Well, not literally. Saying "A trans woman is a woman" is as true as saying something like "Hunting elephants can help prevent their extinction". Both are true. The problem is in both cases they need to be explained beyond ordinary assertion and in very specific circles of understanding. No doubt many would assume that hunting elephants does nothing to prevent their extinction. — I like sushi

Correct. My argument was to show that if we are to consider English and the language afforded to us by gender, the phrase "Trans men are men" simply isn't clear enough. The problem is you have to know the meaning of the phrase prior to saying it. Alone, it does not indicate whether 'man' in this case means the reference to sex, or gendered aspect of that sex. That is why the final argument is that the phrase is a poor phrase and needs clarity. "Trans men are females who follow the gender of men" requires no outside knowledge to understand the phrases meaning.

I think you and I largely agree on the overall approach here. I am not asserting there is only one essentialist definition for women. Simply that the phrase "trans women are women" is at best ambiguous, and when read by common culture and by the rules of English, 'women' is going to be interpreted as 'sex', when this is not the intention of the phrase. So it needs to be better.

I'll let you have the last word Banno. Thanks again! It really was a good conversation.

No, I'm asserting that as language is used today, 'woman' unmodified is interpreted to mean a person's sex, not their gender.
— Philosophim

Yes - that's what I said. You are insisting on the one interpretation. — Banno

I am providing rational argument for why it is. I am not denying that it could change. I am not denying that we could popularize the word 'woman' as gender and not sex by default. Again, we're just repeating the same thing at each other Banno. We've both heard each other and if we both have nothing new to add, I think we can agree to disagree at this point.

I note that is how English functions today.
— Philosophim
What do you mean here? Seems that you are simply re-asserting, yet again, the primacy of one meaning for "woman" over the others. — Banno

No, I'm asserting that as language is used today, 'woman' unmodified is interpreted to mean a person's sex, not their gender. And as such the phrase 'trans men are men' would be most rationally interpreted to intend the second 'man' as a noun, when it is really the verb version indicating gender. I feel like I'm repeating myself though at this point, so if you have nothing to add to that point there's really no more I think I can add.

So when you say something like "I have not considered personal identity important to the conversation", I don't see that you are saying any more than "I will only consider the idea of a women as being an adult human female". — Banno

I don't see how you drew that conclusion as I noted that you can modify woman to mean "gendered actions of an adult human female". Thus you can use cis or trans to indicate that it is the verb gendered version of woman, not the noun version.

It provides no reason for the rest of us not to understand "A trans woman is a woman" as being true. — Banno

The point is not to persuade you that what you believe is true is not. The point is to think through the arguments and try to come to a reasonable conclusion. Sometimes that ends up being the viewpoint of the person I talk to when they provide a good logical argument. Sometimes not. I am simply exploring why its most reasonable for English speakers to read "Trans men are men," and see the second unmodified man as describing sex, not gender. At this point in the argument, I see this the most rational viewpoint.

If you want to attempt to persuade me that this is not rational, feel free. At this point I'm not seeing anything new though. I've already addressed what you've stated before, and since I'm not seeing you address those further points that I made, there may not be much else to explore. As I noted in the post, in this we may just have to agree to disagree. Not a slight against you in any way, I've greatly enjoyed our conversation over this as you've brought intelligent and engaging points to the conversation.

Of greater interest to me is the later half of that post where I ask about the idea that someone acting as a gender role of the opposite sex in any way means a person should or should not treat them as the gendered role of that sex. To me, this isn't part of the initial conversation, but maybe that would help me see where you're coming from. I'm a big fan of isolating things down to their basics and introducing complexity once initial steps are done. I think our disagreement here is mostly how society rationally sees the phrase, and whether it needs more detail or not. But we don't disagree about sex and gender on the fundamental level. So if you are interested, we could explore that following section a bit more.

And if not, that is fine. I can easily continue a conversation deeper for months and I recognize that is not normal nor sane to ask of most people. We apparently have reached an end to the initial query, so its all bonus from here on. So if you wish to explore a bit more about your connection with gender to how society should treat people who act in or against their expected gender, that would be great. If not, its been a nice conversation and I've appreciated the discussion.

Well, he'd probably say that you are again prioritising the physical definition of "woman", and that this goes against the discussion we had concerning how language actually functions. He'd point out again that "A trans woman is a woman" has a sense in which it is quite true. — Banno

I feel I covered that well in the longer post. I note that is how English functions today. While am very ok with you summarizing some of the larger points in the post, if the discussion is to continue you'll still want to address it when points were made there.

Oh, and being hired as a waiter is part of the social role of being a waiter, not seperate from it. — Banno

As I mentioned earlier, you had your thought experiment for a very specific thing, and arguing against thought experiments often doesn't let the writer of that thought experiment express their full intent. I don't want to unfairly attack a thought experiment, but would rather address an argument. Feel free to dismiss it unless its useful for my larger post's responses.

Please take your time to digest the larger post. Good conversations cannot be rushed.

If being a waiter involves the social behaviours around waiting on tables, if the context and behaviour around which someone claims to be a waiter matches their claim, why not accept their claim? So we should ask, why not call them a waiter? What reasons are there for this exception? — Banno

Generally this is because we trust that the restaurant would not allow someone who is not hired by them to act as a waiter. In spy movies they often impersonate a waiter. But if actions betray what a waiter normally does, or the restaurant realizes they never hired this person, there is cause for suspicion. But I'm not sure this is what you're intending for your thought experiment so unless this is addressing your point, no need to drill into this.

And if the context and behaviour around which someone claims to be a woman matches their claim, why not accept their claim? So we should ask, why not call them a woman? What reasons are there for this exception? — Banno

If you mean woman as a noun, or sex, and there is no apparent physical or expected sex behaviors that contradict the claim of being a woman, most people would not. In legal cases or places where sex matters, it might rely on the belief that most people will not lie. But if we know that people have a reason to lie, and the identification of sex is important, there may be greater proof required.

Do you think you might reflect for a bit on how Banno might answer your post? — Banno

I did not expect Banno to reply in third person. :D

What's the most central issue in your post, how do you think I would respond to it? — Banno

I address variations of identity, how society treats identity, and a question for you about why you think a societies gender expectations entail that society will treat that individual as anything more than one sex acting in social way contrary to the expectations of their own. I hope that helps focus the ideas as you read. I cannot say how Banno would respond. If I knew, I wouldn't need to ask.

Those are ways of defining gender, but non offer a method of proving a persons gender, Do we just except their word for it? — Sir2u

If gender is simply the expectation of actions from a particular sex, then someone would act in accordance with the expectations of the other sex while denying their own. How many actions, how long, how accurate, and other questions are difficult to answer. But since gender is simply a societal expectation of action, how you act is how we tell.

Well, not to them.
— Banno

That's kinda where Witt comes in, in pointing out the place of identity in these proceedings. Her point is that identity is not a private whim but a socially operative category. In societies where gender structures our possibilities, expectations, rights, and obligations, one’s gender identity is not unimportant, but central to functioning as a social agent. In a gender-structured social world, identity is one of the primary determinants of how a person can live, act, and be recognised. — Banno

Ah, we're taking this to a new place! I think its important to point out that there is personal identity, and social identity. it is also important to note that an identity is a claim that can be true or false. For example, I can identify as a waiter, but unless I wait tables, I am not actually a waiter. Further, I can act like the social identity of a waiter, but not personally identify as a waiter (I'm not actually hired, I stole a uniform and served one table).

Gender can be a personal or social identity. "I believe females should wear top hats, but society believes females should not". If I wore a top hat, I would be acting as my personal identity, but against the social identity of the gendered role of a woman. Personal identity is performative, not being. Society is also not obligated to recognize anyone's personal identity. Just because I perform as what I identity as a waiter, does not mean society will agree that is the performance of a waiter.

When talking about 'woman' as a gendered expectation of action, and we want society to agree that our personal gender identity of a woman should be what society believes a gendered woman should be, because society has the final say. They are under no obligation to change for an individual.

This is why I have not considered personal identity important to the conversation. If we are to speak of woman as a gendered action, and woman is a shared word among speakers of the English language, the actions which would entail someone matches that identity would be the social perception of a woman, not the individual opinion.

Now, if you mean that a person 'Chooses to act as society expects a man to act", that is a personal decision to take on the gendered role of a woman. But that does not mean one gets to decide what the gendered role of a man is, act on it, then say they have acted as the male gender the way society views it.

So to this, I agree that a person may act in a way that society agrees a woman should act. So if society states, "Only men wear top hats," and as a woman I choose to wear a top hat, then I have behaved contrary to societies expected gender of myself, and instead acted in cross gender identity. I did not become a man by sex. I simply acted in the way that society wanted to restrict solely to men.

All of this to say that I don't see how its relevant to the discussion beyond this observation. If society believes the gender of a female should be not to wear top hats, but you personally think females should, society has the final say. If you believe you perform as a gendered female, and you wear top hats, society is going to state you are not performing the gender of a female. The only way personal gender matters is if you observe what society states is the gender of X or Y, then you perform X or Y to the exclusion of the other.

"Woman as gender" has it's origin in the middle of the last century, with such authors as John Money and Catharine MacKinnon. But it's seen clearly in Simone de Beauvoir's "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman". It's not that new. At the very least, I hope we can agree that there is a sense in which "trans women are women" is true. — Banno

Again to my point, this entails that woman is performative. Meaning we must clarify in the phrase "trans men are men" that 'Trans men are females acting like men". "trans men are not men by sex, or by being".

I am indeed disagreeing with that, in so far as you take it to be fundamental. “Adult human female” is one salient use of woman in many contexts. But I’m rejecting the claim that this use is somehow the foundational, default, or conceptually governing one in English. — Banno

Ah, this may be a fundamental disagreement then. Woman meant sex for hundreds of years prior to the idea of gender. It is only in the last couple of decades that gender as a separate term has been established in niche areas of study, and only recently become a consideration in broader culture.

We could test this easily. Poll 100 people like so. "Imagine a woman". Wait. Can you describe her? Get the answer. "Did you view them as a male?" The results can give us how society views the term by default. I am supremely confident that most people will say they did not picture a male. Meaning they view woman not as a societal performance, but as the sex of the individual. i think this is such a clear position to take, I do not need to see the experiment in full. Unless clear evidence is given, I'm standing with the point that 'woman' without pointing out a gendered context, is seen as sex by default. On this we will have to agree to disagree if you do not.

This is not how language functions. Words don’t come with a single privileged core meaning; they have families of uses, and which one is operative depends on what we’re doing. — Banno

Correct. My point is that the way English is spoken, the default for woman unmodified entails its a noun sex category, not a gendered action. I don't think I'm disagreeing with your fundamental position here, as perhaps in the future this could change. You could also give an argument that is should change. My point is that as of today, this is the way 'woman' is seen in a sentence without some type of gender indicator involved.

Well, what is " the intent of the phrase"? It's whatever you intend to do with that phrase. — Banno

Right, but that doesn't mean I will have that phrase accepted by other people. Language is intended to be a reasonable means of communication to clearly get a strangers mind to understand a concept we hold in ours. English is a structure that anyone can refer to when attempting to get a base understanding of what another human being is trying to say. If I write down a phrase that follows the rules of English, I can reference the rules to get a base understanding of intent.

If I say, "The cheese is the moon" and intend to communicate "The moon is made of dirt that looks like cheese", my intentions have not lined up with the common definitions and understanding of English. If I had a friend who understood me, this would work. But it would not be accepted in the larger language.

To this, it may be that people in transgender circles desire the phrase "Trans men are men" as a slogan or small group context. If they intend to bring it to broader society, they need buy in. The community asserts that it is so, and if society disagrees with them, they are wrong. But the rules of English and the broader understanding of the terms involved do not make society wrong, they make the phrase unclear and in need of clarification when brought out of local context.

If society rejects it, has has reason to by the sentence structure and the commonly understood terms involved. It is not an insult to the clique. It is simply a note that it needs to be more clear in its claim. So my question to you is this. If it is a less rational phrase to use, unclear and potentially conflationary, what reason is there to double down on it instead of just adding more clarity?

Yes, you can use it divisively, by insisting that it "means" only "adult human male"; but that's your choice. — Banno

How is this divisive? And I'm also not noting that men or woman can only mean nouns, they can mean gendered expectations as well. I'm just noting that it is not very good English in the phrase "Trans men are men" and needs more clarity if it wants society to understand and agree to its intent.

If you meant that trans men ought be treated as men, the choice is clear here, too. — Banno

Again, this is an ambiguous sentence. Do you mean that females who act like the gendered expectations of adult human males should be treated like adult human males? Because the expectations of gendered actions on an individual sex, does not entail that a person treat them like that particular sex. If a woman wears a top hat, there is no logical obligation to treat that adult human female like an adult human male and give them a prostate exam.

Or do you mean they should be treated like adult human females that act like the gendered expectations of adult human males? Because that is the observation of a cross gender individual. "That woman is wearing a top hat, but that's not what we expect adult human females to do."

Perhaps it comes down to why some folk are unwilling to treat trans men as men. — Banno

This is more of the same. What does this mean? It needs to be clearer. What is the link between societies expectations of a sexes actions in public, vs the treatment of a person who goes along with those expectations or defies those expectations?

My apologies if this is a bit long. It is a habit of mine when I'm deeply interested in a topic. Feel free to condense portions of this in response. My intention is not to overwhelm, but be thorough.

Well, we went over how words usually do not have a single default meaning. In the case of "woman" there's the biological use, of course. There's a social-gender sense. — Banno

Agreed.

There's the sense of personal identity that includes trans people. — Banno

We didn't really go over this. In fact, it hasn't been a part of the conversation at all. How someone identifies themselves is irrelevant. I'm assuming a trans man or woman is observable and identifiable in their gendered actions.

Adjectives do not always leave the meaning unchanged. Consider "car" and "toy car", or "lion" and "sea lion". With "trans woman", the adjective modifies the gendered sense, not the biological-sex sense. — Banno

Adjectives are words that describe or modify words. The trans adjective indicates to the user that woman is meant to be read in the gendered sense, not the biological sense. Woman has been used to describe sex until the concept of modern day gender came along. As "woman as gender" is a new concept that is localized and just now becoming part of the broader language, the adjective clearly differentiates what concept of woman we're talking about.

"The woman went to the park." Very few people would see this by default as 'Adult human male". This can also be seen again by the fact that we need to have both 'cis' and 'trans' to modify the word woman. If woman by default was seen in the culture as 'the gendered actions of an adult human female', 'cis' would be a pointless adjective.

The point Banno, and I think its not uncontroversial to agree with this, is that the general English speaker is going to see the term 'woman' unmodified in a sentence and think, "Adult human female". And as such, my point stands. I don't think you've necessarily disagreed with my logic if 'woman' by default is seen in the larger culture as adult human female. I think what you're advocating for is that this should change. That what you want is the default of woman to represent the gendered actions of an adult human female, instead of the noun. Woman as verb instead of as thing.

If we are to read 'trans men are men" and men is the verb (gender is an action of an individual, not a state), that's not a proper verb tense. A better phrase would be, "Trans men are menning." By default the sentence "trans men are men" most rationally resembles a noun assertion. So once again, to clarify that we are not talking about men in the noun state, but the performative action society expects of adult human males, it once again makes more sense to add to the sentence to avoid the implication of a noun. Trans women are womening, works to keep the phrase tight without allowing any possible conflation or ambiguity to the phrase.

My question for you Banno would be how to make the intent of the phrase, "Trans men are men" more clear in its intent if we intend 'men' in this instance to be the expected actions of an adult human male? Because the point is not to manipulate, fool, coerce, or trick a person into an incorrect concept. Its clarity. Perhaps we can keep do something to the phrase 'trans men are men" for more clarity, but as it stands currently it is impossible to figure out without greater context beyond the phrase itself.

I think you should do some research into the history of public toilets, and you will find that initially there were public facilities only for men. I don't have the time to tell you more, but you can do the research yourself. — Janus

No need to do research. You didn't counter the point that if it they were only for men, it was only for one sex, not gender.

I think your argument about "deceit" is woefully weak, and you know my position as to whether transwomen should be allowed to use women's facilities. — Janus

Its correct and you were unable to demonstrate why it was wrong. Your position is irrelevant to the discussion. This is not about opinions or emotion. This is about a rational discussion. You once again for the third time ignored a question in this conversation.

Should we continue to separate bathrooms by sex, or now by gender? Why or why not? — Philosophim

I'm assuming you can't agree to the above, but you understand that puts you into a bind. Think about it Janus.

...most rationally read as...
— Philosophim
Looks essentialist to me. I might come back to it, though, again rather than rattle off another brief rejection. — Banno

I don't think it is, I view it as a rationalist argument. But I would be interested in hearing your response to my points later if you think that's wrong.

I hope you're not implying that I am holding a conservative Aristotelian view here.
— Philosophim
No, indeed I mentioned Witt as someone that might spike your interest. I had in mind other players who have been around the traps. — Banno

Appreciate it.

Sally Haslanger argues for a way to define the concept woman that is politically useful, serving as a tool in feminist fights against sexism, and that shows woman to be a social (not a biological) notion. More specifically, Haslanger argues that gender is a matter of occupying either a subordinate or a privileged social position — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/#NewGenRea

In my experience Banno, anytime words are used for politics it is a twisting of the intent of language. Language is about the clarity of communication and ideas. That allows free thought and good faith communication of concepts. Politics is about power manipulation. It twists words to suit who holds power instead of displaying clear ideas that let people choose what should be empowered.

I do not agree with any political manipulation of language. Whether this be for the advantage of conservative political viewpoints or liberal viewpoints, I find it leads to corruption and irrational outcomes. Power should be won by truth in communication and reasoning, not language manipulation.

Charlotte Witt is also interesting here, taking an Aristotelian Essentialist view, but one at odds perhaps with the more conservative views expressed hereabouts. — Banno

I hope you're not implying that I am holding a conservative Aristotelian view here. I would think in our brief conversation its clear that I am not. Considering mentioning such things would normally imply the OP, please be more careful in your words about general accusations of people in the thread.

I know what it's like to be disappointed that no one read my OP, but you're going overboard. Take a breath and chill out. — frank

Ok, maybe I did a little. You still made me mad when after I called you out on posting preachy straw man crap to my post you doubled down. I expect that of immature posters here, not someone like you. Engage with the topic and you can disagree all you want with me being chill. Behave like a troll and you'll get the call out you deserve.

But how can gender, in the sense that it is being used here, be proven? — Sir2u

First, you have to grab one or more people and ask them how they think men and women should act. Once there is an agreement by the group, then you can test to see if a man or woman is following those gendered expectations. If a group of people say, "Women should work in the kitchen and men should work outside of the house" that's gender for that group. If another group of people say, "Men should work in the kitchen and women should work outside of the house," that is also gender that we can test against.

The problem is not proving if someone is matching a particular gender in any particular moment of observation, the problem is declaring an objective gender. That is because gender is subjective in singular or shared among a group. This of course also makes gender a terrible thing to make laws about. This is because it cannot responsibly codify exactly what gender is objectively. It must take a subjective form of gender and codify it without any objective reasoning behind it.

Both prejudice and sexism are gender for example. So if a town created a law that stated, "We believe the male gender must wear hats, while the female gender should not," then you could not be considered a gendered man if you did not wear a hat, nor a gendered woman if you did wear a hat. Gender at the end of the day is subjective prejudice at best, and sexism at worst.

Yep. Usage isn't fixed, it's chosen. And we perhaps ought seek consistency. So if "woman" is used to pick out someone who adopts the relevant social conventions, then a trans woman is a woman. And this even if we also choose to maintain that they are male.

What I'm not sure of, is whether this was actually Philosophim's view as well, if somewhat ill-parsed. — Banno

No, the view of the OP is that woman in neutral without modification is most rationally read as "adult human female". "trans" or "cis" woman are adjectives specifically to modify woman to mean, "Gender of a an adult human female". Meaning that if those modifiers were missing its most reasonable to assume 'woman' is referring to what it has referred to prior to the introduction of gender, "Adult human female".

A later post added that if 'woman' meant 'gender of adult human female', then the cis moniker would be worthless. Instead we would need an adjective to denote that 'woman' is talking about sex if the default of gender were assumed.

So by adjectives and normative language, the way people would expect the phrase 'trans women are women" to be understood in English is "Trans women are adult human females". This is false. If the phrase is to avoid conflation or an incorrect interpretation by most people using the English language, they should mare accurately change the phrase to "Trans women are adult human males who take on the gendered role of women".

Pointing out how your words may be read is a 'charitable' act. If you wish I can stay silent in the future. — I like sushi

Sure. Why do I want to listen to someone who's looking for a bone to pick then a decent conversation?

You have an oddly hostile response here.
— Philosophim

Perception. — I like sushi

And an accurate one.

This kind of context helps. The reason for this is if you want to get papers published you are more likely to get published in areas that are hot topics. This is generally sound advice to someone pursuing a Phd.

Both Phd and Masters are about showing method rather than creating any ground breaking work. — I like sushi

Yes. That's exactly my point. That is not training the mind and methods towards unique approaches and solving modern problems. It is training someone for years to not do so. Is it any wonder than that we have a field full of uncreative traditionally minded people who focus on work that isn't ground breaking or relevant to today?

Your second line admits the answer I gave you for your first line.
— Philosophim

If gender and sex were equivalent in the past then the separation could be said to be for either. — Janus

Thank you for being genuine in the conversation. So yes, the original separation of bathrooms was by sex. So now we can go to what I think your real question is. Should we continue to separate bathrooms by sex, or now by gender? Why or why not?

I don't know why you are talking about "good faith"―do you take disagreement as a sign of bad faith? — Janus

Not at all. Can you admit you might have been a bit evasive of some of my points and tried skipping past them? That's my frustration. I'm trying to engage with you honestly and I feel like you're not trying to discuss with me, but against me. Discuss with me as I am you Janus, and I have no issue with disagreements.

Even if that were so, which I think is questionable, since a person's sex is no one else's business, your argument fails since it can now be said that the division is gender, and not sex, based. — Janus

No, it is so. An intent to disguise oneself in a way that makes people think you are something you are not is deception. You may agree its a reasonable thing to deceive in this case. You may say you think its ok to deceive. What you cannot do if you are being reasonable and honest with me in the discussion, is deny that it is not an intent to deceive someone else.

And finally, you are still dodging the larger point. I said it doesn't matter that you look like the opposite sex. If gender is more important than sex, and we are to divide bathrooms by gender and not sex, then you can be a 6 foot tall hairy neanderthal looking man with fully intact genetils and higher than average testosterone. It doesn't matter, because a person's internal gender has nothing to do with their sex. Meaning if gender is more important than sex for separation, then this man can walk into female spaces without any issue.

You keep harping on the deception part when deception is practically a non-issue for the discussion. I'm putting forth the idea that if we do separate by gender, you don't need to deceive. Is this what we want? Should it be that we separate spaces by gender instead of sex, and can you please give me a reason why?

I think the answer to the OP has been made. Language use is determined by a community. Look at how people use the words. — frank

That is not addressing the OP. I'm guessing you didn't actually read it. Quote or point out what you're addressing instead of a straw man please.

The trans woman in the video says "Cis women know things I will never know." — frank

And how does this address the OP? You're off in somewhere else land.

I learn from this to refer to people who were female at birth "cis women ." — frank

Great. What does cis woman mean? Why do we add cis to women? Did you think that I didn't know what that means, or say it doesn't exist? Where does that matter in the OP? Where does it matter in the topic?

So it looks like we have different types of women, trans and cis. — frank

If you are referring to the adjectives that change the context of woman to mean, "The gendered expectations that society places on an adult human female", then yes. You have not added or detracted from the OP in any way. You basically said, "2 is a number" then gave me a smiley face like a child who first learned how to count. No duh boy, this is an adult conversation.

Not reading and addressing the OP is amateur hour Frank. You have over 18 thousand posts. If you want to act like it, read the actual post and address it. You know, basics?

You have omitted one important element for your argument. How do you know that public toilets are separated according to sex, rather than according to gender? If in the past sex and gender were equivalent, that is no longer the case―so it now becomes a matter of interpretation. — Janus

Janus, if you're unable to come to an argument in good faith, just thank the person for the conversation, agree to disagree, and move on. Your second line admits the answer I gave you for your first line.

As to your 'deception' argument―if it is not possible to know what sex others in the public toilet are, in the absence of asking there is no deception. — Janus

No, if toilets are divided by sex, you disguise yourself as the other sex and enter anyway, that is defacto deception. Your entire argument is, "But they can get away with it." That doesn't invalidate the fact that its separated by sex, and you're not supposed to be in there if you aren't that sex. We can debate whether it should be separated by sex, whether sex separation is enforceable, or a whole host of other issues from here, but if you are not going to concede that hiding what you are to enter somewhere you're not supposed to be is not deception, then you're not discussing in good faith and have nothing substantial to add to the discussion.

Come on Janus, I like you and have been patient. Be honest and good faith or just leave.

A long response. thanks for giving my pots such enthusiastic consideration - it pleases me. — Banno

Of course! It was a good couple of posts and worth response.

Our chat has been quite civil, but I suspect a call-and-answer reply might be a bit too confrontational. — Banno

Please do not fear from my end. I only get confrontational if someone else does first. Feel free at any time to simply say, "I feel we've heard from each other on the issue, we can agree to disagree." As long as it does not become personal my way and a good faith effort in respect is made, I'll discuss as deep as you want it to go. Take your time on a response as well, I do not take it as any admittance or weakness of an argument from your part.

Female toilets provide facilities for taking care of tampons and sanitary pads and male toilets have urinals because men can piss conveniently standing up. Those facts have nothing to do with the issue. — Janus

I said, "Bathrooms are divided by sex" You said, "How do you know that?" That is my answer. That is a direct answer to your question unlike your avoidance of mine.

So you are saying it is ok for someone to deceive another person, and as long as they are not caught, the deception is ok?
— Philosophim

It's a trivial point since no one really knows in public toilets (except at the urinal if you're a "peeker") what another's sex is. — Janus

Then your answer is, "Yes, its ok to deceive another person as long as they are not caught". I find this immoral. If a person dressed as a girl scout asked for a donation to the girl scouts, and I never found out my money went to them instead of the girl scouts, is that ok?" If not, what's the difference? Why is it ok to deceive in this instance, but not in others?

Since you seem to be avoiding my other questions and points after them being pointed out again, the default is that you are avoiding them. And if you are avoiding them after a gentle reminder (accident's happen after all), that is the same as conceding them. I'll list what you've conceded and you have one last chance to counter them if you wish.

"Your sex is not your own business in many areas of life, and some of these places are separated by sex"
You have note answered "Should gender override sex in the law?" Since my point is "Yes" and you have not countered it, then be default you are implicitly saying "No".

Further, trans gender demands do not require a male or female to have transitioned in any way to override the sex difference. — Philosophim

I noted that one does not have to disguise their sex if gender overrides sex separation. I have noted gender does not override sex separation, you have not countered that, so whether one is recognized or not, you have not given an argument why gender should be more important legally than sex in sex separated spaces.

Also you haven't said where it is written that the division of toilets is one of sex rather than gender. — Janus

I have never said where it is written. Gender as a sociological concept was created long after bathrooms were separated by sex. The evidence of sex separation has been given two times now. Both the provided mechanisms of the facilities, and the fact that 'gender' was not a concept when separated bathrooms were invented. Since it is also not written that bathrooms were separated by gender, for one major fact that the concept of gender did not exist prior to this separation, what argument are you giving that it was separate by gender?

↪Philosophim They say they "feel 100% like a transgender woman".

Can you argue that they are wrong here? Can you show that they are mistaken? — Banno

No, nor am I. That's not what the topic is about. So far I have not included in any of the discussion that sex or gender has anything to do with feelings. Sex is an objective existence, gender is a subjective view of societal expectations for one sex and your actions as a trans gendered person are to act in the expectations of the opposite sex while rejecting your own.

That's why its off topic. I don't see the relevance. Feel free to point out how it fits in the current discussion.

And it humanises the too-cerebral discourse here to have a transgender person visible. — Banno

Not at all. If we were debating whether a person feels trans or not, then yes. That's not the topic. Their feelings are irrelevant to the context of the OP.

Also give me a moment to respond, you spammed like 3 posts. :D

This does not belong on these forums.
— Philosophim

Do you want me to delete it? — frank

No, I want you to do better. You're a long term forum goer and I expect a post that addresses the logic of the OP and discussion, not an emotional appeal that does not address the topic.

It is not prejudiced to note that a trans gendered man is an adult human female.
— Philosophim
I'd not be so quick to affirm this. As we agreed, I think, applying "adult human female" is to an end, and not immutable. — Banno

But it is a complete concept. I'm also not seeing that as a counter to my point that noting that concept is not prejudiced. Can you explain how with would be prejudgment apart from application? If a group of people agree that woman means, "Adult human female", and that is the only way they apply it, how is that prejudiced?

Taking it as immutable seems reassuring to those of a conservative leaning, but it leads to its own set of issues. — Banno

What does reassurance have anything to do with this? It is not a conservative or liberal concept. Its merely a concept. It is as simple as me stating, "An example of a capital letter a is "A"." It is not exclusionary to another font type of A, but it is accurate within the context of this font type.

All of which brings with it issues around who and what gets to decide how we use the language hereabouts.

The philosophical point is that, as we have seen, appeals to essentialism fail. — Banno

Sure. You should read my knowledge context paper by the way Banno. Don't be dissuaded by the simple start, its intended to appeal to people regardless of their philosophical background. I would be interested in your view on it.

I am not pointing to essentialism, but rationalism. And what is most rational? Non-contradictory outcomes in reality. There is no contradiction in using the term woman to mean 'the gendered actions of an adult human female", nor any contradiction in the concept of woman as "adult human female" when we adjust for context. The contradiction comes in when one context attempts to express its superiority within the other's context. For example, claiming that because we have a sex context for woman, this invalidates a gendered concept of woman and vice versa.

My point is that once you clearly define the terms, "Trans men are men" is not enough to define the proper context within the broader language. The only context which makes rational sense is if the phrase means, "Trans men are adult human females that act in the gendered way of a man".

I understand the flexibility of language well, but that doesn't mean we can't come to correct and incorrect applications of concepts when addressing each other. Since language's shared rational goal is to communicate ideas clearly to another person, language that is unclear, conflationary in intent, or confusing should be criticized and readjusted. Arguably, its a key tenant of philosophy itself.

And so we might go back to the common courtesy of addressing someone in the way in which they prefer to be addressed. — Banno

I don't see why it is common courtesy. If someone claims God is real, is it common courtesy for me to agree with them? Is it wrong and rude of me to disagree with them? Should I choose what I perceive to be the less rational idea simply because someone will be upset that I don't choose it? I'm not sure how your argument so far leads to the above conclusion.

Dividing people on the basis of gender was convenient, but is no longer a simple task. — Banno

We divided people on the basis of sex. The push was to allow someone's gender to override the division of sex. Meaning that a man or a woman who is not on hormones nor had any surgery, should be able to access sex divided spaces due to an internal feeling that they act in a gendered way associated with the other sex.

A hermaphrodite would not be male or female, but contain the gametes of both.
— Philosophim

Notice that you could equally well say that a hermaphrodite would be both male and female. — Banno

Right, if we change the context of male and female once again. We do a lot of shorthand in language, but we should take care not to lose accuracy in intent. The rational full expression would be, "A hermaphrodite has both male and female gametes". But they aren't actually a male and female within the context we have been using thus far. They just share the reproductive parts. A key to rational discussion is to put a 'lock' on the context of terms and explicitly note when the context changes. Otherwise we commit the fallacy of elevating the term over the concept that we're actually discussing.

We might say they are male and female, or neither male nor female. There is no fact of the matter; there is a choice in how we talk about these real, actual people. — Banno

Right, and it is about clear and rational concepts which can be communicated in a useful language. There are very real outcomes of a body being male or female. If we are to accurately capture the biology behind it, we need objective concepts. That's sex. Gender is the concept of a sociological opinion of how a sex should act in a group. This is a clearly defined term which can be used rationally as well. The 'matter of fact' is the accuracy to reality. We didn't have to use the terms "2+2=4" to capture the reality behind it, but those terms accurately capture the reality behind it to great success.

Yes, "Words are the capturing of concepts, and concepts can vary between individuals", but what a community choose to say tells us about that community. Will we be inclusive or exclusive? Will we "other" some people in an arbitrary way? — Banno

I feel like a step was missed here and you've lost me. How are these clear terms that describe rational concepts 'othering'? These are not arbitrary terms. No where in the definitions themselves is there any concept of status, rights, or arbitrary exclusions.

Why do you need to put your gender on your driver's licence? — Banno

It is your sex, not your gender. Gender as the modern day concept came later. And I want to be clear that gender is 'locked' to the sociological expectations we put on a sex's actions in public, not a synonym for sex.

We could also ask the same about eye color and height. The reason is statistic data collection and identification, especially before pictures. If I had my ID stolen for example and my name was "Jesse", it could be used by either a male or female.

To keep the scope of the discussion from exploding at this time, can we for now simply assume that society has identified people's sex as important in certain areas of legal life? This will allow us to first discuss gender in regards to sex, and if you think it should be more important than sex. If we can conclude there first, we can then go back to ask whether society should divide by sex at all. Do you find it fair to table that aspect for now?

Why do we divide runners based on their genitals? — Banno

Let us instead note that we do. Now lets add, "If we divide based on sex, should we ignore that and divide by gender instead?" I'll let you answer that first.

For me, the term "incomplete" is borrowed from logic. The categories do not exhaust all possibilities. Just as in formal logic a system can be incomplete if there are true statements it cannot express, our categories do not cover every possible biological or social configuration. This is why intersex humans, hermaphroditic organisms, and potentially novel or future ways of being can exist without breaking the logic of our classifications. — Banno

I'll let my earlier points stand with one addition. This also does not deny that these terms and future ways CAN break and/or contradict the logic of our classifications.

That we are having this discussion shows that the usage of the terms at issue is not settled. — Banno

I feel we are in agreement that the contextual meaning of male as sex and male as gender are not in debate. I feel the debate has evolved into the question of whether we should elevate gender division over sex division.

This is a really good speech by a trans woman. Early on, she says she's been asked if she feels 100% like a woman. She answers that she feels 100% like a transgender woman. — frank

This is not a rational argument. This is apologetics. I am not asking for an appeal to a secular religion. I am asking rational questions.

How does that person feeling like they are a transgender woman address the OP?

I found myself so grateful for the nod to an attitude that I can understand, that I was inclined to honor everything about this person, their decisions, their story. Her story. — frank

When I heard Saint Michael explain the love of God, I understood it fully. I was inclined to honor God, God's grace, His story.

Your phrase is an attempt at assertion without an argument. This does not belong on these forums. Please explain how this either supports or counters the OP, or this is off topic preaching.

When I said that they are not exclusive, I had in mind such things as the existence of hermaphrodites, and intersex organisms, both human and otherwise. These are physical characteristics. — Banno

I might need a more detailed understanding by exclusive. Do you mean that men and women (by sex) are not exclusive of hermaphrodites? Because a hermaphrodite has both male and female gametes ('egg and sperm'). A hermaphrodite would not be male or female, but contain the gametes of both.

Do you mean that man and woman (by gender) are not exclusive of hermaphrodites? Since one can behave in a gendered way regardless of sex, and gender is purely subjective, there are no limitations on what body can act in a particularly gendered way.

And with incomplete, I was allowing for the unknown, allowing that we might change our usage of "male' and "female" for some reason, or use these words in novel ways in novel situations. — Banno

I see. I agree with the concept, but not necessarily the word choice. Words are the capturing of concepts, and concepts can vary between individuals. To me, an incomplete term denotes a concept that has not been fully fleshed out yet. But the concept of "An adult female" and "A person who behaves in the gendered way a society expects females to act" seem to be complete concepts. A person can attempt to add a new concept or adjust an old concept, but I do not find this makes a concept incomplete, this is simply how language works.

To give an example of what I would consider an incomplete concept, "A God". Because it is merely an idea and has no concrete indicator of existence, it is a flexible and difficult to ascertain what it means without further context. Because there is no underlying reality, it is a concept only, and based purely on the whims of the individual.

Incomplete concepts like the above are difficult to discuss because the real key is first to come to agreement what the concept is before one can ascertain the concepts usefulness or truth. I see the contexts of women and gendered woman as complete, identifiable, and clear in use. But maybe I am wrong.

The use of "male", "female, "man", and "woman" is not fixed immutably by nature, but chosen by people in order to do certain things. — Banno

I agree, but that's every single word we use. The question is whether we can apply the concepts underlying the words rationally. Irrational contexts generally lead to irrational results, which are outcomes of reality that are independent of context. I may note that a 'rotten apple' (concept) is 'healthy' (word), but if I believe the term describes a concept that is healthy, the reality of the rotten apple will end in a contradictory result.

The question in analyzing the term 'trans men are men' is if it results in unclear or contradictory concepts of use based on context. "trans men are adult human males" results in a contradiction because by sex, they are adult human females. The flexibility of contexts in language doesn't mean that anything goes or that we cannot come to rational outcomes. Our terms and personal concepts may remain flexible, but real outcomes do not.

And it is often about the acceptance or rejection of people who's behaviour differs from our own, or from our expectations. — Banno

But do you believe I am doing so in my approach? Does the clarification of the terms entail in any way a rejection of a person simply because they have transitioned?

Feeling unworthy of everything, feeling incapable, frustrated, confused, trapped inside a reality I thought I was not built for. So, what one might describe as pain, came early. — GreekSkeptic

Ah, its ok. You're just detaching from the expectation of others. When you are a child adults are attempting to guide you to 'success' from their viewpoint. They want you to fit into society and find respect from other people. They want you to pursue your goals and contribute to society. Sometimes adults show you what they personally value, then push you to master it to see if you value it too.

When you base your life on the expectations of others then stop, it can be a little jarring. Its like breaking a habit. You have finally grown in maturity enough to realize, "Oh, they prepared me the best they knew how so I could be empowered in my own life to make my own decisions". Of course, if you've never had any personal goals, wishes or desires besides fulfilling other's goals, you have nothing to pursue.

This is most people. Very few of us have real goals or desires in life once basic living is achieved. It is the rare and special person who finds such passions in life. There is nothing wrong with you if you do not have one. There is nothing wrong if you never obtain one. The goal of life is simply, "To exist". To experience the unique viewpoint of life that only you can have. Sometimes that results in something great happening for oneself or society. Most of the time its really the gift of existing.

What no one can teach you is what you value yourself. Right now it seems you value questioning the assumptions you have made in your life until now. That's fine. Keep doing so. Just make sure not to neglect your own health and wellbeing while doing so. Exercise, hold a job, and enjoy the experience of living itself wherever you can. Try new things if you are unsatisfied, and hold onto those things that content you.

Read about Kim Ung-yong, who holds the highest IQ on record of 210. Invited to work at Nasa at age 7, he became a University professor:

"As of 2007, he served as adjunct faculty at Chungbuk National University. On March 14, 2014, he became an associate professor at Shinhan University and vice president of the North Kyeong-gi Development Research Center.

In 2010, Kim denied the idea of being a "failed genius." "I'm trying to tell people that I'm happy the way I am. But why do people have to call my happiness a failure?" He added, "Some think that high IQ people can be omnipotent, but that's not true. Look at me, I don't have musical talent nor do I excel at sports. [...] Society shouldn't judge anyone with unilateral standards – everyone has different learning levels, hopes, talents and dreams and we should respect that"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ung-yong

So work on your own path in life. Keep questioning, keep seeking, and I hope you find enjoyment and fulfillment in life.

It's a non-issue because your sex is your own business. — Janus

It is not when we have divisions based on sex. I need to declare my sex on my license. I need to declare sex for medical care. We divide sex in all sorts of ways proving that your sex is NOT only your business. I do not mind you claiming "It shouldn't be anyone else's business" and you give your reason why. But by fact, it is societies business what sex you are in many situations.

You have provided no argument as to why it is important outside of women's sport. — Janus

I clearly did. I'll repost:

Because sex separation is based on biology. Women's bathrooms do not have urinals. Females have periods that they need to take care of. Heterosexual norms put female nakedness at risk to male nakedness. — Philosophim

What you have not done is answer my direct question to you, "Should gender override sex in the law?" I've demonstrated clearly we have spaces separated by sex, and you have not given me reasons explaining why they are not separated by sex. I doubt you'll be able to do this, so you'll need to agree with me that we have spaces separated by sex. Its on you to explain why this is wrong, and why gender should override sex separated spaces.

People don't generally know what sex the others in a woman's toilet is. — Janus

You are again ignoring my rejoinder to this:

So you are saying it is ok for someone to deceive another person, and as long as they are not caught, the deception is ok? That doesn't change the fact the spaces are divided by sex. Further, trans gender demands do not require a male or female to have transitioned in any way to override the sex difference. A man in men's clothing who appears to be a man in all intents and purposes should be allowed to use the female space because they feel like a woman internally. Remember that gender has nothing to do with one's sex. So a person can be a gender of the other sex, but looks wise appear stereotypical to their sex. — Philosophim

It does not matter whether someone knows that you are a male or a female in a sex separated space, if its separated by sex, you do not belong there. It is up to you to explain why gender should override sex separation. If you cannot, then my point is explained, rational, and stands.

Do you object to transmen using men's toilets? — Janus

Yes. You should not have had to ask that. If a space is divided by sex, then if you are not that sex, you do not belong there. I am waiting for you to explain why this is not the case.

Who says public toilets are separated by sex, not gender? Is it written somewhere? On toilets perhaps? — Janus

Because sex separation is based on biology. Women's bathrooms do not have urinals. Females have periods that they need to take care of. Heterosexual norms put female nakedness at risk to male nakedness.

In any case if a transwoman looks like a woman how are the others in the toilet to know she is not a woman? Women don't see each other's genitals in public toilets. So, what's the problem. — Janus

So you are saying it is ok for someone to deceive another person, and as long as they are not caught, the deception is ok? That doesn't change the fact the spaces are divided by sex. Further, trans gender demands do not require a male or female to have transitioned in any way to override the sex difference. A man in men's clothing who appears to be a man in all intents and purposes should be allowed to use the female space because they feel like a woman internally. Remember that gender has nothing to do with one's sex. So a person can be a gender of the other sex, but looks wise appear stereotypical to their sex.

If a transwoman looks like a man, so what? — Janus

That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying you can enter or not enter cross sex spaces because of your looks. I'm noting that sex divided spaces are divided by the reality of your sex.

It's a non-issue. — Janus

Turns out its not. When you have a rule divided by sex, and someone not of that sex defies that rule, people have issues.

I'm going to ask again, because you need to if you want to have traction to your argument. Do you believe that gender should override sex in both culture and law? I clearly say no. I'm awaiting your answer.

↪Philosophim What actual problem is there with a transwoman using women's public toilets (which is what I assume you are referring to)? — Janus

Because public toilets are separated by sex, not gender. A trans woman by definition can have male genetalia and male hormones. The trans demand is that gender override sex differences in society. Do you agree with this?

The simple questions are often mistaken as insignificant. Th ekin dof questions adults ask are relatively stupid and ideologically charged. The purity of innocence that children possess leads them to cut through the slop of so-called 'maturity'. — I like sushi

I never said a simple question was insignificant. But simple questions are easier to answer than more complex ones. Part of the difficulty in answering a complex question is sifting through the cobwebs of incorrect ideology, differences in lived experience, and goofy things like personal attacks and hostile arguments.

I have never suggested to a single student that they should choose their degree based on what income they may be able to make. — I like sushi

You are not reading my statement with a charitable outlook then. I taught math. I was constantly asked, "Why should I learn math?" One of the answers is that if you are good at math, there are many high paying jobs with excellent benefits that are in demand and available. I never told a student who wanted to be a psychologist that they should go into math. You have an oddly hostile response here.

Be brave. Tell us. — I like sushi

Already have. Check out the posts I've made. I talk about trans gender issues. I talk about what an objective morality must have as its base. I constructed a theory of knowledge that solves a major problem of induction.

My point about the field comes from my personal experience. I have a master's in philosophy. I pursued it as a career with full passion and intent to explore, master, and publish works that would help people. I was discouraged every step of the way to 'stay in a lane', 'find what was popular' and just comment on old works to meet publishing quotas.

And yet, Wittgenstein was a social conservative who wasn't pleased with women having voting rights. I imagine he would be even more disappointed to see people using his philosophy in defense of transgenderism. You can't disconnect the man from his ideas. — Sirius

I disagree entirely. Let me be clear, author's are absolutely irrelevant to ideas. The idea is all that matters. If it is rational, clear, and useful, then it stands apart from the author. If the author made a misstep due to a misapplication of that law they crafted, then the author is incorrect. This is an immense logical fallacy we need to get over in society. It does not matter what a person has done. if their idea is correct, it is correct. If it is wrong, it is wrong. A murderer who gives a dropped wallet back to the person on the street has done a right action, while a saint who steals that wall has done a wrong action.

If anything, like Hegel, Wittgenstein is an advocate of master-slave rule forming dialectic. For him, all of us blindly following traditions is essential to mastering rules of all kinds. — Sirius

I think this is a misunderstanding of Wittgenstein. Witt believed in webs of language that worked. Not that were merely traditional. The reason why Wittenstein supported science was simply because it was an immensely successful web of concepts and ideas. Not that I think Wittenstein gave a reasonable answer to 'what web should we choose', but he most certainly would have frowned on the idea of following traditions for tradition's sake.

Sure, but those for whom it is an issue because they are trans are unfortunate victims of unthinking prejudice. — Janus

Prejudice is not a reason to have unclear, conflationary, or deceptive language. Blacks used to be discriminated against, and this didn't end by pretending they had a different skin color. It was acknowledging real difference while demonstrating that difference did not rationally matter within greater society. There is no rational reason why having a different ethnicity means you need to drink from an ethnic fountain. Prejudice and racism are unreasoned beliefs enforced by action.

It is not prejudiced to note that a trans gendered man is an adult human female. It is not prejudiced to ask whether a person's gender should allow access to cross sex spaces. It is prejudice to stop people from questioning this. And it is abject stupidity to say we cannot converse about a subject as if conversation and thinking about the subject is necessarily prejudiced.

As I said earlier, apart from transwomen in womens' sport, it is a very simple issue―people just need to live and let live, but of course they won't until the prejudices die a natural death. — Janus

Excellent, then there is no problem with trans people staying out of cross sex spaces. Because when you ask for access to cross sex spaces when you are not that sex, you are asking other people to not live and let live, but to bend the rules in how they live for you. Do you really want to live and let live, or do you want to force other people to bend to a certain ideology?

Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving Banno!

Better to drop the idea of a "personal meaning" altogether, and instead of introspection of any sort, look at how the word is actually being used, both in the thread and in the wider community. This form Wittgenstein — Banno

No problem there. I would think my viewpoint is not counter to Wittgenstein. I agree that there are two contexts, or meanings behind a term based on situation, culture, or use.

Moreover, it is not true that there are "...rules and intents that allow an explicit standard of communication and vocabulary to start from", if by this is meant that language functions by following rules. — Banno

To be clear, there is no innate rule of language that exists apart from people. But there are more and less effective ways to communicate when we include anyone who is using the language. The point of the OP is to indicate that the phrase 'trans men are men' is unclear when any speaker of the English language is exposed to it, regardless of culture or background.

These make sense, and are standard English. Metaphor an novelty are not outside of plain English, but central to it. — Banno

Agreed.

We have found it useful to differentiate physically determined attributes of males and females from social norms relating to men and women. At issue is how we might maintain consistency in this new usage. — Banno

Also agreed.

We ought keep in mind that neither the classifications male/female nor man/woman are exclusive nor complete. — Banno

I disagree with this. Male and female are not defined apart from one another, but by the comparison of one to the other. If there was only one 'sex', then that would be 'the being'. Sex is indicated by biological differences in potential reproductive capability and roles that are exclusionary of one another.
In this they are complete.

On this account, "Trans women are women" is a tautology, or a category mistake. Contrast "Trans women are male", which will be true in most cases. — Banno

Also agreed. I think we just have a slight difference of viewpoint in how we get there. Good post Banno, thanks!

I should preface this by saying I don't think gender should exist at all, as it places unnecessary limitations on people for acting outside of what we as a society consider normal or expected for a certain sex. — MrLiminal

I think gender as a concept is fine. What I don't think is fine is elevating it in importance beyond what it is, which is a subjective societal prejudice at best, sexism at worst. And any idea that it should be elevated in importance or priority over a person's sex itself is simply irrational.

Currently the question "Are trans men/women men/women" feels like it falls into the same trap as "Is water wet?" The question itself is inherently vague in a way that invites misinterpretation and arguments. — MrLiminal

Agreed. The point of the OP is to point this out and note that the phrase is poor English and should not be used as a meaningful phrase. Instead, if people want to communicate the issue they are trying to convey clearly, they should alter the phrase to be less ambiguous in its intents.

All perfectly normal. When we are born we are not precious moral agents. We are selfish, self-centered little animals that have to learn about the world. It is not evil to be young and make mistakes in the process of growing. Yes, you acted terrible for a time, but you learned and grew from that.

A 'bad' person is someone who refuses to grow or refuses to acknowledge they might need to improve. Perhaps you were bad yesterday, that does not mean you have to be a bad person today or in the future. Look back at your past actions with a motive to not be that in the future. What is past is past, and if you are not learning from that past but using it as a means to punish yourself, you are not growing and improving. So don't beat yourself up over your past actions, just move forward and be the better person we all want to be.

I think this largely boils down to semantics and modern discourse not having the words to talk about this in a way that makes sense. — MrLiminal

I agree. I also believe it is the job of philosophers to step forward when current language fails us.

To my mind, this discussion makes more sense if you equate "sex" with biological sex and consider "gender" as a type of social class that is different from but heavily informed by society's interpretation of the roles a person should fill based on biological sex. — MrLiminal

Fortunately that's the actual definitions used. I am referencing gender theory and the formal understanding of these terms according to that context.

The gender/sex split has, in my opinion, greatly confused modern discourse on this as people constantly conflate the two. — MrLiminal

And that is part of the purpose of this question. How do we use terms correctly in a formal sentence? How do we avoid ambiguity and conflation? I think I've pointed out answers to these, but do you agree with the reasoning behind them?

If gender is entirely and exclusively a social construct, as many feminists and even trans people like to say, then trans women are just men who want access to women's spaces. — flannel jesus

Correct.

On the other hand if gender has a real biological/psychological basis, then it seems at least imaginable that there could be people born with a penis but who are nevertheless psychologically or neurologically "female". — flannel jesus

Gender has a real psychological basis. It is a culture's prejudgments or expectations of public behavior that it either believes or imposes on each sex that are apart from the biology of the sex itself.

For example, there is no biological basis behind only men wearing top hats. But we can imagine an individual who thinks, "Women should not wear top hats." That's gender. Of course, we can also imagine a person who thinks, "Men should not wear top hats." That's also gender. This is because gender is not objective, but subjective. You can of course get a group of people to hold the same subjective outlook. This is seen multiple times on culture such as, "God is real" or "Step on a crack and you break your mother's back". We often have group beliefs and rituals that have no objective basis behind them. Gender is a belief system behind the behaviors and actions of a member of one sex in public.

Thus in terms of gender, one cannot be psychologically female objectively, only subjectively. That is because one's view of gendered behavior could very well contradict the definition of another's. A woman might say, "Only men wear top hats, but I'm going to anyway," and in their mind they are trans gender. However in the mind of another who believes, "Only women wear top hats," she's not trans gender.

In terms of neurology, that is not trans gender, that would be 'trans sexual'. Sex is the biological reality of a being, gender is the sociological cultural expectations it is under depending on who it is surrounded by. To demonstrate that someone has neurology associated with the other sex, there must be an objective study to find what areas of the brain are exclusive to one sex and not the other in almost all cases.

The jury is still largely out on this. Our understanding of the brain isn't in the stone age anymore, but its not exactly going to the moon yet either. My readings on the issue have generally concluded that there are neurological differences that more resemble what is female in the brains of homosexual men. We of course do not say homosexuals are 'women in men's bodies'. When heterosexual men who have gender dysphoria have their brains examined, there is no statistically significant difference between heterosexual men who have gender dysphoria. Same with homosexual men in comparison to other homosexual men. After men are put on estrogen, the brain does actually begin to change its structure in limited ways to brain structures that are more often associated with females. But again, brain science involving sex differences is still natal.

As for what we know now, there is no indicator that someone having trans gender issues has a brain difference, but a psychological difference. Just like you can I can have the same brain type but process the color 'orange' in our head differently. I may like the color orange, you may not. You may be very enamored with the social expectations of the other sex, I don't care. It seems that a trans gender individual has a combination of being enamored with the social expectations of the other sex vs disliking the cultural expectations of their own sex that they attempt to reject the gender of their own sex and take on the gender of the other.

I think this is a topic where philosophy (if we can call it that) is employed for an agenda and begins to look absurd. — Mikie

Philosophy is employed here for thinking about a topic that confuses many people. The goal of philosophy has always been to get to a clear and logical understanding of matters about the world. This is ontology in the philosophy of language. Calling it 'an agenda' would be true if it was inflexible preaching, a lack of rational discussion and responses, or a means to simply demean, insult, or threaten people into submission.

This is just a topic to think about. You are free to disagree, point out flaws, ask questions, etc. That is the goal of philosophy. To take the issues of the day within language and being and ask, "What does this really mean?"

What is being presupposed by the word “trans” anyway? From what to what? One sex to another, or one gender to another, presumably. I hold that the latter is absolutely possible — the former isn’t. — Mikie

It is the later. The OP essentially notes that 'woman' without adjectives or modifiers normatively means "Adult human female". "Trans" adjusts woman to mean, "A person who takes on the non-biological gendered behaviors that society expects an adult human female to exhibit".

We can define things any way we like. There is not one “true” definition of anything, except maybe in mathematics. — Mikie

Not even in math. Math and language are both symbols that represent concepts. When I say the word "One", what do you imagine in your head? Its not the same as what I'm imagining. When I say the word "tree" its the same. However, this is not a discussion about the implicit meaning behind words within a person's personal context. This is about explicit meaning within an established language. Just like 'one' can have a personal meaning to you, when taken in the explicit language of mathematics, it has a clear explicit definition that must be agreed upon by all parties for the term to have any useful meaning. As long as when one is using the explicit meaning of the language, their implicit term does not contradict or violate that explicit meaning of the term, implicit meanings are highly flexible in an explicit conversation.

I’ll call anyone what they wish to be called. I’ll call you Janus the Great if you prefer— but before I actually believe it, I’d need to see some evidence or a convincing argument. — Mikie

True. You're essentially saying, "You have an implicit meaning behind that phrase, and as long as that phrase does not actually counter the explicit meaning it would imply in an objective language, I'm fine with that." You would of course have issue if this person rear ended you and gave you "Janus the Great" as his legal name when it is objectively not. When you are both in the explicit context where both parties need to have a common understanding, the phrase matters greatly. Asking your insurance company to find "Janus the Great" is going to give you problems collecting the claim.

If someone wants to implicitly say, "Trans women are women", they can of course mean whatever they choose. But the moment they start demanding that it is explicitly true within the language, "I am Janus the Great, and as such you will kneel before me or die", people have full logical recourse to say, "No, you're Percival Smithers with no title or power to demand what you want of others." Implicitly, Percival might be offended and angry, but his implicit claims of reality can always rightly be overruled by explicit claims to reality.

I think it a pretty good OP, of a sort. But a part of the issue is the very idea of starting with "explicit meaning in the phrasing of the term". — Banno

I think it a pretty good OP, of a sort. But a part of the issue is the very idea of starting with "explicit meaning in the phrasing of the term". — Banno

I think I see your point. It is true that terms hold personal meaning to us. My point with being explicit is taking that context into standard English. Languages have rules and intents that allow an explicit standard of communication and vocabulary to start from. I am not denying that there are not implicit definitions to words people use, but I'm also not denying there are explicit uses either.

In a language one can use an implicit personalized version of a term as long as it does not counter the explicit use of the term in the language. Thus if I'm speaking English, I cannot state, "The sun is the moon." If I have some personal meaning behind that, I need to either add new meanings of the terms, demonstrate its a metaphor, or add more context to explain my meaning. In standard English without these things, "The sun is the moon" is an illogical statement.

The phrase, "Trans women are women" is an explicit claim within the language that demands other people who speak the language accept the phrase. Whenever you involve other people into accepted terminology, it must be the case that an explicit standard is formed between all speakers of that language. Yes, there can, and will be implicit wiggle room, but if there is not an explicit agreement between people in at least some core of the term, then communication simply cannot occur. If I hold "the moon means the sun" and you hold "the sun means the moon" we aren't using the same concepts while talking to each other and will each think the other is spouting nonsense.

So the point of the OP is to establish two definitions of women, and explain when using English properly, "Trans woman are women" is most logically interpreted as "Trans women are adult human females". This is of course wrong. So the phrase needs to adjust to be more accurate among English speakers. "Trans women are men who take on the gendered role of women" is a proper sentence that clearly explains the honest explicit meaning of the phrase.

The thread might best be understood as a negotiation between the players here, looking for agreement on a way to use the words women, man, gender, male, female, and so on. But folk talk as if there are correct and incorrect ways to use the term, to which each has some private access, their use being the right one, the other uses being wrong for various reasons. — Banno

I hope you see this is not an argument for personal implicit use, but an argument about proper explicit meaning within an established language.