I missed the previous discussion, so apologies if I'm saying something out of context. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Not a worry! That's the great thing about the forums, long time limits on replies. :)

For me it is solved, but more complicated. What is my intention in throwing the switch? It must be to save the five, not to kill the one. Killing the one must be a foreseen, but not intended, consequence. If I'm intending to kill the one, then it is murder. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

It can be simplified slightly by separating two things. Intentions, and outcomes. Lets take a bank robbery for example.

A person attempts to rob a bank for money. While holding up the teller, they don't realize that there was a bomb about to go off outside that would have killed lots of people leaving the bank. Ultimately, the outcome of their stopped robbery was that they saved lives, but their intention was still a harm.

Intention is more about consistency under the law. While a bad intention can sometimes result in a good outcome, that is mostly accidental. Bad intentions acted upon often result in poor outcomes. So we don't gamble necessarily on outcomes and punish active intentions despite what those intentions bring.

Truth it what is, and it isn't owned by anyone.
— Philosophim

i disagree. — Questioner

You are free to disagree. Disagreement alone does not mean you are correct or have captured the truth adequately. That's my point. A strong emotional belief or insistence about something doesn't make it so. What is, is, whether we like it, believe in it, or not.

In your rush to push forward that only the objective matters, you forget the person. — Questioner

Where did I say only 'the objective' mattered? Where have I forgotten the person when my point about manipulative language was all about a person?

I do not forget the person. — Questioner

You seem to have ignored a lot of what I stated, put things in my mouth I did not say, and have not provided much but personal emotional disagreement. I think you're only thinking about your own ideas in this conversation and have forgotten about me. :)

Can two competing beliefs both be right? — Joshs

If they are competing? No. Competing beliefs mean that they are at odds. Meaning if one is correct, the other is incorrect.

Is demanding a one-size-fits-all truth the sign of maturity or a kind of childish tantrum in the face of perspectives that don’t fit neatly into the established norms? — Joshs

I fail to see how this has anything to do with the topic or my point on manipulative language.

We both know I was alluding to your insistence that transgender persons are "sexist" because they choose to live in the gender that their brains tell them they are — Questioner

I wasn't thinking that at all. I'm talking about this conversation here.

Nothing, not all the scientific evidence to the contrary, could shake you from that position. You held it as a sacred truth. — Questioner

Incorrect. If the science demonstrates a new position, I go with that. You're getting wildly off topic here.

So don't you start lecturing me. — Questioner

Present clear arguments on point with the current thread you're in, and I won't.

My point is that if a truth is true to the subject, it is indeed a subjective truth. — Questioner

If a subjective point is true, then it is the truth. Truth it what simply is, despite what we may think it is. Truth is not 'mine' or 'yours'. Truth it what is, and it isn't owned by anyone. There is no "My truth". I've already mentioned a few posts up why its disingenuous and harmful language. Feel free to address the points I've already made.

Especially when you don't like what they're saying.

So, you see, it's you imposing your subjective truth — Questioner

You can't possibly think that's going to convince me or anything else of anything. The only one you're trying to convince is yourself.

You know, I was deep into Christianity growing up. I had all the answers. I shaped the language to get what I wanted. And I remember being angry at the people that denied God or my belief system. And I remember with shock one day that I, a supposedly good and rational Christian, had to really open myself up to the idea that I could be wrong.

I understand what its like to have a conviction in something that feels like its too precious to let go. I stopped, because I realized that if I was to be a good person, I had to be open to the fact that I didn't want to be tied to the wrong conviction. Defending an unworthy conviction isn't good, its destructive to yourself and others around you. I want you to think about your interactions with me in holding your conviction. Are you being the best person and conversationalist that you can be, or are you struggling with the emotional weight and purpose of something that might be wrong, and thus resorting to less than stellar behavior and arguments?

I say this because I think you're a good person. But anyone can get trapped in that. Not having the answer right now also doesn't mean you won't have it later. But please don't resort to conversation tactics like you just did. We cannot be thinking of only ourself when we converse, but the other person's points and arguments as well.

It looks like you consider what you call "reality" the ultimate word that establishes how things are. How is that you consider this idea of yours the ultimate word? — Angelo Cannata

Very simple. Can a person fly with their mind alone?

Why should we conclude that this experience is the ultimate word, since it is inevitably interpreted by our brain? — Angelo Cannata

Because we are unable to despite all types of testing and subjective viewpoints, generate a situation where a person can fly by their mind alone, or even think of a scientific scenario where it would be possible. Reality is that which is impossible to deny by consequence. Meaning I can believe it, but reality demonstrate that belief can never be realized in practice.

It seems to me that we humans are not ultimate beings, we are so limited, so mortal, including our ideas, so how can we think that any idea of ours, particularly such concepts as reality, objectivity, truth, can contain anything ultimate? — Angelo Cannata

I have another one for you. Do you discretely experience? Meaning, in all your entirety of being, can you part and parcel things? Can you see more than black and white, but recognize individual letters, words, etc? That's the ability to discretely experience. An objective truth that you have.

You seemed to consider my understanding of you like a definitive strong point, but I don't think that any human being in this world is able to guarantee that I or you have understood each other, or even themselves. — Angelo Cannata

Sure. Its easy to make the mistake that "Because there are things I can't view objectively, that means nothing exists objectively." I'm not saying we don't have circumstances that objectivity is impossible. There are. But that does not mean objectivity is impossible.

I’d be interested in your thoughts about what I posted earlier, re: the Eastern concept of shradda – a concept for which we don’t have an equivalent word in the English language. — Questioner

Use whatever words you want. Having a dear belief does not make it true. Nor does it excuse manipulating language to describe a situation. I may believe with all of my heart that something exists, that does not make it so. That is a child's viewpoint of the world.

If you are using language to imply that what is objectively not true, is true, you're using manipulative language. Humanity loves to rationalize and shape language to fit a belief system instead of using language as a clear and accurate representative of reality from which to rationally come to a correct conclusion. This is nothing new.

That is what philosophy is supposed to teach us. To separate our convictions and beliefs from rational thought. 2+2=4, and no amount of belief, want, desire, or anger will change that. It is not someone's 'truth' that 2+2=5. Manipulative language puts one above the idea that their belief can be wrong. If you cannot honestly say, "My belief could be wrong, I will fairly consider it," then like a child, you will lie, ignore anything which would counter that belief, and go to the manipulation of language to dodge accountability. It is irresponsible, childish, and makes the world a worse place.

Its a person using language to manipulate
— Philosophim

You really need to shrug off this sense of victimization. — Questioner

How does this imply victimization? If a person is being manipulative with language it doesn't mean I personally am being manipulated.

I am sure when people speak their truth, they are not thinking about you. — Questioner

This is just ignoring the discussion and insisting on using manipulative language. When people are speaking on their subjective view point, of course they don't have to think about me. But if they're trying to speak a subjective viewpoint that twists language to their own ends, its being manipulative. I consider using manipulative language one of the few clear evils that people can do. And your response being completely unintelligent and lacking is one of the reasons why. You cannot be a manipulative person and be good. It infects your mind as a poison, twists your emotions into hate, and utterly ruins otherwise good people.

It is an undeniable reality despite one's personal subjectivity.
— Philosophim
I don't think it is humanly possible to say something like this. — Angelo Cannata

And yet I did, and you understood what I was intending. Did you think on my example of someone trying to fly with their own mind?

This means that the very concept of objectivity is very relative, always related to someone thinking about it — Angelo Cannata

This doesn't at all address the points I made. I gave you a clear example in which our subjective viewpoint on the subject does not matter.

However, this is just science. Philosophy goes further and we can consider that, even when we measure temperature with scientific instruments, a human interpretation is involved. — Angelo Cannata

Yes, except there are human interpretations which are correct, and not correct. Objectivity is not merely "The conclusion of the group". It is a provable set of circumstances that is true or false no matter the subjective view of any individual in the group. For example, it is objectively true that no human can fly by simply thinking about it. There are people who genuinely are deluded that they can. But despite their actual efforts and tests, they can't. Objectively is grounded in something that is beyond human interpretation. It is an undeniable reality despite one's personal subjectivity.

Another way to view it is that we are all subjects. We interpret things based on feelings. But objectivity is not about feelings or beliefs. It is about tested certainty. It is about interpreting reality in a way that is not contradicted by reality when we get different viewpoints in the room.

The moment we try to master and control the interference of human interpretation, this operation is itself already under the interference of human interpretation. — Angelo Cannata

Objectivity does not exclude the subject. It simply notes that the subjects personal beliefs and judgements are irrelevant. That is because reality will contradict that personal belief and subject every time.

However, at this point the discussion is not ended. If we consider, from a “relatively objective” point of view, that in this world there are many people, which means many perspectives, many points of view, this takes us to the problem of not being able to share each unique perspective, because, the moment we try to do it, through some kind of language, we automatically filter and select those aspects of subjectivity that can be shared, communicated by language. — Angelo Cannata

Correct. But lets tweak 'relatively objective' to, "Objectivity is observed by subjects". In all cases, none of us can fly by thinking it alone. It doesn't matter that we have a certain viewpoint or inner feeling about the situation. It is objectively noted that none of us can fly through mental energy alone.

What is important to note is that not everything can be communicated objectively. Listening to another person's subjective experience does not tell you objectively what actually living that experience is. In that we must often relate to each other in a sea of subjective patterns. Its not that subjectivity does not have value or use. Its the common way we approach the world. It requires the least effort and is at home with our emotions. Objectivity is difficult, often defies our world view and emotions, and as such there is a continual impetus throughout history for some people to try to discount objectivity. Its a subjective quest of discomfort, not an objective dismantling of objectivity itself.

In opposition to this inexpressible part of subjectivity, every other aspect of subjectivity that we are able to express is just an objectification of subjectivity, which means a false concept of subjectivity, that gives us the illusion that we are talking about subjectivity, but actually we aren’t, we are just talking about some shareable aspects of subjectivity, cutting out what actually is the essence, the true experience of subjectivity. — Angelo Cannata

Fair enough for your overall concept. I wouldn't call it an 'objectification of subjectivity', its just a navigation of subjective inductions at an attempt to connect, communicate, and listen to another human the best we can.

Now you can understand why your question seems to me rather impossible to solve. Wanting “to clearly and carefully define what subjectivity and objectivity are” means cutting out from our discussion exactly the essence of subjectivity. What kills everything is when we say “clearly and carefully define”. Each of these three words sends us to the world of precision, accuracy, control, which is the world of objectivity. — Angelo Cannata

Right, its difficult. And so we often don't want to do it. But that's what separates a real thinker from a rationalizer. A rationalizer wants to do what's easy and avoid difficult thoughts. A rational person must often endure discomfort, attacks on their ego, world view. They must be willing to realize, "Maybe I'm not as smart as I think I am." To be wrong. To change. Rationality is not only about intelligence, but character and strength of purpose.

We're not cutting out the essence of subjectivity, we're having you face your emotional intuition about it and exercise your mind about it. To say, "Ok, fair enough, lets see if I can tackle this." At that point you engage your real perceptions. The risk of "I could fail" must be stared in the face and backhanded away. Please don't take this personally. I've gone through it myself.

That is, it's not just offensive to suggest there is a "my truth," but it so abuses the term truth that it makes it meaningless because the statement properly understood is per se contradictory. — Hanover

Exactly this. Its a person using language to manipulate an outcome that they personally want vs using language to clearly communicate accuracy and clarity. The only way to defeat accuracy and clarity, is to attack the words themselves and diminish anyone who would dare use them in that way. Hate, unwarranted moral justification, and self-righteousness of cause are all tools to attack the one who wishes to be clear, rational, and assess the claim honestly.

The alternative is that intelligent life has no prior precedent and is in fact the first time it has emerged in the world. I find this difficult to accept because it would in fact be easier to posit a pre-existing intelligence (divine) from which the current one sprang from. — kindred

Why would it be easier? If there's a prior intelligence that had to evolve, it would face the same exact problems we would if it was us who were first. And is a view point that makes a problem easier more important that what's more accurate and true?

I just believe that the emergence of intelligence in this universe has a precedent, that is a prior intelligence was what set the initial conditions for life to emerge then from that moment onwards evolution occurred. — kindred

If a prior intelligence existed, then it would be life. Unless you're talking about an unliving intelligence, which doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe the universe had chat GPT before life, but that seems even less likely. :)

I think it’s worth pointing out that a lot of things had to be right for the first chemicals to react and combine with each other to enable ever increasing complexity when it came to the creation of life. — kindred

Correct, but you're missing the fact that that intelligence that emerged would have the same difficulties. It would have to be alive too.

Just personal intuition but I do not believe in scripture or holy books as they have no godly authority having been written by man. — kindred

And it would be ok if you did. I don't hold any animosity to faith or different ideas about the universe. Is intuition alone enough to stake a claim on though? Or do we need something rational to back our intuition so we don't fall into a mistaken conclusion? There is nothing wrong with having an intuition, but can you rationally conclude anything beyond that intuition that makes it more likely that there was a prior intelligence that set up today's modern day intelligences?

Apologies in advance if this has already been discussed, but what do people think about the phrase "My truth"? — Peter Gray

Trying to repurpose words for one's own benefit is a pretty common tactic among the manipulative. Its when a person takes the emotional and cultural connotation of the word, then repurposes it for their own advantage. "Truth" has the feeling of "Certainty that cannot be wrong." "My opinion" or "My viewpoint" has the connotation "I could be wrong." My truth implies "I hold a truth that is beyond your criticism or the possibility of being wrong."

Its powerful because the person can twist the meaning to their advantage. "No, I don't think your view point is valid," But its "My truth". You can't question the truth. Its mine, only I know it, you can't.

The repurposing of language is used as a sneaky way of getting what you want when you know if you use accurate language, that you won't. It also undermines the notion of the original word too. "No, you can't repurpose truth, that's not what it means." That's YOUR truth, my truth can be whatever I want and you can't say anything about it.

Part of the reason why this is effective is that many times emotions guide people's thoughts, not rational thinking. Using something blatantly irrational often does not give a person an emotional feeling of being right. But if you can repurpose a word and get the emotional feeling of, "I'm right" while simply saying it, it emboldens the individual to keep using it and attack those who question it. It might be irrational, but if you personally don't feel it is, you'll sit there with dead eyes defending it.

I once has a poster on here try to twist the meaning of subjective to mean 'objective', because they wanted all the benefits of subjectivity and the cultural 'feeling' that the normal term objective gave. Basically they wanted something, reality wouldn't let them have it, so they tried to repurpose the word as if it would give them the reality they wanted. As a tactic it can work for some time. The problem always is that the concepts underlying the original word's meaning do not go away. People still usually need them, so they invent new words that convey those concepts and ruin the original's attempt at thinking that language can change reality.

A modern day example is the famous, "Trans women are women". Certain individuals want to be seen as females, can't logically argue that its the case, so repurpose the words to get the meaning of what they want. I bring it up because its also an example of something that can only work for so long as its slowly fading away now. When it leaves the emotional realm and has to be considered in something rational like the law, the concept is more important than the feeling of the phrase. That's why there's a major push back to keep the concept of sex separation, despite the use of 'woman' for males who transition.

So always keep an eye out for it. People will always try to emotionally pressure you into believing something they want and you have to be savvy enough to not fall for it.

The operative words here are evidential warrant. Here are some examples of beliefs that do not derive their warrant from evidential support, but may still be truth-apt (there is controversy about the last one):

Bachelors are unmarried
2 + 2 = 4
The bishop moves along diagonals
I am cold
Stealing is wrong — SophistiCat

All of these are falsifiable.

If bachelors were married.
If 2+2-5
The bishop does not move along diagonals.
You are hot
Stealing is right.

Falsifiable is not, "I proved this to be false." Its, "There is a real circumstance in which we could test which if true, would prove the statement false."

Big foot is a great example of something not falsifiable by believers. As a believer, "What situation, if it existed, would prove Bigfoot false?" They won't give you one. "We scoured the entire forest with heat detecting drones and didn't find big foot." Answer: "He's crafty and is obviously hiding."

I just find it improbable that life could emerge on its own without some sort of divine push to get things started…what is your take on this ? — kindred

Ok, we can start here. Where did you learn about the idea of a divine intelligence? From a book right? But it was a book written by people that didn't have any knowledge of anatomy beyond the basics, no modern medicine, no electricity, no university system, etc. Why do you think that book has any authority? Because it said it did? Think about that for a minute.

Now, lets look at the modern theory of evolution. Its backed by carefully recorded observations and countless tests. It even invites you to doubt it. It does not assert, "Evolution is real, and you are evil for doubting it." It says, "Here's the evidence, check it out and see if it holds up." Have you read and understood the modern theory of evolution beyond the basic high school introduction? Read up on it, understand it, and even challenge it here. Then we'll see if you still hold onto the belief that its improbable.

I think to have a serious conversation about what you're saying, you need to clearly and carefully define what subjectivity and objectivity are to you.

There are a few common themes to cults that I think you're missing.

1. Isolation from the rest of society, family, and friends for 'the message'.
2. Zero tolerance for questions or doubts. Loyalty to feelings and mantras replace thinking.
3. Promises self-actualization. You will become who you were meant to be.
4. Anyone who leaves 'wasn't really part of the group' or is dismissed as inconsequential. You can do no wrong by being in the cult, anything that rejects the cult is wrong.
5. Imaginative thinking positioned as reality.

Now, can people form cults around beliefs that are not in themselves cultish? Sure. Political parties can be cults, though politics itself is not a cult. And I'm sure there are people who form cultish viewpoints on capitalism as well.

A key to cults is a sense of authoritarianism and unquestionable moral certitude. "I am right because I'm just, and your alternative viewpoints and disagreements are innately wrong, thus should be silenced without debate." The West is largely founded on Democratic values and rights. You are free to bash capitalism all you want and no one will ban you. I just don't see 'the West' as being a cult as it largely avoids authoritarianism.

To be clear, falsifiable means, "I can imagine a situation in which something is false."
— Philosophim

You have to make it clear that the "situation" is empirical. — Hallucinogen

I should probably say "Testable". That normally is empirical, but it there was a non-empirical way of testing something, its the testing that matters.

But there's statements that we know to be true without sensing something or recording something, so the inference doesn't appear to be valid. — Hallucinogen

Knowing something is true doesn't mean its falsifiable. John is a human. We know this. Its true. But if he were a snail, he wouldn't be a human. Falsifiable does not mean, "It can be proven to be false", its that "There is a state of being which would negate the claim that "X is Y", and that can be as simple as "X cannot be Y if X is Z".

I've asked the people who have made these statements to explain why they're true but I don't get any satisfactory answers. Can someone explain why unfalsifiability is required for something to be true or knowable? — Hallucinogen

To be clear, falsifiable means, "I can imagine a situation in which something is false."

Let me give you an example.

John is a human. If John were a snail, he would not be a human.

Here is something unfalsifiable.

A unicorn is a magical creature that cannot be sensed in any way.

What state of reality could falsify the unicorn?

Is there a scenario we could imagine where the unicorn does not exist? "No, that's impossible because we can't sense it. We just know it exists." Or if the unicorn did not exist, there would be no state change elsewhere. There is no situation that is different in which the unicorn exists, and not.

Now more specific.

"The loch ness monster exists."
But no one has ever recorded it. "It doesn't matter, its very stealthy so that's why we haven't found it yet."

Is there any observation or research that we could do where we don't find the loch ness monster where we could claim it doesn't exist? "No". Thus the loch ness monster is not falsifiable. It is a belief system that asserts its truth as a matter of necessity, and no amount of evidence or thought could negate its assertion of existence.

May I present a different alternative based on history?

Nixon in 1956 thought that we would go to a four day work week based on increased production.

Throughout history, any time a new technology has come about that made things more efficient, people have worried there won't be enough jobs. The reality is that you cannot see the needs of tomorrow once those new efficiencies are in place.

People will always fine more to do with what they have. 20 years ago the idea of having 16GB of RAM on your computer was insane. Whatever would we need that for? Turns out when you have greater time and efficiency in one area, people find new things to fill out that saved time and create new complexities that need people to work through.

Now, what IS important is making sure regular workers aren't left behind and exploited. Because that's historical. Unchecked there will always be people in power who will rape a person happily and tell them to be grateful for it. We'll need to see how people abuse AI. For example, if an artist creates individual work, if AI scans it it should be paid to the artist. AI should have careful logs of data that it pulls from, even though it might slow AI down. But if artists are properly paid for AI use, it could be they also profit from AI.

I think we're also going to face real limits on energy and infrastructure vs demand. This will likely cause new wars over resources like we do with oil. We'll still need people to fight those wars too. :)

Fantastic to hear! I wish you clarity of mind and speed of fingers in writing your novel. The site will likely be in its new location when you finish, we'll see you over there.

In infact, a further anecdote appended to that one is that my music teacher in high school refused to call me Amadeus because it made him uncomfortable. Okay. No worries. We are still friends 17 years later. — AmadeusD

You are a gracious individual.

I understand it perfectly. As I wrote earlier, good manners are a trivial form of proper morality. — Ecurb

And my problem is I think its actually bad manners to ask someone to use pronouns against your natal sex. I think its self-centered and narcissistic. If someone is accurately noting your natal sex, they aren't the problem, you are for not accepting that the other person has basic recognition skills. You ask people to be uncomfortable and lie because of your personal mental health issue. Or, if you want them to use pronouns to describe gender, you're asking them to use prejudiced and sexist language.

I genuinely believe such a request is childish, rude, and imposing unnecessary discomfort and awkwardness to social situations. If someone is treating you like everyone else, expecting special treatment because you personally have a mental health issue that you need to work on is improper.

It needs to adapt, become more intelligent, and start thinking about how it can work with the general populace instead of against it before its too late.
— Philosophim

I am reticent to immediately say "yes" because it feels like a form of "white savior" type of thing, but my intuition is simply that its right. Ahh.. — AmadeusD

I get that. I don't think I'm being a 'white-savior' because I don't view trans gender individuals as some 'other inferior beings I need to help'. I retain respect for trans gendered people. I am not superior, just a person with observations having explored their circumstances for some time now. I don't think that trans gender people are mentally incapable of considering alternatives to narratives. I believe they can overcome difficulties to be better people. And I believe they can handle a conversation like this instead of treating them like invalids or having child-like minds.

The typical, perhaps historically manipulated, set of expectations for the underlying basis for the bundle: the sex from which it is expected. I fear this is simply restating something Phil has said several times. But this seemed clearer to me than anything i'd read through the two threads ongoing. — AmadeusD

I'm simply one subjective view point looking at something. I can point a person in the direction I'm looking to see if they see something similar from their viewpoint. No fear in voicing what you see in your own terms. I am constantly amazed at the phenomenon of looking at something for years, then one day realizing "Oh, its been this all along." :) For me that is the wonder of discovery, and it is always private and a personal experience.

I think if some conservative guy refuses to use your "preferred pronouns" (metaphorically)fuck that guy and move on. Edit. Ruthlessly. Most of us do this, I think, without much problem. — AmadeusD

I agree with this. No one is obligated to socialize with people they don't want to. I'm not sure Ecurb understands the abstract approach I'm bringing to the discussion. My point is that there is no moral imperative to partake in an off language request from another person either. Just like there is nothing immoral for a trans person saying, "That person won't say my pronouns, they're not my friend," there's no rational or moral violation in a person saying, "I'm not going to agree to this pronoun request." Personal opinions about each side are irrelevant to this point. I respect a person's right to not associate with people they do not want to. I also respect a person's right to not participate in language they might deem to be dishonest or prejudiced.

Its up to the person who wants a person to use uncommon or exceptions to normal language to provide a good reason why they should, but at the end of the day, we have to respect that a request to use language in a way that other people don't agree with is within their right to refuse.

It's not appearance and mannerism per-se, but a concept of self, or as you say, the utilisation of an alter-self for sexual gratification and love and companionship in relief from isolation. Essentially, it is nothing other than self-impressionism in one form or another. — Throng

Its a good way to describe it.

I am male, but I am not 'a man'. For me to claim I am 'a man' is as ludicrous as claiming to be 'a woman', and you will notice that males who make being 'a man' very important are equally ridiculous as males who give being 'a woman' importance. Gender identity, be it cis or trans, is ludicrous. — Throng

100% agree. Its just basic sexism. Sexism is of course very appealing and powerful, so its easy to worm itself into people if they don't recognize it. 'Gender' is one of the best language twists to trick you into thinking its not sexism ever invented. It follows one of the best manipulative tactics: the assertion of its moral superiority by a higher power. The higher power in this case is legislation, moneyed interests, and the force of sexually desirous men who were willing to say whatever was necessary to get what they wanted. A fantastic example of a secular cult.

Notice that the 'gender' push was not done from the ground up like gay rights. It was pushed down from on high, and people were told this was the way things were going to be now. Disagreement was immoral, you were to follow the new precepts, the language, and the rituals. As someone who grew up in religion and broke out of it myself, its been a very familiar feeling pushing against this.

If I was a doctor and surgeon, I would question the ethics of transitioning people. They are not ill and in need of treatment, so it's not really medicine. It is cosmetic, but exogenous steroids and sex-reassignment surgery interferes with and/or obliterates healthy organ function (whereas a nose job doesn't). Plastic surgery doesn't mean ethics go out the window and 'anything goes', and cross-sexualising interventions do grievous bodily harm. — Throng

Despite this, I think people should be free to do so. I very much rest on the camp of 'freedom'. My experience in life is that people are far to quick to judge how others should live their lives without having actually been in that person's shoes. I can easily judge from the outside everything you've said, but I can't live the person who is undergoing that desperate and obsessive sexual impulse. I've seen it in my friend first hand. Ever seen a pet in heat trapped in a house with no mate? That was him. It was extremely painful to watch, and I wouldn't want to sentence him to a life of just experiencing that with no alternative. Its not something I would push on most people who might have it as a partial influence in their life, but to me it was very much like a person who could not choose to be gay. Its condemning someone to celibacy due to other's people discomfort with the sexual variation of that person.

You might even think, "They'll be find if they're with a woman." If its not the major sexual influence, that's possible. But research stories of trans widows. Its story after story of men who after five years (when sexual interest dies down) or children are born and the attention is focused on the child, decide to transition as the relationship is no longer serving their sexual needs. I wouldn't push a gay person to get married saying, "You should try it, maybe you're only somewhat gay." So why would I push a person who has this to do so?

The trans community has largely tried to push back vehemently on the sexual narrative, but its very real for many. I understand why. If the general community figures it out, its game over for that sweet, sweet ability to enter into women's spaces. Its pretty nice having people bend the knee for your sexual interests without them knowing about it. Also, if you can claim its a medical need, you can get insurance to pay for it. So there's really little personal benefit for the trans community activists to recognize this prevalent part of the trans experience, and gender is the perfect cover as most people don't have the learning to realize its just veiled sexism. Simply moralize gender, get people to repeat the mantra 'trans women are women', and they won't think to question it anymore. Watching people here do mental backflips and pretzel twists to try to defend it, its the same exact experience I've had when debating people that God doesn't exist while they insist he does.

Fortunately, there are trans individuals who recognize it and have moral standards and respect for women like my friend. They are largely rejected by 'the community' as the sexual situation is too good for many to be disrupted. Not to mention the amount of money being made off of trans gender medicine is incredible. If you catch them young, its permanent life long medication with the promise of surgeries down the road. Just like religion, its the zealots up front with people in the back collecting all the money.

The differences are too great to ethically equate transexualism with general cosmetic surgery. Transexual interventions are at best an extreme form of cosmetic surgery, well beyond even the indulgences of Michael Jackson. — Throng

I think if the sexual nature of the condition come to light, there can be good reasons to allow this. Yes, I suppose it wouldn't be something you just walked into a basic clinic to do, but educating a person the sexual nature honestly, and helping them to adjust tastefully and appropriately in society could be a benefit to everyone. If there's one thing I think we've learned from the gay rights movement, is that sexual variation can be tastefully integrated into society without normative sexuality being hindered or disrupted. Just because a person has a different sexual interest, it doesn't mean it becomes a focus in work or in public beyond basic acknowledgement. Gays suddenly didn't star parading around in speedos and sexually suggestive clothing, trans gender men and women won't either. It is the hiding of that sexuality where some people will attempt to abuse the situation from people's ignorance and good graces. Bringing it to light might be painful at first, but I believe more beneficial in the long run.

But maybe I am wrong. Maybe there are limitations on sexual variation expression for good reasons, and not merely ignorance or taboo. Maybe the fact that it necessitates drugs to reach its full enjoyment is a problem. People wiser than I can debate that as that is at the limit of my current experience.

Your battle about the "default meaning" of "woman" is losing as well. — Ecurb

Here in the OP, I'm fairly confident at this point that I'm correct, at least in my conversation with you. If it changes or morphs in the future, I don't care. Its something I'm not quite sure you've understood in reading the OP. Its ok to say, "Today woman by default does mean 'sex reference', but I and others want to change it to where the default is 'role'" That's a separate discussion.

First, if it was true, that doesn't prove that the disagreement is rational or right. Educated people as a group have believed or asserted plenty of beliefs that later were found not to be founded on rational thought, but cultural group think.
— Philosophim

Yes it does prove they are right in terms of the definition of "man" and "woman". That's how lexicographers define words. — Ecurb

No, you appeal mass appeal to 'generalized educated people' is not evidence of the default of man and woman not being sex references. Are you going to tell me next that because American money has "In God we trust", that God is real?

Words often change from the specific to the general. WE may deplore the change (as Henry Tilney did 200 years ago in Northanger Abbey), but it would be foolish to deny it. — Ecurb

Again, that's not what the OP is saying. Its saying, now, today, that the default meaning of men and women unmodified is a sex referent.

The battle over "nice" has long been lost (Northanger Abbey was written more than 200 years ago). — Ecurb

Look, I'm trying to have a rational discussion about language with you. You keep trying to use emotional coercion to make me do something I rationally conclude that I rationally do not have to. That's not very nice is it? Why should I listen to someone who isn't being very nice tell me what's nice?

I'm not saying it 'should' be any of them. I'm noting it 'is'. That's where you misunderstand the OP. This not about what man or woman should mean by default, its about what they do mean by default.
— Philosophim

Well, I and most educated people in the U.S. disagree. — Ecurb

First, if it was true, that doesn't prove that the disagreement is rational or right. Educated people as a group have believed or asserted plenty of beliefs that later were found not to be founded on rational thought, but cultural group think.

Second, I'm an educated person. There are many, many educated people like me who hold my view. Unless you have an unbiased and carefully set up survey's that conclude the same results, your claim is a belief, not reality.

The definitions are changing, as Jamal has clearly pointed out. — Ecurb

Whether they are changing or not is irrelevant to the point of the OP. What are they today? I'm not noting what they should be, and I'm surely not stating what they are going to be a year from now.

It's reasonable to modify definitions out of kindness, politeness, and for political reasons. — Ecurb

No, its reasonable to use definitions for clarity of communication. Its manipulative, coercive, and a means to influence to gain power over people's thinking when you shape words for 'kindness', politeness, and political reasons.

Your friend is transitioning to female, and you still refer to her as, "he"

Tells me all I need to know about your level of understanding. — Questioner

Did you not read the entirety of what I wrote? He knows he's still a he. He's transitioning to fill this need. Not all trans gender people take the idea that transition equates to being equated with the opposite sex or gender. Remember your claim to being open minded? Time to own up to that and learn something from me this time.

Obviously my friend is a private person, and I'm sure if they came on here they would be accused of being a second account or some such. Here is a nice non-political interview with Debbie Hayton, a trans woman who holds similar views. As an open minded individual, you should take a listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO4pFnRdC1o

Of course if we define "woman" as "an adult human having two x chromosomes", then trans women are not women. But why do we need to define it that way? — Ecurb

What do you mean 'need'? Here I want to zero in a bit. Its just what we define it as. You asking that question is the same to me as "Why do we need to define a keyboard as something you type on?" Why do you think its a 'need'?

"Woman" can refer to an image of a prototypical woman — Ecurb

And a prototypical woman is a living being, not a role. You can't even imagine 'the role' without some living being behind it. You can't even define 'the role' without the understanding of what a biological adult female is.

I want to be clear again. I'm noting in the OP that woman by default, in other words unmodified by adjectives, is by default considered the biological sex reference. This has also been the traditional use of the term for ages. So you should be able to accept at minimum, that one definition for woman is 'adult human female'. If you don't even agree to that, we need to address that first before any other further conversation can occur.

You see, I'm not denying that 'woman' can also be used to mean, 'role we associate with adult human female'. Go read the OP again if you don't believe me. I'm simply noting that by default, that is not how people understand the term woman. We need to add modifiers to communicate that 'woman' means 'role', like using gender, cis, and trans. 'Trans gender man" means, "An adult human female that takes on the gendered role of a man." It does not mean, "An adult human male by sex who used to be an adult human female by sex." Go read the OP once more this time with this in mind.

If a person legally changes their name, then you should call them their new legal name.
— Philosophim

You're backtracking (which is fine -- I'm glad you've changed your mind). — Ecurb

I've always agreed with you on this, please point out where I haven't.

However, this suggests that you needn't use preferred names unless a legal name has been changed. Names and pronouns are similar in this regard. — Ecurb

They aren't at all. A name is a legally recognized identity. Pronouns are generic references to the target's sex by default. If someone wants me to use pronouns for gender, I can refuse to use them for what amounts to prejudice. If someone wants me to use pronouns incorrectly, by calling them the sex they clearly aren't, I also do not have to use inaccurate language or lie for them. It is not polite to ask someone to use prejudiced language, or use language incorrectly or lie for a person's self pleasure. And no one is obligated to agree to such a request.

But now we're crossing between this and the other thread. If you want to discuss that in particular, lets go back there to avoid confusion. This thread is about what the default meaning of man and woman are, and whether the phrase "Trans men are men," is properly communicative without ambiguity and potential conflation based off of general knowledge of English.

Well, it might be a "role", or an "image (prototype)", a genetic description, or a mere preference. That's what the discussion is about. Why should it be one and not the others? — Ecurb

I'm not saying it 'should' be any of them. I'm noting it 'is'. That's where you misunderstand the OP. This not about what man or woman should mean by default, its about what they do mean by default.

Instead, it might (like the starling that many children identify as a prototypical bird) be the image of a prototypical women: dressed like a woman, shaped like a woman, with feminine features. — Ecurb

What is a woman then? What is 'the shape of a woman' if not a biological sex reference? What are 'feminine features' without a biological sex reference? What is "dressed like a woman' without a biological sex reference. Be careful in philosophy that you don't try to twist language into an outcome you desire so much that you invalidate what you're doing. There should be no debate that woman can refer to adult human female, and woman can refer to a gender role. My note is that unmodified, when the term 'woman' is used, its default is a sex reference, not a role.

Well, you asked for an authority on manners, and I offered one. — Ecurb

Correct, and I offered you another. Me.

You don't have to accept her advice, but based on Miss Maner's definition of "rude" such is you behavior. — Ecurb

You're correct, I don't. Just like you don't have to accept my assertion, "I'm correct, you have to agree with me."

Of course we need not smooth over every social situation — Ecurb

Also correct.

but using preferred names is not something a rational person "disagrees with". — Ecurb

We're not really arguing over names though, but pronouns as sex references vs gender references. You doing a bit of a straw man there. We have no personal disagreements in our approach to using a person's preferred name.

Speech is social, and it is socially and culturally accepted to use preferred names -- but not to agree with everything anyone says. — Ecurb

I agree. But it doesn't address the broader point of the OP.

Here you formulate a thought experiment that repeats your appeal to popularity, and then you add an appeal to common sense. The bolded section is rhetorical, and philosophically inadmissible. — Jamal

Yes, this is an appeal to you in particular. If it does not appeal, ignore.

"When I said 'woman' did you think adult human female or adult human male?"
— Philosophim

This is a loaded question and a false dichotomy, which has your view baked into it. Forcing or strongly encouraging the hearer to come down on one side or the other, it imposes a binary choice on the fuzzy reality that constitutes both the meaning of "woman" and the hearer's thoughts about it. Things are not so black-and-white, either in meaning or in what people think when they hear words used. — Jamal

I think this is a bit of a stretch. I already said "woman" at first, and what we're testing for is the default understanding of the term correct? Meaning what came unbidden in their mind. Were they thinking of a role where sex is irrelevant, or were they thinking of a sex? But, I will concede that I do not technically have such a survey in front of me, and this is an appeal to general shared experience. If you are honestly denying this, and not just denying this disingenuously, then we can explore other avenues.

Most people, when hearing "I saw a woman...", form a holistic impression that includes many different things: sex characteristics, aspects of gender expression, social role, all mixed in with personal experience. — Jamal

We're going to have to define gender here. Gender is an expected set of social actions and behaviors that society subjectively applies to a sex. Of course if you're thinking of a woman, you may imagine how you expect a woman to act and apply that to the situation. But the key here is that you are first thinking of an adult human female. You are not thinking, "Oh, woman means gender, and that could apply to anyone so I envisioned that it could possibly be an adult human male or adult human female."

In a nutshell, hearers and participants in conversation construct their interpretations according to context, background knowledge, and relevance, which typically produces a fuzzy picture... — Jamal

Correct.

...rather than any determinate biological classification. — Jamal

A jump too far. The rational way to end that sentence is something along the lines of, "Rather then anything perfectly specific" A person can have a fuzzy notion of a sex reference or a less fuzzy notion of a sex reference. But its still a sex reference.

In case you're tempted to go for a logical gotcha here, note that when I say most people form a holistic impression, etc., I am not inferring the term's proper meaning from that, so I am not hypocritically appealing to popularity. — Jamal

Fair enough. But then I'll ask you how we determine the default meaning of a term? You and I are writing to each other with the assumption that the words and phrases have meaning that we can each understand. So we can't simply posit that language is completely subjective, as we would not be able to understand each other. We've all taken English class, and in learning the language we had to learn certain words with default meanings, that of course can be adjusted through the context of speech.

If I went into the world and started pointing to what we know is an apple, called it apple, but the entire English speaking world said, "No, we call that an orange," then wouldn't that be the meaning of orange? I would be ignored if I went to a book and said, "But in this book here the fruit is called an apple." The underlying reference of the sign doesn't change, but the sign we use to indicate the reference has to be agreed upon at a minimally detailed level by everyone involved or proper dialogue cannot happen. Thus I understand your note that this seems to be an argument of popularity, and I do see the subtle difference between the 'popularity' of a term vs its default meaning. But for the default use of a word, I don't think there's any other way to note what it is then to observe how most people use it when its unmodified.

This is a novel angle, but rather than a historical enrichment of your model of meaning as I just outlined, you commit the etymological fallacy, taking a purported original meaning as the standard for all time, any later meanings being secondary. — Jamal

Oh, I want to be clear. This can change. If tomorrow everyone started referring to 'woman' as a role, and by default when we used the 'woman in the woods' test, people responded, "Oh, I didn't imagine a female or male specifically, just a person acting and wearing certain clothes like a woman does", then that would be the definition of woman. I want to be clear, I'm not saying what the term man or woman should be. This is not a moral argument. I'm simply noting today what it means by default to the general population.

Incidentally, you might not be aware that semantic evolution is significantly driven by the literalization of metaphors, meaning that they are far from being mere embellishments of a central core. — Jamal

Ha ha! Yes, I am aware of that, but good to bring forward as well. Language is a constantly evolving social contract. Right now what we're seeing the metaphor of extreme medical terms in common communication. "My ADHD is causing me to spaz out today," for example. The medical community generally gets pissed as the general population diminishes the meaning and impact of the terms, but that's generally the way culture goes.

if you think they are, you have to argue for it (which, incidentally, would be to go against most (all?) modern linguists and philosophers of language). As it stands, what you have is a folk-linguistic model of meaning. — Jamal

Feel free to introduce other models that describe a default. It may very well be that I do have a folk-linguistic model of meaning, but I am unaware of competing theories. In this case, please feel free to post any particular linguistic approaches that you wish to discuss as this is pertinent to the conversation. You can then refer to their languages and approaches in your next post, and I will have read up to understand your arguments.

People have prototypical associations with words. A starling is closer to the prototypical bird than a penguin. Crucially though, both are birds. The tendency towards prototypical association doesn't justify the exclusion of other members of the category. — Jamal

I want to emphasize again that I am not saying that words cannot have other meanings. I am simply noting that man and woman by default without being modified by adjectives or phrases, is understood 'prototypically' as a noun to reference adult human sex. While man and women are both humans, we would not say 'human' by default means a role that a lady bug could take on. We could of course create a play where a lady bug becomes an adult human female through magic or science, but that doesn't change the fact that 'human' by default refers to homo sapiens, not any old living thing taking on a role.

As for exclusion, male and female are exclusively defined against each other. Male or female defined alone have little meaning. Its the two types of bodily expressions intended to reproduce in the species. Meaning, by definition, a male cannot be a female. Think of 'left' and 'right'. They are words defined and understood in relation to each other. Without the concept of 'left', there is no concept of 'right'. And without metaphor, 'left' cannot logically be exactly the same as 'right'.

Importantly, prototypes are not "default meanings" in your sense. They don't fix what a word means, they don't determine semantic priority, and they can't act as a foundation for claims about correct usage. What they do is describe how people often imagine examples when there is little information available. This is not equivalent to any kind of base or fundamental meaning. — Jamal

I want to also clear up what is meant here by 'fundamental'. I am not saying "man is defined platonically in the universe's underlying truth as 'adult human male'". So I am not saying "This is the way man and woman are defined for all time, and it is rationally incorrect for the default use to change". My observation is simply a snapshot of today. Based on the default language of today, how is the phrase "Trans men are men" read and understood by most English speaking people.

What you're gesturing towards is therefore better understood as a cognitive-linguistic tendency, not a foundation that can determine or justify the attribution of a basic meaning. Conflating the two is your central mistake. Even if sex-based imagery is often prototypical for "man" or "woman" in casual speech, it doesn't follow that sex is the "base meaning" or that other uses are derivative. — Jamal

If you thought I was defining men and woman as a 'foundation' in a sense of their innate truth, then I would be committing the fallacy you note. To be clear, I'm not. I'm not saying other uses of terms are derivative by default, though I do believe that its fairly clear that man as a gender role naturally derived from 'man as adult human male'. Even so, if "man as gender role" became the default understanding of the term, then the OP's conclusion would change. At that point, "Trans men are men" would be a clearly understood sentence to indicate 'gender role'. Frank came by earlier and agreed my point was trivially true and that he thinks others are believing that I'm attempting to claim more than I am. I think there has been a conclusion of misintention of the OP's claim. Its not what man and woman should be, it is what they mean by default today.

They might infer an adult human female (understood biologically), not because there is some "default" ready to be retrieved, but because they are using an inferential shortcut to the prototype, which applies when they haven't been supplied with any other information (before you say this is precisely what a default is, read on). — Jamal

How did you know I was going to say that?! :) Ok, I'll read on.

But even if "woman" does default to a sex reference, this has no semantic priority.

Returning to the doctor example, if I say "I met with a doctor this morning," you might imagine a physician, but we can't conclude that "doctor" means physician simpliciter, or by default—nor that people with PhDs are "modified" doctors, or are only doctors in some secondary sense. — Jamal

I'm going to hold off on your mention of semantic priority and just address the doctor issue. The default term for doctor would be a holder of a PhD. If I asked you, "What's his PhdD in?," and you replied, "Oh, he doesn't have one, he's a nurse," the other person let their colloquial definition of the situation result in inaccurate communication with a common speaker of the English language. A nurse in English is not a PhD holder, and therefore is no where in the default meaning of "Doctor".

This is interesting, because you've moved on from popularity and common sense to argue for the pragmatic requirement for defaults: pragmatically, language must be efficient and unambiguous, and this requires base or default meanings. — Jamal

Correct. I believe both can be true. Lets say that I define a nurse as a doctor, and you define a doctor as 'not a nurse'. Communication between is practically impossible at that point. Can I personally define a doctor as a nurse? Sure. Can my group of friends and I do so as well? Sure. But in the broader language, doctor by default excludes someone who does not have a PhD, so therefore my communicating my personal definition of doctor into the broader language would result in confusion and an inability to get my point across correctly.

I will plug my knowledge paper here if you want to better understand my approach to this situation. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 Your approach to this conversation has been pointed and thoughtful, I would love to hear your points on it. But later of course.

But it's not true. Communication in natural language relies on context, pragmatic inferences, and shared background knowledge, not on a single privileged base meaning that's attached to the noun. Communication works precisely because meanings are underdetermined, resolved in context. No core meaning is required. — Jamal

Again, I'm going to push back on 'core' so that way there's no implication that what the default is is 'fundamentally true and right'. Signs are references to concepts. Objectively, they can be swapped out as desired. But for communication to happen between two people most accurately and clearly, the underlying concept must be what is being pointed at. Meaning both have to agree that the sign X points to concept y. Its not that context doesn't have an influence, but that is because there exists underlying meaning for that context to reference.

If for example I said, "The trees are rustling this morning," there is an underlying concept you and I must assume for that sentence to make sense. Trees, rustling, and this morning. If I personally meant, "Aliens are sleeping this evening," you and I would have no basis of understanding. The concept I'm noting isn't foreign if you've learned a foreign language. There are common defaults that one must start from. If I said, "What do you think of 'kilowazzorians?" you would need some base default understanding of the term to give me your opinion about them. I would ask a teacher of said language, "What does that term mean?" and we would learn what the term meant unmodified, and perhaps how it could change meaning with modification.

Ambiguity is not a defect to be eliminated. It is a basic feature of natural language. We have no trouble at all with words that have multiple common meanings, e.g., bank, light, set, doctor, so natural language is routinely ambiguous in your sense. — Jamal

Ambiguity is a defect to be eliminated if you are not intending to be ambiguous in your communication. And since the phrase, "Trans men are men" is not intending to be ambiguous, if it ends up being ambiguous its a poor phrase that needs more detail.

And I don't think it's unfair of me to set out your argument as follows:

1. Language aims at efficient unambiguous communication
2. Therefore nouns must have defaults
3. Therefore "woman" defaults to sex. — Jamal

That's doesn't line up with my claims. I'm not saying anywhere that nouns need defaults because language aims at efficient unambiguous communication. I'm simply noting that words have defaults, and a person trying to communicate clear and unambiguously would try to eliminate any ambiguity in their language when speaking with another person. There's no 'therefore' anywhere in there. None of those premises lead to ''Woman defaults to a sex reference either."

I don't know if I was clear, but my criticism was not that you missed a premise. We can apply the principle of charity and fill in the gaps no problem. My point was that even with the hidden premise made explicit, and your argument thereby rendered formally valid, it is still fallacious. — Jamal

I don't think you've yet pointed out that it is fallacious as of yet. I think we're discussing defaults and what the word means unmodified. I have noted that you did not address the linguistic points of 'cis' and 'trans' which indicates the need to modify woman to reference a role, instead of woman being a role by default. I also don't believe you understood that I am not saying what man or woman 'should' mean in a moral sense, or a 'universal truth' sense.

I do appreciate your generous response. — Jamal

And thank you back! Also chuckled at the parrot on the wheel picture. Feel free to continue disagreeing, this has been good to explore.

The way I understand the distinction is, transgender is like TWareW, whereas transexuals are men that live as women (not actually women). — Throng

The classic transexual definitely. Trans 'gender' has always felt like a rebrand of trans sexuals to let more get in and be accepted by society, but unfortunately got out of hand. Now we have people running around thinking sexist language somehow reflects reality.

When the gender narrative detaches from that reality, it conflicts with the world through ignorance or evil because it is stated as fact when it is not a true story. It's basically a lie. — Throng

Of course.

Transexuals tell the truth which nobody can deny, so they have some moral ground. The question is, is it ethical for other people (society) to provide hormones and surgery to transexuals, or is the attempt to radically cross sex an abomination in some sense? I think it is to some degree. It is absolutely abominable to do that to children on principles of maturity and consent. Can't consent to a tattoo, for example, but sure, lop my breasts off?

It's only for adults. — Throng

I agree its definitely only for adults. I would go to war for that one.

I think we start going wrong when other people start providing medical intervention, so if forced to answer yes or no, I would say it's wrong and we can't do it, but the individual can do what they want (provided it is harmless). — Throng

I think the fact there's an argument to be made that it should be changed to a cosmetic procedure and not a medical one. The evidence isn't very sound that its an effective medical treatment. Most of the reasons that I've examined being given for it involving gender don't make any sense. There does seem to be one 'viable' reason to transition, and that sexual/romantic orientation.

First, I confess to a particular bias. My friend who is transitioning, discovered after weeding through all the poor language, crappy phrases, and ideologies that at the end of the day, this was sexual for him. You see, he's a bit past the general dating age, has no plans for kids, has never had luck with women, and part of the reason is because he can't involve himself sexually without imaging himself as a woman.

We read up on it, and it appears its a pretty common cause among straight men who desire to transition. Reading Anne Lawrence's work was eye opening. The refrain among the transgender community has often been, "Its not sexual," but that's usually a naive definition, a rejection by fear, gay transexuals, or people who transitioned for other reasons. Especially among older transiioners, the sexual element over time turns into love. The feelings they get when they embody femininity often start as intense thrills, but evolve over time into the comfort of your own girlfriend, then wife.

This is one of the reasons getting misgendered can 'hurt' trans individuals. Its a sort of disassociation and embodiment of a fantasy that feels real in a way you and I have difficult comprehending. As such, when embodying femininity, and the longer they do it, this feeling becomes very much like a long term girl friend and then wife. Just like normal people feel an underlying calm and pleasantness being around a woman they love, similar feelings manifest in him. The misgendering 'breaks' the illusion briefly, and it can be like realizing you've never had that girlfriend or wife all along. It snaps that away, and the person is left not simply alone, but as if their significant other left them. This is of course a VERY generalized approach, but he confirmed that all of this is essentially true.

The problem is, because its so integrated into himself, there's no practical way for him to stop at this time. To deny it is to be lonely, dejected, and its RIGHT THERE. It can only be denied through extreme willpower, but why should he? He's not going to find a real woman. He'll just sit there being alone and miserable. This is an outlet that society has said he can take, the drugs are there, the high of going through transition is pleasant, so why should he not? He even has a nice cover to say its all 'gender', and people will nod and go, "Oh yes".

My concern with 'gender' is that this covers all of this and denies this even if its there. If a man who has this is aware of this early, will trying to shift their sexual energies towards another person first bear fruit? Or is that like trying to get a person to stop being gay, which we know is impossible? Sexual impulses and feelings are one of the few things that seem impossible to change. So if a person cannot manage to integrate it successfully into a marriage with the risk of generating a trans widow, maybe it is a good thing.

But, should medicine pay for it? Should it be on insurance or the government to fund someone's sexual and romantic desires? Does that mean we should allow such men into cross sex spaces? I don't think so. I think it should be an allowed cosmetic procedure, but that a person's sexual and romantic desires should be one's own exploration and pursuit, not funded by insurance or government under the guise of medicine.

Of course, its not only straight people who transition, but gays as well. From my understanding exploring that side, its mostly homophobia. This area I'm less versed in, so this is not complete. Being gay can come with more feminine behaviors and a sense of isolation, confusion, and fear. A gay male may feel more comfortable around females growing up. The realization of liking men can be horrifying. Some gay people have a difficult time reconciling the fact that they are a man who is interested sexually and romantically in other men. Transition can be a way to ease the pains of homophobia without having to go through the difficulty of working towards self-acceptance. Again, this is inevitably a sexual reason to transition, and might be viable for certain individuals.

I've investigated the non-sexual reasons to transition, and most of them seem very poor reasons to transtion. Sexism, prejudice, grass is greener theory, escaping one's current life, are all psychological issues that generally can be treated by other means. There may be the extremely case of a particularly broken individual, but this would be deep mental illness, and I think there should be other ways of dealing with it.

So the one reason to transition which I think is viable is sexual, but I don't believe it should be funded as a medical intervention. Its cosmetic for the pursuit of one's sexual goals in life. I think this should be allowed, but I do not think that society should be expected to partake in this sexual exploration. There's nothing wrong with having different sexual and romantic interests, but we have a limit in public that we consider tasteful. Crossing sex separated areas for pleasant sexual romantic feelings about oneself isn't tasteful. Expecting other people to call you another sex for your own sexual and romantic pleasure isn't tasteful. Do I think a man should be allowed to wear tasteful feminine clothes and make up in public? Sure, why not? Does it make them women? No. While my focus has been on men, women can also have similar sexual reasons for transitioning, its just not as well explored in the literature.

As for non-sexual transitioners, in all cases it appears to be confusion, sexism, mental illness, or wanting to get treatment from others by deception and manipulation instead. So I soundly reject that transition is a good medical treatment for these types, and that therapy and/or psyche meds would be better. But this is not a medical breakdown or argument with pages of proof, just a note of my findings and viewpoints to discuss with you. Knowing the underlying sexual aspect that many people driven to transition feel, what do you think? Should it be considered medical? Should society partake in this sexual exploration of others?

In social situations it is best to comply with the addressee's wishes. — Ecurb

Excellent. I am addressing you and wish that you would agree with everything I say. So why should you not?

Miss Manners, of course. Why don't write to her column and ask her. I'll bet anything she'll agree with me. — Ecurb

No, I am the authority of good manners. And as I am addressing you with these wishes, you should comply. Don't you want to make a smooth social situation? What's giving up your opinion for mine when it doesn't hurt you any? You should be polite and just say I'm right. What's the harm? If you don't agree with me, I'll really hurt inside. And you wouldn't want to do that to poor me right? You don't want to be seen as rude in polite society right?

So why is the above wrong Ecurb? And no, quoting Ms. Manners is silly, don't do it again please. I'm here to talk philosophy, not listen to quotes from an advice column in the paper. I'm being tongue in cheek with my arguments of course, but I want you to legitimately think about it for a minute. These are the same arguments you've been using for weeks now to manipulate people into doing what you want instead of engaging with the topic properly. So why am I wrong? Once you realize why I'm wrong, then you'll realize why you're wrong.

What does "legally" have to do with it? Why should that matter? — Ecurb

Because a name is a legally binding identifier for the individual. Why do you think it wouldn't matter?

Good manners suggest that we should refer to people by the name they request us to use. — Ecurb

How so? Who is the authority of these 'Good manners'? Did you know its actually good manners not to disagree with me specifically? And yet you do. How rude. :D Are you going to be rude and explain why I'm wrong?

(I notice you use the plural pronoun "their" when the referent is singular. — Ecurb

"They're is "They are" and can be used as plural. "Their" indicates ownership and can also be singular or plural. "They're going to the story." "That is their shopping cart".

Since names often indicate gender, if a trans person changes her (OK, the pronoun is controversial) name from "Al" to "Alice" would those objecting to the pronoun preferred by the individual insist on continuing to call her "Al"? — Ecurb

A legal name change makes that the person's actual name. Just because a name is normally associated with the other sex, doesn't mean it belongs to the other sex. That's prejudice. Plenty of names associated with boys and girls have switched over the years or even become neutral. Gender is just a subjective social expectation, nothing more.

If a person legally changes their name, then you should call them their new legal name. I don't think that's in dispute here.

Yes. And honestly, you saying makes me a little uncomfortable as you're not trans - but I've seen and discussed with many trans people that htis is their view too. — AmadeusD

Always appreciate your viewpoint Amadeus. If it helps I didn't write this thread after hearing the phrase for the first time. :) I've dived deep into trans issues for some time now, communities, scientists, doctors, and of course, philosophy. So I don't say that carelessly or lightly. The movement is dying. If it digs itself into slogans and foolishly intractable positions, it will be completely finished. It needs to adapt, become more intelligent, and start thinking about how it can work with the general populace instead of against it before its too late.

Language is not used to 'shape' reality. That's manipulation.
— Philosophim

I think this is naive in a way I find it hard to overstate. Language absolutely, 100% shapes our reality. This is very well documented and understood and is, in fact, the basis for this conversation. — AmadeusD

I'll be more clear. Language does not create reality. Language can shape our perception of reality. But it does not change reality at its core. Calling a piece of grass, "Grass" or "thing that grows towards sun" may shape our perception of it, but it doesn't change what it is. Language used to alter our perception of reality in a flawed way for the benefit of someone else is manipulation.

This is different to an argument about descriptive realities and best practice. I think that's the available argument for the OP. Clear, precise, and helpful language is best practice for human communication and policy. — AmadeusD

Correct. This is the objective of good philosophy as well.

For robust, accurate and compassionate discussion, this shouldn't be avoided. It should be represented in the language, not hidden by skewing how we use "woman". "trans woman" does the job, and I'd need to know why this isn't good enough to entertain the further arguments. — AmadeusD

100% in agreement. What some advocates do not realize is they are doing immense harm to the trans movement by insisting on a poorly worded phrase that ends up making them look out of touch with reality compared to the rest of the world. This insistence on a poorly worded phrase has motivated far more people against trans gender people than a clear admittance that trans gender men and woman are their natal sex taking on the gendered role of the other sex.

You are both asking for dogma which runs the risk of invalidating and erasing transgender persons. — Questioner

I'm very confused. How is a basic default definition 'dogma'? How does the point that the unmodified words of woman and man together are sex references, invalidate and erase trans individuals? Words don't erase reality. Good words express concepts clearly. Concepts still exist despite whether you call them out or not.

I think there is a confusion of language use. Language is not used to 'shape' reality. That's manipulation. Language is used to describe reality accurately and efficiently. Any deviation from this is improper use of language. So there's no erasure going on.

Dogma is authoritative – as if only it is the truth – as if identification by others should supersede self-identification. — Questioner

No, dogma is an insistence of reality that is not backed by fact. "God is real!" is dogma. "Trans men are men" can be dogma if it is not backed by fact. Noting, "This is a box" while pointing to a factually provable box is not dogma. Noting men and women by default are sex references is not dogma if I'm correct.

Also, I fail to see how others subjectively identify you should have any bearing on how you identify yourself. I identify myself as a kind, loving, rational person who cares about people. You probably don't identify me that way. And you are not obligated to. You are allowed to identify me as you wish as an opinion.

Now if we are talking about objective identification, if you want others to accept your personal identification, it has to pass a fact check. If I identify as a dog, objectively, I am not. Others do not have to agree with subjective identifications that do not pass objective evaluation.

The experiences of transgender persons tell us that the definition of “woman” or “man” cannot be based solely on the physical body at birth. — Questioner

You're going to have to clarify what you mean by man and woman. You can say, "The experiences of transgender persons tell us that the existence of female and male gender actions cannot be based sole on the physical body at birth," and there's an argument to be considered. If you're claiming 'woman' or 'man' as a sex reference, you're objectively wrong.

I am more a skeptic than a dogmatist, encouraging open-mindedness and questioning rather than stifling them. — Questioner

How so? You don't seem very open minded to considering that man and women are sex references by default. Truly open minded individuals consider everything equally without regard to potential consequences. My observations in my communications with you is you seem to have a very dogmatic conclusion about trans people, and get very upset when an alternative is considered. You even went as far to say trans people would be erased, which is a closed minded tactic to avoid even considering the possibility that the OP is right. I've explained to you that there are trans people who agree with pretty much what I've stated in my trans related posts, and yet I have not seen you once be open to considering that. You might consider yourself open minded, but from my observations of your replies, you're not as open minded as you think.