I think it was correct for Wayf to suggest not to get into these threads. Not because they aren't meaningful (they are meaningful and obviously important), but because they just end up like this. — AmadeusD

This will always happen when discussing meaningful yet highly emotional subjects. We can't be turn away from topics just because some people have emotional difficulties with them. If anything, we need to address those topics more. I'm glad you've joined in and given your viewpoint, its very valuable for good discussion.

If you want a clearer separation, biological and sociological sexism might suffice.

Would you agree, though, semantics aside, that sexism in the sense of sex would be divorced from sexism in the sense of gender given your definitions of sex and gender? — Bob Ross

I actually meant that more than semantics. Biological sexism would be treating a man with a voice within the range of an average female like they aren't a man. While its not the average biological sex expectation that a man have a voice range that high, it does happen. Treating them as a woman because they have a rare, but perfectly normal expression of being male would be biological sexism.

Gender sexism, or sociological sexism, would be what we've been talking about. Tophats and all. :)

To go back to gender, my point is that gender becomes sexism when elevated above sex.

Before I respond, I think I need to grasp better what you are conveying here. Am I correct in thinking that ‘elevation’ here refers to contradiction? — Bob Ross

No, elevation means favoring gender as indicating that a person is a sex over the fact of their sex. So if a woman wore a top hat and you called her a man, that's sexism due to the woman defying a gender expectation.

Exactly, it is shame that this forum doesn't support free speech and the free exchange of ideas about philosophy; as we could have productive conversations that help further the knowledge base. — Bob Ross

I disagree with this Bob. I've been able to post this topic, and I've seen a wide variety of topics that cover things which might be taboo or difficult to talk about. There still needs to be some moderation which handles approach and tone. It may be the case that people who read it may not want to discuss it properly, but that's a far cry from it being banned to be discussed at all.

You're asking me to prove a negative, otherwise your claim stands? — Mijin

No. I'm asserting that if gender is elevated over sex, its sexism. That's not proving a negative, that's disproving an affirmative.

This is a philosophy forum; if there's one place such sloppy reasoning wouldn't fly, it's here. — Mijin

I'll let the first claim be a pass. If you insist that I'm asking you to prove a negative, please point out specifically where and why its a negative. This requires more than an assertion.

If you are concerned that I am somehow immoral, therefore you don't need to talk to me, realize that is a tactic of thought suppression.
— Philosophim

I made no such claim or insinuation. — Mijin

Not a worry. It can be difficult to glean what a person is feeling over text, so I try to spell things out as clearly as possible.

So it's quite a leap to suggest I was calling you immoral, let alone advocating that your speech should be suppressed. — Mijin

Relax, its not a hard accusation. Would you like to engage with the topic then? You seem to have some feelings and thoughts on the matter, and I think its important that those thoughts and feelings are expressed. I don't want to go around thinking I'm right when I'm wrong. But if no one points out where its wrong...then I have to assume that I'm right.

I don't think massive numbers of people agree with the specific claim of this thread, but go ahead and cite me wrong: I'm happy to hear it. — Mijin

And you have equally zero claim that massive numbers of people don't agree with the specific claim of this thread. In fact, its irrelevant. You have a claim presented to you. Are you able to demonstrate why it is false? If not, then it stands as true. Lets not worry about what other people think, what do you think? Why is the premise of the thread wrong? Practice philosophy with us.

If you are concerned that I am somehow immoral, therefore you don't need to talk to me, realize that is a tactic of thought suppression. If it helps, one of my closest friends has been transitioning for several years now. We stay in touch regularly, and I would take a bullet for him. Its important that you realize that just because there is a narrative out there that is against trans individuals for the wrong reasons, does not mean that everyone who is against a particular trans ideology is immoral and cannot be reasoned with.

For clarification, my understanding of the terms trans sexual and trans gender seem to differ from your usage here. That is, to my understanding transgender is an umbrella term for all folks whose (internal) gender identity does not completely conform to their biological sex, which includes those who take hormonal and surgical steps (which describes trans sexuals), but also folks who don't take those steps. — LuckyR

No, we are not using slang and colloquial language. Part of what philosophy should be doing is finding clear words and concepts that allow clear thoughts. A massive issue with 'trans' is that it is trying to unite two separate concepts that are different enough that it needs to be pointed out. There is much confusion over the topic for many people, and adding in these distinct terms erases a lot of the confusion. A trans gender person does not have to think they are the same as a trans sexual. Being trans gender does not mean you have to align your body with how you want to act in the world. Act in the world as you wish. It is sexist to think that your social behavior implies that you are not your sex.

Thus why my postings have tried to delineate the borderline between sexual and gender motivations, as described in the OP. — LuckyR

I think this is good btw. Please keep pushing that boundary. Maybe there is a blur that I'm not seeing, but I think for the large part they are very separate things.

But the more I think about it, the blurrier that borderline becomes, to the point that the umbrella term of transgender seems most accurate, since it's an umbrella term, ie all TS are TG, but not all TG are TS. — LuckyR

I don't see it that way. First, its not true that all trans sexuals are trans gender. There are people who only want the body of the opposite sex, but do not want to act in the stereotypical way that the other sex usually acts. With that body they may feel the need to 'perform' but genuinely want the body of the opposite sex and would rather be left alone afterward. There are men who want breasts for example, but keep their beards. Women can also grow beards and have facial hair. Because it is rare, there is a social push to keep it shaved or have hair removal. So they defy gender for their biology in this aspect.

But, I would love to hear examples of this blurring. Again, maybe you're right. While I do think there is a clear division from my observations, maybe there is some place where the division blurs and maybe a third term should be invented to capture that point.

Again, why? You may be right. But without a good reason we can't know that. For a claim about reality to be valid, there needs to be a situation in which the claim is correct, and a situation in which the claim is incorrect. Otherwise we're not talking about something real.
— Philosophim

I have sufficiently answered these questions in previous posts. — Questioner

I don't believe you have. If you aren't going to add any more, its been a nice conversation.

Not according to my research:

The most common reasons cited (for regret) were pressure from a parent (36%), transitioning was too hard (33%), too much harassment or discrimination (31%), and trouble getting a job (29%). — Questioner

First, that didn't prove that no transgender people cited that they had their identity wrong. Here

"“There are so many reasons why people detransition,” said Sinead Watson, aged 30, a Genspect advisor who transitioned from female to male, starting in 2015, and who decided to detransition in 2019. Citing a study by Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, published in 2021, Ms. Watson said the most common reasons for detransitioning were realizing that gender dysphoria was caused by other issues; internal homophobia; and the unbearable nature of transphobia.

Ms. Watson said the hardest part of detransitioning was admitting to herself that her transition had been a mistake. “It’s embarrassing and you feel ashamed and guilty,” she said, adding that it may mean losing friends who now regard you as a “bigot, while you’re also dealing with transition regret.”

“It’s a living hell, especially when none of your therapists or counselors will listen to you,” she said. “Detransitioning isn’t fun.”"
https://blogs.the-hospitalist.org/content/doctors-have-failed-them-say-those-transgender-regret

What you cited is ' cross-sectional nonprobability study'. Lets break down why that is a problem:

"Surveys of people's opinions are fraught with difficulties. It is easier to obtain information from those who respond to text messages or to emails than to attempt to obtain a representative sample. Samples of the population that are selected non-randomly in this way are termed convenience samples as they are easy to recruit. This introduces a sampling bias. Such non-probability samples have merit in many situations, but an epidemiological enquiry is of little value unless a random sample is obtained."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4817645/

Further, lets add up your percentages: 36, 33, 31, and 29, That adds up to 129%. Notice that it only reports, "The most" as well. So its not reporting all. Meaning that your study does not counter my point.

The detransitioning rate is actually pretty low. — Questioner

Irrelevant to my point. My point was that people can be wrong in their gender identity. You did not counter this.

In any case, it seems we cannot agree on the most basic definitions and facts and have fallen into repeating ourselves, so I will bow out of the conversation now. — Questioner

And this is why you have my respect Questioner. Thank you for bringing your view points, politely exchanging with me, and understanding when we've both said our side and there might not be any more to cover. You and I do not have to agree on the outcome, but I hope you enjoyed thinking about it with me. I hope to see you around again on the forums!

Just because we can identify ourselves as "X" it doesn't mean we actually are "X".
— Philosophim

This does not apply to transgender persons. — Questioner

Its fine to disagree, but why? In every other case it applies, what makes trans gender special?

In other words, an identity claim can be incorrect.
— Philosophim

This does not apply to transgender persons. — Questioner

Again, why? You may be right. But without a good reason we can't know that. For a claim about reality to be valid, there needs to be a situation in which the claim is correct, and a situation in which the claim is incorrect. Otherwise we're not talking about something real.

If it helps, there are people who detransition who claim they had their identity wrong. There are also people who go through therapy and might think they are transgender, then find out it was some other issue. I want to be clear, the fact that an identity can be wrong, means it can also be right. So the possibility of someone mistaking themselves as being transgender means they can also correctly identify as trans gender with the proper definitions.

There is nothing innate in one's identity that has any value apart from an emotional feeling
— Philosophim

But there is. It's a mental understanding of who you are. — Questioner

If it is a correct objective assessment of who you are, then it is knowledge. If it is a subjective assessment, then it is simply a belief of who you are.

So if I identified as a female, when its objectively true that I'm a male, I would be wrong. My feelings or desire that it be true are irrelevant.
— Philosophim

No. Your identity is produced by your brain, not your body. — Questioner

Remember that I already agreed that every thought is produced by your brain. But we also realize that our thoughts assessments about reality can be wrong.

To be transgender is not based on a wish that it be true - it is true. — Questioner

Again, this has to be proven, not merely asserted.

Do you not understand that to declare yourself transgender makes things a lot harder for a person, not easier, and one would only do so if it was the only way they could be their authentic self? — Questioner

Incorrect. People often times believe things that are wrong, and stubbornly so. Many times a belief in something wrong is to their own detriment, because the feeling of being right is more important than acknowledging you're wrong and adjusting.

Gender is again, a subjective belief that a sex should act in a particular way in society.
— Philosophim

No. Gender is an internal, emergent property of the brain. — Questioner

Every thought is an emergent property of the brain. This doesn't describe what gender actually is. Further, my definition of gender is the common definition of gender used in gender theory.

"The social sciences have a branch devoted to gender studies. Other sciences, such as psychology, sociology, sexology, and neuroscience, are interested in the subject. The social sciences sometimes approach gender as a social construct, and gender studies particularly does"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

What is sex to you? What is gender?
— Philosophim

Sex is the biological differentiation to male or female of physical structures in the human body. — Questioner

This is close enough. As long as we both understand it is an intended reproductive role of the species.

Gender is the male or female differentiation in the brain. — Questioner

If you mean biological, that would be a sex difference, not gender. If you mean gender as used in gender theory, then there is no evidence of any physical brain difference. Meaning gender is not an innate biological reality, but a social construct built upon thoughts and beliefs. Basically its information the brain processes, not something native to the brain itself.

Should gender ever be elevated over sex?
— Philosophim

It sounds like you're asking for permission to deny transgender persons their authenticity. — Questioner

This is an avoidance of the question. True thinking does not desire a conclusion, then construct premises that support that conclusion. That is called 'rationalization' and is not intelligent. Real reason thinks through the premises and comes to a conclusion that it cannot doubt. Meaning even the first conclusion should be questioned severely.

What you seem to be telling me is that you think gender should be elevated over sex only when a transgender person wants this. First, you haven't demonstrated why this isn't sexism. Second, why does it apply only to trans gender people? Why couldn't a cis person want this? "I don't believe women should be anywhere but the kitchen (gender), therefore I'm going to disown my daughter if she ever works a job." Is that right?

Finally, I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'authenticity'. No one is doubting that there aren't trans gender people who believe they are the other gender. I'm just noting it is sexist if they think their gender should be elevated over their sex.

Thank you for the kind words Bob. :)

I thought about this very thing when I was first mulling this over, but it turns out 'genderism' has a different meaning.

The problem, though, with this is that you are purposefully equivocating discrimination based off of gender vs. sex (in your own definitions) because ‘genderism’ is already taken. — Bob Ross

I understand your concern, and I had that very same concern as well. It is not out of line for sexism to apply to both sex and gender.

'Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on one's sex or gender.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

Do I think we could call discrimination against gender a subset of sexism? Yes. Gender at the end of the day is still targeted at a person's sex, just sociologically instead of biologically. If you want a clearer separation, biological and sociological sexism might suffice.

When words are already taken, there should be a good reason to use them for something that means something contrary or wildly different to the original meaning. While the gender community has attempted to equate woman and 'woman' as a gender, I would never do such a thing in my own philosophy as that's a clear attempt at conflation and equivocation. The 'first to market' often wins, and the gender community knew what it was doing when they quickly captured 'genderism' to imply that anyone who doesn't believe there are only two genders should have a negative connotation to them.

When we shift the focus from sex to gender, in your terms, then it gets interesting to me because your definition of gender seems to imply, by my lights, that maybe you consider it just sociological, irrational expectations that we have of a sex which we shouldn’t; so this makes us wonder what is wrong with misgendering someone in your view if it all just irrational expectations based off of tastes. — Bob Ross

I'll adjust this caveat a little. "Irrational" might be a little strong. While I also wouldn't call them 'rational' either, it doesn't mean that gender roles may form based on lived experience. If you were raised in a household where all men worked and all women stayed home, you might be surprised one day when you leave the house and find a man who stays at home and a woman who works. Its a pre-judgement. And pre-judgements in themselves are not wrong. They're simple adaptations of expectation that are common to our environment. Pre judgements become 'isms' when we find facts that contradict our prejudices and then insist that our prejudices must be right.

So a man could be surprised that a woman works, but accept that. While a sexist person would see a woman working and insist that she should not simply because of a belief, and not because of any fact in front of them.

. Now, imagine I thought that all stereotypes about pizza lovers is purely relative to tastes; and someone tells me I’m a cheesy because I am currently eating cheese-pizza. However, they do not understand that eating cheese-pizza does not thereby implicate one as considering cheese a topping: little did they know I’m a crazy; and so I do not really fit the stereotype of a cheesy—they mispizza’d me. Now, the central question is this: what did they do that was immoral there by mispizza’ing’ing me? — Bob Ross

Nothing. They made an assumption about you based on their past experience and what you were doing.

However, what we couldn’t say is that they are being sexist. — Bob Ross

Correct. Nor were they being "pizza-ist". :)

What I would say you have done here, unless I am misunderstanding, is, by analogy, shifted mispizza’ing a person to discriminating against them based off of sex; for if I discriminate against someone because of their pizza stereotype then I have not thereby discriminated based off of there sex. — Bob Ross

To go back to gender, my point is that gender becomes sexism when elevated above sex. So if you as a man think that men cannot like the color pink, even though every objective fact demonstrates there is nothing preventing a man from liking pink, insisting that a male who likes pink isn't a man is sexist.

But maybe you have a general approach that "Men should be tough". You find a man who's not tough. You might not like that he's not tough, but you don't assume he's not a male or treat him like a female. You have a prejudgement, but you don't let your prejudice become sexism.

then it follows logically that a person who voluntarily identifies with a gender (such as 'femaleness') is being sexist against themselves.— Bob Ross

Correct.

I honestly didn’t think you would accept that (: . This means that, by analogy, anyone who self-identifies with any stereotype of pizza-loving is thereby being sexist against themselves. — Bob Ross

I neglected to add, "If the person elevates their gender over their sex". I hope the above clarifies it. Good dive into this!

I was a battle rapper for some years. I had a totally different identity then. Similarly when I was a stand up comedian. Similarly when I was a fairly robust figure in the psychedelic space. Similarly when I was a depressed, teenage rocker. These things all change throughout life and hte idea that there is a fixed identity when it comes to gendered behaviours (i.e claiming 'a gender') seems erroneous. I've spent long periods wearing make up and womens clothes and behaving as they say, as a soy boy. I was not trans. — AmadeusD

Awesome! You've lived a neat life.

If we look at this from a biological standpoint, we can consider the human brain in terms of its structure and function. The brain is the structure, and the function of that structure is to produce the mind. The mind consists of all the mental output of one's brain — Questioner

Sure. Lets view identity apart from gender for a moment. I don't believe in a soul, so all of our thoughts come from the brain. Identity is one type of thought in the brain that asserts something. "I am X". What is that X? It could be sex, gender, job, family member, club member, race, species, etc. Our brain has the remarkable ability to claim that "I am X" and attach an emotional affirmation to that which makes us feel that its good or true.

Just because we can identify ourselves as "X" it doesn't mean we actually are "X". As before I mentioned a person who believes they are a doctor without a phd. But perhaps they correctly identify that they are a brother. Because "Identity" as a whole, is often comprised of parts. We can be correct in some of those parts, and incorrect in others.

In other words, an identity claim can be incorrect. There is nothing innate in one's identity that has any value apart from an emotional feeling, or whether its correct or incorrect. Having a positive emotional feeling about an identity that is incorrect, doesn't mean we should elevate the feeling over the objective reality of the identity. That is one of the few times we can clearly say, "That would be wrong."

I did want your definition of sex and gender, and if you find it different from what I will provide, please provide it. Sex is simply the biological expression of reproductive intent of a species. In humans, there are two sexes that are needed to join to reproduce, a male, and a female. I could be a male, and personally identify as a female. But sex is an objective reality. So if I identified as a female, when its objectively true that I'm a male, I would be wrong. My feelings or desire that it be true are irrelevant.

Gender is again, a subjective belief that a sex should act in a particular way in society. That might be what they like, clothing, hair style, speech patterns, or body language. When you have a gendered view of the world, you believe that a man should be like Y, and a woman should be like Z. But this isn't based on any biology besides their sex. Its based on what you personally attach as emotionally positive vs emotionally negative to a sex's behavior in public.

So then what is a personal gender identity? First, you have to have a gender identity. You need to believe that men should be like Y, and women should be like Z. Then, if you mostly favor Y, or Z, you say, "I like to behave in public like Y or Z." Therefore I fit the gender of my choosing.

Now can one's gender identity be wrong? No. If you believe that men should be like Y, and you act like Y, then you have 'the gender of a male'. But all this means is, "I believe men should act like Y, and I act like Y." The moment you cross into the idea that a prejudiced belief in how a man should act, means that acting that way overrides your actual sex, you have crossed into sexism. Sexism is objectively incorrect. Therefore there is nothing wrong with believing that a sex should act a certain way, but it is an incorrect jump to believe that acting or not acting that way has anything to do with whether you are that sex or not.

That is elevating gender over sex. And that fits the definition of sexism. So then, if you believe in different definitions, please spell them out. What is sex to you? What is gender? Are your definitions backed by the literature? Should gender ever be elevated over sex? If so, how is it not sexism?

And it’s just part of the culture war nonsense that tries to subliminally attack trans, gays and every other LGBTQ person in society. — Christoffer

That's a very biased take without evidence. Would you like to explain where in the OP I'm trying to attack trans or gays?

My opinion is that these discussions are very low quality for this forum. I’m not sure we should entertain the level of discourse that comes out of the rising hate we see in society. — Christoffer

If its low quality, please point out why this specific OP is low quality. If you think I am hateful, please point out where. You don't silence or suppress hate. It only grows, festers, and comes out in underhanded ways down the road. You shine a light on it. Point out to people why they're expressing hate. You don't change all minds, but some minds can be changed. I particularly don't want to be a hateful person, but if I am unknowingly it would be great if someone pointed it out correctly.

If we’re talking about the science around transsexualism, — Christoffer

The topic is about trans gender, not transsexualism. I view them as two different discussions.

We can easily have a civil discussion between each other who aren’t transsexuals, but a civil discussion that isn’t having insights and perspective from the people it’s about is seriously lacking in being able to have a qualitative level. — Christoffer

My good friend of many years is several years into transition. I have immersed myself in the trans community for quite some time now. I've also read papers, seen debates, and many different approaches to the subject. So I do include the insights and perspectives of trans gender and trans sexual people. Feel free to voice where you think I'm wrong, include your own perspectives, or demonstrate where the argument specifically needs more than what is provided.

If any in this discussion are are trans, that’s good, but it risks just becoming a bunch of hetero males discussion LGBTQ topics through a very narrow lens. — Christoffer

Everyone is welcome to the discussion. And gender is not owned by LGBTQ. Gender applies to every single human being. The idea that it is owned by a certain group of people is wrong.

I'm not going to question the legitimacy of these personal anecdotes.
I will just say that, if you're wondering why few people agree with your conclusion, that putting gender over sex is sexism, it's because few if any people can relate to your personal experience. — Mijin

More than fair. Trans people make up anywhere from 1-5% of the population, and that rise is mostly among the young people of this generation. Most adults will likely not talk in such terms, but kids and the very young who are still learning about the world make this conflation. And of course you still meet an old timer every so often that has a view that seems contrary to what you would expect.

My friend is in their early 40's. They've been interested in exploring being female since I met them decades ago. I've never judged their desires fyi, and have always accepted them for who they are.

↪Philosophim So if a flat chested woman gets breast augmentation to look "feminine", that's succumbing to social norms that women should have large breasts. — LuckyR

I like this example because it lets us break down the terminology. If the woman is getting breast augmentation because society tells her its the way women should look like, that's succumbing to social norms. If she gets it because she thinks that what a woman should look like to her, that's also gender, or her own prejudice.

But, if she wants to get them because she genuinely wants them for herself and doesn't care about whether she should or not because of her sex, that's not gender but simply doing what they want.

The identical surgery in a transwoman should also be social, right? — LuckyR

Again, not necessarily. There is a difference between a trans sexual and a trans gender person. If the person is a trans sexual, this is not gender. This is the desire to embody the other sex, and changing their secondary sex characteristics to resemble the other sex is not gender. They would get whatever they desired for themselves without regards to what society would expect as 'reasonable'.

If a trans sexual wanted large implants because they ALSO fell for societies pressure for large implants against their better judgement, then they also succumbed to social pressures. If a person wasn't interested in changing their body, but felt that society expected them to and that they couldn't have the 'gender' of a woman if they didn't get them, that is also succumbing to social pressures.

In each case the seemingly only justification for breast augmentation is if the person simply wants it for themselves without any consideration that 'this is what society expects a woman to look like' beyond the statistical norms of sex expectations. (Read the first post up top for definitions if needed). I would also argue that a person can get body changes done due to normal biological expectations. So while a woman may be on the .01% of tiny breast size, they don't like being outside of the statistical biological norm. I feel that is a more complicated subject then mere societal pressure, but we can tackle that in a follow up post if you're interested.

I'm sorry, but to use the example of calling yourself what you do for a living is to indicate to me that you have not processed a single word I have said. — Questioner

I apologize then. Let me read over what you've written and see if I understand what you're saying. Please correct me where I am wrong.

First, you speak about identity. What is identity to you?

Identity can have a few meanings within the scope of the discussion:

the distinguishing character or personality of an individual
the condition of being the same with something described or asserted
sameness in all that constitutes the objective reality of a thing
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identity

But if I'm following what you're saying, you seem to view identity more as identification:

a: psychological orientation of the self in regard to something (such as a person or group) with a resulting feeling of close emotional association

b: a largely unconscious process whereby an individual models thoughts, feelings, and actions after those attributed to an object that has been incorporated as a mental image
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identification

A personal identity is a subjective notion of our distinguishing characteristics. But what is a personal gender identity? I think to you it seems like its largely an unconscious process that comes from the brain and is something that is innate to a person's being. Do I have that correct? Again, please correct me if I'm not, I'm not trying to misrepresent you.

Now, I'm going to ask you to define what sex is. Then if you could, define what gender is please. Are they the same to you? Different?

Once you differentiate sex and gender, what is the difference between a sex identity and gender identity? I'll try to listen the best I can.

We have a poster with a little over 100 posts. They come in, they're polite. They post great arguments and points. They cite papers. They run absolute intellectual and moral circles around you. A fantastic human being.
— Philosophim

You know I can read this, right? — Questioner

Yes, I hope you took it as a compliment. Disagreement with another person on an issue is the most common thing in the world. I find it very nice to discuss with someone who is respectful about it and brings in ideas you can see they've thought about and believe in. That's where real discussions are.

I’m surprised you’re disappointed—we’ve been through all this before. I’m not disappointed, I’ve heard these arguments from you before. — T Clark

So look at that T Clark. We have a poster with a little over 100 posts. They come in, they're polite. They post great arguments and points. They cite papers. They run absolute intellectual and moral circles around you. A fantastic human being.

And what do you do? Are you inspired and think, "I should do better." Nope. You come in with this little sad sentence that has nothing to do with the argument and everything to do with your sad state of bias and possible need for attention. How does it feel to be a troll? Someone who contributes nothing positive at all to an intellectual discussion and fills up the space with irrelevance? How is what you're holding onto made you into a better person today?

If you don't mind, I'm going to answer some of your points you've been making to other posters. I normally don't, but you seem genuinely pleasant to converse with. If you find this an intrusion into other's discussions, please feel free to tell me and I will not do it again.

I'm going to ask you to put on your thinking hat - and ask yourself - where is the seat of my perception of myself? Is it in the brain? Does your perception of yourself - which is constructed by putting together all your thought processes - tell you that you are one particular gender rather than another? — Questioner

To the point, you learn what sex you are. Then you have to decide if a sex should act a particular way in society. Some people don't. Some people think along the lines of society. Some people think uniquely. If you have constructed in your head that only men should act in a particular way, then you don't behave like that, you can start to think, "I'm not acting like a man."

Of course, if there was a young man who came to me and said, "My baseball team thinks, I'm not a man because I like ballet," I would tell him, "You don't have to act any particular way to be a man. You are a man because you were born one. Do not worry about the expectations from society, be your own person." Basically I would teach them that such views of the sexes is unhealthy. Gender is something we should grow out of, not grow into.

The reality is that you can act and be whatever you want in a free society. Some people will think its cool, and some will think its not. Some people will tie it to your height, your weight, skin color, hair color, or sex. Part of growing up and maturing our minds is realizing these are superficial judgements of ourselves and others that limit us. You can be white and like rap. You can be black and not like rap. You can be a woman and hate kids. You can be a man and adore kids. Find what you like and how you want to live without basing it on other's or your own expectations of how a body like yours should act.

I think we really need to get a firm understanding of what identity is, and accept that gender, in most cases, is part of that identity. Yes, outside perceptions may influence our identity - but they trigger an internal dialogue - and then how they are analyzed, processed, and responded to are determined by our brains. — Questioner

My point is that its not a healthy identity, and if elevated over the sex that we are, over the body that we are, is sexist. Just because we have a personal identity of ourselves, it doesn't mean the rest of the world sees us that way, or that such an identity is actually healthy for ourselves either. No one is debating that you can have a gender identity. My point is that when it is elevated in importance above sex, it becomes sexism.

No, I would say that only transgender women who have completed their transition should be allowed in female changing rooms. — Questioner

So interestingly, trans gender and trans sexual are separate situations. A trans sexual desires specifically to change their body to resemble or be as close to the opposite sex as much as possible. You can be a trans gender person who is also a trans sexual, but be a trans sexual who is not trans gender. I believe the conversation about trans sexuals is very different from trans genders. I do not believe trans sexuals are sexist, and I believe it is this portion of people that we should be studying more closely and helping to fit into society better.

But I have presented you with a compelling argument and much evidence that it is not. What you may be defining is cultural mores, or accepted practices, but gender is part of a person's identity, and an identity is an internal feature of who we are. It is one's mental construct of themself. — Questioner

Everyone has a personal identity, but that doesn't mean its more than a subjective identity. For example, I can have a personal identity that I am a doctor. To be a doctor objectively, I must have a Phd. No one is required, and I am not entitled to other people recognizing my subjective identity as a doctor if I do not have a Phd. People are only required to recognize that I am a doctor if I have a Phd.

Gender is specifically an expected set of behaviors that we attribute to a particular sex in society. So for example, "Only men wear top hats. Only women wear flower hats." Of course, someone else could just as easily say, "Only men wear flower hats. Only women wear top hats." We would both be right because gender is not objective, it is subjective.

What then is a gender identity? First, you have to have a gendered view. You believe "Women/men should do X." "Women/Men should not do Y." You are one of those sexes. You look at the gender you have established and think, "Even though I am sex A, if I follow my expectations of how sex A should act, I really feel like acting like sex B" Basically, "I'm a man, I feel like acting the way I think a man should act." Or "I'm a man, I feel like acting the way a woman should act." Which are all fine. But the moment you go, "The way I think a man/woman should act makes a person a man/woman" is the point that you enter into sexism, or elevate gender over a person's sex.

What a disappointment that one of my favorite posters isn't any better than some fresh face single digit poster.
— Philosophim

If you mean me:

I have 168 posts (169 with this one) and my face is not as fresh as it used to be.

If you don't mean me, sorry for the misunderstanding. — Questioner

No, not at all. I'm talking to T Clark. You sir/ma'am are excellent. Wonderful posts, citations, and polite discussion. You have my respect whether we agree on the outcome of this discussion or not. :)

E.g. a "transwoman" (typical XY) is a gender dysmorphic, modified (mutilated) adult male in drag and not a woman (typical XX). Afaik, "she" is almost never attracted to (or found attractive by) a "transman" (typical XX), I suspect, because usually "she" (and/or "he") is also gay (XY-XY / XX-XX). — 180 Proof

There are plenty of straight men who transition as well. I believe there are more straight men who've transitioned today than gay men. The majority of them often have an inward sexual orientation to being female.

Hey Bob! Good to see an actual argument.

2. Definition of sexism

prejudice or discrimination based on sex OR
behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
(underlined for emphasis)

If gender is “the non-biological expectations that one or more people have about how a sex should express themselves in public”, then the stereotypes of social roles based off of sex would be genderism and not sexism; — Bob Ross

I thought about this very thing when I was first mulling this over, but it turns out 'genderism' has a different meaning.

genderism -Also called gender binarism. the belief that there are only two genders, that a person’s gender is fixed at birth, and that gender expression is determined by gender assigned at birth.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/genderism

So the word is taken already. Which means the definition of sexism still fits for preferring gender over sex.

This idea of ‘a woman’ or ‘a man’ here, in your terms (as far as I can tell), refers to gender and not sex since it pertains to stereotypes based off of sex. — Bob Ross

Correct. And yet it is still a form of sexism.

I think maybe your response would be that stereotyping sex with a gender is sexist because it tries too tie too much to sex; but nothing about sex in your terms has been discriminated against (such as their voice tone to use your example). Instead, the person would have been, at best, misgendered. — Bob Ross

To be clear, it is the elevation of gender of sex that is sexist. Not necessarily the observation of it. Lets say a woman behaves in a stereotypical 'girly' way. Its an observation. But if I take another girl who does not behave in a 'girly' (gendered) way, then tell them, "You're not a woman," that's sexism.

I think misgendering is when we associate stereotypes about sex on the wrong sex. So if a woman is 'acting masculine' and we say, "You're a man", that's misgendering. Of course, misgendering is again, another form of sexism. It is placing the expectations one has on a sex's behavior over the reality of the person. It is an indicator that if you do, or do not act and behave in a certain social way that you are 'not your sex'.

then it follows logically that a person who voluntarily identifies with a gender (such as 'femaleness') is being sexist against themselves. — Bob Ross

Correct.

That’s what infuriates me about this, not your opinions, but the low quality of your arguments. — T Clark

Whenever you want to actually getting around to actually addressing them, let me know.

You know TClark, I know you're not a kid, and I know you can be sensible and polite. I don't get why you come in here being rude right off the bat without any focus on the actual discussion.

Your bias against me has nothing to do with philosophy or anything intellectual in the slightest.
— Philosophim

I think your ideas on transgenderism are poorly argued and supported and I think it’s important that the weakness of your argument be demonstrated. Whether or not I’m doing a good job, that’s what I’m trying to do. — T Clark

You are doing a terrible job. I don't mind if you don't like me. I don't mind if you don't like my arguments. But we're not on reddit. We're on a philosophy board. You don't have to like me. So swallow the personal attack accusations and actually give a coherent argument that addresses the OP instead of basic trolling and passive aggressive sniping.

Now I’ve read your post and the article they linked to. The results presented in that article were fairly clear, if certainly not without qualifications. Sexual identity, or gender identity, or whatever you want to call it—as well as brain structure—can be affected by genetic and hormonal effects both before and after birth. You ignored that. — T Clark

This is just lazy. I responded to, and posted several articles. Which one TClark? Maybe a quote? You've let your own bias turn your brains into mush and I'm about done with it. What a disappointment that one of my favorite posters isn't any better than some fresh face single digit poster.

Much of your argument depends on one's identity being something produced outside of them, and I cannot accept that presumption. — Questioner

No, my argument simply notes that gender is a subjective opinion of how a sex should act in society, and that this is essentially no more than prejudice or sexism if we say it is more important than the reality of your sex itself. A gendered opinion can be from the self, or society, so it does not need to be produced outside of an individual.

The definition of gender is how one or more people believe a sex should behave socially.
— Philosophim

No, that is your definition, and it goes against commonly accepted research.

"Sex" is how you're built. "Gender" is a part of who you are.

According to the American College of Pediatricians:

Although often used interchangeably, the terms sex and gender are not synonyms. According to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), gender is defined as the “lived role” of male or female, resulting from the interaction of cultural and psychological factors with a person’s biological constitution. — Questioner

These definitions are complimentary, not contradictory. Mine is the colloquial version of the medical speak below.

"lived role" - Socially constructed expectation of behavior

of male or female - of a person's sex

cultural and psychological factors - subjective opinion from a group of people and the self

a person’s biological constitution - Their sex

Is that all? Do you have anything more to say to my last response?

I've been sitting back and letting others discuss as I feel I've already made my point in this thread. Your post was particularly excellent, well said.

Well, if I say that women wear their hair long, that's a gender (social) norm. Hair is biology (like left toes), yet the choice of how to wear it is social. — LuckyR

Correct. The definition of gender is how one or more people believe a sex should behave socially. There is nothing innate in being a sex that indicates one should wear their hair short or long, or even that how you wear your hair should have anything to do with your sex. That's gender. That's sexism.

Folks get plastic surgery to defy age. Facial skin is biology, but the choice to eliminate wrinkles is social. — LuckyR

This is not gender. Any sex can get these things done. If you believe only one sex should get them done, then its gender.

Thus it's established that certain manioulations of our biological physicality falls under social (gender) events. — LuckyR

Its if there is a subjective opinion that doing or not doing these things should be encouraged or limited by your sex.

Because gender is subjective and subject to the whims of an individual or group, and placing gender over sex in matters of importance matches the definition of sexism,
— Philosophim

I’ll bypass most of your OP and just say taking gender into account is not the same thing as “placing gender over sex.” — T Clark

Thank you for agreeing with me then. Glad you accept the premise of the OP.

There’s more to say about your obsession with transgender issues, but I guess that wouldn’t be philosophy. — T Clark

Correct my little passive aggressive bird. Your bias against me has nothing to do with philosophy or anything intellectual in the slightest.

To be clear, gender is purely a social expectation that has nothing to do with natural biology.
— Philosophim

This is clearly not true. For 99.7% of people, biological sex and gender match each other. — T Clark

Then you clearly did not read the OP. Oh wait, you already said you didn't. Way to go you!

Perhaps it is simplistic to say a male transgender person has a male brain, or a female transgender brain has a female brain – but the evidence that transgender brain structure and function are different from their biological (physical) sex is there if you care to investigate it.
— Questioner

The information included in his post puts the lie to just about everything you and Philosophim have to say on this subject. Maybe you guys will just lay off on your transgender obsession. Probably not. — T Clark

I just replied to his post. I think its customary to allow a rejoinder before declaring victory right?

Gender is one aspect of identity, and it’s our identity, produced by a brain, that determines how we perceive and react to the world. — Questioner

No one is arguing you can't have a sexist identity. You haven't argued that a gender identity isn't sexist.

No, gender is not determined by external expectations, but by biological factors - how the brain functions:

… the existence of brain phenotypes in line with the idea of a brain sexual differentiation seems to be confirmed by the … reported studies, including both cisgender and transgender individuals.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7139786/ — Questioner

You should quote the rest of the conclusion as well:

"However, the relationship between gender behavioural differences and brain dimorphic areas is still not clear, since such differences may be the result not only of anatomical features but also life experiences [34,35,36,37]. Furthermore, the popular explanation that there is a female and a male brain on the base of gender behavioural differences is not supported by a strong empirical background [11], as, for example, men and women share more similarities than differences [38,39,40,41,42,43]. Furthermore, a great variability in behavioural and psychological aspects is shown between genders [44]. Moreover, the size of the brain differences is usually small"

So no, you haven't proven anything. We both also need to be careful how you're defining gender. If gender is defined as a social expectation of behavior by a sex apart from biology, then you need to demonstrate that it is hard wired into the brain. For example, is it hard wired that "Men should wear top hats while women should not?" Of course not. Its just as likely that a society forms that claims the opposite. Which again, is just sexism.

Perhaps it is simplistic to say a male transgender person has a male brain, or a female transgender brain has a female brain – but the evidence that transgender brain structure and function are different from their biological (physical) sex is there if you care to investigate it. — Questioner

I have investigated it. The brain science is still quite nascient. The most important things I consider in any study which claims that transgender brains are different from cis, is if the study includes sexual orientation, and if the person has not been on any medication for transition. This is because male homosexual brains have some resemblence to female brains. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-says-brains-of-gay/

...and if this is not taken into account in trans studies, the gay brains shift the average to conclude, "Trans brains are more female". When sexual orientation is taken into account, there is no discernable difference in the brains of trans vs non-trans males prior to taking medication.

Gender is part of cognitive identity, so definitely gender. Why should “law and culture” force people to be something they are not? In what situations is this justified? — Questioner

I never said the law should force people into identities. I noted that when gender is elevated above sex in matters of culture and law, its sexism. You are free to identify in a sexist way, but we should not elevate a sexist viewpoint over the objective division of sex. So if you think you should be in sex separated spaces because you act, dress, or behave a certain way, that's a sexist viewpoint. Its much better to take an objective viewpoint for legal identity. Man and women can be seen as sexist roles, or they can be seen as objective descriptors of biology. In matters of law, the objective descriptor makes for better laws.

Of course, identity is subjective – it is produced in the brain of the subject. But subjectivity does not mean identity should be disregarded. Indeed, it should prevail. It is one’s lived experience – not an “opinion” - not a "belief" - but a reality. — Questioner

Should prevail? That's a statement, not an explanation. If I have the identity of a murderer, you're saying that should prevail? Everything you do is lived experience. That's not an argument about why gender isn't simply sexism.

No, gender is not a social belief. It is a state produced by a functioning brain, encompassing differences in cognition among individuals, which lead to differences in behavior. Here is one well-researched area that would produce different experiences of reality (and thus different reactions to it):

“You see sex differences in spatial-visualization ability in 2- and 3-month-old infants,” — Questioner

You're conflating 'gender' with 'sex' here. Sex differences are not gender. Gender is "I believe men should wear tank tops, and women shouldn't." Its completely subjective as to how I, another person, or a group of people believe a particular sex should behave in society.

Because gender is subjective and subject to the whims of an individual or group,
— Philosophim

No, gender is not based on a “whim.” — Questioner

Its not based on anything biological. And I can hold a completely different view of how males and females act than you with the same justification you have toward your views. Its just a prejudice.

I just can't see any good reason to consider gender as anything more than a prejudiced and sexist social pressure.
— Philosophim

But to not recognize the gender that one claims for themselves would be a prejudiced position, and put sexist social pressure on them. — Questioner

That statement does not address my points or have any explanation for why you think it is true behind it. You need to address the points I made in the argument explaining why gender is sexist, then demonstrate how it isn't.

Or – we can just accept one’s lived experience that they claim for themselves. Believe them. — Questioner

I believe when people have sexist views. I never said I didn't. And none of us should accept that a sexist outlook should take priority over actual biological differences in sex.

In summary, gender/identity should take precedence over the physical attributes of the body. — Questioner

I see no evidence of this in your points.

I think you are missing that genderroles were part of a culture that got us to where we are now. — ChatteringMonkey

So did war, ignorance, religion, and many other things that we have learned we can do without and still be successful. Just because something happened to accompany us while we furthered humanity does not mean that it was complicit in our success or needed anymore.

And that every modern society where they are being eroded seem to be experiencing problems replacing itself with a next generation. — ChatteringMonkey

Do you have any proof of this? What seems to be the case isn't the erosion of gender roles, its the enrichment of society vs the cost of having children combined with birth control. Many people opt out of having kids because they value their luxury time more as well. Some men stay at home and take care of the kids now while their wives work, which is an erosion of gender roles. I'm just not seeing evidence that the decision to not have kids is because of the removal of gender roles in marriage.

Misandry too.
— Philosophim

I don't think that's an issue. There is one sex that has been discriminated against in history and had to fight long and hard for their rights. — Malcolm Parry

You can be a man and be a misandrist. And there are women who hate men, but may not have the power to do much about it. Hating or loving one sex is irrelevant to the rights of that sex. One does not have to have power to be a misandrist or misogynist.

Sexism and misogyny — Malcolm Parry

Misandry too. Lets not be sexist ourselves and think this is only one sided. Also to be fair, sexism is not motivated only by negative aspects. Phiandry and philogyny, or the love of men and women can also be a drive for sexism and a desire to be the other sex.

Though folks who discuss these issues use terms like "I'm a man" and "you're not a man" casually (meaning that sex based language to describe either sex or gender identity at various times). — LuckyR

Right, its just sexist language when referring to gender. "Trans men are men" if you are referring to men in a gendered way, is incredibly sexist. It implies that there is some role or action that a person can do that makes them a 'man'. If you are saying a trans man is a man by sex, that's not a sexist claim, but one which is provably true or false. Sexism is very powerful, and its 'defeat' has only caused it to retreat and reshape itself into a new term, 'gender'.

In addition, some of the subjective gender markers include changing one's look, obviously including surgery. — LuckyR

To be clear, gender is purely a social expectation that has nothing to do with natural biology. If we said, "All men should get their left toe removed," that's changing your body for gender. There is no biological innate reason a man should get their left toe removed." If a person desires to cut their breasts off to resemble the chest of a man, that's someone trying to emulate sex expectations, not gender expectations of the other sex. That's trans sexual behavior, not trans gender behavior.

I would debate. — Mijin

Please do! Its important to explore different view points.

It seems to be more complex than just the set of presentations -- most of us have met "tomboy" like women, or men who dress quite femininely (or even cross dress) who nevertheless would never consider themselves trans. — Mijin

If you mean 'trans gender' that is because gender is subjective. If a person does not consider their behavior as only belonging to men, then they don't see themselves as trans gender. But there are people who think, "I'm aggressive, and only men are supposed to be aggressive. Maybe I'm a man?"

And, linking back to sex, why do some trans people choose to have a sex change, or even just hormone therapy. — Mijin

That's not a trans gender individual, but a trans sexual individual. Such a person wants to change their body either because they hate their own sex, or desire to be the other sex. Trans gender and trans sexuals are separate. A person can be trans gender and have no desire to change their body, while a trans sexual can change their body while having no desire to change their gender. Desiring to change the body also does not require sexism. Some people truly desire the physical traits of the other sex, but are not sexist. They just want a beard or breasts.

Even further, if William himself stated, "I cook in the kitchen, therefore I'm not a man", this would ALSO be sexist.
— Philosophim

No-one says that though.
No-one says "I like soap operas, therefore I am a woman". — Mijin

A dear friend of mine who is in the middle of transition has said such things as, "Going bald really bothers me, gender dysphoria is real isn't it?" and, "I keep finding things on the internet that I like are followed by lesbians. I must be a lesbian." He really believes he's a lesbian by the way despite the fact I've pointed out how 'sexual orientationist' his reasoning is. He can't even imagine a sexual encounter with someone else if he doesn't imagine himself as a woman being involved. Its pretty obvious that its a sexual desire he has as a male to be a woman, but he uses 'gender' to lie to himself and others that 'that's not what its about'. Even though he constantly reads lesbian romance novels. Even though I've seen how he looks at himself in discord, strokes his long hair enthusiastically and gets a moment of lust that crosses his face.

Remember that sexism is either ignorance enforced by culture, or a lie for power over something you often can't otherwise control. He can't control his sexual urges. Therefore he uses gender to lie and cover it up. I'm not saying that all trans sexuals want the other sex's body for sexual reasons, but if they claim gender is involved, its sexism. How do you think doctor's evaluate gender dysphoric kids? "I always wanted to be a girl, I played with dolls as a child, and always acted like a girl."

Lets looks at the DSM-5 diagnosis criteria for gender dysphoria.

"Some people who identify as transgender do experience “gender dysphoria,” a psychiatric diagnosis that refers to the psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity."

A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
In boys (assigned gender), a strong preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong preference for wearing only typical masculine clothing and a strong resistance to the wearing of typical feminine clothing
A strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play
A strong preference for the toys, games or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender
A strong preference for playmates of the other gender
In boys (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically masculine toys, games, and activities and a strong avoidance of rough-and-tumble play; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically feminine toys, games, and activities
A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria

All of that is sexism. You'll note there are other diagnosis of trans sexualism in the DSM-5. But none of the above stereotypes are required to desire the body of the other sex. If a person was confused by sexism however, they might think that they needed to align their body with the 'gender' they desired to be. There are people out there, especially young people, who believe that because they want to do things we prejudice as belonging to the other sex, that they need to change their body to match so they can do those things without societal rejection.

Sexism is powerful and has made people believe they should stick to certain 'roles' for centuries. There are people out there who believe in sexism, and believe because they do not behave like a normal person of their sex, that changing their body to match that will fix that problem.

Hindsight is 20/20. Literally the cheapest statement anyone could ever make. — Outlander

To be clear, this is nothing wrong with taking and exploring something proposed or claimed. My point was that if it was never peer reviewed or tested with repeatable results, it never should have been taken as more than something to look into.

You've never heard of case studies? They are always open to question. — Tom Storm

See above.

↪Philosophim Most of his famous work were case studies, interpretative narratives which you can’t really peer review. They were stories about what he saw, and heard from relatives, not scientific facts based on experiments which can be replicated. — Tom Storm

Then it was always circumspect and no one should have listened to them.

The important thing is if his body of work went through the proper scientific channels. Is it objective? Consistently repeatable? Its often that people will take a 'paper' or even a 'person' and make treat them as if they are representatives of the truth. His methods, peer review, and whether those conclusions were appropriately challenged are all that matter. His private life or personality is irrelevant.

I wouldn't debate too hard with Questioner. I get the feeling English is a second language
— Philosophim

That's funny, when it was you two who were confused by a simple post. — Questioner

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.

I asked you if you had any questions and you didn't reply. — 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.

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. — Outlander

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.

100%. Its so odd that this one topic stymies people's ability to think clearly. — AmadeusD

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.

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 a false conclusion. — Michael

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.

Genuinely, I'm having a difficult time understanding what you were trying to convey in that particular post.
— Philosophim

All I can suggest is to read it again and feel free to ask me questions about it. — Questioner

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.