Of course he's talking about language use in the world. I could classify my books by author, subject, publication date, or binding colour. The choice is entirely mine, but the classification remains of the actual books and in each case I can be wrong about a particular book's placement within the scheme. — Isaac

What would it mean for you to be wrong if there are many possible models?

Searle is modeling actual language use, but his is not the only possible model. — Isaac

Is Searle's model wrong? How would we know?

The distinctions Banno, by way of Searle, is making are useless when you understand that all language use is about a state-of-affairs (mental and physical states) in the world.

I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. Searle is not saying "this is how it must be", he's giving a (hopefully useful) account. A counterargument would be that it wasn't useful, not that alternative accounts are also plausible. — Isaac

Then Searle is not talking about language-use in the world. Hes talking about his own feelings about language-use.

So is this thread about language-use or Searle's feelings or views of language use? Is there any relationship between the two?

If scribble-use was not useful then the scribble-use is meaningless.

Assertives, such as statements, descriptions, assertions.
Directives, such as orders, commands, requests.
Commissives, such as promises, vows, pledges.
Expressives, such as apologies, thanks, congratulations.
Declarations, in which we make something the case by declaring it to be the case. — Banno

Directives are saying something about the state of affairs of the wants and needs of the person using sonecscribbles or sounds.

Commissives are saying something about a future state of affairs where the user of the scribbles or sounds will be helpful.

Expressives are similarcto directives in that they are scribbles that refer one's feelings of guilt, gratitude, and happiness for someone's success - all states of affairs in the world.

Directives are like assertions in asserting what is the case in the world, which can be mental or physical states.

Minds and their states are not separate from the world and can be talked about just like every other state of the world.

Every speech act is public, that goes without saying (leaving aside self talk). The distinction is, what is the domain of this rule? Where does it happen? Declarations happen in the world: a naming assigns a name to a being or object. Suppositions on the other hand, happen purely in the mind, of the listener and speaker. — hypericin

Minds, listeners and speakers are not in the world?

It seems to me that every speech act is an assertion because every speech act about some state of affairs, which include mental states like feelings, wants and needs.

Dualistic thinking is what creates the unneccsessary complexity of Banno's own assertions that there is some difference in how scribbles and utterances are used ither than asserting something to be the case. All language use asserts something to be the case.

I think there's a sense in which they're assertions too. All stories might be preceded by the unspoken "in the story...", and so it becomes a declaration about a fictitious story. It is false that 'in the Lord of the Rings' Aragorn takes the ring to Mordor. — Isaac

Just as every command can be preceded by, "I want...". A command refers to the demanding party's wants. The person being commanded can refuse the command, so the actual command couldnt have been used to make someone do something. Its use only displays what the person making the command wants.

Babies have been shown to respond to novelty. Seeing something new interests them and they will look at it longer than something they've seen before. The baby sits in it's mothers lap and the psychologist puts a single item in front of it. The baby will look at it. Then it is repeated until the baby becomes less interested as measured by the amount of time it will look at the item. Then the baby is shown more than one of the same item and it again will show increased interest by looking longer. This is repeated more times with different numbers of items. — T Clark

If babies are shown to respond to novelty, then why would they show more interest in multiple objects that look the same? It seems to me that they would show interest in unique things, not things that are the same.

What would happen if you showed the baby three red balls and one blue ball and a blue cube? How do you know if they would be interested in the quantity of balls or the quantity of the color blue? What if they ignored the balls and focused on the blue cube - being the novel thing in the whole group of things being shown to the baby?

It seems to me that a better experiment could have been performed to show if babies are aware of quantities. It seems to me that we would need to know how the baby forms categories, as in there being a quantity of balls or a quantity of the color red or blue.

Well, I'm questioning if the sum of two and two is objectively four (a priori truth), and I need to stretch pretty far to do this. The god isn't the point. The point is the possibility somewhere different where that sum is seven or something, or better, a universe utterly devoid of 'quantity', thus reducing 'two' to a meaningless thing where any sum of two and two is at best not even wrong. That's still a stretch. 2+2=4 is sort of a symbol of a priori knowledge, even if humans would probably not figure it out without experience. — noAxioms

As I said, the sum of two and two is true in this universe. Whether it is not true somewhere else is irrelevant. Something else would be true in the other universe, like 2+2≠ 4, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is true in this universe. We're talking about two different universes, and just like some knowledge of me (I am a white American male) cannot apply to you, or be true about you (you might not be a white American male), the same thing that may be true for one universe may not be true in another, but this has nothing to do with whether or not it is true in this universe.

"Oh, I wish that I could be Richard Cory" -- Paul Simon
The 'I' in that line is the self, and 'Richard Cory' is an individual. The line only makes sense if they're different things, and the self wants to 'be' a different individual than the impoverished employee in the factory. The related question is: "Why am I me?". It seems baffling. There's so many other things you could be like a bug or perhaps even a dust mote. There's so many more of those other things, so why am I not only a human (top of most food chains), but one with the leisure to be pondering philosophy on a forum during the 2nd gilded age of Earth. What sort of lottery have I won? — noAxioms

:brow: Seriously? You really think that there was ever a chance that you could have been a bug? Are you claiming that there is a soul that is separate from the body in that your soul could have been put in a different body? I think that you problem is dualism. As I said, your problem can be resolved by abandoning dualistic thinking. Your Paul Simon quote isn't saying anything other than "I wish that I could be a different I".

Why am I me? Because a unique arrangement of half of my mother's genes and a unique arrangement of half of my father's genes were fused together to make the unique me. We are all unique outcomes of different halves of our mother's and father's genes.

Then explain what you meant by babies are aware of quantity
— Harry Hindu

They are aware of quantities of things. — T Clark

Which is just another way of saying that conscious experience is quantifiable, — Harry Hindu

Right, which is to say that conscious experience/awareness of things are quantifiable - but only by first establishing a category for things first. You must have a category of trees before you can attribute more than one thing as being part of the category of trees.

You seem to be implying that quantities of things is something that is mind-independent that minds are made aware of via the senses.

As I said, quantities of things are dependent upon there being mental categories that quantities of things would be a part of. Are (mental) categories mind-independent? If not, then quantities are not something mind-independent that one can be aware of, rather they are an integral part of the experience, hence conscious experiences are quantifiable, or members of a mental category are quantifiable.

Once upon a time there was a man named Frank. In all appearance Frank was like any man, often wearing jeans and a raggedy old t-shirt he bought at Brittany Spears concert back in 1998, and in the manner of any dude would frequently scratch his balls, in public. But inside, behind the shallow facade performed for the public eye, Frank was gentle, sensitive, and downright emo to the core. People who got to know him, really know him, would say the that he “has the heart of a woman.” They meant this figuratively, of course.

One day while downing brewskies with his buds in the man cave, Frank felt a sharp pain in his chest. His unhealthy mannish lifestyle had finally caught up with him and he was having a heart attack. He was rushed to the hospital and, long story short, eventually got a heart transplant. The donor was young woman that was killed in a motorcycle accident the day before. After the transplant, people who got to know Frank, really know him, would say that he “has the heart of a woman.” They meant this literally, of course. — praxis

:roll: So is a heart part of what makes one a man or a woman, or is it some other part of the body? What makes some heart the heart of a woman or a man? Is it something about the heart, or something about the rest of the body?

The bishop always stays on the same coloured squares.
This laptop belongs to me
Zelenskyy is Ukraine's President.

These statements are true. Yet they are true not in virtue of a "state of affairs" in the world;

They are true because of the role that each plays in a wider activity: chess; property; and Ukrainian government. — Banno

Chess, ownership of property and the Ukrainian government are not states of affairs in the world?

Outside of those social activities, these facts have no life. Outside of those social activities, they do not become false, so much as nonsense.

We might call the activities institutions, and hence call our target statements institutional facts. — Banno

Then we agree that there are natural facts and facts invented by humans. As the inventor of certain states-of-affairs like democracy, we determine the nature of those states-of-affairs and the relationship between those states-of-affairs and the scribbles we use to refer to them. Different languages use different scribbles and sounds to refer to the same state-of-affairs - natural or social (I could argue that social states-of-affairs are natural states-of-affairs but that is for another thread).

And they are deontic. Each implies an obligation. Someone might move the bishop along a row, but it would no longer be a Bishop. To play Chess you are obliged to move only diagonally. I can do as I wish with my laptop, in a way that is distinct from you doing what you wish with my laptop. An officer in the service of the Ukrainian government is obliged to follow instructions from Zelenskyy in a way that they are not so obligated by any other Ukrainian. — Banno

Not following the rules of playing chess means that playing chess is no longer the state-of-affairs. The same can be said about someone stealing your laptop and revolting against the Ukrainian president - all states-of-affairs.

The presumption here will be that we do things with words. Words are not just names used to passively se tout how things are. We make statements, we ask questions, we give commands - much more than just saying something, our utterances are acts.

Consider:
"I now pronounce you husband and wife"
"I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth"
"I give and bequeath my watch to my brother"
"I bet you a fiver it rains tomorrow"

These are not mere descriptions. They are what Austin called performative utterances. Each makes something the case; that the couple are married, the ship named, the ownership of the watch passed on and the bet offered, if not accepted.

Notice that such utterances are not either true or false; if they misfire, it is in some other way than by truth value. — Banno

Uses and acts are manifestations of our goals. What is our goal in using scribbles and sounds? What is our goal in acting in ways that produce scribbles and sounds? If your goal is not to refer to some state-of-affairs then what are you saying?

You have to account for the short-cuts that we make with language use. Giving commands is basically a reference to someone's wants and needs (their goals). A command isn't about the person being commanded, but about the one making the command, as the one being commanded can ignore the command.

.

OK, but if it was an a-priori truth, it would be true even in a universe without meaningful countable anything. I mean, imagine the sum of 2 and 2 was 4 because an omnipotent god said it was, and had it decreed that the sum was seven instead, then it wouldn't actually be four. I mean, what's the point of being omnipotent if you can't do stuff like that? Would the sum be actually 7 then, or only 7 because 'the god says so'? — noAxioms

Using an omnipotent god as an example is quite a stretch as the phrase, "omnipotent god" brings a whole host of other problems into the mix.

I just don't see how some string of scribbles could be true if the scribbles were not representative of some real state-of-affairs that exists somewhere and somewhen. I guess it comes down to how you define "truth".

Being fit, probably as a species. If a species is not fit, it gets selected out. It's not a purposeful goal, but being fit is definitely an emergent property of things that evolve via the process. As an individual, reproduction is arguably optional. The species often benefits from the members that are not potential breeders. Yes, the individual benefits one way or the other depending on the goal via which the benefit is measured, but for a species, it's being fit, and little else. I don't thing the human species is particularly fit, but that's just opinion. — noAxioms

Yes, but if a species doesn't reproduce which requires individuals within a species to do just that, then the species dies out. Reproducing isn't just the sex and the birth. It requires the raising of the young to a reproductive age, or else you haven't reproduced even at the level of species because if all the offspring of a new generation die then the existence of the species is threatened.

Sure, less competition for mates does help a species, and is also a benefit to individuals as they can find mates without having to expend much energy in doing so, as well as those that are not breeding contribute to the rearing of the next generation like educating or paying your taxes that goes to education. So it seems to me that any benefit to the species is also a benefit to the individuals that make up the species, or else what do you mean by "species" if not individuals of a particular gene pool?

I'm sorry, but we seem to be talking past each other. This doesn't seem to be a relevant reply to my comment, which I left up there. I'm talking about one's sense of self. The lie makes you fit, but the analysis of the belief seems to lead to all sorts of crazy woo to explain something that was never true in the first place. It leads to the hard problem of consciousness, something that is only a problem if you believe the lie, which everybody does, even myself. — noAxioms

What is the difference between an individual and a self? Do individuals exist? If so, and they are synonymous with selves, then selves exist. I don't see what the lie is that you are referring to.

The hard problem of consciousness is resolved by abandoning dualism and physicalism.

There seems to be disagreement about what kind of knowledge math is. As I noted in a previous post, there are studies that show that very young children, babies, are aware of quantity, so there seems to be some inborn "knowledge" of math. On the other hand, we have to learn how to use it.
— T Clark

Which is just another way of saying that conscious experience is quantifiable,
— Harry Hindu

What I wrote and what you wrote don't seem to me to be the same thing. — T Clark

Then explain what you meant by babies are aware of quantity if not that their experience is quantifiable. Are they born knowing the symbols used to represent some quantity? It seems to me that you need to establish mental categories or else there will only be one of everything.

Forgive me, I got tired of endlessly repeating the same point, that a discussion between gender and sex is natural and quite common. — praxis

Forgive me, but I fail to see where you actually made any point, much less repeated one. If you'd like to continue, educate me on your points by answering my questions: is physiology a necessary part, if not the only part, of one's gender? What is the difference between the literal and non-literal meaning of "man"/"woman"?

So guess the statistics they want to know is about how many don't think the sex at birth doesn't represent them, have had a sex change or something. — ssu

To get a library card? I think it has more to do with the author(s) of the application are simply virtue signaling.

Oh I read it alright. Perhaps you will be kind enough to read my definition:

Meaning: what is meant by a fucking word, text, concept, or action! — praxis

Only fucking words? What about non-fucking words?

You are making unnecessary distinctions and at the same time being purposely obtuse to the necessary distinctions, as in the difference between non-literal meanings and literal meanings.

Is your example of the use of the term, "man", in the literal or non-literal sense? What is the difference in being a man in the literal sense vs the non-literal sense? Just to avoid any confusion, I'm aiming at the literal sense of the term, "man". So if you agree that your example is a non-literal use, then your example isn't useful in defining "man" in the literal sense. In other words, we are talking past each other.

There seems to be disagreement about what kind of knowledge math is. As I noted in a previous post, there are studies that show that very young children, babies, are aware of quantity, so there seems to be some inborn "knowledge" of math. On the other hand, we have to learn how to use it. — T Clark

Which is just another way of saying that conscious experience is quantifiable, like I said, and from there we develop symbols for communicating these quantifiable experiences.

I actually question everything, even 2+2=4. Is it objectively true, or is it perhaps only a property of the physics or mathematics of say this universe, and doesn't work in another one? I cannot think of a reasonable counterexample, but that very issue seems to be one of the weakest links in my goal of finding a self-consistent view of how things are. — noAxioms

It would be true in any universe in which there are categories and a quantity of things within that category.

On the surface, how about "reproduction is beneficial"? It certainly doesn't benefit the individual. There are plenty of humans living more comfortable lives by becoming voluntarily sterile, but for the most part, reproduction is quite instinctual which is why the above goal can rarely be achieved via just abstinence. — noAxioms

Again, what is beneficial and comfortable is dependent upon the goal we're talking about. What makes reproduction not beneficial to an individual? Wouldn't that depend on the goal we're talking about?

At a much deeper level, one's feeling of personal identity is fantastically instinctual, and yet doesn't hold up to true rational analysis. It is probably a complete lie compliments of evolution (over 650 million years ago when it was put there), and it makes us fit as an individual, a pragmatic benefit at best. Assuming being fit equates to a benefit over not being fit, this makes the truth of the matter harmful, and the lie beneficial. — noAxioms

Nah. I don't think that alpha males and females and the individual in which an DNA copy "error" occurred that provides the benefit from which is then propagated throughout the gene pool is an instinctual illusion. Those are real things. If not there from where do beneficial genes come from if not individuals within a gene pool?

I find that intuitions are almost never based on reason, but rather instinct or experience. Many of those intuitions are not true, but don't confuse truth with beneficial. — noAxioms

It seems to me that the invention of mathematics would not have been conceivable if experience itself was not in some way quantifiable.

For something to be beneficial, or useful, there must be some element of truth involved, or else how can there more or less efficient ways of using something - like intuitions? Instincts evolved because there are aspects of the world that stay consistent. It seems like sexual reproduction and consciousness evolved as ways of adapting to changes within those consistencies, as in the way that children question the previous generations' axioms and filtering instinctual behaviors.

The problem is that when people claim that something can be useful but not true, they are confusing our lack of knowledge of truths that are not relevant to what is being used with truths that we do know that are being used. Just because we may not know everything does not mean that we do not know anything, or that what we do know, instinctually or consciously, isn't true enough to be useful for the goal at hand - which typically isn't having a theory of everything.

It's obvious that our personal comfort in believing something has no bearing on the truth of it. To the extent one can choose to believe or not when there's a lack of evidence of something, that would be a nod towards pragmatism. That is, if I choose to believe in a fantastical claim that in no way interferes with my daily existence, but it does offer me comfort, then that would be a basis to believe in it, while admittedly not making the belief true. I choose to believe for the positive effects, not because of a delusion that I have arrived at empirical evidence or that my position is logically entailed. — Hanover

No. It's a nod towards favoritism. There are many ideas that have no evidence. So why choose to believe in one idea with no evidence over another if not for some emotional attachment?

That's all well and good if some idea makes you feel good. The problem is that when you participate in a discussion about the true nature of the universe and it's causes, your emotional attachments to some explanation isn't useful. In a discussion about what is true, it is a category error, or at least off-topic, to inject your feelings into it.

Again, you are using a prejudicial comparison to implicitly label the trans-person as insane. I don't personally know any trannies, yet “gender dysphoria” is not considered to be a medical condition. Instead, it's an emotional distress, due to a conflict between self-image & social labels. Their "mental" problem is similar to other marginalized people, who are bullied in school and online. — Gnomon

No. I have pointed out the similarities between a trans-person's claims and the claims of others diagnosed with delusional disorders. You have yet to make any argument against that and instead are insisting on throwing about thinly veiled ad hominems and pleading to authority.

I don't know where you get your information, — Gnomon

Logical thinking.

Figures of speech convey meaning, and in this case, what it means to be a man. — praxis

You didn't read the definition:

Figure of speech: a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect.

It implies that our own view and the view of others may not align or be in agreement. — praxis

And we can work that out if the other person isn't insistent that their view is the only right view, hence my questions to you that you avoided answering.

This type of knowledge is described many ways, among them a priori, self-evident, intuitive, obvious, and common sense. — T Clark

Let's take 2+2=4. What type of knowledge is knowing 2+2=4? How do you know that 2+2=4?

It seems that knowing that 2+2=4 is an experience of visuals or a voice in your head.

Is knowing 2+2=4 just you saying in your mind, "two plus two equals four"? I don't think so. This is just knowing how to say it - not knowing what it means or refers to. We all know that children can imitate language use without knowing what it means.

Is knowing 2+2=4 knowing how to arrange the symbols, 2, 2, 4, + and = in the right order? I don't think so. Knowing how to arrange symbols in the correct order is not knowing what the symbols are about.

Is knowing that 2+2=4 knowing what 2+2=4 is about, or how to use or apply to real-life experiences, or a representation of real-life experiences of quantifying and counting experienced objects? It seems that knowing that 2+2=4 is experiencing two of something and another two of something becoming four of something. In other words, 2+2=4 is only meaningful if it can be applied to, or representative of, experience of counting real-world things which are not numbers themselves, just as words are not meaningful if not applied to real-world things that are not words themselves.

Reasoning is only useful if it is about something, or can be applied to real-world experiences.

I find that intuitions are almost never based on reason, but rather instinct or experience. — noAxioms

It seems to me that reasoning itself is instinctual and only realized through experience. How do you know you're being reasonable vs. unreasonable if not by some experience? What are you reasoning about? What form does you're reasoning take if not some experience of reasoning?

What is it that really defines a man or woman, the question seems to be. Sex alone doesn’t seem to cut it, particularly in less liberal perspectives. — praxis

I say sex is all that is necessary. But lets entertain your idea that sex is not the only thing that defines what a man and woman are. Is sex is a necessary part - meaning that ones physiology is a necessary part of being a man or a woman along with whatever other characteristics you wish to add. Can one be a man or woman without the proper physiology?

For instance, if a man were to act too feminine in a very macho culture they may not be considered a man and it wouldn’t be at all unusual for them to be told directly that they’re “not a man.” — praxis

This what is called a figure of speech.

Figure of speech: a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect.

Also, this is implying that what makes one a man or a woman is society or others' view of you, not yourself based on your personal feelings.

One question about intuition is whether or not it is based on experience or reason. My strong opinion, based on introspection, is that it is mostly, maybe completely, based on experience.

My preference would be that we focus on the general question of what can we know without empirical knowledge — T Clark

Nothing. Knowledge takes the form of sensory data.

How do you know that you are reasoning if not by experience? Separating empiricism and rationalism into two separate camps is one of the failures of philosophy.

No. You are interpreting a trans-person's self-image as a delusion. But, if so, your own self-image would also be a delusion. — Gnomon

Then a schizophrenics self-image is not a delusion or a hallucination either?

No. That's irrelevant to what I said. Instead, the implication is that a fertilized egg is not predetermined as male or female. Instead, it is transformed into one gender or another during development. So, copying errors of DNA, or delays in adding certain hormones can result in a fetus with features of both genders. — Gnomon

Your use of the term, "error" is telling in that being born with features of both "genders" (don't you mean sex? The fact that you keep using gender to mean sex is quite telling as well) would be an error. The fact that 99.9% of humans don't have errors must mean something.

what's important for us to understand is that gender anomalies are fairly common. — Gnomon

<1% is not common.

Unfortunately, political laws do try to define gender. — Gnomon

Then gender is not an objective feature of the world as in the structure of brains, but an arbitrary, subjective characteristic of societies that varies over time and space.

Science transcends the differences which in other fields of endeavor make one period incommensurate with another, or one cultural expression untranslatable in another context. Science knows no contextual limitations. It merely seeks the truth.

It's you having the delusion of grandeur. You can't stand it not being able to explain me. The thought of being able to explain me is exactly your illusion of grandeur! The gods laugh about you! :lol: — Haglund

Asking questions are not the symptoms of delusions of grandeur. Asserting that you know more than others while at the same time giving no evidence is a symptom of delusions of grandeur. I can point to observations and reason as evidence for our existence. You cannot. When you can I am willing to change my mind. I have in the past, as I said I was a believer, but now I am not - based on observable evidence and logic. I am the one here that has made a complete 180 on my beliefs based on the evidence. I am the one with an open-mind and having an open mind means that you are willing to accept that you are wrong and willing to listen to others, but also having the right to ask questions when what is being said isn't clear or reasonable.

My point is that being comforted by some idea is not evidence that the idea is true, just as being offended by someone's claim does not mean that your claim is true or their claim is false. Our personal feelings have no bearing on what is true or false.

I'm not interested in Haglund's feelings. I'm interested in the truth.

Science has explained the reason and meaning of life. As I said, reasons and meanings are just particular types of causes. The problem is that you simply don't like the reasons or meanings they provide. Your delusions of grandeur prompt you to believe that you are more important than you really are in that you believe that gods find you and your life interesting enough to watch. Watching you take a shit on the toilet or sitting in a doctor's waiting room for an hour must be very interesting to watch. :rofl:

There are two responses I’ve heard to this. The first one is an appeal to neuropsychology, which argues that trans brains are more “similar” to the gender they are transitioning to. To me, this is unconvincing because neuropsychology is very poorly understood, so defining this “similarity” feels (to me) like cherry picking. At the end of the day, the brain is also a biological system, so once again if someone’s “brain biology” doesn’t match their “genital/chromosomal biology,” which is to win out in our definition of gender? — Paulm12

Exactly. Show me the part of the brain of a man that claims to have the brain of a woman that controls the menstrual cycle.

Not only that, but what about the "what it's like" to be a bat or anything else that you are not? The whole point of Nagel's argument is that we can't know what it is like to be something that we are not. So how exactly does a man know what it's like to be a woman when they are not? The same people on this forum that have used Nagel's argument are the same ones claiming that men can know what it's like to be a woman. The hypocrisy is everywhere on this topic. They are also the same people that have no quarrels in questioning the claims of other people, and advocate for the right to do it, but when it comes to transgenders claims, they are given a pass. None of the atheists (myself included) here are concerned about the feelings of theists when they question their claims. I'm the one being consistent because I insist on questioning all outlandish claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Another way of approaching this is to argue that gender expression itself has a neuropsychological basis. However, if gender is a social construct (as many feminists argue), why would there be a biological or neurobiological basis for gender expression? And if there is, wouldn’t this imply that there is a biological basis for gender (and gender stereotypes) different than how we define sex? — Paulm12

Yes, I've made this point before. Social constructions are agreements between two or more people about the expectations we have of each other. Transgenders are rejecting the social construction by not agreeing on the expectations we have of each other based on our sex. So is gender a social construction or a personal feeling? If gender is a social construction then gender fluidity is social fluidity meaning that for gender to change, society has to change. If it is a personal feeling then it is personal image fluidity and comes and goes at the whim of the individual. They simply can't agree on what it is so why are they so confused that others are so confused about what it is they are claiming?

The second response is that there are trans people in many societies throughout history. “Transgender people are known to have existed since ancient times…However…the modern concept of being transgender, and gender in general, did not develop until the mid-1900s.” This is more convincing to differentiate it from people who claim they are trans racial or trans species. However this does not address the question of whether or not transgender-ism should be pathologized. One could also argue that people born without a limb have existed since ancient societies and even in animals. However this is still pathologized as abnormal. — Paulm12

Since different cultures have different expectations of the sexes then transgenderism in different cultures means different things. In Scotland where some men wear skirts, is wearing pants in Scotland indicative that you identify as a woman? In cultures where men sport long hair and wear jewelry, is having your hair short and avoiding decorating yourself with gems indicative of your identity as a woman? If it depends on the culture you find yourself in then the differences aren't in the brains of men and women, but in the expectations of the various societies that exist and have existed.

It means possessing characteristics associated with women, like the qualities mentioned earlier, but are not exclusive to women, and that is the point, that we can make a natural distinction between gender/sex. — praxis

In other words, these characteristics are not really associated with women, but with humans in general. The fluidity of gender is being confused wth the fluidity of human behaviors and roles. The behaviors associated with sex is very narrow. In this sense, gender doesn't exist except as sexual stereotypes in one's mind. Sex is what is real.

It's the reason for existence. They had good reason to let universal life continue their mad plays in heaven.

This knowledge gives me more comfort than the story atheists like Dawkins and Harris throw around, hitting themselves on the chest. All scientific knowledge, and as a physicist I can play the game along, is just a description from a distance. Knowing the gods made the universe evolving gets you actually involved in life without anyone being scientifically able to explain me. — Haglund

We use reasons as the causes of our behaviors. Reasons, intentions and motives are just particular types of causes. "God created the universe" is also a description from a distance - just a different type of description - one that has no evidence. It's really no different, and has no more evidence for, the description that extra-dimensional aliens genetically engineered humans and are watching them.

"Knowing" gods created the universe does nothing to comfort someone when you don't know the motives behind them creating the universe.

The meaning, the reason, for all life, in my humble opinion, is that the universe, or at least the particles making it up, were created by gods, so, for whatever reasons they had for it, so we and all creatures developed as a copy of heaven, so they can watch us. — Haglund

Sounds like scientists performing an experiment.

I am sorry, but I asked a straight question, — god must be atheist

good luck in getting a straight answer. :smile:

There never was nothing. The gods are eternal. But they created the universe outa nothing. It wasn't there and the next moment it was there. — Haglund

What is the medium in which this god existed and that divides the god from what it creates. If god and universe are not the same things (as it is in some other religions), then what is the medium that divides them. That must also exist, no?

If you are talking about trans-sexual people, those opposed to non-traditional non-binary gender roles, might say they are "claiming to be something they are not". But the trans- person might retort that society is trying to "force them to be something they are not". Yet, where does the truth lie, in objective observations from outside, or subjective feelings from within? — Gnomon

Do the feelings of a delusional person (specifically, somatic delusions) harbor truth? This explanation seems to eradicate delusional states and render them non-existent. Are you saying that there are no such thing as delusional disorders?

In the movie, The Crying Game, the protagonist found someone who behaved & appeared to be an attractive woman, but who turned-out, upon closer inspection -- and much to his disgust -- to have an unexpected appendage, that at first seemed to be a deal-breaker. But, he eventually falls in love with him/her, despite his/her congenital deformity. So, was his love the result of false advertising, or of his own realization that it's what's in the heart that matters in a love relationship? — Gnomon

So are you saying that there is a little homosexuality in all of us - that we are capable of having an intimate relationship with the same sex if we just give it a chance, or be fooled into it as in your example. Would you say this to a gay person - that if a male homosexual man met a a woman dressed as a man and began to fall in love but found out suddenly they have a vagina instead of a penis, then they shouldn't be offended at being misled? I don't know about you, but the moment someone shows that they've been lying to me all along, I am no longer attracted to them. It seems that you'd be okay with being lied to.

Unfortunately, the sex/gender game is full of false advertising, from boob-jobs to macho-posturing. So, who is the best judge of a person's sex/gender, the person his/herself, or society & scriptures? Due to the rarity (10%-15% ??) of non-binary examples (out of the closet), most social systems have judged non-conformance to natural/cultural norms to be abnormal & unnatural. But modern science & technologies have demonstrated that mental gender is a continuum, not as clear-cut as the normal physical duality. Since, some citizens feel & believe that their gender does not match their sex, who's to say they are wrong? — Gnomon

Where is your source? Transgenderism is extremely rare (<1%). Words like "woman" and "man" are useful because a vast majority of humans fall neatly into two groups. Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes and the other traits (chromosomes, hormones, etc.) almost always occur with these. If there was no over-lapping then the terms would not be useful because there would be no distinction to make. By claiming to be a man or a woman, transgenders are making the terms useless in one way and being sexist in another way because they are claiming that behaving a particular way and wearing particular clothes is what makes you a woman or man. Think about if I said that blacks only act and dress a certain way. That would be racist. The hypocrisy is nauseating. Science isn't science when it's been hijacked by governments and used against scientists to make them conform to the current direction the wind is blowing in society. On one hand scientists say delusional disorders exist (like somatic delusions) and on the other they give sexual somatic delusions a pass. Why is that?

Hitler's worldview was neatly black & white, so you were defined as either Aryan or Jew, even if you had one parent of both races. And either Male or Female, even if your body is masculine, but your brain is feminine. Therefore, the question comes down to the old Social versus Individual political views. Who rules in such cases? Would you agree to have political laws define your gender against your personal wishes? I can't say, from personal experience, but that seems to be what the LGBTQ...xyz non-conformists are claiming. — Gnomon

Exactly. You're using a single person that had a lot of power, Hitler, imposing his own worldview on everyone else. This is actually a great comparison to what the extremists on the left are doing. If it really were not enforced then we wouldn't have a certain group of people dictating to the majority how words are used based on their feelings. Political laws do not define gender. Science does.

What's so special about sex/gender is that it's only partly physical (body), and partly metaphysical (mind). Binary gender is clearly the norm, but Nature sometimes makes mistakes : allowing exceptions to the rule of Reproduction as the Reason for being. For all I know, some animals may be homo-trans-sexuals, but they can't speak for themselves, so they just do do as they feel. As long as humans don't interfere in their private affairs. :smile: — Gnomon

You'll have to do better than this. The same can be said of someone that identifies as being a chicken. It's partly physical and partly mental.

That's strange. It's the complete opposite for me. Science has shown me that I create my own meanings and reasons for doing what I want. Freedom!

It makes me happy when we agree. :smile:

When it’s not an act, obviously.

The point that I was trying to make is how we naturally distinguish gender/sex, contrary to what NOS seemed to be suggesting. — praxis

Are the behaviors and claims of a schizophrenic person an act? There seems to be clear cases where someone does not believe that their ideas are false yet we still don't believe them. I'm sure you have no quarrels about telling others on this forum that their firmly held beliefs are wrong.

Anything.

As I notems to me that if you want to know yhe meaning of somet me that hingd, I just wanted to keep things simple. I think there are issues with non-physical causes that would muddy the waters of a discussion. — T Clark

But that is what I'm saying, there is no such thing as a "physical" cause. Your title doesnt make that distinction either. Do you want to know the meaning of "cause", which does exist or the meaming of something that does not exis? It seems to me that if you want to know the meaning of something then you need to include all instances of that something, and not cherry-pick your examples or else you would be muddying the waters instead acquiring a clearer picture of what it is youre talking about any explanation you come up with would never hope to explain what cause really means.