ou 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 — Philosophim

Yes, but I don't support the idea of unions, especially the involuntary ones. Same as the social contract.

intersex — Philosophim

That's the natural transgenderism.

gender theory — Philosophim

Must be a pretty stupid theory coined by confused people.

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. — Philosophim

No offense, but that's horseshit. And as a radical individualist, I don't believe in community or culture.

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. — Philosophim

Transgender is having both male and female sexual parts in a single body (naturally or surgically).

What definition would you like to propose for gender instead? — Philosophim

SEX. Gender means Sex.

If a male wears a skirt, they are acting in a transgendered way. — Philosophim

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.

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 — 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).

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?

That is the modern day terminology, yes. I note the definitions in the OP, do you disagree with them? — Philosophim

Yes. To me,men and women are sex.

And what you designated as gender could be termed as hormonal traits.

In regards to sex, yes. In regard to gender, no. — Philosophim

Oh boy... we're differentiating sex from gender. I see.

Well, apologies for wasting your time. I hope you find your answers.

I do not see any reason why this is not a philosophical topic. — Philosophim

Because those questions have subjective answers and argumentative grounds. Biological issues are subject to experimental and empirical truths.

What is this question doing on a philosophy platform? It warrants a biological truth, not argumentative conclusions.

because it's giving them a good feeling, at least, if no other transactional motive is present.

what "selfishness" is not — Harry Hindu

Whatever goes against you (want/desire/interest/feelings).

are they being selfish? — Harry Hindu

Well, everyone is. Whether it's a refined one or not.

IDK, it seems to me that all this shows is that all intentional behavior involves desire and that all things desire the good. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Desire for/from oneself. That's the thing. Selfishness is self-interest, not self-supremacy, at least in my definition.

I see.

I don't think there's anything in life, ultimately, that is not an attempt to serve self interest.

That is not how physical is defined. — Patterner

Perhaps I'd have to use a better-suited word.

But I've explained what I mean by "physical".

I think this is an undisputed issue and needs no further argument.

both fall in the same category.

But what have you said about an event when you say it is physical? What is it about an event that makes it physical? — bert1

Anything born out of (may or may not be within) the universe.

Is that your view? — bert1

I have already discussed it here.

to claim that it is an argument with a conclusion is a little misleading — Metaphysician Undercover

Philosophy IS propositional conclusions without empirical evidence.

Aristotle's four-element posit was a speculative conclusion.

it also has non-physical characteristics — Patterner

If they stemmed from physical properties, then they're also physical properties, regardless of characteristics.

Why can't neural activity, hormonal feedback and sensory processing happen without experience? — bert1

They may. But we won't know. Just like we can't see infrared or hear ultrasonic.

You again miss the point. Both are different.

In 100-500 years, we may find out that time, space, color, energy, etc, are physical properties that become intangible because of dimensional (or something new) complexities.

My point is, everything came from the Big Bang (assuming it's legit), but varies in characteristics. All are physical. The universe is physical. I don't know about any covert abstract Big Bang that gave birth to consciousness or anything of its kind.

consciousness can't be sensed with any of our senses. That is not similar in any way to an eye not being able to see itself. — Patterner

Exactly. Both have different classes.

Of course you can quantity heat and light. — Patterner

I meant to say "count" (like physical objects).

It can't be sensed with any of our senses — Patterner

Like eyes can't see themselves. Consciousness itself is a kind of sense.

Why would we not think this lone, non-physical thing is the product of something non-physical? — Patterner

I may accept soul to be a catalyst of some sort here, but the generation or origin of consciousness, in my view, stems from the body.

When I said physical, I meant a product of physical events. But even those byproducts are physical properties to me.

For example, a chemical reaction may produce heat and light, and I consider them both to be physical things because they were born from physical properties, even though I can't quantify or put them in my pocket.

clearly not my view, then.

I think I caught what you mean.

No, that's not my view. I don't see the universe as a collective body or discard the idea of a creator/programmer. When I said the universe, I meant the physical components that constitute what we call the cosmos.

And being a theist, if I must bring soul into the equation, I'd say it can work as the covert catalyst giving sentient organisms the upper level that we call sapience or consciousness.

Just like we can't see our eyes — Copernicus

What I meant is that the viewer can't see itself, sometimes. The mirror can't see its own reflection within itself.

Consciousness cannot explain consciousness. The brain can't dissect a brain. You need a hand.

Seeing and licking are physical processes. — Patterner

The mind is physical process (neural and hormonal). But not tangible. Energy, in a way, is also physical (because it can be converted into matter, or at least because it's not empty space).

Physical property doesn't have to have tangibility.

Vedantic philosophy — Prajna

Unfamiliar with that.

we can't, yet. Just like we can't see our eyes or lick our elbows.

I don't know about that.

@83nt0n??

your point is?

Just out of curiosity, what would you do in this situation:

At 14:59:53 o'clock, a man, charged with serious crime and sentenced to immediate death-by-sniper-bullet by 15:00:00 o'clock, is on the rooftop holding a child's hand who is about to fall if not pulled up (the whole thing could take at least 20 seconds).

Would you execute justice (legal, not your conscientious) or wait to save the falling child?

As an individualist, I'm stuck.

It seems to me that the right to life is more important — 83nt0n

Yes. Both party's.

I am saying that consequences are important — 83nt0n

Not to deontological individualists.

if by "soundness" you mean empirical proof, then I must remind you this is philosophy, not science.

my point was, it is not imperative to dissect the universal patterns to propose that everything is physical (unless you could proof something abstract gives birth to our intangible qualities).