosophical analysis, not internet dictionary here.
bi- and bilingual is the same structure too. So what?
There were no such words as "transmale" or "transfemale" in ancient times. But in modern times there are people who changed their gender, and the word was invented to represent them.
There is no misunderstanding or misuse of the word transgender (except maybe on your behalf.)
By "misrepresentation of objects" - theses objects you speak of - do you mean transgender persons?
"Transgender identity" is vastly overwhelming accepted by the medical community.
Quoting Corvus
I have no idea what this means.
Quoting Corvus
Oh, this gives us a hint. Funny, but I have always thought of language as a pretty good means of expressing meaning. And - "correctly" according to whom?
Quoting Corvus
The people who best understand transgender persons call them transgender.
Quoting Corvus
I'm not sure, possibly you can clarify, but do you have a problem with the world "transgender?"
Of course there were transgenders in ancient time. (They actually called them more poetic names) People living in the opposite gender of the sex that they were born into have existed as long as we have been keeping records. They have discovered 5,000-year old graves containing biologically male skeletons in female dress and female grave goods.
Ever heard of the transgender priestesses of ancient Rome called the Gallae?
Also - you have a profound misconception about the nature of transgenderism. Transgender persons who transition do not "change their gender." They are born with a gender that does not match the body they were born into. They change the body to match the gender.
And if this is being recognized now - why does this disturb you?
I was just explaining on the origin of the word. The word didn't exist. The people who changed their genders started to show up in the society, and then the word was made up and put on to the people.
But the word "trans" implies that whatever follows is not the original. Think of the example word "translate". It is the best example word. Unlike you and sushi claimed, it is not a legitimate etymological word origin.
Whatever you wish. :) But whatever you say and write in public reflect your own integrity and shows up your educational background and mental states to others, hence it is up to you. :D
No you were not:
Quoting Corvus
That is not an explanation of the origin of the word. Neither does it come close to saying the word did not exist before.
Don't just deny it. Back and demonstrate your points with evidence and clear explanations.
Well, the English language as it currently exists didn't exist in ancient times, so it's no surprise that many of the words we use today didn't exist in ancient times.
Quoting Corvus
You should read up on transgender history. Obviously ancient people and ancient languages didn't use the modern English word "transgender", but transgender people have been recognized for thousands of years:
This doesn't seem like institutionalized-ostracism or social eugenics at all to you? Like how small people historically were considered inferior. Same with those who lacked muscle tone (in a warring society, strength was king). Or even the opposite in some rare enclaves of humanity: those that were muscled and hairier were likened to beasts of burden.
Take Ancient Greece for example where they consider male features now thought of in the modern age as "superior" as quite the opposite (this is talking about penis size):
"On the other hand, the larger ones were used to symbolize the idiots, often dominated by an animal lust and a complete lack of restraint. In Greek art, people with large penises were associated with animals that placed libertinism and obscenity above all else."
You don't see some sort of long-running inter-millennial feud between the meek (perhaps average) and the brawny (perhaps exceedingly average, everywhere but in the mind, thus leading the person to want to be worshiped for his size only to become disappointed and violent upon discovering humanity values more than size and physicality)? I do. Quite clearly, really.
Some ethnic groups and otherwise tend to have what can be likened to as "female" features or characteristics in comparison to others, particularly those whose ethnicity tends to retain youthful features.
Some ignorant, larger, muscled, hairier person (from a race of such) might call these youthful looking people "little boys" or "like women", without even intentionally being mean or vindictive. It's just, how they look in comparison. This happens today, friend. You can look it up and walk the streets and see it yourself. People never change, only the year does. And of course, when someone doesn't fit in, they get treated differently, which leads to mental incongruities, inconsistencies, and idiosyncrasies (ie. colloquially "mental illness"), which wholly and adequately explains any deviating or abnormal behavior.
My point is, people just make fun of people who look or act differently, often giving them titles seen as derogatory. I'm not sure if I'd consider the historic vindictiveness of human nature as some sort of "historic evidence" for transgenderism. At least, not one that "advances" any sort of positive cause or mission related to such.
:up:
People seem to affirmatively want language to be as confusing and unclear as possible. Things are in flux. We all get that. Plus the context for things is amorphous and fluctuates too. We all get that too. Flux begets more flux. Including in the language it begets. We get that too.
But in all this flux, we can control our language.
But does anyone really want to clarify our use of words?
———
Sex and gender are complex, taken individually, or as two aspects of a single, whole person. Granted. We need psychology, sociology, biology and philosophy at the very least to sort this out.
I stumbled across an instagram reel of a transwoman analyzing the question “Is it true that transwomen are women?” Her answer was no, and her argument was pretty simple, but interesting.
She asked, “what is the one thing common to all transwomen?” And her answer was “they are all men.”
Then she went on to say “transwomen who say they are women are taking rights and hard earned gains away from actual women” and that the notion of “cis woman” was something used by people to hijack and claim “women” for themselves, and take something away from women.
So I think this needs to be parsed and distinctions between ‘man, woman, trans and cis’ need to be clarified, but the long and short of it seems to be:
Men are males.
Women are females.
Transwomen are something new/distinct, being that transwomen are males who give a female presentation of themselves though they are (or were in the case of surgery) male.
Transmen, a fourth distinction, are females who give a male presentation. (Although she didn’t get into ‘transmen’ in her reel.)
This is at least workable and clarifies the use of the new word “transwomen”. Women’s rights and women are different than men and men’s rights (at least some rights are unique to women - special healthcare, special safe spaces). Neither women nor men should be allowed to infringe on the unique rights and needs of women. AND more importantly to the transwoman’s reel, transwomen should not be allowed to infringe on women’s rights either, because transwomen are not simply women and need their own unique rights.
This all cashes out to me. I agree with the transwoman in the reel. She is not exactly the same as a man or a woman - she is a man who presents like women, or in other words, the new gender called ‘transwoman’.
Things are only made more complicated than that because some transwomen don’t think they will have true equal rights unless they are regarded and treated exactly the same as women - same women’s sports and lockers, etc. According to the transwoman in the reel, this is denying all the work women did to stake out their own rights, and denying the fact that all transwomen are men who present as women; they are not simply “women”.
To cash this out further for sports and locker rooms, and protect rights of privacy and security and fairness among differences, for all, we would need 4 different locker rooms, and another sports league (or for all sports leagues look to biology alone to define eligible members since competition among females called ‘women’s sports’ is one key reason for the whole competition).
All seems logical and practical to me.
We can’t force people not to see the full beard and the penis on the transwoman who (otherwise) presents herself as a woman, just as we can’t see beards and penises in all of the females formerly called by our shared language “women”.
———
One result of this is, the notion of “I identify as x…” needs to be clarified (or tossed out as folly). This goes back to language. If words are to function, we can’t just link new things to old words, and privately redefine words, to thereby think we are redefining the things those words are used to refer to. Is a vagina also a penis? Is ‘XY’ thr same word as ‘XY’ yesterday, or is it now also tautologous with ‘XX’ today?
We don’t get to say “I think woman means ‘Y’ and I think I am ‘Y’ so that means you have to recognize that I am Y.”
Language doesn’t work that way.
So it never should have been a question “are transwomen, women?” The answer has to be no, because people who want to be trans need to be able to identify the gender to transition into, so that gender needs to be something for them to choose. That’s a man or a woman. And then for the person who transitions, in order for it to be a transition from X to Y, the transition is precisely changing what that gender already is to some new thing, namely a new gender needing a new word to speak of it without confusion.
———
So really we should invent a wholly new word (‘transwoman’ or ‘transman’ will do) to mean what transpeople precisely are calling people to recognize, and respect, and that is: “although we are different than males who are men and females who are women, we deserve the exact same human rights and protections.” If transpeople want to be able to communicate about what they want and who they are and what is being done to them by whom and by what, we all need to clarify our language, so we can speak, and actually communicate with understanding - and this begs for us to reject “transwomen are women” as an abuse of women and language, stemming from allowing people to define their own private identities (ie. “I identify as a woman”), as if we all can’t see for ourselves things that we already have identified and named together (like penises and breasts, and chromosomes and motherhood and fatherhood, and masculine men and feminine women, etc….)
In other words, if all along, all words were in flux because all identities are in flux, then the male once thought to be a man who wants to transition would have nothing new to transition to, nor anyway to talk about it whatsoever. So “transwomen are women” actually defeats both “woman” and “transwoman”, by not meaning something clear, and by confusing everything that is observable.
Yes, I agree.
Quoting Michael
It is neither my interest of topic nor my specialties in philosophy, so I don't have much to add on the concept itself. However, it seems words came much later after the existence of objects in the world.
And some words like "transmen" or "transwomen", we first understand what the objects are by listening to other folks talking about them, or reading up what the medias saying about them, and then understand the word. Not the other way around. These words seem also not coming from the Etymological foundation of the most other words. For example - "Artificial Intelligence" - if we try to dissect the word etymologically, we get not too far. That was my point.
Check out the biography of Elagabalus. Or read about the The Galli. Or take a read of Of Gods & Emperors: Trans Experiences in Ancient Rome
:up:
It was basically a transwoman’s argument, so I thought it was worth considering.
I have no qualms about trans identity, it being defined in terms of one's self, because thats the only way gender identity makes sense from my view (as opposed to how one presents for example), and I am not in support of women that do not accept transwomen's experiences, but I can understand ciswomen's concerns about their own identity, their experiences (perhaps girlhood for example, in contrast to a transwoman that may not have experienced childhood as a girl), and, of course, their physiological experiences. I am not the most informed, but isnt menstruation a big component of ciswomen? The ability to carry a baby? I can sympathize with transwomen in the sadness that they may not be able to live these experiences, but does that not simply mean their experience is unique?
As a final question, why does a trans person want to dismiss their trans identity in that way? Is it that transwomen are women, and ciswomen are women, but transwomen are not ciswomen? Perhaps a clarification of that distinction would help me.
> "Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them."
And the "etc" pretty obviously includes a maximal dogmatic presumption that any challenge to left wing orthodoxy on any questions of social issues whatsoever is clearly disallowed, no matter how civil, no matter how educated. That is what this rule as written means and any disagreement with me on that point concerning what this text from the forum's rules in fact says is frankly dishonest, because words mean things.
Which means I may very well get banned for pointing this out:
The trans movement is fundamentally anti-philosophical and dogmatic. Dissent is not tolerated and even attempting to define the boundaries of orthodoxy so as not to stray from them is against the whole spirit of that community because what's valued there is a vibe, not an idea. Criticism is for apologists to dismantle outsiders with nihilism, not to show the movement itself a way forward. There will never be a genuine philosopher for the trans movement unless it grows past this stage early religions always have.
Saying the trans movement is a "cult" is actually intelligent if by "cult" you mean "early stage of a newly emerging religion" in a historical sense and not in the pejorative sense of the 20th century anti-cult movement. "Cult" after all, is the root word of "culture" and the historical root of cultures as well. It remains to be seen whether anyone within the deeply anti-conservative trans community will ever grow the conservative instincts necessary to conserve their own community in the long term, so that they can eventually grow from a cult into a religion and from a religion into a philosophy. (a process that typically takes at least something around 150 years)
Not that I even want this to happen: I just recognize the historical pattern.
But anyway, about the rules of the forum: this raises the question of why the trans question is being allowed at all. You're not allowed to question feminism or the gay movement, but you are allowed to question the trans movement? Why? What possible combination of philosophy and political theory allows for drawing the line at such a completely abitrary place?
As far as I'm concerned, trans is just gay with extra steps. All these movements are a package deal, not meaningful to evaluate separately. And I've thought for years that, while I understand you need to have some rules to maintain some common ground, a philosophy forum which would ban Thomas Aquinas, were he alive today, can't be any good.
The moderators on this forum I feel are usually fair. Is what you're discussing a genuine thing to consider and possibly be wrong about, or is it full of unwarranted presumptions with a clear bent towards an unsavory outcome instead of fostering rational discussion? This was a topic that needed to be discussed and I feel many people got an opportunity to explore it with a rational mindset instead of ideological stand point.
Quoting BenMcLean
As we can find in any religion. But this is a broad stroke against a trans 'movement'. This is an assertion, and if it were to be a topic it would need rational backing beyond that assertion.
Quoting BenMcLean
Because this is a question of linguistics, and not an attack on any individual. I'm simply noting common language, and what is most rational for any English speaker to conclude based on the sentence structure. I am not denying that trans gender people exist, accusing them of being less than others, or insisting that gender does not exist. The question is mostly pointing out that the phrase in ambiguous without further clarification, and the most rational conclusion is to assume 'woman' not modified by any adjective, means 'adult human female'.
There is nothing wrong with addressing aspects of feminism as long as you have a good argument. Same with questioning policies that some gay people might want. The question is, is it an actual rational post, or a rationalization to attack other people? There must be a clearly identified problem, there must be an explanation for why its a problem we should consider, and a solution should be presented that can be discussed rationally without assertion. Most people are not good at this, and their motivation for opening up discussions is not to have a rational discussion, but assert their own bias in a way that rarely involves deep and self-critical thinking.
Quoting BenMcLean
Its not. Trans can be due to trauma, trying to escape a sexist environment, heterosexual inversion (straight men who get sexual and romantic feelings from taking on femininity), and more. To your earlier point, that would be a poor topic lead. Philosophy is not about debating current science, but if the process of science works. Philosophy is not about debating whether trans people are all gay or not, but debating the nature of gender and if it is a reasonable basis for identity. It is about debating the underlying logic they may lead to certain topics, but is not a debate about the topic itself.
This place is not reddit, and as long as people understand what philosophy is supposed to explore, you can dive into any philosophical concept about any topic.
> "Because this is a question of linguistics, and not an attack on any individual. I'm simply noting common language, and what is most rational for any English speaker to conclude based on the sentence structure."
When it comes to gaytrans, language is the battlefield, not held in common at all.
If you go listing your preferred pronouns, then that act is the most definite public signal of your entire political platform that you can make. It guarantees which side you voted for and support in politics 100% of the time. It tells everyone all they need to know without any serious doubt about your stances across the whole slate of public issues, from abortion to zoo subsidies. Even an actual literal Trump hat isn't as clear of a one-sided partisan poltiical signal as that is.
And critically, it doesn't matter at all what the actual pronoun preferences are. Only the fact that you did it alone says everything. (I mean the rhetorical you, not you personally)
How we should use words is itself the critical question. There really isn't any neutral, objective standard of reasonable English to which you can appeal. English is what's on trial. It can't also be the judge.
> "I am not denying that trans gender people exist"
Are you a Catholic?
Do you believe that when the priest says mass over the bread and the wine, that they transubstantiate to become the actual literal body and blood of Jesus Christ?
If you deny that belief in transubstantiation as not being true, then are you attacking Catholics -- or Christ? Because you're certainly denying that the thing they believe in exists.
And for the trans movement, the eqiuvalent of that denial is blasphemy. It should get you ostracized. It should get you fired. It should get you stripped of any public credentials or authority. It should get you banished not just from the public square but from the universe itself.
There's no "separation of church and state" for the trans religion. No "two kingdoms" theory. There's just, ironically, iron clad dogmatic absolutes.
Or at least so far. They'd need to probably have some kind of schism so that they have to deal with significant sectarian problems within their own communities before they'd develop anything approaching liberalism.
That is, if we approach calling transgenderism a religion not as an insult, but as a genuine way of undersatnding their historical development. Which I think is key to comprehending what's even going on with this issue.
> "The question is mostly pointing out that the phrase in ambiguous without further clarification, and the most rational conclusion is to assume 'woman' not modified by any adjective, means 'adult human female'."
That really does entail denying that "trans people" exist. It clearly is saying "trans women" aren't really women: that only adult human females are real women. And that is clearly what the trans movement is explicitly against and has been very vocal about.
> "Trans can be due to trauma,"
Just like homosexuality.
> "trying to escape a sexist environment,"
Just like homosexuality.
> "heterosexual inversion (straight men who get sexual and romantic feelings from taking on femininity),"
This seems to literally be homosexuality? Unless I'm misreading you?
I obviously don't have a degree in gender studies so what I'm saying is not necessarily intended as sarcasm. I really do look at transgenderism as being based on homosexual tendencies that have merely been socialized and politicized under a new branding to manufacture a victim narrative identity, the same way that the "gay" identity was originally manufactured out of homosexual tendencies in the 19th century. (Proudly and openly at the time, I might add, by those who were consciously doing this. They said they were doing this: it wasn't a debate at the time whether this was the case or not)
> "This place is not reddit, and as long as people understand what philosophy is supposed to explore, you can dive into any philosophical concept about any topic."
OK, well, let's hope so, but when I saw that rule, my immediate thought was, "This is totally is Reddit." Reddit is exactly the site I thought of -- that this is just like Reddit, so why aren't these people just using Reddit? But I don't know that it's just like Reddit: I'm only saying that was my thought or suspicion.
More on this; Gabrielle Bychowski has done some interesting research. See Were there Transgender People in the Middle Ages?
'Men' and 'women' regard sexually mature males and females, and changing sex is impossible. A man might appropriate the norms and stereotypes of women, but they are not female.
The ploy of such men is to occupy the social (discursive) position of 'woman' (an exclusively female category), and their central ruse operates through the discursive power of 'cis'. 'Cis renders women into a subcategory of their own sex so that 'transwoman' can be positioned as an equally valid subcategory of 'women'. This has been extended to 'women who are trans' to establish the categorical position. This is an exertion of power against all women and girls.
In formal discourse we hear such things as 'pregnant people' replacing 'women' and 'mothers'. Women don't like it. They don't want men on their teams, in lockers, prisons or on the Giggle for Girls app. Why can't a girl simply say 'no boys allowed' and have girl only things? Under the sexless-but-gendered story, the exclusion of males from female only spaces discriminates against 'women-who-are-trans' (male) and despite explicitly being told 'No', males manipulate social discourse to worm their way in. It is highly coercive behaviour that undermines female consent. If 'woman' doesn;t mean female, then 'No' doesn't mean no.
Most males have a protective instinct toward women and children, but we are neutered by the gendered narrative such that can't handle males-in-female-clothing (though undressed) who trangress female consent.
The men who disrespect female consent have already transgressed that boundary at the level of their own identity, and by affirming the fallacy that TWareW we are saying that it's not OK for women to have female-only spaces because 'women' are not exclusively female. We are saying a woman cannot say 'No' to males (who claim 'woman' identities).
Only men can be TW, and it's a 'No'
The trans ideology has an absurd premise that the word "gender" means what previously would have been understood as only part of gender role -- they posit that gender is just a social role. Never a biological role -- just a social role and that's all. And this is based on the further absurd premise that society is constructed so as to produce these social roles in a way which is arbitrary and elective, not essential or necessary and defintiely not determined even in part by a universal unchanging human nature.
And that assumption that society is arbitrarily constructed and that human nature is not fixed comes from their ideological grounding in Marxism. Marx posited that societies and social roles are products of the class system and that the class system can be changed to produce different societies and social roles. Marx saw social roles as determined, not by a universal unchanging human nature, but by economic determinism, or in other words, by money.
However, because the trans ideology gets its Marxism not directly from Marx but filtered through the heresy of the Frankfurt School, they substitute money for social roles being determined by sexual oppression instead. Still, the reason they were initially open to the idea of social constructionism is ultimately because of their historical / ideological heritage from Marx.
That's why, even though the transgender practices are very obviously a very capitalist product of Big Pharma, to make them reliable customers for life, they can frame this obvious exploitation as liberation, because their worldview says it isn't money that determines social roles: it's social systems of oppresion.
But here's where reality impacts their project:
Gender (or sex, which is in fact synonymous no matter what anyone says) is more than a social role. It's also a biological role. Humans are mammals, designed to send and receive signals concerning the feasibilty of sexual reproduction all day, every day. This is not a product of The Patriarchy bemoaned by feminists: this is either Creation or human evolution or both, depending on which propaganda mill you prefer to shop at.
And when you start engineering signals that intentionally disrupt how the process of sexual selection works for the whole community, then you aren't showing what a wonderfully expressive unique individual you are who sees through the oppressive system. Instead, you screw up and dump interference into the signals everybody else around you is sending all the time.
The most obvious example of this is that men can't be friends anymore, else all the women will assume they're gay, and so won't consider them suitable mates, thus disadvantaging (in sexual selection terms) any men who publicly maintain close male friendships, thus discouraging them from cultivating said friendships. Thus public homoeroticism kills public male friendship at not just a psychological but also at an institutional level. Not because anybody decided there was going to be a formal rule against male friendship in order to persecute gays, and not because they think they might be actively persecuted for being gay, (they won't be) but because you've manipulated and changed the baseline social assumptions about what the sexual signals everyone is sending mean, and in the process, destroyed something very precious and very human.
And that's just public homoeroticism. Transgender takes that effect and only magnifies it tenfold, so that now, overt signals of attraction between the sexes -- the exact kind necessary to carry on the human race at all -- become inherently suspect. Men and women don't know what the hell they're even supposed to be or look for on a visceral level. The new standards and practices this movement advocates don't liberate and support the one different individual and insulate them from xenophobia -- in fact, they jam and disrupt the social/sexual signals for everybody else!
This is a real problem -- not just a religious problem, but a very secular problem -- because it affects birthrates. Not birthrates among gay or transgender people, but across the whole society. The more sexual confusion you dump into the system by making deviant sexual behaviors "loud and proud" in public, the more difficult it becomes to navigate how the hell normal people are supposed to meet up and have babies. And the world is not overpopulated -- that's nonsense. This is killing us.
This is one of the many reasons why sexual deviancy needs to stay marginalized. Not necessarily persecuted, but definitely kept out of the public eye. Sexual norms have a social function which is critical for the long term prosperity and survival of any human community and cannot be modified within certain very narrow guidelines without widespread chaos and destruction in the long term.
In short, the conservatives are right about this.
“Transwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?” isn’t something we can answer by grabbing a biology textbook and pointing at chromosomes. Words like woman and man aren’t fixed labels; their meanings come from how we use them in our lives, in law, in society, in everyday practice. Language isn’t a static system of definitions—it’s a web of practices, habits, and shared understandings.
So when someone says “transwomen are women,” that statement can be perfectly true in ordinary English, in legal contexts, and in social reality, because those uses of the word woman include gender identity and lived experience. To insist it’s false because of some narrow biological criterion is to pretend there’s only one correct meaning, which there isn’t. We can’t just ignore the ways language functions in the real world.
I’m not saying “woman” means whatever anyone wants it to mean. Context matters. Meaning is negotiated, shared, and socially embedded. You can’t pull an abstract definition out of thin air and pretend it’s universally authoritative. The truth of these statements depends on which meaning of woman and man is operative in the conversation you’re having. In some contexts, they’re true; in others, they might not be—but that’s a property of language, not a reflection of some underlying “essence.”
In short: the slogans are true in the contexts where language and social practice treat them as true, and the only reason people think they must be false is because they’re secretly privileging a single, rigid, biological definition without admitting it. Words don’t work that way.
Another thing I do is not make political statements. I'm very apolitical in philosophy and life. I think it distorts actual thought. Politics is often times not about thinking, its about winning. Philosophical discussions should be able to be considered by anyone regardless of political background. They should be just as critical of itself as it should of the topic its pointed at.
Quoting BenMcLean
This is overly political and I see no evidence of this. No offence, but I'm interested in talking about the topic of the OP, and this is veering off.
Quoting BenMcLean
For the purposes of this discussion, gender is not sex. It is the social belief in how a sex should act in society. They really are different.
The rest is really off topic Ben. I mean this friendly, so don't misunderstand. Philosophy is not about griping about people. Its not about 'a group'. Its about universal concepts, about trying to construct a logical framework in whatever subject you're looking at. That takes careful building from basic premises to a conclusion. What you're doing here is taking a lot of things you personally believe about a group of people, then asserting things you believe this leads to. That's an opinion, not philosophy.
If you would like to practice philosophy with me, feel free to read the OP again and make comments about it. I've also written quite a few other philosophical papers and OPs, so you can get a feel for what philosophy is and isn't. Check out a few other posts if you're interested in learning what its about. But avoid the trolls. You know who they are. :)
Actually, it totally is and we totally can do exactly that.
> "Words like woman and man aren’t fixed labels; their meanings come from how we use them in our lives, in law, in society, in everyday practice. Language isn’t a static system of definitions—it’s a web of practices, habits, and shared understandings."
Uh-huh. And this fluid, ever shifting approach then applies directly to words like "child" and "adult" and "consent." We're no doubt supposed to understand these words, not as a static system of definitions, but as a web of practices, habits, etc, so that we can't point at a statute and say, "This person was underage" because words like "underage" can't be understood in such static, rigid terms.
Yes it is but it's political philosophy and it's historically grounded. I am not using "Marxist" as an accusation or insult, but as the real, openly acknowledged political forebear of a modern political coalition.
> "and I see no evidence of this."
I wasn't aware that my pointing out the historical grounding in Marxism of current left wing movements would be factually controversial. I could definitely go do the research necessary to prove this point historically. Not that doing so would prove the movement false or bad, because I never accused them of being Soviets, just ideological Marxists or more precisely post-Marxists.
I'm anti-Communist on theoretical grounds, but I've grown far more open to socialist economics in the past decade. Some of Marx's critiques of capitalism stick! I would not claim that Marx is a barren field devoid of insight!
> "No offence, but I'm interested in talking about the topic of the OP, and this is veering off."
I really don't think one can really get into the substance of the claims of the transgender movement without getting into its anthropology and the historical development of that anthropology.
The movement is very, very overtly political and always has been. It's very situated in a very specific ideological stack, just as surely as the Pope is Catholic.
Words mean things! Or, as Richard Weaver put it, "Ideas have consequences"!
I recently encountered on another forum a really absurd argument, that, "It's not politics: it's human rights."
That's just so completely absurd, because human rights are the most political thing in the entire world. There's literally nothing more political in all of human capacity for thought than the concept of human rights.
Our society has normalized a great deal of what I call "category laundering" to pretend that the most obviously political things aren't political, right along with the absurd category laundering of men being women and vice versa.
Ok.
Has someone done that?
Since then, academic theories that amount to TW are W contradict what is observable in nature. I'm a plants guy. In all my years, I have never sexed a plant incorrectly. Somehow I 'misgender' people all the time, but I know what it takes to select for seeds or make a human baby. Conception.
Never mind how the world works. If I say it is true, no matter how preposterous, you are compelled to validate my gender, use my pronouns, and above all, pretend it's legit.
I went to my Niece's soccer game. The opposing side had 5, no less, males on their team, and all us spectators stood around pretending we don't even notice.
TW are W is so preposterous a claim that no one at all believes it. Most people pretend to because there are repercussions for negating the discursive operations of power. If I exclaimed, 'There are men on the field,' I'd be crucified for breaking ranks, banned from all future attendance and disgraced and scorned by all. The counter narrative (true story) is categorised as bigoted, transphobic, and the narrator misrepresented as facist, far right, Nazi, genocidal or what have you, but the reality is, I simply don't believe claims that are so easily falsified.
A TW is a man who identifies as and appropriates stereotypes of women. Doing so is fine but deception is not.
The girls said 'No' and they don't have to justify their boundary, so the entire argument supporting TWAW is nothing more than a coercive tactic to undermine the very principle of consent.
The answer is No. It's not a negotiation. It's final. What now?
The disregard of consent becomes ominously apparent when they prescribe 'gender affirming care' to children. Starting at the youngest possible age, they indoctrinate children with lies about gender. When they approach puberty, this intensifies because the sexual development pathway is about to go turbo. They give them strong drugs and surgery despite them having no discernible ailment, and cause them to be stunted, sterilised and too far down a path of no return.
A child cannot consent to that. Their sex is not a choice in the first place, but to uphold the deception of mutable genders, they disrupt and prevent normal, healthy childhood development. It is truly abhorrent. The discourse is extremely harmful to them.
I was androgynous as a child. People had to ask me if I was a boy or a girl, but there was a truth. I was a boy; not a girl. Now I am a man (my body is male). If so inclined, I could appropriate female stereotypes. Some men like that and more power to them. I like it, but there is a true story: Females cannot be TW because what's true is incompatible with what isn't.
Thanks for explaining all the Marxist stuff. I can't comment or elaborate because I know nothing about it. I'm a Foucault guy, so my narrative tends toward discursive power.
This is why: females cannot be trans women ergo trans women cannot be female. That dichotomy necessitates the circular statement in question.
And this post is an attempt to get away from that. Its about putting the knives down on both sides and asking some rational questions just about language. Linguistically, the phrase, "Trans men are men," is not detailed enough to truly communicate what it intends, "Trans men are women who take on the gender of a man." If people want to debate the meaning of the later, that's fine. But the point here is that the original phrase is ambiguous and does not clearly convey its message in broader communication apart from its very limited cultural context.
If you wish to post something of your own on the political philosophy of trans ideology, feel free. But its not really what this thread is about, and staying someone on topic is good etiquete and practice.
Yes, yours did that, which is what my argument about the age of consent demonstrates.
Now personally, I'm against that entire worldview, but that doesn't mean that all of the critical theorists were completely devoid of insight either. For example, Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" while I strongly disagree with his main thesis, does raise some valid ancellary points. Maybe Focault does too: I haven't read him.
My argument is, you can't. This isn't a position which only seems political on the surface, but underneath it is making a good faith sincere general point about language. The reality is: this is politics all the way down, with nothing underneath but more politics. The politics of the trans movement is doing aren't there to serve their preferences about language as a goal: their preferences about langauge are only a means to their overtly political ends.
And I would argue that while you might be right for some people, for others they deem it to be a real sociological discovery. There are people who believe that an adult human male can take on the gender of an adult human female. And the phraseology in question is an attempt to describe this compactly. My point is that linguistically this is slang, and does not accurately convey the intention of the phrase. For some, they definitely view the phrase as political. An insistence on a phrase for political purposes is what idiots do, and they aren't worth talking to anyway.
This is for people who are really trying to dissect the phrase and think about it in non-political way. Is there credence to the phrase in good language? Do we understand it? Can we improve it? The conclusion is clear that its a poor phrase that needs more clarity, and as is, will not logically be read by most people unfamiliar with the culture of trans as what is intended which is "Trans men are adult human women who act socially in ways people associate with adult human men."
Ok. No, it didn't. my post was pretty clear. Your argument, somewhat less so.
Foucault's main thrust explains how discourse operates as power. Whereas sex is falsifiable by observations of nature, 'gender' is purely a discursive construct which is unfalsifiable.
It relates to to the story of The King's Body (Discipline and Punish). The King's body has two components. A living human body and the social body of 'The King'. 'The King' is a permanent fixture that a series of living bodies occupy. The living body has no power. The power resides in 'The King' (there's more to it about power existing as contrast between 'The King' and 'The Condemned Man'), but the point is, power is exerted by one social body against another. It doesn't exist in living bodies per-se, but the Social Body that living bodies occupy. "The King" is the product of a socially sanctioned discourse. It is not observable in nature.
'Men' and 'women', according to gender theory, are Social Bodies which (a succession of) living bodies occupy. Male and female are living bodies (observed in nature). The power of the gendered discourse is solely reliant on a socially sanctioned discourse, similar to "The King".
The claim a male makes, "I am a woman," expresses the desire to fill "The Woman's" social body, but the discourse about 'women' has always exclusively pertained to females. Males cannot occupy "The Woman's Body". This worked because females are identifiable in nature. When males claim that position, it is an exertion of power against females such that females aren't the exclusive occupiers of their own 'Body'. They are 'kicked out' by males who relegate them to a discursively constructed "Cis Body". Thus the transgender discourse is inherently misogynous.
Females who lay claim to 'The Man's' body also exert discursive power, but we are not writing 'men' out of social discourse. Only 'women'. Hence, whereas we have 'pregnant people' (who replace 'women' or 'mothers'), we do not have 'people with a prostrate' - we still call them 'Men'.
That's an off the cuff Foucaultian analysis of the thing, and far from being woke, it exposes the power dynamics at play. Foucault is woke in the sense that gender ideologues understand discourse as power (Foucault is essential gender studies reading), and intentionally use discourse to undermine women. That's how 'Gender' became structurally and institutionally established throughout policy, law, health, education, industry and everything.
If we socially sanction the gendered narrative, females will be 'written out' of "The Woman's Body" and thus become utterly disempowered. For example, many women and girls have stood down in sports because males entered 'The Woman's Body', and indeed, the power of a female to say 'No' to a male has been greatly diminished since she was relegated to being "Cis".
It is also can be equally masandrist when trans men are involved. This is all too often forgotten in the conversation, but rans men exist too. There are trans men who think because they've transitioned, they're now gay and can hit on gay men. Which is incredibly homophobic. I don't think transitioning is innately misogynist or mysandrist, but much of the rhetoric around it is.
The tenor of your discussion may be heading more towards the idea of gender as having any credible import in laws. I have another one here that may be more along the lines of what you're thinking about. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16313/gender-elevated-over-sex-is-sexism/p1
Females in most of the world do not not live in bags, so she is desirable, and so is "She". Males want to occupy "Her" body and they are currently coercing consent. However, take Blair White for example, who doesn't attempt to TWAW her way in. She claims to be 'A Man' and respects women from a male's perspective. Thus, appearing feminine isn't inherently misogynistic, but the claim "I am a woman' is.
In this way, misogyny is inherent to males entering The Woman's Body (which was the context within which I made that remark), but not inherent to feminine men who remain within "The Body of The Man".
More importantly for my purposes, I think there is a clear division between trans gender individuals and trans sexuals. I do believe that trans gender is inherently prejudicial, and ultimately sexist if it rises above the fact of the person. However trans sexual individuals simply desire the body of the other sex. While they can also be trans gender, I want to isolate specifically the trans sexuals who still understand they aren't going to magically change into the other sex, but have a deep psychological desire to do so anyway.
The trans gender issue takes up so much bandwidth, its rare I can think or discuss about this particular issue with another. Do you think there is something potentially different about trans sexual individuals? Even in societies where women are oppressed, there are trans sexuals. Its a very rare occurrence, but they exist across all cultures. Should the desire be entertained if the technology is available? Is the separation of trans sexuals and trans genders something viable to consider?
Maybe, but you say it in such absolute terms, it casts some doubt on your own view. You make “language isn’t a static system” the static description of all that language ever is.
What if language would never have gotten off the ground if “language isn’t a static system of definitions”?
I know it’s all clear to you, but it seems to me, if I was you, and all I saw in language were blurry, shifting (not static) temporary practices, I wouldn’t be using dogmatic sounding terms like “language isn’t a static system.”
If language didn’t contain the static, ever, the notion of “shared understandings” is silly. How can two people share the same understanding if not even words can be fixed? What is left to fix as shared?
Quoting BenMcLean
Exactly. Once you downplay and subvert the function of language to define itself and fix its terms, you destroy the ability of two communicants to coalesce on a shared understanding. Once you try to argue that “woman” need not mean the same thing to me and to you, today and tomorrow, then why bother trying to clarify anything? Whatever is clarified is not actually clear, and the words used to clarify it are not clarifying.
A man is a whole thing. Gender, biological sex, psychology and desires, etc. We have made the word “man” to distinguish this from that. Or are we all mumbling to ourselves, hoping some context might make it make sense to whomever hears us?
Quoting Banno
If language needs nothing static about it to function as communication, and foster “shared understanding”, how can you say “legitimate” and mean anything whatsoever by it? What, or who, legitimates? Legitimate here serves to make each use “static” so you’ve contradicted yourself.
Quoting Banno
That is all accurate. But it doesn’t mean that nothing static forms. It precisely means there is a particular (fixed) context for a particular meaning to cash out as “truth”. (Why do you bother with the word “truth” - you mean to say “function”. And you still don’t avoid what is fixed and static in order to say something that others wouldn’t also understand as truth.)
Quoting Banno
But the only way to navigate through a conversation and make statements that “can be true in some contexts and false in others” is to fix things, and make our definitions concrete. The very statement you just made is meaningless to anyone and everyone until you fix something for us to measure it against. Why would I agree with anyone on earth about what they find salient when I am questioning the meaning of statements like “men are also not men, because the meaning of ‘men’ is not fixed?”
Language itself is the only salient thing now, because it seems to be slipping away, as we speak.
Quoting Banno
I think this is the source of the flaws in the “language is use” model. The flaws are above (namely, language can simply be derived from itself and its functions; language contains nothing static; context is the locus of meaning to the detriment of the thing that is meant; words seem to function despite themselves.). So it’s not a flaw inside the model, but it’s the source of the flaws.
No one is attempting to privilege one use as the correct use. (You raised “correct” - you are the one raising “true in some contexts and false in others” - that is a conversation that would seek the “correct” - so someone must be trying to privilege the correct, but this is a digression.)
It’s not about correct use among many uses. The attempt is to find one single use of a word, at all. You miss this point, and skip right into the fray of “the plurality of language functions and tacit prejudices about what counts as “rational” uses of terms.” There is no plurality absent any individuals. The attempt is to individuate one clear term, to focus on the individual with its context. Fix an individual for all to share. The attempt is to count a single rational use. If you leap to the flux of context battering anecdotal instances without concern for fixing any words, context in flux devours all meaning. If language is not static, then “language” will one day not mean what “language” is spoken (like “woman” used to specifically exclude “with a penis” but no longer does.)
So the source of the flaws is a prejudice favoring flux and motion and its affects on any attempt to fix terms.
The flux is real and ubiquitous. But so are the things moved, the objects we similarly grasp and understand and fix.
Language as mere use, renders “meaning” fairly useless. Language is more than use, and that more, includes the fixed.
Being human wreaks of the absurd. But to say more than that, to say “the absurd” with clear meaning and understanding is to refute this absurdity existed in the first place. If we don’t want to recognize the fixed and the understood and the things about language that can never change, then it seems ridiculous to argue with anyone, about anything.
Basically “transwomen are women”, once true in any context, subverts any solid sense of “true” or “context” by dismantling any reliable use of the words “transwomen” or “woman”.
This is a bizarre take. We know language isn't fixed. Surely you know the language you're speaking now didn't exist 2000 years ago. And after it did come into existence, it was spoken very differently from how it's spoken now.
You can have a shared understanding without a perfectly static language, as long as it's static enough. It doesn't have to be entirely static, just relatively stable.
If all words had fixed meanings, there would be one true correct language and all other languages would just be wrong.
Interesting example: in Shakespearean times, the word "nice" meant foolish, it didn't mean kind. In his time, it was understood to mean foolish, and in our time it's understood to mean kind. So we clearly have a shifting non static language, and we also clearly have a contemporary common understanding.
I think the issue is that language cannot be a purely rule less enterprise. Its like saying, "Since every human is slightly different, a pig can be a human." Of course it can't. The entirety of philosophy is based on defining language and rules to create logical outcomes. If you use language to 'prove' language has no rules, you've just created a rule about language and contradicted yourself. Its not that rules can't change over time, but that doesn't mean the rules and outcomes of today are suddenly invalid or trivialized.
That’s my take. You just agreed with me, (which is also bizarre).
In order for the definition and use of a word to change (at all) from “x” to “y”, the word has to first be defined as “x”. Static enough is essential to communication among different people.
Can we define “woman” today, for right now, and for use tomorrow? Or not?
Quoting flannel jesus
Relative to what, the beginning of time, or the last time I spoke, or relative to what I meant by a word yesterday in my mind, or relative to what Shakespeare meant, or relative to what most people meant, last century versus last night? Relatively stable will get you to a single functioning definition if you let it. People can grow new uses and words can change, but that is a different topic isn’t it?
We act like it is impossible to fix a definition and stick with it.
It only seems to be impossible when people don’t like the word.
Quoting flannel jesus
I don’t see how fixing words within a language makes one true language (as opposed to other false languages). I’m just saying language isn’t language without fixing words with meanings. Meanings and uses can change. But a word is never useful at all if it is not fixed to some degree by all who attempt to use it, and if the word is never fixed first, how do we know its use changes, how to we mark its change?
Nice used to mean foolish. Today it doesn’t. In order for those two sentences to function at all to communicate your point, we need to fix two different meanings to the one word “nice”, one of them for a few hundred years ago, and another different one for now. There is a ton of relatively stable, static enough work being done to make things “nice”.
When it comes to “woman” for some reason people think we can let everyone say who/what it means differently everyday, for themselves, and for others, and yet believe language will function. Yesterday “woman” would never include “having a penis” but today, some think “woman” can include it while keeping “woman” functional in our language. Language doesn’t work that way.
We could redefine women to include people with a vagina and people with penis, if we want to, and find it useful. But we have a word for that group - person, or human being. Woman means something more specific.
Nobody said that though, just said that it's not static. And it's clearly not
The only way for you to know nobody said that is to fix meanings. Otherwise, are you sure you aren’t saying that? Absolutely “nobody” is saying down with all the rules? Gender is so fluid, “ladies room” could have anything in it? Or no?
Language isn't this objective truth that you can discover, like how we can discover the digits of pi or what elements bind with what other elements. People decide what words mean, together.
This is actually incorrect. Word usage comes first; definitions come later. Lexicographers don't determine the definitions -- common usage does, and the lexicographers study it and use it to create dictionaries. These days, the definitions of gendered pronouns are changing. They are often used to refer to a person's gender identity rather than his or her sex.
So are transwomen women or not? What is our decision? I’m saying if you all decide yes, you are breaking the simple defining characteristics of women, and transwomen. We need two separate words for these or we will end up finding penises in girls rooms.
Quoting flannel jesus
That doesn’t refute the need for stability and the static in language. It just states how stability is reached.
Quoting Ecurb
I think I’m trying to speak to whether definitions come at all, ever.
You guys and your magical functioning use.
That's a great question, and I'm not personally convinced very hard either direction. I think there's a lot of confusion around what it means to be trans, what trans people actually are and what they're going through. I would love to have more clarity on it.
I don't believe in the big conspiracy about trans people that they all just have a weird fetish. Some of them, maybe, but I don't think that's even the majority. I think the majority are probably going through something that's real, tangibly measurably real in some way despite our current inability to measure it. Whatever that thing is, whether that makes them Genuine Women ™?, I just don't know.
Some people hope to find the answer in the neurology of trans people. Something you can point to in the brain to see, see this structure here? Cis men don't have that, trans women do. If such a structure exists, it's pretty elusive, but finding it would clear up a lot of confusion in my opinion
So the word “woman” only functions relative to other words. That is the source of the confusion. I am saying the word “woman” functions relative to certain things. Otherwise, when a dude with a beard in a three-piece suit walks into the ladies room, we can’t tell him “Ladies” means “not you dude.”
What if the "dude with a beard" was born a woman? Which public toilet should (he or she) use now?
The bathroom obsession about trans people is ridiculous. If someone looks like a man, he or she will create less of a stir using the "Mens" room; if someone looks like a woman, what harm is done if (he or she) uses the "Ladies" room?
I honestly don’t, if you are not talking about fixing definitions of words in order to allow two different people to share one understanding.
Quoting flannel jesus
In this context, isn’t a practical justification a definition? A fixed use of a word relative to fixed things the word refers to? That’s practical. That allows for an agreed justification. Some girls don’t transition from males, and don’t transition into males - we can fix a word for that. Let’s call it “girls”.
Transwomen no longer want to hide in confusion. Great. So let’s not think “she” can be applied to “John with a beard” and also think we are clearing things up.
Quoting flannel jesus
Ok, then why not just agree with me? If this is trite. Throw me a bone and say “yeah, I guess words have some degree of static fixed components to them in order to function as a communication between people at all.” It’s just trite semantics at bottom anyway.
You are merely leaving the conversation leaving things unadressed.
Quoting flannel jesus
So are you fixing a difference between “cis men” and “trans women”? Because if not, why bother pointing out something that one has and another doesn’t? If you are, that explains your static, fixed distinction between “cis” and “trans”.
Quoting Ecurb
The bathroom provides a context that makes this debate about words and people’s habits of any significance in our lives. It’s not just about what to do when it’s time to pee. It’s about saying “hi, ma’am, can I help you?” Such a statement can become a declaration of war today. As we all debate the meaning “woman”. This debate would be similar if Philosophim asked “Are snowfalls rainfalls?” The bathroom provides a practical application to our policy about language and the words “man” and “woman”. If I get to decide today that snow is rain, will I still earn equal treatment with other meteorologists? Will people come to me when they are interested in the weather tomorrow? Or am I only communicating confusion? Can it snow in a bathroom? Is taking a shower, standing in the rain? Is there nothing we can fix to clear up any confusion?
Some school districts are grappling with actual policy and the provision of bathrooms to the public. These are physical objects we are naming “boy” or “girl” and “bathroom”, not just mental notions. I am saying no one gets to make any policy about anything without fixing terms. Is saying things in the world have differences between that we can acknowledge in our language. What is the significance of the “men’s room” sign on the door? Is anyone thereby excluded? What is the sign purporting to facilitate?
What is ridiculous to me is the willingness of people to say something, and say they have referred to nothing fixed. Language doesn’t function that way. It’s too late for all of us - we keep fixing ourselves by speaking at all.
One cannot say what gender (or anything) is not without simultaneously defining something about what gender is. If gender, signified by words like “man” and “woman,” can be defined and applied as I alone see fit, then no one can tell me what is not a man or what is a woman. So no one can correct my use of these words either, and their confusion is all on them.
This isn’t just about words changing. There are solid situations we are struggling to describe, like when a person with a penis chooses to enter the room called “ladies”. Some people see something unexpected in that situation, because “ladies” and the person with a penis didn’t used to line up. Some people see this situation and think we need new words for the door, or we must not need the old words to mean what we expected before, what our shared understanding once was. Other people see men in women’s rooms under the name “ladies room” as risky, as harmful to the expectations of people already in the ladies room formerly exclusively identifiable as women, and through the misuse of language, divisive of community and communication.
Bathrooms provide one theatre for the conflict between the postmodern musing about language as only use and the practical functions of communicating.
Are transwomen women? This is a biological question, a psychological question, a sociological question, and a philosophical question. (And a practical one when it comes to where we are allowed by policy to pee.). I am focused on the philosophical question, and the fact that the “language is use” model provides only a means to seek definition while avoiding finding a definition, which subverts the purpose of language, which is communication between two different minds. Language isn’t just about words and word usages. It’s used to move bodies in the physical world. It captures practical policy.
If I get to identify myself as a woman, and everyone is confused by that, the postmodern solution is to tell everyone else “words change”. It’s not to correct me and my misuse of a word. The postmodern solution to confusion is, “live with the confusion”. But maybe, just maybe, the confusion stems from thinking anyone gets to identify objects any way they want and still communicate in a shared language, about a shared understanding. That seems like a cause of confusion to me. I’d rather take advantage of the fact that we can use words to fix things.
How do you guys not see that, in order to dialogue with me, we are each relying on fixed, static uses of words? I am assuming by “static” you don’t understand me to mean “amorphous and changing”. That is how language works. We make our moves standing on fixed points and moving.
Women are women. So how can transwomen simply be the same as women? Aren’t there any differences between women and transwomen worthy of any acknowledgment? What makes “trans” aEd or mean anything if “transwomen are simply women”? If there are differences, do you really think using the same word (such a basic word as “woman”) for these two different things is a clarifying solution to the question”are transwomen women?”
This debate truly is ridiculous. It isn’t rational to seek to use the same almost axiomatic word and concept “women” for distinct bodies, especially given that we keep distinguishing men from women. We need a new word for the distinction transwomen are carving out for themselves, as they they distinguish themselves from the men they once were lumped in with. It is impractical, non-biologically supported, socially confusing, and philosophically unsound to think “trans women are women.”
Transwomen are people, deserving of our love and kindness and respect, and equal rights as fellow citizens. That all really has nothing to do with this philosophic question. Women people deserving all of these as well. And men. A few people (and a political ideology) don’t get to hijack the function of language and repurpose the word “women” just because they think that is the only way equal rights and respect can be distributed to the people who distinguish themselves as “trans”.
It’s not about bathrooms. “She” no longer has meaning if it can refer to males, females, men and women. “She” used to clarify who you meant - now it causes confusion. I’m sure it feels good and validating and supportive for a transwoman to hear herself referred to as “she”. That doesn’t mean it’s not going to be confusing for everyone to keep trying to distinguish her from him in our language as we communicate.
People who seek to change the function/use/meaning/efficacy of such basic terms can probably chill out while still protecting their dignity.
I don't even know what this question means. Am I fixing? No, I'm speculating that in reality there is one. I don't fix differences, that's not a meaningful English sentence.
Good post Fire.
This needs to be understood clearly from all involved in this discussion. If at any moment anyone thinks raising this issue is about being bigoted, hateful, or 'against trans people', please correct that notion or at least provide a clear reason why you think any of those apply. We want to avoid the problems we have seen prior in discussions. "You don't believe in God? You must be evil and hate people." "You don't believe in our president? Well you must be a commie and hate America." "You're against using language to state a trans woman is a woman? You must hate trans people." Its the same pattern, and we as people who participate in philosophy have the responsibility to not fall into these same patterns.
No. Practical means something different. It means you can say something like "the consequences of letting people born with penises into these places will have these undesirable effects", and you can make that argument without referring to the definition of women at all.
And for the record, i have no problem with the suggestion that there are negative consequences to letting people born with penises into certain spaces. Maybe that's true, but if it's true it's true regardless of what it says on page 356 of the dictionary.
“Fixing a difference” like “stipulating”. The real question is can “cis man” and “trans man” refer to the same object in the bathroom, like “woman” and “transwoman” seem to do today in some bathrooms.
You gave up on me.
How about without any definitions, can you argue (speak words) making distinctions between two different things using words with no fixed definitions? I’m still trying to show that we need definitions at all. “Woman” is just the latest foil.
We can’t escape how language serves to communicate between two people. What is communicated, the shared understanding, cannot be an amorphous changing blob, or nothing is communicated and no one understands what is shared.
Quoting flannel jesus
I don’t think we need to exaggerate the distinction into “antonym” but you admit here, in the man (not the word) there exists something that would make application of the terms “cis” and “trans” contradictory.
Well how about “woman” and “transwoman” - any distinctions of note there at all? Anything present in the transwoman that would beg use of a different term than “woman”? Is it just cis man and trans woman that cut clear lines as antonyms do and contradictions do?
What does this have to do with bathrooms? Surely the way to allow people to feel comfortable in bathrooms is to allow those looking like and presenting as women to use the Ladies Room, and those presenting as men to use the Mens Room. Perhaps women would be uncomfortable if someone who looked like a man entered their domain -- but why would anyone care if someone presenting as a woman did?
You said words are fixed, that's just incorrect. People need common understandings of terms inside a conservation. Two people could even have sensible conversations if those definitions changed from one conversation to the next, as long as they agreed in each context on what they mean. Idk why you're still harping on about it tbh, you accept that language changes and evolves, I accept that communication relies on some kind of contextual agreement, so we're actually mostly in agreement there about words and how they work to communicate ideas.
If you want to make an argument that people with certain properties shouldn't be in certain places, it really doesn't matter what you call those properties. The argument that you make shouldn't depend on what you name those properties. If people with penises shouldn't be in the toilets we call "women's toilets", it doesn't matter what label you apply to those people with penises, it could be "men" or "trans women" or whatever, the label doesn't matter, the argument shouldn't be about the label. If it is, you aren't making a very compelling argument.
Cis and trans are antonyms, as cis means "on the same side" and trans means "on the other side".
I have no idea what those statistics are in reality. I don't know if crime is increased, decreased, completely stable due to adopting this or that bathroom policy. But that's what's going to persuade people, not you choosing to die on the hill of the definition of a word. .
The issue is language. Bathrooms provide the laboratory to apply our changing languages. Bathroom choice is just one consequence. I’m interested in the cause of the confusion, not so much the traffic jam at the ladies room door.
Quoting Ecurb
Surely? Millions of people disagree, so surely you don’t use “surely” the way I do.
Men’s rooms and ladies rooms kept separate had to be invented. Ladies rooms don’t grow on trees. So do you think the reason the two rooms were first kept separate was to facilitate comfort with being around people who “present as” certain genders, or to facilitate comfort about being in a space where people with vaginas can only possibly bump into or see or be look at by strangers with vaginas?
Quoting Ecurb
Maybe ask some girls. As a man, in today’s litigious society, if a woman walked into the men’s room while I was peeing at a urinal, my only concern would be whether I might accidentally do or say something that might instigate some insane lawsuit. I wouldn’t be afraid for my body. Girls might also be afraid they could get hurt. Girls have been hurt by penises in bathrooms, and bathrooms make all people vulnerable, naked, embarrassed.
This isn’t deep psychology or sociology.
I’ve got the bathroom thing all figured out. That really isn’t an issue. It’s one application of the issue.
The issue is the language. Are transwomen women? We need to define things to answer that. We need to define things to write down a policy, about bathrooms or sports or rights or whatever. I think there is a clear answer. I think it is easy to say, no, women are not the same as transwomen. Easy. All the linguistic acrobatics ensue for the people who want to stay confused about it, or the people who think they are the same gender. (Ironically, they don’t think they are using clear definitions in any of their acrobatics.)
As far as who gets to get naked in what public rooms, it’s probably best to keep all the penises segregated from the vaginas. Maybe as a temporary provisional solution while we sort out whether transwomen are women. If transwomen can’t stand using the men’s room, they really do have a problem when nature calls. But why on earth would we think all the girls, ladies and women should be forced to help transwomen with their feelings? Why would we think there would be no conflict created by letting persons with penises who identify as a woman into the “ladies room”? And why would we think we can just reassign the function of what “ladies room” was meant to signify and things would play out smoothly? It is bad philosophy at the least, if not bad psychology leading to such bad policy.
There's logistical problems with this. What about people with manufactured penises or vaginas? Who checks and how do they check? Would you subject a man-ish lesbian to a genital check before you let her use the women's toilets, because she kinda looks like Justin Bieber or Adam Sandler?
Really? We need to get into this.
For all of the relatively tough calls, let’s hope the people involved can show courtesy and maturity and charity and just work it out. No policy covers 100% of use cases. I don’t think we need to toss all of the penises and vaginas into one big bucket and resort things and redraft a simple policy because of newly manufactured genitalia on a few people. People are still pretty private in the bathroom. Transpeople should give others privacy and expect their own will be honored. Pick a lane in the spirit of “men’s room” or “ladies room” and be courteous.
This is the problem. We’ve skipped to making policy before defining membership in our groups.
The groups should likely be men, women, transmen and transwomen. We are talking about bodies. So nothing is equal here. As persons, as humans, all are equal; as bodies, like male or female child, things are unequal. Why did we think of separate men’s and women’s rooms in the first place? Whatever drove that, (privacy/security while vulnerable) seems to now beg for more types of bathrooms. I would disagree that because of genital surgery we now need to work up a new theory about how some penises now belong with the some vaginas, in spaces they never belonged before.
But at this point, we’ve recognized men, women, transmen and transwomen, as different and distinct from one another.
So you are coming around to the need to hold terms down with clear definitions in order to make policy, or just communicate clearly?
Or can you and me have totally different ideas of what a bathroom is and still communicate? Can we have any genitals, whether naturally occurring or manufactured, and identify as any gender we want when choosing a bathroom, or competing in “women’s sports” or expecting people to remember who is a she and who is a he?
Yep.
"Man" and "Woman" are merely a category of specific traits that not all "men" and "women" share.
"Man" and "Woman" are Platonic concepts... Man is not men and Woman is not women, it’s a generic representation of men and women. In Christianity/Platonism, the generic representation is more real than the many actual things it represents. And it’s “supposed to” represent all of them… even when it doesn’t… because it can’t actually do that.
But what this means to them is that, when it doesn’t, the actual thing is “should” make itself conform to the representation—whatever doesn’t do so is a “bad thing,” a sinner.
It's kinda retarded to think everyone fits a single category as the platonic representation...
How a person is, depends on the VALUES they accept and express. Which has nothing to do with anyone except the valuator.
I just like how people use language to subvert communication, and talk about it, and think they have said something, that doesn’t contradict themselves.
So you are saying there is no metaphysical issue here, it is a misunderstanding of what language does, and the question “are transwomen women” is more of a psychology issue, or legal status issue, and the philosophy part is easy peasy?
Is Philosophim’s question “can people use ‘transwomen’ interchangeably with ‘women’ in a sentence coherently?”
Or is the question “are transwomen women?”
I thought it was the latter. I thought these were two different questions.
(“Latter question” cannot point to my first question above, or you will be confused, and language no longer serves its intended purpose.)
Are the above two questions the same question, or does one relate individual words to language, and the other relate words and language to things in the world that are talked about?
Can’t a man, who transitions his body so that it presents as a woman, call himself a “man”, a “woman” and a “transwoman” functionally? Sure he can, depending on the context. And if we all retrain ourselves we might not be confused when s/he speaks.
Here is a question: if there is any difference in the world between the two things that “man” and a “woman” used to refer to, can a transwoman in the world be referred to as a “woman” or a “man” whichever he/she chooses without reshaping both the man AND the woman? Does it make sense for us to agree that “woman” now meaningfully refers to that person with a penis and a dress, since she told us that is what she refers to herself as - is that how linguistic communication or “grammar” as you call it, is supposed to work, and does that make sense when trying to move people around in groups, with sports/bathroom policy, in the world?
Or dare I ask “what is a woman anyway?”
The bathroom thing is a stupid issue but it demonstrates the metaphysical point. What distinction in the world (if any) produced the first male/female segregated bathrooms, and can we meaningfully squeeze transwoman into the ladies room without subverting or ignoring whatever that distinction was?
There was the feminist line “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Great line. It’s funny. Or if you are a man, you might be insulted.
But it’s only funny or insulting if you have a solid sense of what a fish is, what a bicycle is, and what a man is and a woman is. As things. In the world. As objects named “fish, bicycle, man or woman.” The words only have meaning because of the things they refer to. The line is only funny if you’ve met a few men, women and fish, and bicycles, and you are keen enough to spot some differences among them.
So is a transwoman a woman?
Are differences similarities?
Does a language that fosters miscommunication function as a language?
Do two different bathrooms meant for two different groups of people serve any purpose unique to each one?
Bizarre indeed.
Or maybe everyone is a Heraclitean, embracing the absurd paradox it is to be an human being, and “the way up and the way down are one.”
Heraclitus wasn’t much of a communicator or community builder either.
———
ADDED:
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
You forgot to use the word “is”.
By “Grammar” do you mean “bicycle”? Or does this thread need no being, despite your presence in it?
This is an online forum to communicate. Words are about all we have. Grammar is always at issue. But is it the only issue?
Left out quite a few words "This whole thread is filled with people seduced by grammar." ...
Never said don't use grammar, just be aware of how using an irreducibly platonic tool forces a style of psychology upon the person, a style that is exceptionally seductive. Even Heraclitus fell to the seduction of grammar, and he was an opponent of BEING! That's to say all grammar forces "being" upon the experiences of "becoming" in order to discuss a "thing."
First and foremost humans are animals. Causa sui categories came from the metaphysics of language...
If someone doesn't fit another person's category and they say that someone is wrong... well. That's just the person projecting their platonic idealism. Projecting their unreality upon reality. Projecting their "True World."
There's your problem.
Spot on. That is what is at stake. How do we identify a “thing”, (any thing, like a trans woman or a woman), and discuss it? Identity, and communication through language of identity. Spot on.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
Ok. But then the person who identifies as mom, sitting at her child’s public school play, in her dress with her beard, asks “where can I find a bathroom for me?” Don't forget, there are two bathrooms available with two different words on the doors intended to invoke distinctions among people for the sake of creating a sense of safety and privacy.
Do we need to read Plato and Wittgenstein first? She herself admits she can’t just pee on the floor, or anywhere she wants. Where do you tell her to go, and here is the real question, why do you think where you tell her to go makes any sense for her, and for everyone (since the signs don't magically change themselves)? The world around you fancy grammarians is making policy and defining terms. We all need more input. Is your final answer to this mom: "Man and woman are platonic concepts - I don't know - it doesn't matter to me."
A couple Platonic dialogues are implicated, but this isn’t just platonic theory - it’s policy. Can a person list “wife” on a benefits application if they are a transwoman, or is this fraud? That is really the exact same question as "are transwomen women." Or "what is a thing."
I am not denying context impacts definitions. I just asking questions in the largest possible context, and admitting the fact of definitions. This is all convention, I get it - so, what is the specific convention going to be?
And I’d argue this is Aristotle, not Plato. We are talking about immanent form (the intelligible aspect of a thing becoming a thing) not some battle of absolute ideal notions, pitting being against becoming. We are talking about particular people representing themselves through language to other people. There is a whole world of praxis in which these "platonic" ideals are being used. We are fixing definitions based on things in the world for the purpose of communicating meaning to others in the world through that language. The moving parts are not just the words. It’s a bitch.
Ignoring the issues as metaphysical folly says nothing. Maybe that is by design. Hope you never have to run anything or manage people.
But you seem to understand the question, as you highlighted "experiences of becoming in order to discuss a 'thing'." That is the nut of the issue.
So are you just not interested in the context of trans? Or are you seduced by fire, and you really think man and woman are concepts only? Maybe to avoid "thing" you've reified something else?
-------
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
That's what they teach us Socrates and Plato and Aristotle said. But Heraclitus wasn’t an opponent of being. We should all understand Heraclitus better. He recognized that the “ing” in being is the same “ing” as in becoming, and therefore, that being itself, is moving. He defined being as becoming. Our grammar broke apart Heraclitus' wisdom. We've mostly fabricated the importance of the grammatical distinction between being and becoming, when in experience, there is no such distinction, and "becoming" is the better term for all of it.
“There is an exchange: all things for Fire and Fire for all things, like goods for gold and gold for goods.” - Heraclitus Fragment 90.
Becoming things, is not just becoming - we need things too. You need to fix goods, to then exchange them for Fire. We need to carve out a man, to then notice he both steps and does not step into the same river. (See Fragment 49)
That doesn't therefore mean the goods, the things, are not in-themselves becoming and moving. That is another issue (one that makes defining things fraught with error). But we need not ignore the fact of things being things as we throw them back into the fire.
You guys staying so strong against the seduction of grammar, all sound like you only see Fire. Ok. But then how is there any distinct issue to clarify in the first place? If all is just Fire? Where are the woman versus men versus transwomen? And what are you doing when you see one thing distinct from another? What does the Fire consume? How come you even know what Philosophim is asking, or how Philosiphim formed his question?
You are saying there is no question. But the question still is, where am I supposed to pee without creating a shitstorm? The shitstorm is real, if protests and legislation are real. You seem to think we invent this metaphysical controversy by misunderstanding how seductive grammar is, and that the little girl who is shocked by the person in her bathroom invented her own shock because she reified “woman” beyond all practical application and expectation. Maybe it’s not the Platonic form and our discussion of forms so much as it is the beard and the deep voice. She needs a word for "beard" if she is to describe what happened to her in the bathroom. Or maybe she needs a word for "man" distinct from "woman" or "transwoman". Or is she just being a sexist little girl, or imagining beards, and her sense of shock can be trained out of her by an enlightened society (which would still require fixed things and definitions to do the training, just new things and words.)?
“How can anyone hide from that which never sets?” - Fragment 16 This cuts both ways - Fire, for all things.
"For though all things come into being in accordance with this Law, men seem as if they had never met with it (sleeping), when they meet with words (theories) and actions (processes)..." - Fragment 1.
“To those who are awake, there is one ordered universe common to all, whereas in sleep each man turns away [from this world] to one of his own.” - Fragment 89.
Sounds like a warning against private languages. As in "I identify as a X" as if we were good at identifying anything. Sounds like he recognizes language, law and becoming - not just becoming (in its sense that we've made it an opponent of being).
Ever since Plato, Heraclitus has been pigeon-holed as only speaking of fire and flux. He just wisely recognized that defining terms, seeing the law, was precarious and perilous, so his language confused people. “The path of writing is crooked and straight.” - Fragment 59 "Nature likes to hide." - Fragment 123
I would agree there is no platonic form of "woman" or "man" - but there are things that we call men, and things that we cannot call men. I'm not trying to reify any notion or idea - I'm trying to talk about particular things that come to be in our faces, or bathrooms.
---------
As we both grapple with this: "experiences of becoming in order to discuss a 'thing'." here is the only thing you need to explain: How is the person who says "Transwomen are women is true" not using language to subvert clear communication among all women, men, transwomen, transmen, kids, people? Do we really think we can take a convention so simple and basic as gender, and allow individuals to privately shuffle all of the moving parts without breaking down communication, confusing our laws, shocking children, angering moms and dads, disappointing athletes, sparking allegations of fraud, and in some cases, harming the individuals who were told they are trans?
The metaphysics here needs to be addressed better than "seduction of grammar". We need to use grammar to influence policy, and impact particular lives and situations. There are consequences to playing with words and meaning this way.
Quoting Banno
I'm interested. Can you explain that to me? My answer to the first question is "yes, by setting a context and defining our terms accordingly, we can create conditions where these two words create subtle distinctions but can be often be used interchangeably with coherence". My answer to the second question is "no, they are distinct things in the world."
So what is my problem?
OK, I can see how my argument won't seem constructive to you because it doesn't accept enough of your basic premises to help you refine it. But I think what you're really doing here is smuggling in the deeply, inherently political and pretending you can treat it as non-political, in order to establish norms which make trans political victory inevitable. And by "inevitable" I mean that one can't even say one diasgrees, not just because it's against the rules but because this aims to take away the words necessary to even express the idea. Meaning, "trans" language use is Orwell's Newspeak.
I would usually not want to bring up Matt Walsh because he's not philosophically deep and the politics he normally espouses are neither original nor interesting. The Daily Wire people are not only shallow but still not critical enough of the dogmas of the old Conservative Inc faction for my taste.
But Walsh was right about this one thing. What you just said is the central thesis of his mockumentary, "What is a Woman?" If it was OK to cite Michael Moore's documentaries in the 2000s, then turnabout is fair play. Walsh directly hit the very heart of the issue dividing our civilization.
the history of our interactions in this forum would suggest not.
Thinghood came through categorization via language and grammar which differentiates through definitions. Trans is an adjective that modifies a noun.
Quoting Fire Ologist
[I]waves a gesturing hand towards the two bathrooms.[/i] "Overthere."
It's quite simple, you treat them by your mutual term, human. That you let platonic categories scew with your thinking just shows you dont really give a shit about the person but are more seduced into projecting your own platonic concepts upon them.
Quoting Fire Ologist
"Blah blah blah, No fux for flux." Since being is always moving it's becoming. Regardless of if you wanna be like "no he said BEING MOVES!" lol aight homie...
You didn't say a damn thing other than Heraclitus doesn't believe in a static being of permanence... which is Being... so more or less you said he does and doesn't believe in Being. Absurd.
Added:
So your problem is you think those two questions are the same? Since you’ve identified my problem I don’t think this is too bold.
Quoting DifferentiatingEgg
That was fun.
Nice exchange folks! It’s not like there is any philosophy to discuss here anyway.
And Egg, Heraclitus said “it rests from change”. Rest is static. I don’t think you understand Heraclitus (or much of what I said above.) But I assume you aren’t interested in talking with me either.
And “human” is a category, an ideal, just as much as “trans” is. That makes my whole point (again) - no one is avoiding reification as and definitions of things in the world and then communicating with other people. You can’t help it. Which is Heraclitus’ point.
Yeah, all language is irreducibly platonic. The point is to not project upon them the notion of "man as such" or "woman as such." That's just a clumsy handling, you're not even treating them as a human at that point, rather more of an attack on your ideals.
Ps: When I say Heraclitus fell to the seduction of the of Eleatics, I'm talking about his stance on material monism. So using his material monism as a defense is just kinda silly.
He thought everything was in flux, but believed in material monism due to the seduction of grammar which forces the psychology of unity in definitions.
Isn’t the point nothing anyone says means anything to anyone else but themselves? Meaning is a private invention - a choice.
But then, telling people they are wrong or have problems is fun isn’t it. Meaninglessness is a real pickle when you are as eloquent as Nietzsche.
Didn’t Heraclitus’ student Cratylus answer questions by just wiggling his finger? True commitment to avoiding the seductions of grammar. Also useless in a discussion.
It seems there are a lot of people out there taking the absurd position that, "You cannot be what you are, because I do not know what you are."
Well, then, learn.
Learn.
Paradigm shifts are difficult. We have to let go of old beliefs that no longer fit the new reality, and our instinct is to be resistant to that. But you risk nothing when you try to understand where someone else is coming from.
Approach the issue as a fellow human, not some pedant.
Excellent.
No, I'm really just providing a discussion ground for people to think about this idea. If you've noticed, I've largely stepped away and let people discuss amongst themselves. Its important we talk about things like this in a different way from politics. Again, I encourage you to make a topic of your own on the subject if you would like. Just make sure that its well thought out, cites good evidence, and isn't merely an attack on a group of people.
We can both accept that we're humans riddled with variation, and accept what the normal use of man and woman mean in general language and culture. And do you know who cares very much about there being a distinct separation between men and women? Trans men and women. They see something fundamentally different from their own sex that they have an obsessive need to obtain for themselves. If there wasn't a difference, they woudn't care and transition would not be a thing.
Its important to understand that wanting clear defiinitions is not an intention to hurt other people. The OP is primarily concerned with the language itself, and seeks to demonstrate that the phrasing is poor. All I'm saying is if honest trans gender people are trying to communicate accurately, they are best to avoid the phrase and instead modify it to be clearer. "Trans men are adult human females that act in gendered ways associated with men." What's wrong with clear language?
Quoting Questioner
You know I know very much about trans individuals. So that's not an argument against what's being posted here. I'm also not treating trans people like pedant's either. I help people speak more clearly and say what they mean in my daily life. Clear communication is important. And many people get confused on this subject. If we want trans and non-trans people to get along better, honesty and openness are the way.
It is essential for sport and women’s exclusive spaces.
I don’t think that is true but even if so, isn’t that a separate discussion?
I mean, you are right, it is disrespectful and oppressive to tell anyone “you cannot be what you are (maybe unless you wanted to be a sociopathic murderer.) But this thread is more about, Person A is trans and Person A is saying they are a woman, and Person A is saying they deserve “women’s rights” and that Person B needs to acknowledge and support that.
A person walks in to sign up for a women’s swim meet, and says they have a right to be there, and to point them to the locker room. And the swim meet lady says “You are telling me you have a right as a woman to compete and use the women’s locker room as a woman, and you are telling me this is a right that men do not have, but as a woman, you have that right.” Can we ever interrogate that person’s claim? Can the swim meet tell a man (or person who identifies as a man) “No you cannot enter” and also admit a transwoman?
Or do we need to throw away all policy distinctions between men and women, all allowances for men over here, and protections for women over there, so that we never have to make such an inquiry?
It just doesn’t seem practical to refrain from segregating men from women. Transwomen pose issues to what previously seemed like a natural segregation between men and women for simple reasons surrounding fairness, privacy and security. Transwomen flat out defeat these segregations in sports for instance. I agree they greatly threaten these segregations when it comes to privacy and bodily security (bathrooms, locker rooms, girls clubs).
It all seems like a valid discussion is needed to me.
It seems there are more people averse to discussing the issues than there might be people telling others what they can be. People can be whatever they want but why does it have to undo all of the institutions built around the notion “for women only”?
Maybe we don’t have to define men, women and transwomen to have the discussion (although I am amazed at how many philosophers seek to avoid defining terms), but, I’m not sure what to say if you don’t see any issues created by the more recent teaching that we all get to privately determine what gender means and what gender we are, as we publicly announce to others who they are and what words we are to use to refer to them.
I mean is gender purely a personal and private determination? Doesn’t it have a public component and even public function to it? Gender and biological sex were once considered deeply connected. Maybe a complete definition of “woman” is impossible, and maybe it includes many malleable, changing social conventions, but it used to also include by default things like “having a uterus” and a certain body found in nature.
Transwomen are people formerly considered men, and they even considered themselves to be male. They then seek to distinguish themselves from men and males, and no longer call themselves men and tell others not to call them men. This is their will and their reality - they were considered men, and now want to show their distinction from men. That all sounds like a workable start (if you ignore psychology and reproduction of the species trends, and maybe the way legal fraud protections are written). There are men who transition themselves away from being called men. Fine. Great. Be what you want to be and who you really are.
But do these people now transitioned and transitioning people get to take any word or any concept and use that to publicly declare who and what they are? Is that practical for anyone? Do these males, formerly named men, get to commandeer the word “woman” for themselves and demand one of her lockers? Is it reasonable or transphobic for a female born woman to see a transwoman as a new type of human being coming in from outside the group called “women” to redefine the shape of the community of women? Is it reasonable for the transwoman to expect others to give her the same protections and access as women?
So it’s not about telling people what they can and can’t be. Maybe a transwoman isn’t a man and can be something or someone else, but why do they get to take “woman” away from women? Why do they get access to all of the things held exclusive for women just because they say “I am a woman now”?
Can transwomen be women in a functioning society that has so many institutions for women only, built to exclude men? Does that not raise the issues for you?
And I’m sure the only reason many politicians support equating “transwoman rights” to all things formerly “women’s rights” is more cognitive dissonance training for a more easily manipulated population of sheep. It will help train people for statements like “you are better off today” and “it’s the right thing to do” despite all evidence to the contrary. But I digress from the metaphysics and the practical applications of the metaphysics into stupid idiot politics.
Could you function outside of the emasculation of Christianity?
Since it rules over your every impulse...? If you can make externalized values "woman"ize you through Christianity... Then why cant a man simply adhere to internal values to emasculate themselves?
See how easy it is to turn the same style of bs talk around on you? For not fitting categories?
What's to stop any man from following a woman into a bathroom and raping her? Your chat about it is bullshit because you try to bring up issues with platonic categories for man and woman and are like.... "YOU CANT BE TRANS BECAUSE ONLY 'MAN' AND 'WOMAN' CATEGORIES EXIST FUCK THEM!"
As long as I'm allowed to show you what a failure you are at lambasting, and ignore your opinions when I have to pee at a public establishment, or when defending my designation when I apply for a Real ID, then who TF cares about "your category" whatever "your" means in that scenario? Transwoman can say they are anything they want and you can call me a skunk, or "not a man". That isn't the issue. Do I have to say it - that is the issue. Will the government force me act in some new way, choosing new bathrooms for instance. You have it backwards. The issue is, can you tell the world that the world's category of "man" that has been forced upon you, is being rejected by you, and that you are now forcing the world to see you as "whatever the hell you want" and forcing the world to speak accordingly and provide rights accordingly.
The real question is ...
How are you going to survive the future knowing Trans wont ever go away?
I never said that or even implied that. Please read this post: this is what I think: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1030360
It welcomes transpeople as human beings the same as anyone else. I agree, this is stupid issue. There are about 15 transpeople in the world and everyone has to have an opinion about it. And no one knows how to speak about it.
You really have no idea who I am and how I regard people, or what I say to them. Please read my post above.
Regarding your quote above, my point is more like this: YOU CAN ONLY BECOME A 'TRANS PERSON' IF PRIOR TO THAT SEPARATE 'MAN' AND 'WOMAN' CATEGORIES EXIST, AND IF ANYONE TELLS YOU THAT IS METAPHYSICAL TRICKERY, FUCK THAT!"
Please read my post, and chill out.
Again, it's already been proven multiple times in this thread that the average person is rather dense and highly impressionable. I can make you think you're a dog or a bird or some animal with enough coercive force and trauma on your mind. This is not new. These studies are simply hidden from the general public for good reason.
There was no such thing as an actual physical "transgender" person until the first surgery barely 50 years ago. I can think of a dozen things that were "revolutionary to human progress and understanding" that nobody talks about now.
It's ostracization meets the need for social beings to conform. Just for whatever reason the forces in control of this world are propping it up. If the majority is hairy and muscular and generally beast-like, while you're thinner and more youthful (feminine), that means you're like a girl or a child. If the majority is thinner and more youthful, and you're the opposite, you're some wretched beast that belongs in the field or chained up somewhere. This is just how commoners think. They are like children who must be guided. By force if necessary.
Commoners are often cruel, crude, wretched people. The only thing they hate more than others, is themselves. For some reason they have temporary control of a government. This is because once the monarchy fell, people went to war. And obviously, in a physical world, the bigger guy tends to win. No real strategy needed. It's basic physics. Until the monarchy returns. It will be a divine event no mortal can stop. Many will likely try. I would avert thine eyes if one doesn't like bloodshed.
Perhaps you should broaden your social circle.
I don’t really think those things of you, I was just grasping at straw, and making up fiction to place you outside of categories to pretend like you were a sinner.
I was like... damn, I know over 100% of the trans population?
Hey — good to hear we have so many mutual friends! :rofl:
Edit: But there is a serious point here. If the folk here objecting to trans folk do not know any, then that explains why they are treating real humans in abstract terms.
Perhaps nothing helped acceptance of the queer community as much as the "revelation" that gay, lesbian, and queer folk are all around you, and pretty much like you and I.
I think this thought process assumes a virtue that has not been earned. Personally knowing a person or group of people does not mean you have any more ore less virtue towards them. We talk about people in abstract terms all the time. Its a philosophy board. The implication that you personally knowing a trans person makes you more moral is as true as stating that the murderer of their own child killed that child out of love.
This particular thread has stuck to language and definitions without unearned appeals to morality. It should stay that way.
You entirely misunderstood the argument. No surprise there.
Explain it then. How does a person knowing or not knowing a trans individual personally indicate in any rational way that this is why they are treating the discussion abstractly? Wouldn't it make more sense that people are treating the subject abstractly because its a philosophy board?
The implication is that treating the subject abstractly is somehow wrong, when in philosophy abstract thinking is the grounds of critical thinking and can aid in conceptual understanding where personal feelings can interfere. It seems to me that whether you know a trans individual or not, that the abstract analysis of this language topic would be the better intellectual approach to the topic.
26 pages of your obsession with the contents of other people's underwear and the supposition that those contents dictate which toilette they must use, shows that there is not much point.
You know, after observing you for a while Banno, you're just a bit of a troll aren't you? You pretend to uphold forum standards and good philosophical standards, then flail hard when called out on it yourself.
Behave and stop distracting the thread with antics. Keep the discussion on topic and engaging with ideas instead of petty insults. If you want people to view you as someone respectable and wise, act like it.
Quoting Philosophim
:lol:
Here's my contribution:
Page four
Page three
Page two
Page one
I've argued that the claim “trans women are women” can be true. We are not obligated to use only a single fixed biological definition of "woman". Words such as man and woman are polysemous—they have multiple legitimate meanings that vary with context (social, legal, everyday use) and are not rigidly fixed by biology. Hence in contexts of gender identity and social role, “trans women are women” is true; rejecting it by privileging one narrow biological sense is to misunderstand how language works. The idea that there is a single true or default meaning of these terms independent of context is faulty, and insisting on such a view is arbitrary and ignores existing usages. The aim is to show the opposition’s original claim (that the slogan is categorically false) collapses once we acknowledge legitimate linguistic contexts in which the slogan is true.
You just doubled down on your erroneous understanding of language use, and your fascination with genitalia.
If ever a thread needed distraction with antics, this is the one. Twenty-six pages worth of excusing rudeness and bigotry with silly justifications based on faulty linguistics! Please! Distract me!
Here you go:
The world is still a good place.
Correct. But as the OP of this thread I do feel obligated to keep it on course, prevent petty insults and trolling between members on it. I'm appealing to you proving me wrong on you being a troll. The cat video is enough to prove otherwise.
You're new Ecurb, and Banno is not being a good example of how we behave here. Stick to the topic if you wish. If you have an issue with the OP or ideas in here, feel free to present them. Trolling is not encouraged.
Just to confirm, this is more of a linguistic philosophical inquiry? If so, the specific subject matter chosen seems needlessly "messy" (prone to tangential discussion/distraction/etc.), per se.
"Is transatlantic the Atlantic? Is transpacific the Pacific?" Unless I'm missing something (which I wholly expect you to explain, and be the anti-Banno, as you would seem to put it), this set of questions seems to adequately cover any philosophical space or area the OP does, yes? :chin:
Feel free to point out what in the OP is messy and you feel needs clarity, improvement, or should be countered. A statement is not an argument.
Quoting Outlander
How does this relate to the OP's points?
Quoting Outlander
I don't think so. The topic is about gender, trans gender, and language about what man and/or woman would best logically mean in English phrasing. Feel free to point out its relevance.
Posting a video of cat silliness to distract a fellow debater after they requested distraction is trolling?
Of course it is. If someone tells you to steal from someone else, and you do it, is that not theft? Do you have anything to say about the OP?
It's wholly adequate. Clear and concise. I just re-read it now. But allow me to explain why I made my most recent post.
Quoting Philosophim
This specifically is what I believe can simplify (at least one point of) the OP.
Logical English phrasing.
Transatlantic as relating to the Atlantic. And Transpacific as relating to the Pacific. Sure, your topic is a bit more hairy (no pun intended) or complex than still bodies of water that are physically identical on the molecular level. But, at least this ONE facet of the OP (logical English phrasing) can be addressed using this much more simplified example that doesn't get people up in arms ideologically about timeless concepts such as human existence and what it means to be a (certain type) of human being.
Language doesn't engage in scientific analysis. It simply reflects what is understood about the things they refer to. So, stepping aside from the messy (and still under fierce debate) biological aspect, we are left with the social aspect. Which is literally just what the majority of people say or know or otherwise claim to know, irrespective of the accuracy or validity of any of it. From here, it's safe to simply jump to a pure "language for language sake" take on this discussion. From which the original "is transatlantic the Atlantic and is transpacific the Pacific or not?" framing spawned from.
Exurb didn’t request to be trolled or to troll others. The request was for distraction. My impression is that it was suggesting some distraction/levity might help to calm the mood. Calm minds tend to be more reasonable.
I'm not inclined to read it, now.
Trans Quoting https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=trans
Quoting Etymonline
So it's indicative of a "crossing over, passing through, overcoming" of binary gender identities.
Yes, good point. Nice contribution.
No worry, I'll be around when you're ready later.
I'll leave y'all to it.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1027962
If you'd rather not navigate back to an old page, I can lay it out for you afresh if you like.
I did not forget to reply to your old post, if you recall the previous post I noted I was done chatting with you because of your inappropriate approach to the discussion which you've since apologized for. I simply did what I told you I would, which was stop responding to your posts. Its been some time so we can try again. I accept your apology, and I will extend it back if I you feel I was overbearing or inappropriate in my responses.
To avoid unnecessary back and forth and a nice reset, I'm not going to address things that are not pertinent to the OP. So we won't be retreading previous points of discussion, only your current point about the OP. To your point here: Quoting Jamal
So lets start with your main issues:
Quoting Jamal
What is the definition that I am assuming? Why do you think I'm assuming it based on what's in the OP? I note by default that man and woman are used by most speakers to indicate adult human male and adult human female. This is not an assumption, this is a claim. If you have an issue with this, feel free to argue why the claim is incorrect.
Lets go slow and start with that.
Quoting Philosophim
This is the contested definition. To begin here is to begin too late, ignoring the substance of the philosophical debate, making your conclusion inevitable and therefore lacking any weight. The conclusion that trans women are not women follows only because the argument defines "woman" in a way that already excludes them. Thus, despite the internal validity of your argument, in the real context of the trans debate you are begging the question, because the real point you need to make to carry your view is precisely that a woman is an adult human female by sex, a man an adult human male by sex.
So the substantive content of the OP is where you defend the definition:
Quoting Philosophim
This is an empirical claim asserted without evidence, and presumes that it determines how these terms ought to be used. If you're going to derive an ought from an is you will need to put in more work than this. As it stands it's an appeal to popularity. And as I have said, it ignores the relevant discussions that have been going on in philosophy for years, about social kinds and role-based categories, cluster concepts and so on (I pointed you in the direction of the SEP for more detail).
And note that a role is not just a label. It is an actual social position. Minimizing it functions to maintain the very normative hierarchy which is contested in the trans debate. I.e., ...
Sex: fundamental, real, objective
Gender: derivative, optional, subjective
If you are to make any headway, you need to argue that this hierarchy is legitimate. If man and woman operate socially as roles (which they obviously do in many contexts, e.g., bathrooms, marriage, dress codes, comportment expectations), then sex is not the default, but one factor among others.
To call it the "default" is to take sides in a debate--against the recognition of people who want recognition--without adding anything new.
For example, I think this response:
Quoting Jamal
I think, misses two things:
1. That wasn't the initial intent behind that claim (although, I think its a strong claim anway - it seems common sense that most people assume sex behind use of those words. It takes some effort to do otherwise because the concept of gender is so much more nuanced and people are mentally lazy most of the time);
2. The argument was made clearly for the ought post-claim. It's clarity, directness and ability to be weilded for policy purposes means that "man" and "woman" should be distinct from the more nuanced, and possibly undefinable concepts of gender in each case - which can be captured by "transman" or "transwoman" without ambiguity - the "trans" gives you the data you need to categorize accurately without passing any moral judgement.
Incorrect. If you want to have this debate and contest that definition, that's your call. First, you have to address what the OP is doing, not what you think it should be doing. I've defined men and women as used by default. Again, contest if you wish. It is not my failing for asserting a definition in an argument that you wish to contest.
Quoting Jamal
Premises which necessarily lead to a conclusion is a deductive argument. Which means that if the premises are true, the conclusion is true. So then we have both acknowledged that the argument I've made is deductive and valid. You want to debate the premises. Which is fine. But I have not lacked in the argument or used poor logic.
Quoting Jamal
No, I am not begging the question. The assertion of a definition, and a reason why it is that definition is not a conclusion within the premises. The conclusion also requires other premises in the argument. If I noted "The bible is true because God says so, and the bible is true because its Gods word", that is begging the question. The premise is the conclusion, and the premise is true because it says it is true. But I do not. If the other premises changed, then the conclusion would not be necessarily reached despite my asserted definition of man and woman.
Quoting Jamal
If you want more evidence on this claim, that's fine. But it is not how men and women ought to be used that is being debated, it is an assertion that this is how they are used by the majority of people. This is very different than me stating, "Because the majority of people use this word as Y, they should use that word as Y". For example, you could state, "Though the majority of people use man to mean 'adult human male', they should not. I'm simply noting a fact that this is the way the word is used by most people. So the OP is not claiming how men and women ought to be defined, its asserting how they are by default.
Quoting Jamal
How so? The majority of people use the term 'majority' to refer to 'the greater number of' right? That's a definition, not an appeal to popularity. I'm claiming a majority of people use the term women and man to refer to adult human females and males respectively by definition. Are you claiming that men and woman cannot be defined as I've noted so far? I don't think you are, so your only viable critique at this point is to claim 'the majority of people don't define men and women that way'.
Quoting Jamal
Have people in philosophy been debating that most people use the terms men and women to refer to adult human males and females? How does that apply here? Further, just because someone is debating something, doesn't mean what they are debating is important or worthwhile to address. People debate flat Earth theory, do I need to reference every single argument for flat Earth to note the Earth is not flat? Of course not.
If you have a particular argument against the OP, it is your job to point it out and explain why it counters the premises or conclusion of the OP. If there is a particular debate that you feel is worth pulling in to address the claims of the OP, feel free. But a general reference to unspecified arguments without any demonstrable link to the OP is something I can rationally ignore.
Quoting Jamal
Except that I'm not debating what a man and woman are if used to refer to a role. That's an entirely separate topic. I'm simply noting that most people use man and woman as adult human male and adult human female, thus that is the definition that people in general use when seeing the phrase.
Quoting Jamal
No, it is your job to challenge my assertions. Why are they not legitimate? My job is not to predict why other people are going to have problems with my assertions. That's where you come into the discussion.
Quoting Jamal
This is a counter assertion, which is good. But this is actually begging the question. If there is not only the objective reality of "Adult human male", but also "the role of an adult human male", there is a missing rational link to "Sex is not the default (majority) meaning for male and female". You see I'm not arguing that man and woman can't refer to the roles of an adult human male and female, I'm just noting that by default, the term men and women refer to sex, not gender roles.
Quoting Jamal
Not at all. Its an assertion of the majority use of the word. Also the desire of an individual is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You're debating something that isn't even in the picture yet. First you need to challenge me that people do not use man and woman by default to refer to adult human male and female. I will gladly add more information to defend it, but I want to hear your counter evidence first. My claim is not outside of the general norm or the traditional use of the terms. Just like someone challenged me that the world was flat, I would be more interested to see why they think its flat first before I presented in detail why its round.
Also, your points are much appreciated. I feel spoken with instead of at, and I hope I'm returning the same attitude. Thank you Jamal.
This begs the questions of policy. Should a "transman" use the men's or women's toilets? Should a transwoman play women's sports? It also ignores pronouns. Does a transwoman use "she" and "her"? (I admit that we need a singular neuter pronoun. It grates on my nerves to use "they" or "them" -- but the only alternative is to recast the sentence. That's fine when writing, but awkward in speech.)
Of course your suggestion is more accurate and less ambiguous. But what's so bad about ambiguity? Also, those (nobody here I'm sure) who are prejudiced against trans individuals will be enabled to discriminate more easily.
I think, personally, that clarity is best for communication. My support for that is the universal, time-tested theory that less-clear communication almost always results in worse goal-oriented results than clear, unambiguous language.
I agree about they/them although in practice I find it fine enough to use in the small number of cases its asked of me.
Nonsense. The definition is changing, or has changed. Why else would it be commonplace for people to list their "pronouns". The use of "she" and "her" to refer to transwomen is accepted and normal (although not, perhaps, in MAGA circles). To refer to a trans individual by his or her birth name or birth pronouns is commonly considered rude. Manners (and the definitions of words) are culturally constituted. "Biology" plays little role in how words are defined.
So that premise, at least, is dubious.
The claim it is the default definition is a given. Go to anyone you know and say, "A woman was walking in the woods." Wait a second. Then ask them, "Did you imagine an adult human male or an adult human female?" Of course we all know the answer is, "Adult human female". That is because man and woman by default do not refer to a role, but a sex.
If the same person saw a person with long hair, breasts, wearing a dress walking in the woods, he or she might say, "I saw a woman walking in the woods." Or if he saw such a person entering a men's toilet, he might say, "Huh? Why is a woman entering a men's toilet?"
This is obvious. Of course there is some ambiguity. The question is how to deal with it. I suggest dealing with it with kindness, empathy and good manners. You suggest (incorrectly) that would be a lie.
Since definitions change, it would not be a lie.
And I gave you an example where almost all native English speakers would say, "I saw a woman walking in the woods."
Are you going to insist on asking, "How do you know? Just because she looks like a woman, acts like a woman and presents as a woman, you might be lying, because HE might have been born male."
I think this is a little tortured: Humans are, apparently, more than 99% accurate at determining sex from facial features alone. It is an extremely rare and aberrant situation that someone see's a 'woman' in your description and doesn't think 'male' even if their social tickertape says 'woman'. It takes effort.
Correct. What you didn't imply in any way is that most people would think that 'woman' in this instance was referring to a role and not a sex. Let Jamal answer Ecurb, I'm sure he'll present a good response. If you spy something he missed feel free to point it out then.
This is disingenuous.
How the language is used will decide if it is a weapon or not used against transgender persons.
That's ridiculous. Effective language is used to describe reality.
Let me give you an example of why effective language is more important than getting something you want. Global warming. I've heard on the right quite often that global warming isn't real. They don't have very good arguments against it, but dig further and you realize what they're really doing. They don't want to sacrifice or increase taxes, so they deny the reality of global warming. Isn't that stupid? Should you reject reality because you have an alternative goal and think the only way to achieve it is to deny reality?
What conservatives should do is simply evaluate global warming independent of politics first. Then there can be a discussion. A conservative could then say, "Yes, global warming is real, but are your solutions effective? No, we have solutions we think will be more effective."
So I ask you to ask yourself the same question. Are you arguing against clear language to get something beyond that language that you want? Or are you ok with agreeing to basic language, then deciding with that language how to get what you want? If the phrase 'Trans men are men" isn't proper language, shouldn't it be clarified? Once its clarified, you both have an area of agreement on a basic premise, then you can argue what trans men should be able to do in society.
Let's first focus on this - reducing the need for authenticity to a "want." You seem to imply that transgender persons are somehow selfish should their claim to their true identity be their goal. Do you apply this judgement only to transgender persons, or to all persons?
Quoting Philosophim
Invalidating and erasing a scientific theory is not the same as invalidating and erasing a state of being.
Although, ignorance applies in both cases.
Quoting Philosophim
Quoting Philosophim
Trans men are men. Trans women are women.
"What they should be able to do in society?" - I believe you are talking about using public rest rooms and playing in sports. Well, I have to tell you, only the people who pretend to be the gender that they are not are the danger in rest rooms, and barring trans persons from the rest rooms will not solve that problem. They are not the problem.
In sports - a transgender woman would still have the strength of a man, so should not be allowed to enter as a woman in sports. But - I will mention - - trans people make up less than less than 0.002% (10/500,000) of US college athletes, and even fewer of recent Olympians (0.001%) identify as trans.
A total red herring.
Here's the thing - the current war against transgender persons in the US is not about using the language properly, it is a campaign based on disgust - and disgust should never be the basis for policy.
You made no comment about Bree Fram, that I introduced to you?
Conceptions of reality change. Language changes with it.
Sure. That doesn't invalidate the OP.
Cool. So if people change the way they talk about gender, you'll change your views.
Let me stop you there. This is not an OP that decides anything about trans gender desires, politics, etc. This is a language argument. This is not, "What are we politically going to do about global warming." This is, "Is global warming real?"
So stay on topic with the OP please. Where is it wrong?
That's worded quite strangely. If it the prevailing definition of the term 'woman' became social role instead of sex, then the OP's conclusion would change. It has not as of this time.
I was arguing your use of the word "want"
And I'm noting this is not an argument about 'want', but what 'is'.
Ok. But when you go to the hospital, someone is going to fill in a blank beside the words: Gender Preference. So you're cool with that because every hospital in America is presently doing it.
You just sort of go with the flow. I can't say I'm overly proud of you for that, but I recognize your stance.
Yes, but they aren't saying "Sex preference". I'm not sure what the point was here Frank. That's not intended to sound sarcastic, I'm just not sure what you meant here.
Quoting frank
This is a non-political discussion. This is about language. Politics are about getting what you want no matter what gets in your way. Philosophy is an attempt to analyze language and ideas to conclude what is most logical.
They were born with a certain sex. That's true. They tell you what their gender is.
I still don't get how that applies to the OP Frank.
It doesn't appear the OP is saying anything that isn't trivially true.
I didn't think so either, but apparently its not so trivial based on the discussion generated. Appreciate the input.
I think they probably thought you were saying something a little more substantial.
Quoting Philosophim
:up:
What is a woman?
Quoting Philosophim
I think you're still missing the point. It is your failing if you consider the OP to have made some kind of argumentative achievement.
1. A man is an adult human male.
2. A trans man is not an adult human male.
3. Therefore a trans man is not a man.
(The same pattern for "woman," and interpreting "male" biologically.)
Nobody disputes this argument's validity, but validity is not sufficient for philosophical substance in a contested debate. And yet, you do claim to have shown something philosophically substantive, namely that a trans man is not a man etc., thereby coming down on one side of the actually ongoing debate.
Of course, what you have actually done is attempted to sidestep the central dispute, which is over whether or not your definition is correct. Your conclusion follows only because you have already made it inevitable by assuming the centrally contested definition. This amounts to begging the question (but see below for more about that).
Now, had you taken the time to defend the definition, none of this would matter. Perhaps you just wanted to set things out clearly and simply, and what could be wrong with that? But the following is all you offered in defence:
Quoting Philosophim
This is where you need a good argument—where it's difficult.
---
Quoting Philosophim
If this were an accurate description of begging the question, there would never be a need to identify it, because it would never exist. This is better: you beg the question when your premises assume the truth of the conclusion. And I think your argument does that, not explicitly but in the context of the ongoing debate. Premise 1 presupposes the conclusion by fixing the meaning of "man" in a way that already excludes trans men. The conclusion is assumed rather than argued for.
In reality, begging the question takes different forms: assuming a disputed claim, building the conclusion into a definitional premise, or stipulating a definition that can only be accepted by someone who already agrees with the conclusion. Some philosophers have made the distinction between intrinsic and dialectical question-begging. In those terms, you have done the latter.
Quoting Philosophim
If you just want to win, then sure. But if you want to find truth, then no, you cannot ignore the chance of attaining knowledge. I pointed you in the direction of a respected philosophical authority (the SEP), and mentioned that some thinkers regard man and woman as cluster concepts. I assumed, because you hadn't mentioned anything remotely like that, that you were unaware of all the work that has already been done in the field.
Quoting Jamal
Quoting Philosophim
I meant to call your statement that sex is the default into doubt, to push back against it with examples. If social position is operative in society in substantial, non-ephemeral ways—and I gave examples—then it shows there is a burden on you to support your statement that sex is the default. It does not rigorously prove that sex is not the default, but I had no intention of doing that.
Quoting Philosophim
The thing is, you are not merely saying, "Given my definition, trans women are not women." (Everyone agrees with this). You are also saying that your definition is the default, and that rival definitions, and therefore contrary conclusions, are deviations from correct usage. At this point, the masses are functioning as an authority.
This becomes clear in the concluding paragraph of the OP:
Quoting Philosophim
How do you get to that? The logic surely goes like this:
Most people use "man" and "woman" to refer to sex, not gender.
Therefore "man" and "women" refer to sex, not gender.
There is a missing premise there: If most people use a term a certain way, then that is what the term refers to. Without it, it's an appeal to popularity. In fact, it's an appeal to popularity even with that premise, because that premise is itself an appeal to popularity.
Quoting BenMcLean
You are both asking for dogma which runs the risk of invalidating and erasing transgender persons.
Dogma is authoritative – as if only it is the truth – as if identification by others should supersede self-identification.
The experiences of transgender persons tell us that the definition of “woman” or “man” cannot be based solely on the physical body at birth.
I am more a skeptic than a dogmatist, encouraging open-mindedness and questioning rather than stifling them.
At least we agree the argument is valid.
Quoting Jamal
No Jamal. My conclusion follows because I have multiple true premises. No begging required. All you have to demonstrate to invalidate the argument is whether the default definition of man or woman is biological, or a role.
Quoting Jamal
Feel free to point out where its flawed. Your judgement of whether the argument is 'good' or not is only evidenced by your ability to refute it.
Quoting Jamal
I think you've put forth a good effort, but couldn't be more wrong here. You see, we also have to establish what 'trans X' means as well. We need the definition of X, trans X, and the conclusion of whether trans X is X. By fact the definition of X alone cannot assume the truth of the conclusion. Sorry Jamal, its impossible for this to be begging the question. You're going to have to dispute the definition of X, or trans X.
Quoting Jamal
This sounds like you're trying to avoid disputing the definition at this point by trying to twist the clear term of question begging. Not buying it. Dispute the definition, or take another approach. Otherwise I have a logically sound argument.
Quoting Jamal
I did read it. But I did that for my own curiosity. That doesn't invalidate my point that it was a flawed counter in any argument. Throwing a massive amount of information at someone without pointing out its specific relevance to the discussion is not a viable tactic from someone trying to find the truth. If you had simply mentioned, "Hey, here's some reading on gender. Its not an argument against what you've written here, just some information if you're curious," I can see your point. But you wanted to win the argument, not just give me knowledge. That information not existing in my argument did not mean the argument was flawed. Claiming that was your mistake.
Quoting Jamal
This is more interesting now because we're discussing the issue proper. The problem for you is that I did assert that sex is the default reference for man and woman. So if you can't prove that the default is something else my position holds.
Quoting Jamal
Correct, because it is not my definition. It is the default definition that people assume when man or woman is unmodified in English.
Quoting Jamal
You are free any time to demonstrate that when most people see man and woman unmodified that they instantly jump to it being a role and not a sex reference. Go tell a random person on the street, "I saw a woman walking through the woods the other day." After some time then ask them, "When I said "woman" did you think adult human female or adult human male?" You and I both know the answer to this. So we can stop pretending otherwise. Free of specific context, woman and man default to a sex reference, not a role. To be clear, its the default of the unmodified term. Its not that man or woman can't mean role, they just need proper modification and context to clearly convey that.
Quoting Jamal
Yes, this is fair criticism and I hope the discussion focusses on this rather than the above disputes. Language is a series of signs within context that indicate concepts. But they do follow default definitions within the language they are a part of. For example, black and white are colors without any modification. But we can modify default definitions to create more 'colorful' language. For example, I can call someone a 'white' man. We all understand this is a reference to race, and that a person's skin doesn't have to actually be the color white, but ethnicity or even social class. "Bob might have dark skin, but he's really a white man underneath it all."
Metaphors and similes are also tools to modify language into interesting comparisons. "Todd is just like a black man". Todd of course would be categorized as a 'white man' in reality, as he does not have any black skin or 'ethnicity'. Its a simile where we attribute behavior to ethnicity. Which is fine, but does the behavior make the ethnicity, or is it a trait that is sometimes associated with the ethnicity? Its the later.
It would then be a far cry to say by default, "Tom is black" when he is actually white by ethnicity. Even in a context, there is a default meaning for the term. We understand the default for 'black' is ethnicity, not the actions associated with the ethnicity. So if Tom, a white man, decided to apply for black scholarships, we would rightly deny Tom the ability to do so because 'white' is by default in this context ethnicity, not behavior. Do you disagree with this?
Remove the context, and the base meaning of white as a color still applies. All of this is very important, because if the default is misunderstood, everything built off of it becomes confused. If you started saying, "White unmodified can also mean the feeling of being white", it becomes very difficult to understand language without further context. "Tom is a white man" now all of the sudden becomes ambiguous. Do we mean Tom is white by ethnicity or is actually black by ethnicity and feels white? Suddenly a "White scholarship" can be applied to not be the default meaning, which was ethnicity, but has become unnecessarily ambiguous. Language is now confused, people don't know what it means anymore and thus language has become worse.
Defaults generally happen in languages to avoid ambiguity and create efficient discussion. No one wants to speak to another person saying, "A woman with x sized hips, medium breasts who feels like a male..." People just denote, "A woman" and English speakers understand 'woman' to refer to 'sex' by default. Its just an efficient word to describe a basic concept unambiguously. A "White woman" would default to an ethnic description of a woman by sex. A word that does not have a default is confused and awful in correct language, as language's goal is to accurately communicate a concept efficiently to another person. So the idea of a default for nouns is not flawed, its a real phenomenon in any good language.
The language as well can often tell us what the default is. Lets look at the etymology of the terms man and woman. First, we understand they, in context with each other, were originally sex references. Gender, the idea that males and females have sociological expectations placed upon them, needs a reference to the sex itself. "Male gender" is the sociological expectation placed on an adult human male. Eventually, people started using "Man" as a simile or metaphor. "He acts like a woman." "He's such a woman." But the simile and metaphors don't actually imply the person is 'the other thing', its an implication of traits that are often associated with the thing, in this case behavior.
You can probably see by this point in your reading why I did not go in depth on the OP. My experience is that long posts do not keep the attention span or conversation going. I have found it best to save more in depth assertions for those who are interested in exploring them. I'll continue now.
Back to simile and metaphor. Proper simile's and metaphor's do not imply the person is the default use of the simile and/or metaphor. "My brother Tom doesn't stop talking when he drives. He's such a parrot". We can glean from the context of the sentence that most likely, him being a parrot is a metaphor, not an actual driving parrot. :) The default for parrot is again, the bird. Even though we could parrot other people who use parrot in different ways. As you can see, despite the different meanings of the term parrot in the sentence, you were able to easily understand what was stated without ambiguity. That's an effective and clear sentence.
So, now back to "Trans men are men". The "Are men" is where we will focus first. Is it a metaphor? Is it a claim to be an actual parrot? We'll need to look at what a 'trans man' is first. 'Trans' generally means 'to travel across' and 'man' generally means a sex referent unmodified. But here we have a modification. Intuitively we would think, "Oh, that's a man by sex who is crossing over to the other sex." But of course the phrase was not built on common English expectations.
Instead, we actually need to add some more specificity. Man can also mean 'gender role' in particular contexts, but the context needs to be clear. So we should probably add a modifier to make that clearer. "Trans gender man". This clarifies that the 'man' in question is not a man by sex reference, but by gender reference. And since its 'trans', or crossing over, we can assume their default gender would be woman. And a default gender applies to a default sex. So the trans gender man is a woman. Just like my parrot example above, we can glean from the full sentence the accuracy of the situation. This is a woman who believes in following the sociological expectations of others about sex. She does not want to follow the role society expects of her, she wants to follow the role society expects of men again. Unlike some who would simply reject societal expectations, she embraces them for the other sex.
If the philosophical goal of language is to clearly communicate ideas accurately (and we like efficiency too), has the above accurately conveyed the situation? I would say so. There's no ambiguity. But lets look at the original phrase in question again.
"Trans men are men". What does this mean? Trans men could denote trans sexual or trans gender, so it probably needs a little clarity there. But lets assume its just gender, and there is no transitioning of sex features in any way. "Trans gender man" is a complete phrase that indicates that this is a woman who is taking on the sociological expected role of the other sex. So what's the purpose of the latter addition? If 'man' unmodified by default means 'male sex', this is obviously false.
The modifiers of men further convey the point that man, unmodified by default, refers to sex. This confusion was obviously apparent when the phrase 'trans man' defined common English expectations. For example, most people think on hearing the phrase for the first time that 'trans man' means "A man who's transitioned". There needed to be clarity about the separation of sex and gender with the terms man and woman. Thus the term 'cis' was used to modify the default term so that you would understand that man or woman in this instance refers to gender, not sex. A cis woman, is a woman who has the female gender. This is a clear and accurate sentence.
The proper tautology for accurate and unambiguous communication should be "Trans men are trans men" Or "trans men are not cis men". But "Trans men are men" is ambiguous and poorly phrased at best, or wrong at its worst. Thus the phrase is simply confusing. Assuming that someone is trying to communicate accurately and efficiently the true intentions behind the phrase, they should modify it to be more clear. "Trans men are adult human females that take on the gender role of men" No question there, but wordy. "Trans men are women" still conveys the same information accurrately and more compactly. "Trans men are the male gender" is also compact, but might want to clarify if they're using gender as the sociological meaning vs sex synonym.
As philosophers or people who study philosophy, rationally we should embrace clarity of language and thought where possible. We understand that politics, religion, and ideologies use and abuse language to manipulate and control the populace. This is in defiance of understanding the world and reality in a clear way. So if the phrase is ambiguous because people are going to default to thinking 'Trans men are men' means 'Trans men are men by sex", there shouldn't be a single problem with clarifying the phrase to be clear in its intent.
The only reason I can think that a person would be against it is if they're intending to conflate the default term with gender to avoid having to address the fact that cross gender people aren't cross sex. But you wouldn't be one of those would you? I would assume having studied philosophy for years that you would be aware of such basic deceptions and manipulations. Clarity of language and thoughts is paramount to the study, so why use unclear language? The use of language for conflation or manipulation is the antithesis of philosophy.
My apologies for giving you a mouthful of words (but not a literal mouthful, we both know that right?) but I was saving such extensive explanations for those who would address the subject more pointedly and not reactionary. Please take your time to respond, I will not view time taken to mean anything other than you are thinking about it and you'll respond when you have time.
This doesn't mean I want anybody rounded up or punished or whatever: just that logic comes before politics.
Quoting QuestionerIdentity is always socially negotiated. People aren't necessarily always what they say they are just because they say they are. Just because I say I'm an Olympic gold medalist or a world chess champion doesn't make it true.
Quoting QuestionerSince they don't exist, this is not true.
I'm very confused. How is a basic default definition 'dogma'? How does the point that the unmodified words of woman and man together are sex references, invalidate and erase trans individuals? Words don't erase reality. Good words express concepts clearly. Concepts still exist despite whether you call them out or not.
I think there is a confusion of language use. Language is not used to 'shape' reality. That's manipulation. Language is used to describe reality accurately and efficiently. Any deviation from this is improper use of language. So there's no erasure going on.
Quoting Questioner
No, dogma is an insistence of reality that is not backed by fact. "God is real!" is dogma. "Trans men are men" can be dogma if it is not backed by fact. Noting, "This is a box" while pointing to a factually provable box is not dogma. Noting men and women by default are sex references is not dogma if I'm correct.
Also, I fail to see how others subjectively identify you should have any bearing on how you identify yourself. I identify myself as a kind, loving, rational person who cares about people. You probably don't identify me that way. And you are not obligated to. You are allowed to identify me as you wish as an opinion.
Now if we are talking about objective identification, if you want others to accept your personal identification, it has to pass a fact check. If I identify as a dog, objectively, I am not. Others do not have to agree with subjective identifications that do not pass objective evaluation.
Quoting Questioner
You're going to have to clarify what you mean by man and woman. You can say, "The experiences of transgender persons tell us that the existence of female and male gender actions cannot be based sole on the physical body at birth," and there's an argument to be considered. If you're claiming 'woman' or 'man' as a sex reference, you're objectively wrong.
Quoting Questioner
How so? You don't seem very open minded to considering that man and women are sex references by default. Truly open minded individuals consider everything equally without regard to potential consequences. My observations in my communications with you is you seem to have a very dogmatic conclusion about trans people, and get very upset when an alternative is considered. You even went as far to say trans people would be erased, which is a closed minded tactic to avoid even considering the possibility that the OP is right. I've explained to you that there are trans people who agree with pretty much what I've stated in my trans related posts, and yet I have not seen you once be open to considering that. You might consider yourself open minded, but from my observations of your replies, you're not as open minded as you think.
No. Nothing could do that if trans people experience some real state of being**. I reject that, obviously, so it's cool for me, but just taking this a little further - calling a woman an adult human female is not dogma. Its a description. Most descriptions are entirely stable once accepted. We do not slowly change the meaning of "human" or "male". Interestingly, and I think tellingly, "male" has enjoyed an attempt to be altered to capture females (and vice verse). This is clearly incoherent.
** the word "trans woman" is sufficient. IF you could explain how "trans woman" is insufficient to refer to, encapsulate, and validate the existence of trans women (or men, just being short) that would help us understand your resistance to the language argument i think. At the moment, it seems fully emotional. However,
Quoting Philosophim
I think this is naive in a way I find it hard to overstate. Language absolutely, 100% shapes our reality. This is very well documented and understood and is, in fact, the basis for this conversation. Your OP implicitly assumes this, by arguing for clear language to describe reality. If you were happy with ambiguous, unhelpful language your world would be different. Excising my clear opinion in that previous line, because its subjective as hell, that's what Questioner presents us with: a world in which language has created different concepts and institutions for that poster (and, i presume, many others who agree - largely, because of the language they have been exposed to).
This is different to an argument about descriptive realities and best practice. I think that's the available argument for the OP. Clear, precise, and helpful language is best practice for human communication and policy. Currently, its a fucking mess in this area and personally I'm 100% behind the project to clear it up - but that's because parsimony is good imo, ambiguity is bad imo and it makes me feel like i'm not engaging honestly with the world when i muddle language about description. To you point about accuracy over comfort, I have a good (but ultimately extremely controversial example)
(@Jamal, if you don't like this next part, please simply tell me to remove it. It is clearly not racist and clearly has some import to the discussion. I am happy to do without it, if it jeopardizes the thread or my standing with you).
It is an absolute fact that black Americans disproportionate harm themselves, and other Americans. The rates of violent crime between black Americans and all other groups show a propensity in only one direction. And it is quite alarmingly significant - for instance, homicide data shows that there is more than 2x higher rate of Black->white homicide than the reverse and nearly exactly 10x more black->black homicide than white->white). It is a little complicated by how the data is collected, or assessed but the margins are high enough that we're safe in hte basic claim.
This is extremely uncomfortable to talk about because It is an accurate description of events in the world. That some people might use this to bolster or justify their personal bias is not a reason to ignore it, or skew it, or avoid it. Avoiding uncomfortable realities has never helped anyone and generally, allow terrible prejudice to fester and become either overt racism, or bigotry of low expectations (i.e white saviour protecting others from the facts about themselves, lets say).
But this is conceptual to illustrate only. Back on topic, whether trans people do in fact experience a true "state of being" or not, the basis for the state is being a certain sex. The only criteria, it seems, for claiming to be a trans woman is being male (yes, I understand that diagnoses happen. That's not quite the point being made - that's considered transmedicalisation by activists and rejected as illegitimate gate-keeping). For robust, accurate and compassionate discussion, this shouldn't be avoided. It should be represented in the language, not hidden by skewing how we use "woman". "trans woman" does the job, and I'd need to know why this isn't good enough to entertain the further arguments.
One word is not a description. We need the fullness of language to describe any one person's experience. We need the fullness of intricate meaning and understanding.
As Henry Miller wrote -
“I do not believe in words, no matter if strung together by the most skillful man: I believe in language, which is something beyond words, something which words give only an adequate illusion of.”
I'll be more clear. Language does not create reality. Language can shape our perception of reality. But it does not change reality at its core. Calling a piece of grass, "Grass" or "thing that grows towards sun" may shape our perception of it, but it doesn't change what it is. Language used to alter our perception of reality in a flawed way for the benefit of someone else is manipulation.
Quoting AmadeusD
Correct. This is the objective of good philosophy as well.
Quoting AmadeusD
100% in agreement. What some advocates do not realize is they are doing immense harm to the trans movement by insisting on a poorly worded phrase that ends up making them look out of touch with reality compared to the rest of the world. This insistence on a poorly worded phrase has motivated far more people against trans gender people than a clear admittance that trans gender men and woman are their natal sex taking on the gendered role of the other sex.
This seems to me veering into totally irrelevant areas of discussion. We don't need that. If a person is an adult, human female, then they are a woman (under this view, I mean). There's nothing missing.
Quoting Philosophim
That is totally fair, but when it comes to experiential reportage this probably does not apply. Though, I am relatively resistant to identity discussions of that kind - i would prefer to focus (and it seems Questioner is getting this) on the experiential aspects of things. That collapses into sexism pretty quickly here. You've done a good job of laying that out, imo, in the other thread. Gender is social expectation - if it weren't, there would be nothing to point to as Gender. Or, it's tied to sex, in which case we are objectively correct in using 'woman' to refer solely to females.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes. And honestly, you saying makes me a little uncomfortable as you're not trans - but I've seen and discussed with many trans people that htis is their view too. Even on that ridiculous podcast Whatever, there's been a couple of trans guests who take this line and are sick and tired of being lumped in with the aggressive, reality-avoidant lot. Fair. I feel the same about white people.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (well known in anthropology) states, "Language has a tyranny on thought." The idea was that Inuits, who have 22 words for snow, actually see snow differently from us temperate zoners.
Perhaps trans women and men want to be seen as the gender with which they identify. This would involve using gender-appropriate pronouns. The words "man" and "woman" come up rarely in ordinary speech (with regard to the individuals with whom one is conversing). Instead, they are used on applications, medical information forms, drivers' licenses and passports.
Since names often indicate gender, if a trans person changes her (OK, the pronoun is controversial) name from "Al" to "Alice" would those objecting to the pronoun preferred by the individual insist on continuing to call her "Al"?
Always appreciate your viewpoint Amadeus. If it helps I didn't write this thread after hearing the phrase for the first time. :) I've dived deep into trans issues for some time now, communities, scientists, doctors, and of course, philosophy. So I don't say that carelessly or lightly. The movement is dying. If it digs itself into slogans and foolishly intractable positions, it will be completely finished. It needs to adapt, become more intelligent, and start thinking about how it can work with the general populace instead of against it before its too late.
A legal name change makes that the person's actual name. Just because a name is normally associated with the other sex, doesn't mean it belongs to the other sex. That's prejudice. Plenty of names associated with boys and girls have switched over the years or even become neutral. Gender is just a subjective social expectation, nothing more.
If a person legally changes their name, then you should call them their new legal name. I don't think that's in dispute here.
What does "legally" have to do with it? Why should that matter?
Good manners suggest that we should refer to people by the name they request us to use.
(I notice you use the plural pronoun "their" when the referent is singular. Maybe you are coming around.)
Because a name is a legally binding identifier for the individual. Why do you think it wouldn't matter?
Quoting Ecurb
How so? Who is the authority of these 'Good manners'? Did you know its actually good manners not to disagree with me specifically? And yet you do. How rude. :D Are you going to be rude and explain why I'm wrong?
Quoting Ecurb
"They're is "They are" and can be used as plural. "Their" indicates ownership and can also be singular or plural. "They're going to the story." "That is their shopping cart".
Plenty of people go by a name that is neither their birth name nor their legal name. A woman I know named "Kathleen" prefers to go by "Kathy". I suppose on legal documents one must use the legal name. In social situations it is best to comply with the addressee's wishes. I don't know why you're so hung up on the law. Who cares about legal names in a social situation?
Quoting Philosophim
Miss Manners, of course. Why don't write to her column and ask her. I'll bet anything she'll agree with me.
Quoting Philosophim
Only in the same modern, politically correct grammar you abhor. You wrote "If a person legally changes their name". "A person" is singular. "Their" is plural. The old, grammatically correct form would be "If a person legally changes his name..." The newer one (which is awkward, so some people use "their" now, in a grammatically incorrect manner): "If a person changes his or her name."
The way I understand the distinction is, transgender is like TWareW, whereas transexuals are men that live as women (not actually women). Since you concluded with a 'should question', I'll take a moral standpoint and say, unlike the former, the latter statement is true.
The former is false because men get women pregnant, men can't get pregnant and women can't make anyone get pregnant. Thus men and women are mutually exclusive. When the gender narrative detaches from that reality, it conflicts with the world through ignorance or evil because it is stated as fact when it is not a true story. It's basically a lie.
Transexuals tell the truth which nobody can deny, so they have some moral ground. The question is, is it ethical for other people (society) to provide hormones and surgery to transexuals, or is the attempt to radically cross sex an abomination in some sense? I think it is to some degree. It is absolutely abominable to do that to children on principles of maturity and consent. Can't consent to a tattoo, for example, but sure, lop my breasts off?
It's only for adults.
I think we start going wrong when other people start providing medical intervention, so if forced to answer yes or no, I would say it's wrong and we can't do it, but the individual can do what they want (provided it is harmless).
If not forced with yes or no, I can't justify stopping adults from doing what they want to do if they aren't deceiving or hurting anyone. Just don't lie. Tell a true story.
Freedom is understanding that everyone has their own path through life, but truth is the only way.
“The emphasis on suiting pronouns to identity has to do with tolerance and acceptance. Therefore, Miss Manners trusts that those who expect these virtues will also practice them. … An apology ought to be enough to establish one’s goodwill when mistaking a name or a pronoun."
Here's what she says about dead-naming:
"Use the name and pronouns a person asks you to use, and politely correct yourself when you slip up. Choosing to repeatedly use the name someone has asked you not to use is considered disrespectful in polite society."
Excellent. I am addressing you and wish that you would agree with everything I say. So why should you not?
Quoting Ecurb
No, I am the authority of good manners. And as I am addressing you with these wishes, you should comply. Don't you want to make a smooth social situation? What's giving up your opinion for mine when it doesn't hurt you any? You should be polite and just say I'm right. What's the harm? If you don't agree with me, I'll really hurt inside. And you wouldn't want to do that to poor me right? You don't want to be seen as rude in polite society right?
So why is the above wrong Ecurb? And no, quoting Ms. Manners is silly, don't do it again please. I'm here to talk philosophy, not listen to quotes from an advice column in the paper. I'm being tongue in cheek with my arguments of course, but I want you to legitimately think about it for a minute. These are the same arguments you've been using for weeks now to manipulate people into doing what you want instead of engaging with the topic properly. So why am I wrong? Once you realize why I'm wrong, then you'll realize why you're wrong.
I won't continue to repeat my critique the OP. As you say about my "fair criticism"...
Quoting Philosophim
So I will aim to please.
Quoting Philosophim
Here you formulate a thought experiment that repeats your appeal to popularity, and then you add an appeal to common sense. The bolded section is rhetorical, and philosophically inadmissible. After all, today's common sense is tomorrow's outmoded ideology, and it's the job of philosophers above all to question it.
But fair enough. You might have been counting on its rhetorical force, assuming that, if I'm being honest, I'll agree with you. You were saying something like "come on, cut the crap," and that might have worked, if we really had shared the same intuition. But the thing is, I genuinely don't. No pretending involved: I just don't share this commonsensical notion, and I don't accept the legitimacy of your thought experiment.
To see what I mean, let's look at the way you put your random victim on the spot in the thought experiment:
Quoting Philosophim
This is a loaded question and a false dichotomy, which has your view baked into it. Forcing or strongly encouraging the hearer to come down on one side or the other, it imposes a binary choice on the fuzzy reality that constitutes both the meaning of "woman" and the hearer's thoughts about it. Things are not so black-and-white, either in meaning or in what people think when they hear words used.
Most people, when hearing "I saw a woman...", form a holistic impression that includes many different things: sex characteristics, aspects of gender expression, social role, all mixed in with personal experience. What they do not do is refer to a textbook biological definition. The very idea that they refer to, or use, a definition, whether consciously or unconsciously, is a misunderstanding of language.
In a nutshell, hearers and participants in conversation construct their interpretations according to context, background knowledge, and relevance, which typically produces a fuzzy picture rather than any determinate biological classification.
In case you're tempted to go for a logical gotcha here, note that when I say most people form a holistic impression, etc., I am not inferring the term's proper meaning from that, so I am not hypocritically appealing to popularity. I am countering your descriptive move, to show your prescriptive conclusion to be not only inferred invalidly but also inferred from a false premise. Thus I'm trying to show that your model of meaning is incorrect.
The meaning of a term is never a static definition. It is a matter of public use, logical function, and historically sedimented associations, i.e., the layers of the term's social and ideological history. It is not a matter of tallying up imagined mental snapshots.
You demonstrate some recognition of this yourself:
Quoting Philosophim
This is a novel angle, but rather than a historical enrichment of your model of meaning as I just outlined, you commit the etymological fallacy, taking a purported original meaning as the standard for all time, any later meanings being secondary. It's also a just-so story, an unfalsifiable and speculative narrative.
Incidentally, you might not be aware that semantic evolution is significantly driven by the literalization of metaphors, meaning that they are far from being mere embellishments of a central core.
Going back to the thought experiment, another serious problem is that you've conflated two things: the meaning of a word, and what people think when they use it. These are not the same thing. At the very least, if you think they are, you have to argue for it (which, incidentally, would be to go against most (all?) modern linguists and philosophers of language). As it stands, what you have is a folk-linguistic model of meaning.
The central example of this model is the idea of a default or base meaning:
Quoting Philosophim
I think you're gesturing at something real here, and your intuition is not wrong. People surely do have such expectations, and do mentally reach for typical examples upon hearing a word. And linguistics and cognitive science back this up: it's called prototype theory. People have prototypical associations with words. A starling is closer to the prototypical bird than a penguin. Crucially though, both are birds. The tendency towards prototypical association doesn't justify the exclusion of other members of the category.
Importantly, prototypes are not "default meanings" in your sense. They don't fix what a word means, they don't determine semantic priority, and they can't act as a foundation for claims about correct usage. What they do is describe how people often imagine examples when there is little information available. This is not equivalent to any kind of base or fundamental meaning.
A penguin is not a "modified bird" just because it doesn't fly, and a PhD is not a "modified doctor" because physicians are more prototypical in casual everyday communication. What you're gesturing towards is therefore better understood as a cognitive-linguistic tendency, not a foundation that can determine or justify the attribution of a basic meaning. Conflating the two is your central mistake. Even if sex-based imagery is often prototypical for "man" or "woman" in casual speech, it doesn't follow that sex is the "base meaning" or that other uses are derivative.
So in the thought experiment, you might have shown, not that "woman" has a default definition, but that many hearers have a prototype in mind in the context of a strange philosopher pouncing on them out of nowhere and saying "I saw a woman walking through the woods the other day." They might infer an adult human female (understood biologically), not because there is some "default" ready to be retrieved, but because they are using an inferential shortcut to the prototype, which applies when they haven't been supplied with any other information (before you say this is precisely what a default is, read on).
So...
Quoting Philosophim
As I've said, it's more accurate to say that meaning is flexible and dependent on context, and that people understand "woman" in a holistic way, with associations that include many different things including but by no means limited to sexual characteristics. But even if "woman" does default to a sex reference, this has no semantic priority.
Returning to the doctor example, if I say "I met with a doctor this morning," you might imagine a physician, but we can't conclude that "doctor" means physician simpliciter, or by default—nor that people with PhDs are "modified" doctors, or are only doctors in some secondary sense.
Quoting Philosophim
This is interesting, because you've moved on from popularity and common sense to argue for the pragmatic requirement for defaults: pragmatically, language must be efficient and unambiguous, and this requires base or default meanings.
But it's not true. Communication in natural language relies on context, pragmatic inferences, and shared background knowledge, not on a single privileged base meaning that's attached to the noun. Communication works precisely because meanings are underdetermined, resolved in context. No core meaning is required.
Ambiguity is not a defect to be eliminated. It is a basic feature of natural language. We have no trouble at all with words that have multiple common meanings, e.g., bank, light, set, doctor, so natural language is routinely ambiguous in your sense. The key is context.
And I don't think it's unfair of me to set out your argument as follows:
1. Language aims at efficient unambiguous communication
2. Therefore nouns must have defaults
3. Therefore "woman" defaults to sex.
There's a lot missing here.
---
As a reminder, this was the criticism that you accepted in a philosophical spirit and addressed at length:
Quoting Jamal
I don't know if I was clear, but my criticism was not that you missed a premise. We can apply the principle of charity and fill in the gaps no problem. My point was that even with the hidden premise made explicit, and your argument thereby rendered formally valid, it is still fallacious. Note that an argument can be formally valid yet still fail because it relies on informal fallacies such as appeal to popularity or question-begging.
I do appreciate your generous response. The question is, how does it answer the charge? Since it's based on fallacious reasoning and a fundamentally faulty, not to mention unsupported, conception of language, I think it cannot answer it at all.
Well, you asked for an authority on manners, and I offered one. You don't have to accept her advice, but based on Miss Maner's definition of "rude" such is your behavior. Of course we need not smooth over every social situation -- but using preferred names is not something a rational person "disagrees with". Speech is social, and it is socially and culturally accepted to use preferred names -- but not to agree with everything anyone says.
The classic transexual definitely. Trans 'gender' has always felt like a rebrand of trans sexuals to let more get in and be accepted by society, but unfortunately got out of hand. Now we have people running around thinking sexist language somehow reflects reality.
Quoting Throng
Of course.
Quoting Throng
I agree its definitely only for adults. I would go to war for that one.
Quoting Throng
I think the fact there's an argument to be made that it should be changed to a cosmetic procedure and not a medical one. The evidence isn't very sound that its an effective medical treatment. Most of the reasons that I've examined being given for it involving gender don't make any sense. There does seem to be one 'viable' reason to transition, and that sexual/romantic orientation.
First, I confess to a particular bias. My friend who is transitioning, discovered after weeding through all the poor language, crappy phrases, and ideologies that at the end of the day, this was sexual for him. You see, he's a bit past the general dating age, has no plans for kids, has never had luck with women, and part of the reason is because he can't involve himself sexually without imaging himself as a woman.
We read up on it, and it appears its a pretty common cause among straight men who desire to transition. Reading Anne Lawrence's work was eye opening. The refrain among the transgender community has often been, "Its not sexual," but that's usually a naive definition, a rejection by fear, gay transexuals, or people who transitioned for other reasons. Especially among older transiioners, the sexual element over time turns into love. The feelings they get when they embody femininity often start as intense thrills, but evolve over time into the comfort of your own girlfriend, then wife.
This is one of the reasons getting misgendered can 'hurt' trans individuals. Its a sort of disassociation and embodiment of a fantasy that feels real in a way you and I have difficult comprehending. As such, when embodying femininity, and the longer they do it, this feeling becomes very much like a long term girl friend and then wife. Just like normal people feel an underlying calm and pleasantness being around a woman they love, similar feelings manifest in him. The misgendering 'breaks' the illusion briefly, and it can be like realizing you've never had that girlfriend or wife all along. It snaps that away, and the person is left not simply alone, but as if their significant other left them. This is of course a VERY generalized approach, but he confirmed that all of this is essentially true.
The problem is, because its so integrated into himself, there's no practical way for him to stop at this time. To deny it is to be lonely, dejected, and its RIGHT THERE. It can only be denied through extreme willpower, but why should he? He's not going to find a real woman. He'll just sit there being alone and miserable. This is an outlet that society has said he can take, the drugs are there, the high of going through transition is pleasant, so why should he not? He even has a nice cover to say its all 'gender', and people will nod and go, "Oh yes".
My concern with 'gender' is that this covers all of this and denies this even if its there. If a man who has this is aware of this early, will trying to shift their sexual energies towards another person first bear fruit? Or is that like trying to get a person to stop being gay, which we know is impossible? Sexual impulses and feelings are one of the few things that seem impossible to change. So if a person cannot manage to integrate it successfully into a marriage with the risk of generating a trans widow, maybe it is a good thing.
But, should medicine pay for it? Should it be on insurance or the government to fund someone's sexual and romantic desires? Does that mean we should allow such men into cross sex spaces? I don't think so. I think it should be an allowed cosmetic procedure, but that a person's sexual and romantic desires should be one's own exploration and pursuit, not funded by insurance or government under the guise of medicine.
Of course, its not only straight people who transition, but gays as well. From my understanding exploring that side, its mostly homophobia. This area I'm less versed in, so this is not complete. Being gay can come with more feminine behaviors and a sense of isolation, confusion, and fear. A gay male may feel more comfortable around females growing up. The realization of liking men can be horrifying. Some gay people have a difficult time reconciling the fact that they are a man who is interested sexually and romantically in other men. Transition can be a way to ease the pains of homophobia without having to go through the difficulty of working towards self-acceptance. Again, this is inevitably a sexual reason to transition, and might be viable for certain individuals.
I've investigated the non-sexual reasons to transition, and most of them seem very poor reasons to transtion. Sexism, prejudice, grass is greener theory, escaping one's current life, are all psychological issues that generally can be treated by other means. There may be the extremely case of a particularly broken individual, but this would be deep mental illness, and I think there should be other ways of dealing with it.
So the one reason to transition which I think is viable is sexual, but I don't believe it should be funded as a medical intervention. Its cosmetic for the pursuit of one's sexual goals in life. I think this should be allowed, but I do not think that society should be expected to partake in this sexual exploration. There's nothing wrong with having different sexual and romantic interests, but we have a limit in public that we consider tasteful. Crossing sex separated areas for pleasant sexual romantic feelings about oneself isn't tasteful. Expecting other people to call you another sex for your own sexual and romantic pleasure isn't tasteful. Do I think a man should be allowed to wear tasteful feminine clothes and make up in public? Sure, why not? Does it make them women? No. While my focus has been on men, women can also have similar sexual reasons for transitioning, its just not as well explored in the literature.
As for non-sexual transitioners, in all cases it appears to be confusion, sexism, mental illness, or wanting to get treatment from others by deception and manipulation instead. So I soundly reject that transition is a good medical treatment for these types, and that therapy and/or psyche meds would be better. But this is not a medical breakdown or argument with pages of proof, just a note of my findings and viewpoints to discuss with you. Knowing the underlying sexual aspect that many people driven to transition feel, what do you think? Should it be considered medical? Should society partake in this sexual exploration of others?
That's correct. Some linguists think language is "structural", others that it is more "analogical" (this latter would involve the "prototypes" you mention). Reverting to P's "woman in the woods", the default image might NOT be someone with xx genes (which are unidentifiable to the naked eye). Instead, it might (like the starling that many children identify as a prototypical bird) be the image of a prototypical women: dressed like a woman, shaped like a woman, with feminine features.
Clearly, some transwomen will fit this image more closely than some women born with xx chromosomes. Only the "structural" (scientific) approach to language defines "woman" as P does.
Yes, this is an appeal to you in particular. If it does not appeal, ignore.
Quoting Jamal
I think this is a bit of a stretch. I already said "woman" at first, and what we're testing for is the default understanding of the term correct? Meaning what came unbidden in their mind. Were they thinking of a role where sex is irrelevant, or were they thinking of a sex? But, I will concede that I do not technically have such a survey in front of me, and this is an appeal to general shared experience. If you are honestly denying this, and not just denying this disingenuously, then we can explore other avenues.
Quoting Jamal
We're going to have to define gender here. Gender is an expected set of social actions and behaviors that society subjectively applies to a sex. Of course if you're thinking of a woman, you may imagine how you expect a woman to act and apply that to the situation. But the key here is that you are first thinking of an adult human female. You are not thinking, "Oh, woman means gender, and that could apply to anyone so I envisioned that it could possibly be an adult human male or adult human female."
Quoting Jamal
Correct.
Quoting Jamal
A jump too far. The rational way to end that sentence is something along the lines of, "Rather then anything perfectly specific" A person can have a fuzzy notion of a sex reference or a less fuzzy notion of a sex reference. But its still a sex reference.
Quoting Jamal
Fair enough. But then I'll ask you how we determine the default meaning of a term? You and I are writing to each other with the assumption that the words and phrases have meaning that we can each understand. So we can't simply posit that language is completely subjective, as we would not be able to understand each other. We've all taken English class, and in learning the language we had to learn certain words with default meanings, that of course can be adjusted through the context of speech.
If I went into the world and started pointing to what we know is an apple, called it apple, but the entire English speaking world said, "No, we call that an orange," then wouldn't that be the meaning of orange? I would be ignored if I went to a book and said, "But in this book here the fruit is called an apple." The underlying reference of the sign doesn't change, but the sign we use to indicate the reference has to be agreed upon at a minimally detailed level by everyone involved or proper dialogue cannot happen. Thus I understand your note that this seems to be an argument of popularity, and I do see the subtle difference between the 'popularity' of a term vs its default meaning. But for the default use of a word, I don't think there's any other way to note what it is then to observe how most people use it when its unmodified.
Quoting Jamal
Oh, I want to be clear. This can change. If tomorrow everyone started referring to 'woman' as a role, and by default when we used the 'woman in the woods' test, people responded, "Oh, I didn't imagine a female or male specifically, just a person acting and wearing certain clothes like a woman does", then that would be the definition of woman. I want to be clear, I'm not saying what the term man or woman should be. This is not a moral argument. I'm simply noting today what it means by default to the general population.
Quoting Jamal
Ha ha! Yes, I am aware of that, but good to bring forward as well. Language is a constantly evolving social contract. Right now what we're seeing the metaphor of extreme medical terms in common communication. "My ADHD is causing me to spaz out today," for example. The medical community generally gets pissed as the general population diminishes the meaning and impact of the terms, but that's generally the way culture goes.
Quoting Jamal
Feel free to introduce other models that describe a default. It may very well be that I do have a folk-linguistic model of meaning, but I am unaware of competing theories. In this case, please feel free to post any particular linguistic approaches that you wish to discuss as this is pertinent to the conversation. You can then refer to their languages and approaches in your next post, and I will have read up to understand your arguments.
Quoting Jamal
I want to emphasize again that I am not saying that words cannot have other meanings. I am simply noting that man and woman by default without being modified by adjectives or phrases, is understood 'prototypically' as a noun to reference adult human sex. While man and women are both humans, we would not say 'human' by default means a role that a lady bug could take on. We could of course create a play where a lady bug becomes an adult human female through magic or science, but that doesn't change the fact that 'human' by default refers to homo sapiens, not any old living thing taking on a role.
As for exclusion, male and female are exclusively defined against each other. Male or female defined alone have little meaning. Its the two types of bodily expressions intended to reproduce in the species. Meaning, by definition, a male cannot be a female. Think of 'left' and 'right'. They are words defined and understood in relation to each other. Without the concept of 'left', there is no concept of 'right'. And without metaphor, 'left' cannot logically be exactly the same as 'right'.
Quoting Jamal
I want to also clear up what is meant here by 'fundamental'. I am not saying "man is defined platonically in the universe's underlying truth as 'adult human male'". So I am not saying "This is the way man and woman are defined for all time, and it is rationally incorrect for the default use to change". My observation is simply a snapshot of today. Based on the default language of today, how is the phrase "Trans men are men" read and understood by most English speaking people.
Quoting Jamal
If you thought I was defining men and woman as a 'foundation' in a sense of their innate truth, then I would be committing the fallacy you note. To be clear, I'm not. I'm not saying other uses of terms are derivative by default, though I do believe that its fairly clear that man as a gender role naturally derived from 'man as adult human male'. Even so, if "man as gender role" became the default understanding of the term, then the OP's conclusion would change. At that point, "Trans men are men" would be a clearly understood sentence to indicate 'gender role'. Frank came by earlier and agreed my point was trivially true and that he thinks others are believing that I'm attempting to claim more than I am. I think there has been a conclusion of misintention of the OP's claim. Its not what man and woman should be, it is what they mean by default today.
Quoting Jamal
How did you know I was going to say that?! :) Ok, I'll read on.
Quoting Jamal
I'm going to hold off on your mention of semantic priority and just address the doctor issue. The default term for doctor would be a holder of a PhD. If I asked you, "What's his PhdD in?," and you replied, "Oh, he doesn't have one, he's a nurse," the other person let their colloquial definition of the situation result in inaccurate communication with a common speaker of the English language. A nurse in English is not a PhD holder, and therefore is no where in the default meaning of "Doctor".
Quoting Jamal
Correct. I believe both can be true. Lets say that I define a nurse as a doctor, and you define a doctor as 'not a nurse'. Communication between is practically impossible at that point. Can I personally define a doctor as a nurse? Sure. Can my group of friends and I do so as well? Sure. But in the broader language, doctor by default excludes someone who does not have a PhD, so therefore my communicating my personal definition of doctor into the broader language would result in confusion and an inability to get my point across correctly.
I will plug my knowledge paper here if you want to better understand my approach to this situation. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 Your approach to this conversation has been pointed and thoughtful, I would love to hear your points on it. But later of course.
Quoting Jamal
Again, I'm going to push back on 'core' so that way there's no implication that what the default is is 'fundamentally true and right'. Signs are references to concepts. Objectively, they can be swapped out as desired. But for communication to happen between two people most accurately and clearly, the underlying concept must be what is being pointed at. Meaning both have to agree that the sign X points to concept y. Its not that context doesn't have an influence, but that is because there exists underlying meaning for that context to reference.
If for example I said, "The trees are rustling this morning," there is an underlying concept you and I must assume for that sentence to make sense. Trees, rustling, and this morning. If I personally meant, "Aliens are sleeping this evening," you and I would have no basis of understanding. The concept I'm noting isn't foreign if you've learned a foreign language. There are common defaults that one must start from. If I said, "What do you think of 'kilowazzorians?" you would need some base default understanding of the term to give me your opinion about them. I would ask a teacher of said language, "What does that term mean?" and we would learn what the term meant unmodified, and perhaps how it could change meaning with modification.
Quoting Jamal
Ambiguity is a defect to be eliminated if you are not intending to be ambiguous in your communication. And since the phrase, "Trans men are men" is not intending to be ambiguous, if it ends up being ambiguous its a poor phrase that needs more detail.
Quoting Jamal
That's doesn't line up with my claims. I'm not saying anywhere that nouns need defaults because language aims at efficient unambiguous communication. I'm simply noting that words have defaults, and a person trying to communicate clear and unambiguously would try to eliminate any ambiguity in their language when speaking with another person. There's no 'therefore' anywhere in there. None of those premises lead to ''Woman defaults to a sex reference either."
Quoting Jamal
I don't think you've yet pointed out that it is fallacious as of yet. I think we're discussing defaults and what the word means unmodified. I have noted that you did not address the linguistic points of 'cis' and 'trans' which indicates the need to modify woman to reference a role, instead of woman being a role by default. I also don't believe you understood that I am not saying what man or woman 'should' mean in a moral sense, or a 'universal truth' sense.
Quoting Jamal
And thank you back! Also chuckled at the parrot on the wheel picture. Feel free to continue disagreeing, this has been good to explore.
Correct, and I offered you another. Me. Quoting Ecurb
You're correct, I don't. Just like you don't have to accept my assertion, "I'm correct, you have to agree with me."
Quoting Ecurb
Also correct.
Quoting Ecurb
We're not really arguing over names though, but pronouns as sex references vs gender references. You doing a bit of a straw man there. We have no personal disagreements in our approach to using a person's preferred name.
Quoting Ecurb
I agree. But it doesn't address the broader point of the OP.
What is a woman then? What is 'the shape of a woman' if not a biological sex reference? What are 'feminine features' without a biological sex reference? What is "dressed like a woman' without a biological sex reference. Be careful in philosophy that you don't try to twist language into an outcome you desire so much that you invalidate what you're doing. There should be no debate that woman can refer to adult human female, and woman can refer to a gender role. My note is that unmodified, when the term 'woman' is used, its default is a sex reference, not a role.
When you've written a widely syndicated column on manners for 40 years, let me know.
Quoting Philosophim
"Woman" can refer to an image of a prototypical woman, just like "bird" can refer to the image of prototypical bird. Research shows that this is how children learn and use language. If a child sees a transwoman walking through the woods and says, "There's a woman walking through the woods:, is he "lying"? He may not even be mistaken -- that's the crux of the argument after all. Of course if we define "woman" as "an adult human having two x chromosomes", then trans women are not women. But why do we need to define it that way? Perhaps the child is right, and the Emperor is naked. The chromosomal clothes that you believe are defining features have vanished.
Quoting Philosophim
You're backtracking (which is fine -- I'm glad you've changed your mind). However, this suggests that you needn't use preferred names unless a legal name has been changed. Names and pronouns are similar in this regard. Your case is slightly better for refusing to use preferred pronouns, but not much better. p.s. my grammatical correction, which I made based on your claim that the thread is about "language", stands.
Quoting Philosophim
Well, it might be a "role", or an "image (prototype)", a genetic description, or a mere preference. That's what the discussion is about. Why should it be one and not the others?
What do you mean 'need'? Here I want to zero in a bit. Its just what we define it as. You asking that question is the same to me as "Why do we need to define a keyboard as something you type on?" Why do you think its a 'need'?
Quoting Ecurb
And a prototypical woman is a living being, not a role. You can't even imagine 'the role' without some living being behind it. You can't even define 'the role' without the understanding of what a biological adult female is.
I want to be clear again. I'm noting in the OP that woman by default, in other words unmodified by adjectives, is by default considered the biological sex reference. This has also been the traditional use of the term for ages. So you should be able to accept at minimum, that one definition for woman is 'adult human female'. If you don't even agree to that, we need to address that first before any other further conversation can occur.
You see, I'm not denying that 'woman' can also be used to mean, 'role we associate with adult human female'. Go read the OP again if you don't believe me. I'm simply noting that by default, that is not how people understand the term woman. We need to add modifiers to communicate that 'woman' means 'role', like using gender, cis, and trans. 'Trans gender man" means, "An adult human female that takes on the gendered role of a man." It does not mean, "An adult human male by sex who used to be an adult human female by sex." Go read the OP once more this time with this in mind.
Quoting Ecurb
I've always agreed with you on this, please point out where I haven't.
Quoting Ecurb
They aren't at all. A name is a legally recognized identity. Pronouns are generic references to the target's sex by default. If someone wants me to use pronouns for gender, I can refuse to use them for what amounts to prejudice. If someone wants me to use pronouns incorrectly, by calling them the sex they clearly aren't, I also do not have to use inaccurate language or lie for them. It is not polite to ask someone to use prejudiced language, or use language incorrectly or lie for a person's self pleasure. And no one is obligated to agree to such a request.
But now we're crossing between this and the other thread. If you want to discuss that in particular, lets go back there to avoid confusion. This thread is about what the default meaning of man and woman are, and whether the phrase "Trans men are men," is properly communicative without ambiguity and potential conflation based off of general knowledge of English.
Quoting Ecurb
I'm not saying it 'should' be any of them. I'm noting it 'is'. That's where you misunderstand the OP. This not about what man or woman should mean by default, its about what they do mean by default.
Your friend is transitioning to female, and you still refer to her as, "he"
Tells me all I need to know about your level of understanding.
Well, I and most educated people in the U.S. disagree. The definitions are changing, as Jamal has clearly pointed out. It's reasonable to modify definitions out of kindness, politeness, and for political reasons. That's what's happening. (Dictionaries rely on usage by well-educated people -- I'd suggest that in Universities, the definitions of man and woman, and the use of proper pronouns has already changed.)
Did you not read the entirety of what I wrote? He knows he's still a he. He's transitioning to fill this need. Not all trans gender people take the idea that transition equates to being equated with the opposite sex or gender. Remember your claim to being open minded? Time to own up to that and learn something from me this time.
Obviously my friend is a private person, and I'm sure if they came on here they would be accused of being a second account or some such. Here is a nice non-political interview with Debbie Hayton, a trans woman who holds similar views. As an open minded individual, you should take a listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO4pFnRdC1o
First, if it was true, that doesn't prove that the disagreement is rational or right. Educated people as a group have believed or asserted plenty of beliefs that later were found not to be founded on rational thought, but cultural group think.
Second, I'm an educated person. There are many, many educated people like me who hold my view. Unless you have an unbiased and carefully set up survey's that conclude the same results, your claim is a belief, not reality.
Quoting Ecurb
Whether they are changing or not is irrelevant to the point of the OP. What are they today? I'm not noting what they should be, and I'm surely not stating what they are going to be a year from now.
Quoting Ecurb
No, its reasonable to use definitions for clarity of communication. Its manipulative, coercive, and a means to influence to gain power over people's thinking when you shape words for 'kindness', politeness, and political reasons.
Yes it does prove they are right in terms of the definition of "man" and "woman". That's how lexicographers define words.
Quoting Philosophim
Words often change from the specific to the general. WE may deplore the change (as Henry Tilney did 200 years ago in Northanger Abbey), but it would be foolish to deny it.
Here's Tilney lecturing his beloved Catherine Morland about "nice". Catherine speaks first:
The battle over "nice" has long been lost (Northanger Abbey was written more than 200 years ago). You are losing the battle over pronouns and "man" and "woman" now.
No, you appeal mass appeal to 'generalized educated people' is not evidence of the default of man and woman not being sex references. Are you going to tell me next that because American money has "In God we trust", that God is real?
Quoting Ecurb
Again, that's not what the OP is saying. Its saying, now, today, that the default meaning of men and women unmodified is a sex referent.
Quoting Ecurb
Look, I'm trying to have a rational discussion about language with you. You keep trying to use emotional coercion to make me do something I rationally conclude that I rationally do not have to. That's not very nice is it? Why should I listen to someone who isn't being very nice tell me what's nice?
Your battle about the "default meaning" of "woman" is losing as well. It is morphing into a more general noun -- in many ways it has already morphed.
Here in the OP, I'm fairly confident at this point that I'm correct, at least in my conversation with you. If it changes or morphs in the future, I don't care. Its something I'm not quite sure you've understood in reading the OP. Its ok to say, "Today woman by default does mean 'sex reference', but I and others want to change it to where the default is 'role'" That's a separate discussion.
that is a very interesting point that I'd never considered before.
Quoting Philosophim
Of course. Being female is the only criterion for womanhood (other than being an adult). The only thing all TW have in common is being male.
Being an 80's kid (the best kind of kid), much of the rock and pop scene were gender benders from the hair metal bands to Boy George and Annie Lennox, but they were not transgender by identity, and the hair, tights, painted nails and makeup of Poison was actually hyper-masculine. Dress and mannerism doesn't equate to (trans) gender, and Dee Snider was not a drag queen. It's not appearance and mannerism per-se, but a concept of self, or as you say, the utilisation of an alter-self for sexual gratification and love and companionship in relief from isolation. Essentially, it is nothing other than self-impressionism in one form or another.
The question of self is a whole 'nuther issue, but it is also the foundational issue in question. I'm in the 'self-is-an-illusion' camp, and all identity claims contradict my foundational premise. I am male, but I am not 'a man'. For me to claim I am 'a man' is as ludicrous as claiming to be 'a woman', and you will notice that males who make being 'a man' very important are equally ridiculous as males who give being 'a woman' importance. Gender identity, be it cis or trans, is ludicrous. Colour me cis-phobic if you like.
If I was a doctor and surgeon, I would question the ethics of transitioning people. They are not ill and in need of treatment, so it's not really medicine. It is cosmetic, but exogenous steroids and sex-reassignment surgery interferes with and/or obliterates healthy organ function (whereas a nose job doesn't). Plastic surgery doesn't mean ethics go out the window and 'anything goes', and cross-sexualising interventions do grievous bodily harm.
I personally couldn't in good conscience administer drugs to anyone whose hormone levels were within healthy ranges because adverse outcomes for otherwise healthy people are inevitable. It's like administering steroids to a young gym goer just because he wants to look a certain way and is very distressed that he doesn't. No reasonable doctor would prescribe that, let alone surgically remove perfectly functioning organs (other than perhaps some adipose tissue).
The differences are too great to ethically equate transexualism with general cosmetic surgery. Transexual interventions are at best an extreme form of cosmetic surgery, well beyond even the indulgences of Michael Jackson.
Its a good way to describe it.
Quoting Throng
100% agree. Its just basic sexism. Sexism is of course very appealing and powerful, so its easy to worm itself into people if they don't recognize it. 'Gender' is one of the best language twists to trick you into thinking its not sexism ever invented. It follows one of the best manipulative tactics: the assertion of its moral superiority by a higher power. The higher power in this case is legislation, moneyed interests, and the force of sexually desirous men who were willing to say whatever was necessary to get what they wanted. A fantastic example of a secular cult.
Notice that the 'gender' push was not done from the ground up like gay rights. It was pushed down from on high, and people were told this was the way things were going to be now. Disagreement was immoral, you were to follow the new precepts, the language, and the rituals. As someone who grew up in religion and broke out of it myself, its been a very familiar feeling pushing against this.
Quoting Throng
Despite this, I think people should be free to do so. I very much rest on the camp of 'freedom'. My experience in life is that people are far to quick to judge how others should live their lives without having actually been in that person's shoes. I can easily judge from the outside everything you've said, but I can't live the person who is undergoing that desperate and obsessive sexual impulse. I've seen it in my friend first hand. Ever seen a pet in heat trapped in a house with no mate? That was him. It was extremely painful to watch, and I wouldn't want to sentence him to a life of just experiencing that with no alternative. Its not something I would push on most people who might have it as a partial influence in their life, but to me it was very much like a person who could not choose to be gay. Its condemning someone to celibacy due to other's people discomfort with the sexual variation of that person.
You might even think, "They'll be find if they're with a woman." If its not the major sexual influence, that's possible. But research stories of trans widows. Its story after story of men who after five years (when sexual interest dies down) or children are born and the attention is focused on the child, decide to transition as the relationship is no longer serving their sexual needs. I wouldn't push a gay person to get married saying, "You should try it, maybe you're only somewhat gay." So why would I push a person who has this to do so?
The trans community has largely tried to push back vehemently on the sexual narrative, but its very real for many. I understand why. If the general community figures it out, its game over for that sweet, sweet ability to enter into women's spaces. Its pretty nice having people bend the knee for your sexual interests without them knowing about it. Also, if you can claim its a medical need, you can get insurance to pay for it. So there's really little personal benefit for the trans community activists to recognize this prevalent part of the trans experience, and gender is the perfect cover as most people don't have the learning to realize its just veiled sexism. Simply moralize gender, get people to repeat the mantra 'trans women are women', and they won't think to question it anymore. Watching people here do mental backflips and pretzel twists to try to defend it, its the same exact experience I've had when debating people that God doesn't exist while they insist he does.
Fortunately, there are trans individuals who recognize it and have moral standards and respect for women like my friend. They are largely rejected by 'the community' as the sexual situation is too good for many to be disrupted. Not to mention the amount of money being made off of trans gender medicine is incredible. If you catch them young, its permanent life long medication with the promise of surgeries down the road. Just like religion, its the zealots up front with people in the back collecting all the money.
Quoting Throng
I think if the sexual nature of the condition come to light, there can be good reasons to allow this. Yes, I suppose it wouldn't be something you just walked into a basic clinic to do, but educating a person the sexual nature honestly, and helping them to adjust tastefully and appropriately in society could be a benefit to everyone. If there's one thing I think we've learned from the gay rights movement, is that sexual variation can be tastefully integrated into society without normative sexuality being hindered or disrupted. Just because a person has a different sexual interest, it doesn't mean it becomes a focus in work or in public beyond basic acknowledgement. Gays suddenly didn't star parading around in speedos and sexually suggestive clothing, trans gender men and women won't either. It is the hiding of that sexuality where some people will attempt to abuse the situation from people's ignorance and good graces. Bringing it to light might be painful at first, but I believe more beneficial in the long run.
But maybe I am wrong. Maybe there are limitations on sexual variation expression for good reasons, and not merely ignorance or taboo. Maybe the fact that it necessitates drugs to reach its full enjoyment is a problem. People wiser than I can debate that as that is at the limit of my current experience.
Quoting Ecurb
It seems fairly squarely the case. The question is to what degree they have the 'right' (iffy word here) to ensure others engage in that "want". I think you have the choice to edit your own life in such a way as to support your self-image and desires, short of harming others. I'm unsure why there is even a discussion about involuntarily ceding ground in the same way. I think if some conservative guy refuses to use your "preferred pronouns" (metaphorically)fuck that guy and move on. Edit. Ruthlessly. Most of us do this, I think, without much problem.
Quoting Ecurb
Names are different to indicators. But plenty would refuse the 'new' name. In fact, I'll give you a little anecdote: Amadeus is, on my birth certificate, my middle name. My first name sucks, don't ask.
In any case, around 13-14 I "transitioned" entirely to using Amadeus. It is what the government know me as, what employers know me as, what school knows me as and almost ever single person I interact with calls me Amadeus.
One person doesn't. My mother. She absolutely refuses, through pure stubbornness, to adjust to my preferred name. I don't care. She's not abusing me. She's not 'dead-naming' me (despite me being highly uncomfortable with my first name, and the period of my life to which it refers, in my mind). She is just calling me a different thing, which I understand she uses to refer to me. It simply does not matter. I can handle being called a name which isn't mind. Hell, call me Jennifer - as long as I know you're tlaking to me, who cares.
Not everyone shares this. C'est la vie.
Quoting Philosophim
I am reticent to immediately say "yes" because it feels like a form of "white savior" type of thing, but my intuition is simply that its right. Ahh..
Quoting Ecurb
I fully agree. "morally" I think "we probably should" is the better position ,because it also leaves room to not engage with bad, or aggressive actors.
Quoting Ecurb
I don't think that's fair, but you elucidate well what's in contention. The issue is that legally changing one's sex can objectively be considered false, whereas a name change cannot, at all, be considered 'false'. "male" and "female" are non-arbitrary whereas (at least first names) are entirely arbitrary. I'm unsure this moves anything - neither gives us a moral motivating for either case. I'm just clarifying what I think its a difference worth noting.
Quoting Ecurb
Clarity, and avoiding the utterly shitshow the last eight years has brought us with regard sex and gender. This seems to me a case of "you're lying to yourself", regardless of your position, if it's in your mind that less-clear, less direct abd less stable language is a better model for both social cohesion, interpersonal communication and policy. I cannot see any way that could be true, and that's based on the empirical results we see in the world, not some intuition or personal claim. It is not a response to say "well, those resistant should just be giving up and we'd be fine". That's essentially a fascist way of approaching the issue and not one I think either side should take seriously. This isn't to say you are wrong but it is to say that I thikn this clears up several open, but imo, stupid, rhetorical devices at play. It is interesting that the arguments to do with either asserting a clearly erroneous current meaning, or arguing for why its "right" that the meaning change for x reasons always come back to vague, amorphous rhetoric like "being kind". They do not seem serious.
I'm unsure this is in response to anyone but something has become clear to me from speaking with my wife over the weekend, as regards the OP and what's being sorted out: Gender must have a sexual component. There is no such thing as 'objective gender' and no one has ever, other that a 1:1 match with sex argued that there is as far as I know. Nothing but bundles of behaviour or disposition can be called "gender" if we're separating from sex. Ok, so far, so good and i'm unsure anyone but hte two extremes would have an issue.
But then the problem arises: What do those bundles indicate, in order to have them be categories, given that "gender" is not a set of categories, but a set of bundles. Its sex. The typical, perhaps historically manipulated, set of expectations for the underlying basis for the bundle: the sex from which it is expected. I fear this is simply restating something Phil has said several times. But this seemed clearer to me than anything i'd read through the two threads ongoing.
I get that. I don't think I'm being a 'white-savior' because I don't view trans gender individuals as some 'other inferior beings I need to help'. I retain respect for trans gendered people. I am not superior, just a person with observations having explored their circumstances for some time now. I don't think that trans gender people are mentally incapable of considering alternatives to narratives. I believe they can overcome difficulties to be better people. And I believe they can handle a conversation like this instead of treating them like invalids or having child-like minds.
Quoting AmadeusD
I'm simply one subjective view point looking at something. I can point a person in the direction I'm looking to see if they see something similar from their viewpoint. No fear in voicing what you see in your own terms. I am constantly amazed at the phenomenon of looking at something for years, then one day realizing "Oh, its been this all along." :) For me that is the wonder of discovery, and it is always private and a personal experience.
Quoting AmadeusD
I agree with this. No one is obligated to socialize with people they don't want to. I'm not sure Ecurb understands the abstract approach I'm bringing to the discussion. My point is that there is no moral imperative to partake in an off language request from another person either. Just like there is nothing immoral for a trans person saying, "That person won't say my pronouns, they're not my friend," there's no rational or moral violation in a person saying, "I'm not going to agree to this pronoun request." Personal opinions about each side are irrelevant to this point. I respect a person's right to not associate with people they do not want to. I also respect a person's right to not participate in language they might deem to be dishonest or prejudiced.
Its up to the person who wants a person to use uncommon or exceptions to normal language to provide a good reason why they should, but at the end of the day, we have to respect that a request to use language in a way that other people don't agree with is within their right to refuse.
I understand it perfectly. As I wrote earlier, good manners are a trivial form of proper morality. I believe in freedom of speech. But rude speech is trivialy immoral, based on "do unto others." It can be contemned without being condemned.
And my problem is I think its actually bad manners to ask someone to use pronouns against your natal sex. I think its self-centered and narcissistic. If someone is accurately noting your natal sex, they aren't the problem, you are for not accepting that the other person has basic recognition skills. You ask people to be uncomfortable and lie because of your personal mental health issue. Or, if you want them to use pronouns to describe gender, you're asking them to use prejudiced and sexist language.
I genuinely believe such a request is childish, rude, and imposing unnecessary discomfort and awkwardness to social situations. If someone is treating you like everyone else, expecting special treatment because you personally have a mental health issue that you need to work on is improper.
Though, there's some truck to what Phil's saying there - people expecting, nay, commanding, me to participate in their chosen language game isn't kind at all. I don't want to (this isn't quite true, i'm just making a point). Making me is rude. My wee anecdote should cover whether this also applies to me - it does. In infact, a further anecdote appended to that one is that my music teacher in high school refused to call me Amadeus because it made him uncomfortable. Okay. No worries. We are still friends 17 years later.
You are a gracious individual.
"Oh, yeah, sure. Thanks for explaining".
Not
"I wont do what you're asking, and I wont explain without venom".