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.

1. A man is an adult human male.
2. A trans man is not an adult human male.
3. Therefore a trans man is not a man.

(The same pattern for "woman," and interpreting "male" biologically.)

Nobody disputes this argument's validity, but validity is not sufficient for philosophical substance in a contested debate. — Jamal

At least we agree the argument is valid.

Of course, what you have actually done is attempted to sidestep the central dispute, which is over whether or not your definition is correct. Your conclusion follows only because you have already made it inevitable by assuming the centrally contested definition. — Jamal

No Jamal. My conclusion follows because I have multiple true premises. No begging required. All you have to demonstrate to invalidate the argument is whether the default definition of man or woman is biological, or a role.

Now, had you taken the time to defend the definition, none of this would matter. Perhaps you just wanted to set things out clearly and simply, and what could be wrong with that? But the following is all you offered in defence:


Most of the world does not view man and woman by gender, but by sex, so the default goes to sex.
— Philosophim

This is where you need a good argument—where it's difficult. — Jamal

Feel free to point out where its flawed. Your judgement of whether the argument is 'good' or not is only evidenced by your ability to refute it.

This is better: you beg the question when your premises assume the truth of

the conclusion. And I think your argument does that, not explicitly but in the context of the ongoing debate. Premise 1 presupposes the conclusion by fixing the meaning of "man" in a way that already excludes trans men. The conclusion is assumed rather than argued for. — Jamal

I think you've put forth a good effort, but couldn't be more wrong here. You see, we also have to establish what 'trans X' means as well. We need the definition of X, trans X, and the conclusion of whether trans X is X. By fact the definition of X alone cannot assume the truth of the conclusion. Sorry Jamal, its impossible for this to be begging the question. You're going to have to dispute the definition of X, or trans X.

In reality, begging the question takes different forms: assuming a disputed claim, building the conclusion into a definitional premise, or stipulating a definition that can only be accepted by someone who already agrees with the conclusion. Some philosophers have made the distinction between intrinsic and dialectical question-begging. In those terms, you have done the latter. — Jamal

This sounds like you're trying to avoid disputing the definition at this point by trying to twist the clear term of question begging. Not buying it. Dispute the definition, or take another approach. Otherwise I have a logically sound argument.

If you have a particular argument against the OP, it is your job to point it out and explain why it counters the premises or conclusion of the OP. If there is a particular debate that you feel is worth pulling in to address the claims of the OP, feel free. But a general reference to unspecified arguments without any demonstrable link to the OP is something I can rationally ignore.
— Philosophim

If you just want to win, then sure. But if you want to find truth, then no, you cannot ignore the chance of attaining knowledge. I pointed you in the direction of a respected philosophical authority (the SEP), and mentioned that some thinkers regard man and woman as cluster concepts. I assumed, because you hadn't mentioned anything remotely like that, that you were unaware of all the work that has already been done in the field. — Jamal

I did read it. But I did that for my own curiosity. That doesn't invalidate my point that it was a flawed counter in any argument. Throwing a massive amount of information at someone without pointing out its specific relevance to the discussion is not a viable tactic from someone trying to find the truth. If you had simply mentioned, "Hey, here's some reading on gender. Its not an argument against what you've written here, just some information if you're curious," I can see your point. But you wanted to win the argument, not just give me knowledge. That information not existing in my argument did not mean the argument was flawed. Claiming that was your mistake.

I meant to call your statement that sex is the default into doubt, to push back against it with examples. If social position is operative in society in substantial, non-ephemeral ways—and I gave examples—then it shows there is a burden on you to support your statement that sex is the default. It does not rigorously prove that sex is not the default, but I had no intention of doing that. — Jamal

This is more interesting now because we're discussing the issue proper. The problem for you is that I did assert that sex is the default reference for man and woman. So if you can't prove that the default is something else my position holds.

The thing is, you are not merely saying, "Given my definition, trans women are not women." (Everyone agrees with this). — Jamal

Correct, because it is not my definition. It is the default definition that people assume when man or woman is unmodified in English.

You are also saying that your definition is the default, and that rival definitions, and therefore contrary conclusions, are deviations from correct usage. At this point, the masses are functioning as an authority. — Jamal

You are free any time to demonstrate that when most people see man and woman unmodified that they instantly jump to it being a role and not a sex reference. Go tell a random person on the street, "I saw a woman walking through the woods the other day." After some time then ask them, "When I said "woman" did you think adult human female or adult human male?" You and I both know the answer to this. So we can stop pretending otherwise. Free of specific context, woman and man default to a sex reference, not a role. To be clear, its the default of the unmodified term. Its not that man or woman can't mean role, they just need proper modification and context to clearly convey that.

How do you get to that? The logic surely goes like this:

Most people use "man" and "woman" to refer to sex, not gender.
Therefore "man" and "women" refer to sex, not gender.

There is a missing premise there — Jamal

Yes, this is fair criticism and I hope the discussion focusses on this rather than the above disputes. Language is a series of signs within context that indicate concepts. But they do follow default definitions within the language they are a part of. For example, black and white are colors without any modification. But we can modify default definitions to create more 'colorful' language. For example, I can call someone a 'white' man. We all understand this is a reference to race, and that a person's skin doesn't have to actually be the color white, but ethnicity or even social class. "Bob might have dark skin, but he's really a white man underneath it all."

Metaphors and similes are also tools to modify language into interesting comparisons. "Todd is just like a black man". Todd of course would be categorized as a 'white man' in reality, as he does not have any black skin or 'ethnicity'. Its a simile where we attribute behavior to ethnicity. Which is fine, but does the behavior make the ethnicity, or is it a trait that is sometimes associated with the ethnicity? Its the later.

It would then be a far cry to say by default, "Tom is black" when he is actually white by ethnicity. Even in a context, there is a default meaning for the term. We understand the default for 'black' is ethnicity, not the actions associated with the ethnicity. So if Tom, a white man, decided to apply for black scholarships, we would rightly deny Tom the ability to do so because 'white' is by default in this context ethnicity, not behavior. Do you disagree with this?

Remove the context, and the base meaning of white as a color still applies. All of this is very important, because if the default is misunderstood, everything built off of it becomes confused. If you started saying, "White unmodified can also mean the feeling of being white", it becomes very difficult to understand language without further context. "Tom is a white man" now all of the sudden becomes ambiguous. Do we mean Tom is white by ethnicity or is actually black by ethnicity and feels white? Suddenly a "White scholarship" can be applied to not be the default meaning, which was ethnicity, but has become unnecessarily ambiguous. Language is now confused, people don't know what it means anymore and thus language has become worse.

Defaults generally happen in languages to avoid ambiguity and create efficient discussion. No one wants to speak to another person saying, "A woman with x sized hips, medium breasts who feels like a male..." People just denote, "A woman" and English speakers understand 'woman' to refer to 'sex' by default. Its just an efficient word to describe a basic concept unambiguously. A "White woman" would default to an ethnic description of a woman by sex. A word that does not have a default is confused and awful in correct language, as language's goal is to accurately communicate a concept efficiently to another person. So the idea of a default for nouns is not flawed, its a real phenomenon in any good language.

The language as well can often tell us what the default is. Lets look at the etymology of the terms man and woman. First, we understand they, in context with each other, were originally sex references. Gender, the idea that males and females have sociological expectations placed upon them, needs a reference to the sex itself. "Male gender" is the sociological expectation placed on an adult human male. Eventually, people started using "Man" as a simile or metaphor. "He acts like a woman." "He's such a woman." But the simile and metaphors don't actually imply the person is 'the other thing', its an implication of traits that are often associated with the thing, in this case behavior.

You can probably see by this point in your reading why I did not go in depth on the OP. My experience is that long posts do not keep the attention span or conversation going. I have found it best to save more in depth assertions for those who are interested in exploring them. I'll continue now.

Back to simile and metaphor. Proper simile's and metaphor's do not imply the person is the default use of the simile and/or metaphor. "My brother Tom doesn't stop talking when he drives. He's such a parrot". We can glean from the context of the sentence that most likely, him being a parrot is a metaphor, not an actual driving parrot. :) The default for parrot is again, the bird. Even though we could parrot other people who use parrot in different ways. As you can see, despite the different meanings of the term parrot in the sentence, you were able to easily understand what was stated without ambiguity. That's an effective and clear sentence.

So, now back to "Trans men are men". The "Are men" is where we will focus first. Is it a metaphor? Is it a claim to be an actual parrot? We'll need to look at what a 'trans man' is first. 'Trans' generally means 'to travel across' and 'man' generally means a sex referent unmodified. But here we have a modification. Intuitively we would think, "Oh, that's a man by sex who is crossing over to the other sex." But of course the phrase was not built on common English expectations.

Instead, we actually need to add some more specificity. Man can also mean 'gender role' in particular contexts, but the context needs to be clear. So we should probably add a modifier to make that clearer. "Trans gender man". This clarifies that the 'man' in question is not a man by sex reference, but by gender reference. And since its 'trans', or crossing over, we can assume their default gender would be woman. And a default gender applies to a default sex. So the trans gender man is a woman. Just like my parrot example above, we can glean from the full sentence the accuracy of the situation. This is a woman who believes in following the sociological expectations of others about sex. She does not want to follow the role society expects of her, she wants to follow the role society expects of men again. Unlike some who would simply reject societal expectations, she embraces them for the other sex.

If the philosophical goal of language is to clearly communicate ideas accurately (and we like efficiency too), has the above accurately conveyed the situation? I would say so. There's no ambiguity. But lets look at the original phrase in question again.

"Trans men are men". What does this mean? Trans men could denote trans sexual or trans gender, so it probably needs a little clarity there. But lets assume its just gender, and there is no transitioning of sex features in any way. "Trans gender man" is a complete phrase that indicates that this is a woman who is taking on the sociological expected role of the other sex. So what's the purpose of the latter addition? If 'man' unmodified by default means 'male sex', this is obviously false.

The modifiers of men further convey the point that man, unmodified by default, refers to sex. This confusion was obviously apparent when the phrase 'trans man' defined common English expectations. For example, most people think on hearing the phrase for the first time that 'trans man' means "A man who's transitioned". There needed to be clarity about the separation of sex and gender with the terms man and woman. Thus the term 'cis' was used to modify the default term so that you would understand that man or woman in this instance refers to gender, not sex. A cis woman, is a woman who has the female gender. This is a clear and accurate sentence.

The proper tautology for accurate and unambiguous communication should be "Trans men are trans men" Or "trans men are not cis men". But "Trans men are men" is ambiguous and poorly phrased at best, or wrong at its worst. Thus the phrase is simply confusing. Assuming that someone is trying to communicate accurately and efficiently the true intentions behind the phrase, they should modify it to be more clear. "Trans men are adult human females that take on the gender role of men" No question there, but wordy. "Trans men are women" still conveys the same information accurrately and more compactly. "Trans men are the male gender" is also compact, but might want to clarify if they're using gender as the sociological meaning vs sex synonym.

As philosophers or people who study philosophy, rationally we should embrace clarity of language and thought where possible. We understand that politics, religion, and ideologies use and abuse language to manipulate and control the populace. This is in defiance of understanding the world and reality in a clear way. So if the phrase is ambiguous because people are going to default to thinking 'Trans men are men' means 'Trans men are men by sex", there shouldn't be a single problem with clarifying the phrase to be clear in its intent.

The only reason I can think that a person would be against it is if they're intending to conflate the default term with gender to avoid having to address the fact that cross gender people aren't cross sex. But you wouldn't be one of those would you? I would assume having studied philosophy for years that you would be aware of such basic deceptions and manipulations. Clarity of language and thoughts is paramount to the study, so why use unclear language? The use of language for conflation or manipulation is the antithesis of philosophy.

My apologies for giving you a mouthful of words (but not a literal mouthful, we both know that right?) but I was saving such extensive explanations for those who would address the subject more pointedly and not reactionary. Please take your time to respond, I will not view time taken to mean anything other than you are thinking about it and you'll respond when you have time.

I still don't get how that applies to the OP Frank.
— Philosophim

It doesn't appear the OP is saying anything that isn't trivially true. — frank

I didn't think so either, but apparently its not so trivial based on the discussion generated. Appreciate the input.

Yes, but they aren't saying "Sex preference". I'm not sure what the point was here Frank. That's not intended to sound sarcastic, I'm just not sure what you meant here.
— Philosophim

They were born with a certain sex. That's true. They tell you what their gender is. — frank

I still don't get how that applies to the OP Frank.

Ok. But when you go to the hospital, someone is going to fill in a blank beside the words: Gender Preference. So you're cool with that because every hospital in America is presently doing that. — frank

Yes, but they aren't saying "Sex preference". I'm not sure what the point was here Frank. That's not intended to sound sarcastic, I'm just not sure what you meant here.

You just sort of go with the flow. I can't say I'm overly proud of you for that, but I recognize your stance. — frank

This is a non-political discussion. This is about language. Politics are about getting what you want no matter what gets in your way. Philosophy is an attempt to analyze language and ideas to conclude what is most logical.

This is a language argument.
— Philosophim

I was arguing your use of the word "want" — Questioner

And I'm noting this is not an argument about 'want', but what 'is'.

Sure. That doesn't invalidate the OP.
— Philosophim

Cool. So if people change the way they talk about gender, you'll change your views. — frank

That's worded quite strangely. If it the prevailing definition of the term 'woman' became social role instead of sex, then the OP's conclusion would change. It has not as of this time.

than getting something you want.
— Philosophim

Let's first focus on this - reducing the need for authenticity to a "want." — Questioner

Let me stop you there. This is not an OP that decides anything about trans gender desires, politics, etc. This is a language argument. This is not, "What are we politically going to do about global warming." This is, "Is global warming real?"

So stay on topic with the OP please. Where is it wrong?

Conceptions of reality change. Language changes with it. — frank

Sure. That doesn't invalidate the OP.

This is disingenuous.

How the language is used will decide if it is a weapon or not used against transgender persons. — Questioner

That's ridiculous. Effective language is used to describe reality.

Let me give you an example of why effective language is more important than getting something you want. Global warming. I've heard on the right quite often that global warming isn't real. They don't have very good arguments against it, but dig further and you realize what they're really doing. They don't want to sacrifice or increase taxes, so they deny the reality of global warming. Isn't that stupid? Should you reject reality because you have an alternative goal and think the only way to achieve it is to deny reality?

What conservatives should do is simply evaluate global warming independent of politics first. Then there can be a discussion. A conservative could then say, "Yes, global warming is real, but are your solutions effective? No, we have solutions we think will be more effective."

So I ask you to ask yourself the same question. Are you arguing against clear language to get something beyond that language that you want? Or are you ok with agreeing to basic language, then deciding with that language how to get what you want? If the phrase 'Trans men are men" isn't proper language, shouldn't it be clarified? Once its clarified, you both have an area of agreement on a basic premise, then you can argue what trans men should be able to do in society.

And I gave you an example where almost all native English speakers would say, "I saw a woman walking in the woods." — Ecurb

Correct. What you didn't imply in any way is that most people would think that 'woman' in this instance was referring to a role and not a sex. Let Jamal answer Ecurb, I'm sure he'll present a good response. If you spy something he missed feel free to point it out then.

I've answered your point about it not being the default definition. We can keep talking about that, but this OP and Jamal's focus is on definitions and proper English usage. There is zero emotional considerations here. This is not about politeness, social standings, or how we ought to treat trans individuals. This is about language.

No, I am not begging the question. The assertion of a definition, and a reason why it is that definition is not a conclusion within the premises.
— Philosophim

Nonsense. The definition is changing, or has changed. — Ecurb

The claim it is the default definition is a given. Go to anyone you know and say, "A woman was walking in the woods." Wait a second. Then ask them, "Did you imagine an adult human male or an adult human female?" Of course we all know the answer is, "Adult human female". That is because man and woman by default do not refer to a role, but a sex.

This is the contested definition. To begin here is to begin too late, ignoring the substance of the philosophical debate, making your conclusion inevitable and therefore lacking any weight. — Jamal

Incorrect. If you want to have this debate and contest that definition, that's your call. First, you have to address what the OP is doing, not what you think it should be doing. I've defined men and women as used by default. Again, contest if you wish. It is not my failing for asserting a definition in an argument that you wish to contest.

The conclusion that trans women are not women follows only because the argument defines "woman" in a way that already excludes them. — Jamal

Premises which necessarily lead to a conclusion is a deductive argument. Which means that if the premises are true, the conclusion is true. So then we have both acknowledged that the argument I've made is deductive and valid. You want to debate the premises. Which is fine. But I have not lacked in the argument or used poor logic.

Thus, despite the internal validity of your argument, in the real context of the trans debate you are begging the question, because the real point you need to make to carry your view is precisely that a woman is an adult human female by sex, a man an adult human male by sex. — Jamal

No, I am not begging the question. The assertion of a definition, and a reason why it is that definition is not a conclusion within the premises. The conclusion also requires other premises in the argument. If I noted "The bible is true because God says so, and the bible is true because its Gods word", that is begging the question. The premise is the conclusion, and the premise is true because it says it is true. But I do not. If the other premises changed, then the conclusion would not be necessarily reached despite my asserted definition of man and woman.

But sometimes people want to claim that man and woman are 'roles'. What's a role? A gendered label. Most of the world does not view man and woman by gender, but by sex, so the default goes to sex.
— Philosophim

This is an empirical claim asserted without evidence, and presumes that it determines how these terms ought to be used. — Jamal

If you want more evidence on this claim, that's fine. But it is not how men and women ought to be used that is being debated, it is an assertion that this is how they are used by the majority of people. This is very different than me stating, "Because the majority of people use this word as Y, they should use that word as Y". For example, you could state, "Though the majority of people use man to mean 'adult human male', they should not. I'm simply noting a fact that this is the way the word is used by most people. So the OP is not claiming how men and women ought to be defined, its asserting how they are by default.

As it stands it's an appeal to popularity. — Jamal

How so? The majority of people use the term 'majority' to refer to 'the greater number of' right? That's a definition, not an appeal to popularity. I'm claiming a majority of people use the term women and man to refer to adult human females and males respectively by definition. Are you claiming that men and woman cannot be defined as I've noted so far? I don't think you are, so your only viable critique at this point is to claim 'the majority of people don't define men and women that way'.

And as I have said, it ignores the relevant discussions that have been going on in philosophy for years, about social kinds and role-based categories, cluster concepts and so on (I pointed you in the direction of the SEP for more detail). — Jamal

Have people in philosophy been debating that most people use the terms men and women to refer to adult human males and females? How does that apply here? Further, just because someone is debating something, doesn't mean what they are debating is important or worthwhile to address. People debate flat Earth theory, do I need to reference every single argument for flat Earth to note the Earth is not flat? Of course not.

If you have a particular argument against the OP, it is your job to point it out and explain why it counters the premises or conclusion of the OP. If there is a particular debate that you feel is worth pulling in to address the claims of the OP, feel free. But a general reference to unspecified arguments without any demonstrable link to the OP is something I can rationally ignore.

And note that a role is not just a label. It is an actual social position. Minimizing it functions to maintain the very normative hierarchy which is contested in the trans debate. I.e., ... — Jamal

Except that I'm not debating what a man and woman are if used to refer to a role. That's an entirely separate topic. I'm simply noting that most people use man and woman as adult human male and adult human female, thus that is the definition that people in general use when seeing the phrase.

Sex: fundamental, real, objective
Gender: derivative, optional, subjective

If you are to make any headway, you need to argue that this hierarchy is legitimate. — Jamal

No, it is your job to challenge my assertions. Why are they not legitimate? My job is not to predict why other people are going to have problems with my assertions. That's where you come into the discussion.

If man and woman operate socially as roles (which they obviously do in many contexts, e.g., bathrooms, marriage, dress codes, comportment expectations), then sex is not the default, but one factor among others. — Jamal

This is a counter assertion, which is good. But this is actually begging the question. If there is not only the objective reality of "Adult human male", but also "the role of an adult human male", there is a missing rational link to "Sex is not the default (majority) meaning for male and female". You see I'm not arguing that man and woman can't refer to the roles of an adult human male and female, I'm just noting that by default, the term men and women refer to sex, not gender roles.

To call it the "default" is to take sides in a debate--against the recognition of people who want recognition--without adding anything new. — Jamal

Not at all. Its an assertion of the majority use of the word. Also the desire of an individual is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You're debating something that isn't even in the picture yet. First you need to challenge me that people do not use man and woman by default to refer to adult human male and female. I will gladly add more information to defend it, but I want to hear your counter evidence first. My claim is not outside of the general norm or the traditional use of the terms. Just like someone challenged me that the world was flat, I would be more interested to see why they think its flat first before I presented in detail why its round.

Also, your points are much appreciated. I feel spoken with instead of at, and I hope I'm returning the same attitude. Thank you Jamal.

Well of course if someone else claims to be someone or something else, its a contradiction.
— Philosophim

Exactly. So my question is, are you claiming to be a "You" right now in the real world? Because if so, it's a contradiction. — bizso09

If by "You" you mean a synonym for "Philosophim", then its not a contradiction. If you mean "You" as a separate entity to "Philosophim" then its defacto a contradiction because you're saying one is actually two. That's impossible.

If I was both Alice and Bob, then it is Scenario 3, you're talking about. — bizso09

I do not see a scenario 3 in your OP. But if what I mentioned is a 'scenario 3', that's fine.

The point I want to state is that I want to affirm the existence of this fact called "You", which some people deny. — bizso09

Its your thought experiment. Make it however you want as long as its not self-contradictory. You can't have 'you' exist and not be a separate being. "You" in your scenario is an independent observer that in theory can observe other subjective experience. I have no problem with this, but this doesn't lead to a contradiction either.

The contradiction arises when someone else claims to be "You", when in fact they are not, and assuming they are honest. I'm also asserting that there is no You1, You2, etc, but only a single global "You". — bizso09

Well of course if someone else claims to be someone or something else, its a contradiction. Are you claiming scenario 1 and 2 are happening at the same time? In which case its still not a contradiction, "You" just have access to two subjective experiences at once.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no difference between the two scenarios. There are still only four people in the world, and each of them have their own respective experiences, thoughts, feelings and perceptions. Alice is still Alice, just like Bob is still Bob, in both cases. — bizso09

The difference is in who you are. You exist correct? If you exist separate from Bob in Alice in such a way that you can access Bob and Alice's subjective experience, then you are separate from them and no contradiction arises.

Philosophim Just a reminder that you forgot to respond to my post: — Jamal

I did not forget to reply to your old post, if you recall the previous post I noted I was done chatting with you because of your inappropriate approach to the discussion which you've since apologized for. I simply did what I told you I would, which was stop responding to your posts. Its been some time so we can try again. I accept your apology, and I will extend it back if I you feel I was overbearing or inappropriate in my responses.

To avoid unnecessary back and forth and a nice reset, I'm not going to address things that are not pertinent to the OP. So we won't be retreading previous points of discussion, only your current point about the OP. To your point here:

But if you want, we can draw a line under all that, because there is too much baggage in it and the result will be more petty bickering and grandstanding. — Jamal

So lets start with your main issues:

Instead, I can just ask you: do you agree that the OP assumes a definition which is the centrally contested definition in the debate over whether trans men are men etc? — Jamal

What is the definition that I am assuming? Why do you think I'm assuming it based on what's in the OP? I note by default that man and woman are used by most speakers to indicate adult human male and adult human female. This is not an assumption, this is a claim. If you have an issue with this, feel free to argue why the claim is incorrect.

Lets go slow and start with that.

But this is not scientific certainty.
— Philosophim

And your theory is? — Questioner

That we need to do more research to figure it out, and in the mean time find the best approach with what we know now.

We're still not quite certain what causes people to be gay, much less transgender.
— Philosophim

here's the thing - why is a scientific theory need to believe people when they tell us who they are? Yes, science marches on, but if I talk face-to-face with a person who shares their experience, I am going to try to understand, not judge them. — Questioner

I didn't say people didn't have gender dysphoria. Of course I seek to understand. Sometimes you understand and disagree with a person. Understanding does not mean acceptance of what you are told. Surely you understand what I'm saying but disagree.

As for 'trans gender' like a boy liking dolls, I just view that as sexist language. And I think you can decide to be, or not be sexist.
— Philosophim

You are still not getting the concept of gender identity being imprinted in the brain. — Questioner

This is not an argument or a discussion you're presenting. This is an emotional accusation. Do you want to talk with me, or at me? I used to try talking to people to persuade them that gay marriage was ok. Your hostility and approach are sounding similar to many religious zealot's approach with me.

No, transgenderism is absolutely an ideology.
— Philosophim

Not to the transgender person. — Questioner

I spent a little time and writing to flesh out why. This is not a discussion from you about what was said. This is you just saying "No".

Gender, the term in itself, is not an ideology. Its simply an assertion that people have a belief about how men and women should act in society.
— Philosophim

No, no, no, no, no. Please re-read all of my previous posts. — Questioner

I can see this isn't going to go anywhere then. You have already decided on your rightness, and there is not a discussion to be had. Very well then, let it end.

We might also say its selfish, narcissistic, deluded, and/or sexist.
— Philosophim

I feel sorry for your transgender friend you have mentioned in the past. I don't think you can be a very good friend. — Questioner

I am only commenting on this because I want you to pause. Were you a good person for saying this? Do you know the bond my friend and I have had for years? The pain he had as he confided over months and made his decision? The fact that I've supported him in his transition? No. You do not.

I invite you with a hand shake, and you bite my hand. Your sympathy is not for people, but for your own purpose. You are merely another ideologue that seeks to hurt what will not bend to your will. Its one of the worst evils we can sink to.

We've had a lively discussion in the "Gender elevated over sex is sexism" thread - thanks to the OP posted by Philosophim - I invite you to read the thread for some background. — Questioner

Hey Questioner! Your tag wasn't set up right and it didn't actually tag me. I just happened to visit the lounge and saw this. Perhaps that's best regardless as it gave you time to talk to other people. I am not important, ideas are.

My position has been that gender identity is something formed during fetal development, during the differentiation and organization of the brain during the third trimester of pregnancy. — Questioner

But this is not scientific certainty. We have to be careful, myself included, of asserting exploratory science as true and settled. We're still not quite certain what causes people to be gay, much less transgender.

What I would be glad to discuss is, "How would I view the issue if it a developmental error/genetic vs error in thinking? Let me answer your other points first, I'll come back to that if you would like me to.

People do not "decide" to become transgender - they are born that way. — Questioner

Actually, people do decide to become trans gender, if you're talking about 'transitioning'. The medical term for wanting to be the other sex so much that not being it is relatively stressful or painful is called 'gender dysphoria'. Which translates to, 'gender distress'. There are a whole host of things which can cause gender dysphoria. Social transition and medical transitions are treatments to help the individual cope with gender dysphoria. As for 'trans gender' like a boy liking dolls, I just view that as sexist language. And I think you can decide to be, or not be sexist.

There has been reference to the "trans ideology." Transgenderism is not an ideology - which we may define as a set of beliefs or ideas shaping a view of the world - but transgenderism is not about what the transgender person "believes" but rather who they are - their internal identity, processed by the brain. — Questioner

No, transgenderism is absolutely an ideology.

"a: a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
Ex: progressive/liberal/conservative ideology
b: the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
Ex: said that the election was not about ideology
c: a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideology

An ideology isn't necessarily wrong or right, but it is a group of ideas and assertions about how things are and how they should work going forward. Transgenderism is a branch of gender ideology. Gender, the term in itself, is not an ideology. Its simply an assertion that people have a belief about how men and women should act in society. This can be individual, or cultural, and is subjective.

So what is gender ideology? It doesn't just apply to trans gender people. Its any idea about what gender means for people, and how we should apply and use it in life. To my limited understanding the first pushes for gender ideology were in support of feminism. Again, it being an ideology doesn't make it right or wrong, but when it comes to transgenderism, it is very like 'the integrated assertions, theories, and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program'.

When I refer to transgender ideology, I refer to its sociopolitical aims. Would you deny that it has sociopolitical aims? It being true doesn't make it bad remember, its just noting that when transgender groups start to ask for language and laws to change, that is by definition a sociopolitical aim.

transgenderism is not about what the transgender person "believes" but rather who they are - their internal identity, processed by the brain. — Questioner

To be clear, using trans gender in the descriptive sense is not an ideology. If a person believes they have a gender that conflicts with their sex, that is an accurate description of the situation if the person is honest and unconfused. Of course, it doesn't assert that its 'correct' that a person believes that either. I could truly believe I was Napolean reincarnated, but that wouldn't make it 'correct'. You also cannot factually say gender is is not a belief, but a brain fact. We still don't have final scientific evidence of that yet. Maybe one day we will. I'll have no issue then. But until then, its a lie or embellishment from an ideological group that wants control and power. Not to knock transgender ideology in particular, its the low hanging fruit every ideology is tempted to eat.

In advancing their right to be their authentic selves, we might say the ideology that they do advance is one that respects and protects human rights. — Questioner

We might also say its selfish, narcissistic, deluded, and/or sexist. Again, you're making assumptions of morality without proving it first. "Authentic self" is normally a sexual phrase, what do you mean in this instance? If I'm brushing my teeth, am I my authentic self? Is it when I'm typing? Dreaming? What does that mean? Again, its language meant to appeal emotionally instead of rationally. Your problem, and the problem of 'ideologues' or those who pursue an ideologies success over questioning whether it should, is you already assume its basic premises are good without having done the intellectual effort to prove it actually is.

By contrast, the word ideology better reflects the anti-transgender position. — Questioner

Not so. Its just an accurate description of the situation. If an ideology is trying to assert that its more than an ideology, which is typically what ideologies that desire power do, it wants to elevate itself as a fact and above ideology. You can see the same arguments in politics too. "I don't like convervative ideology..." Conservative voter: Its not an ideology, its the truth!

Ideologies can gain power because they assert 'their truth'. You know and have the emotion of certainty and self-righteousness by your side! You know better than other people! You're more moral than other people! Time to go save the world! I am guilty of this just as well, so I'm not putting you down. I'm not above you, I'm right with you. Just another person trying to do right in life.

People opposed often have very rigid concepts of male and female, and often their opposition is tied to a resentment of having to recognize anything outside of their narrow paradigms. — Questioner

Oh, I'm quite certain some who hold any ideology of any kind are resentful of having to recognize anything outside of their ideology. How do you view me? When you think you're right, its very easy to see the other person as stupid, bigoted, ignorant, backwards, evil...'other'. But that's what we can't let happen. Philosophy teaches us to look past social pressures and the 'easy' way that makes us feel good. It asks us to work. To question our own stance even more than we question others.

The stance I hold is one after countless months of questioning and attacking it on my own. To love philosophy is to hate one's own ideas. Trust me, I've hated plenty on it. But I find despite my best attempts to bring it down, it stands tall where others fall. That is why I bring it to others. Maybe someone else will knock it down. And if not, I have something good for other people to think about.

So feel free to ask me questions. Accuse me of whatever you like if you wish. We're here in a polite discussion and I will not take offense to anything as long as its a question that I have a chance to answer and it doesn't descend into personal insults. Not that I think you will, you strike me as a rather polite and good hearted person Questioner. So ask away.

Tell that to the protesters in Iran who are being shot, arrested and tortured. Maybe (just maybe) they think that the government is acting without their "consent". — Ecurb

As I mentioned, they are trying to change the law. And as I've further mentioned, we are talking about individual consent.

Your lack of humor about the dogs and cats is telling. Do you always take yourself so seriously? — Ecurb

When I'm addressing sexism and sexist people, usually.

Your point about top hats is merely silly, as the video of Judy Garland singing "Get Happy" demonstrates (OK, it's a fedora, not a top hat, but the point remains valid). — Ecurb

"Silly" is not a rational criticism. Whether you find it silly or not is a subjective opinion and irrelevant. Its not uncommon for sexist people to want to retain sexist outlooks, and they use derision and try to invalidate the person calling them out on it instead of presenting a good argument.

You seem to be stuck on misunderstood definitions, incorrect ideas about morality, and an inability to comprehend my arguments or examples. Therefore, I will emulate Elinor Dashwood, in Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility.

"Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition." — Ecurb

This is a philosophy board. You can state an opinion and leave, but that leaves me with points and definitions that you did not rationally challenge. Therefore, you leave with me having the rational view point, you leaving with a mere opinion. There is a good reason only new people to these forums have challenged the OP on this topic. Its because its solid.

We should all examine ourselves carefully and not fall into 'moral' social pushes that have no actual rational backing behind them. I don't think you want to be a bad person, but if you're not aware that you're being manipulated by a sexist ideology when you have the chance to really think about it, you are. We cannot stick blindly to ignorance when we have an opportunity to really think about what we're doing. And all you're doing is defending a sexist viewpoint.

Again, not only consent to laws, but the homeless person is violating the consent of the home owner. When I own something and you want it, morally you have to ask me and I have to consent to give it to you.
— Philosophim

Huh? Why is the law always right? If (as I pointed out earlier) Robin Hood thinks the law is unjust. The tax collectors are violating the consent of the Saxons by collecting taxes, and Robin Hood is violating the consent of the Normans by taking the largesse back. Do the protesters in Iran "consent" to be abused by the government by dint of being born there? The notion that we all consent to obey the law is silly. — Ecurb

You consent to obey the law, or petition for the law to be changed. But until the law is changed, you consent in the social contract between an individual and government.

As I have repeated: nobody is forcing you (or anyone else) to use someone's desired pronouns. Nobody is forcing you to say "please" or "thank you". But it's good natured and mannerly to say "please", "thank you" and the preferred "him" or "her". You needn't do so, and I needn't think you are a kind, well-mannered person when you refrain. — Ecurb

Yet you are trying to convince me that its immoral not to in some manner. My point is that you have no grounds to assert this. You have provided nothing but an opinion that I should use sexist language with others.

Gender is an idea (not more prejudiced than other ideas) about how people behave and how they are perceived. If someone wants to be perceived as a "he' or a "she", it's well-mannered to comply, just as it's well mannered not to dead-name people. — Ecurb

No, it is not well mannered to follow how someone wishes to be perceived. Sometimes its actually rude to ask that a person be perceived a particular way. If a wage worker tells their boss that they should be treated as the most valuable employee despite being a lazy person who shows up late to work all the time and doesn't do their job properly, the employee is out of line and being the rude one.

Someone who asks another to participate in sexist or racist language is rude, period. I don't participate in slurs against races despite being pressured to in the past, and I'm not going to participate in sexist language despite now. Societies and cultures come and go with ideas of what is right and wrong. Sometimes society gets it right, sometimes it doesn't. This? Society is getting it wrong.

it is not sexist. Sexism suggests that one gender (sex) and the behaviors associated with it are superior to another's. We all know that women like cats, and men lie dogs (sometimes). A generalization like that is not sexist, unless (as would be utterly reasonable) we say, "Only a moron would like cats better than dogs. — Ecurb

You only have a partial understanding of sexism. Sexism is also elevating the prejudices you have about their sex, over the actual person themself. The fact you said "Women like cats" is prejudiced at best, sexist at worse. Where did you get such a crazy idea? I've known lots of women that hate cats. That's why its sexist. It asserts things about a broad sex that are not true for every member of that sex. It takes individual personality differences and tries to say "Its because you're a woman."

Now, this is not to be confused with sex expectations. For example, its expected that women will bleed once a month. That's not a social expectations, that's a biological norm. Of course, if someone stated, "You don't have a period, therefore you can't be a woman," if the person is female this is of course sexist too. Prejudice and sex expectations in themselves are not wrong, they are only wrong if they assert their truth when it does not align with reality.

A generalization like that is not sexist, unless (as would be utterly reasonable) we say, "Only a moron would like cats better than dogs. That is denying the importance of relationships, which are far closer, more intense, and more reciprocal with a dog than with a cat." Although true, that would be sexist, if we used it to suggest that our girlfriends or wives are not interested in close relationships. Also, it might lead them to dump us. — Ecurb

I don't understand why you think its utterly reasonable to claim "Only a moron would like cats better than dogs." That's just an unfounded prejudice against people who like cats. I'm not even going to comment on how you treat your girlfriends or wife.

Gender is an idea (not more prejudiced than other ideas) about how people behave and how they are perceived. — Ecurb

To be specific, and in philosophy specificity in definitions is important: Gender: The non-biological expectations that one or more people have about how a sex should express themselves in public. For example, "Men are expected to wear top hats, women are not."

I put those definitions at the start of the OP so that you know exactly what I'm talking about. In this conversation, that is gender. This is backed by gender theory. Gender is a social belief that each sex should act a particular way in public because of their sex. It is socially agreed upon prejudice. And acting upon prejudice as if its more important than the person's reality of their sex is sexist. So again, if I tell a boy, "You like dolls, and the gender of girls is they like dolls. (Society has declared this without science, just group opinion). Therefore if you like dolls, you're a girl now." that's sexist. If you disagree, explain why this specific situation is not sexist please.

So it is not rude to ask a person to use preferred pronouns. — Ecurb

Asking someone to participate in racism, sexism, or any kind of ism is rude. You have not disagreed with this. Therefore you need to explain why the above situation I mentioned is not sexist. The situation I mentioned above is saying that because the boy acts in a way society prejudices that only girls should act, he's really a girl, we should treat him like a girl, and perhaps someone would also come along and say, "They should transition their body to align with their gender".

Do you even read my posts? Your position is not viable. Here are some (of many) examples in which violating another person's consent is perfectly acceptable:

1) "I don't want to go to school today, daddy," said Billy.

"You have to go to school," said his father. "It's a law and a family rule." — Ecurb

This is a parents responsibility to manage a child who is not mentally capable to not make effective decisions about their future. We are talking about consenting adults.

2) "You were going 55mph in a 30 mph zone," said the police officer.

"I wanted to go that fast," said Philosophim.

"Tough," said the officer. "You will pay your fine, and if you don't consent you will be dragged off to prison." — Ecurb

Already covered this earlier, but I'll state it again. If you choose to live in a state, you consent to its laws. That's the basic social contract of government.

3) "I want to sleep in your house," said the homeless person. "I don't consent to leave."

"Leave right now or I will call the police and they will handcuff you and take you to prison whether you consent or not," said the home owner. — Ecurb

Again, not only consent to laws, but the homeless person is violating the consent of the home owner. When I own something and you want it, morally you have to ask me and I have to consent to give it to you.

Why is it objectively good manners?
— Philosophim

Good manners are determined by social contracts. They are designed to facilitate social interaction and to make others feel more comfortable. ON that basis, it is good manners to call people by the names they prefer, even if those are not their birth names. Similarly, it is good manners to use their preferred pronouns. — Ecurb

Good manners are not always about making others feel comfortable, but enforcing culture and power structures. I have noted it is correct to state a person's legal name if they've changed it. But pronouns? You have not given an objective reason indicating why they are beneficial to social interaction. Let me give you an example.

In the bible it states that if a man lay with another man, that is abomination. It is so, because the book says it is so. Its good for society, God, and all that. I however don't listen to what a book tells me without good reason. And I saw no good reason to view it as abomination. Back when many were in arms against gay marriage, I was for it. Because I reasoned that objectively, it hurt no one else, wasn't really anyone else's business, and two consenting adults can and should have legal recognition for long term monogamous relationships. I was persuaded by arguments, not assertions.

I'll try one more time, but unless something new is stated, we are going to have to agree to disagree and I will have held up the OP.

Gender is a prejudiced idea that a particular sex should act in a particular social way. I note that when you elevate prejudice past the person, it is sexism. If I told a little boy, "If you play with dolls, you're a girl," I would be sexist. When someone asks me, "Don't call me by the sex I am, call me by a sexist view of how people of the other sex should act," I see no reason why I should consent to using language in that way. I see the person's sex, I'm using pronouns for sex as I always have, why should I change to use sexist language?

You see, the real rudeness is asking another person to be sexist and/or use prejudicial language. "Yes, I see that you see my sex, but I'm a sexist individual who thinks that acting in a way I associate with the other sex, makes me the other sex. Would you be sexist with me?" I find that very rude. I don't care if a person transitions. But, I don't think it makes you the other sex because I'm not a sexist. You are. You have given me no reason to indicate you are not. It is not polite to be sexist, and I do not have to consent to be sexist because it makes you feel better about your sexism.

It would be the same if a black person asked me to call them the "n" word. I taught in inner city classes for a few years with minorities. That word was always forbidden from my class because I told kids we will not refer to racist language. Some kids hated me for it. "You're not cool. That's our culture." No, that's racist, and while in my class I will teach you to identify each other as human beings, not slurs and slangs involving race.

You have done nothing to indicate that you are not a sexist person asking me to participate in sexist language. Do you understand? You need to indicate why gender is not prejudice, and acting on it is not sexism. Or you need to persuade me that talking in prejudicial and sexist language is overall good for society. Kind of a "Old people curse, so you should too so they feel comfortable." I've had people try to make me curse or say things that I don't agree with many times in my life, and I've always stood my ground because I've felt its the right thing to do. Do you understand? You are not moral. I am. You are a selfish person who thinks some other stranger not even in this conversation's desire to use sexist language is more important than my rational explanations that I do not desire to use sexist language, and I have the right to not to consent to that. I rationally conclude my morality, you merely assert it with jeers and dismissals of my arguments.

So, it step up. Look at my points, and explain why the rationale is wrong. Not with jeers or appeals to social 'glue' as that's nonsense. You want my consent, you need to respect it, and respect my rational viewpoints by addressing them. If you don't, then just like the kids in my classroom, I will dismiss you as not having the intellectual capacity to know what you're doing, and will not take your words as having any validity behind them.

AS I've pointed out, your "consent" baloney is mere nonsense. — Ecurb

Let me be clear. In no uncertain terms is anyone's consent 'baloney'. Violating another person's consent is the definition of being a scummy person. It is the one commonality to every single immoral and evil act in this world. Your attempt to invalidate a person's consent is coersive and manipulative. its evil. It is one of the highest immoral positions a person can hold.

No one is "obligated" to use preferred pronouns, new names, old names, or to say anything at all (unless subpoenaed). Perhaps, however, some of us consider the good manners associated with complying with an addressee's wishes as to what name or pronoun he or she prefers a form of politeness and good manners. — Ecurb

Right, obligation means, "It is not up to the person to consent or not." If you personally consider it good manners, that is your opinion and choice. Not once have I shamed you or said your choice was incorrect for you. Do you see the difference? What you have not claimed is rationally why it is good manners for everyone else besides yourself. Why is it objectively good manners? You have not addressed the fact that to many others, you are asking them to lie. You cannot merely dismiss that with a hand wave. You don't get to tell others that preserving non-sexist language is immoral, when the opposite is more rationally considered immoral.

All judgements are "pre-judgements", because we fallible humans are never privy to all the relevant information. Therefore, complaining that using preferred gender pronouns is a form of "prejudice" is insufficient to demonstrate that it is reasonable and polite not to comply. — Ecurb

Pre-judgements are of course normal things everyone has. If a person thought, "That black person looks dangerous", its not in itself racist. If the person speaks to the black person and finds they are charming, kind, and great, but still insists, "They are dangerous because they are black," that's racist.

If a person wants to have a pre-judgement that "Only women wear dresses," that's fine. If a man puts on a dress then tells people, "I'm a woman because I wear a dress," that's sexist. Gender can only be prejudiced and sexist if acted upon. As such, asking someone to use pronouns to refer to gender is asking them to use sexist language. Its the entire focus of the OP, and I have not seen you present a single argument against its logic. Appeals to unproven politeness and dismissal of consent are not rational arguments, they are appeals to ignore rational arguments and just bend to a person's whims because you want them to.

I've already lived years of my life following a book that told me what was good because it said so. Give me good reasons, not simply assertions.