The part to note is that almost all of this is a red herring. Its irrelevant if she remembers or not. Its just word play to get us out of the raw math. The odds are still the same.

Flip heads, 1 result
Flip tails, 2 results

Put the pile of results as total possible outcomes. You have 3 possible outcomes. In two of the outcomes, tails was flipped. Put it in a hat and draw one. You have a 2/3rd chance that its a tails outcome.

To be clear, it is a 50/50 shot as to whether heads or tails is picked. Meaning that both are equally like to occur. But since we have more outcomes on tails, and we're looking at the probability of what already happened based on outcomes, not prediction of what will happen, its a 2/3rds chance for tails.

This completely ignores the fact that society's expectations have changed. Having long hair and wearing earrings is no longer considered feminine, so a man that grows their hair long and wears earrings is no longer transitioning because those traits have now been taken off the table of transgenderism. — Harry Hindu

Correct. While a biological male and female do not change with time and culture, gender does. It is a subjective and flexible expectation that can vary over time, culture, and even individuals.

There is nothing that prevents men from growing long hair or wearing earrings, but there are things that prevent a man from getting pregnant. — Harry Hindu

Of course, because sex, or biology, is how people reproduce. A transgender woman is not a woman by sex, period. Any honest transgender person should have zero problem with this. Anyone who does is using an unclear gender/sex distinction and the equivalence fallacy where it benefits them personally. The people who generally do this are not simply transgender, they are transsexual people. Or people who want to be seen as the opposite sex, and see crossing genders as part of that goal. Does taking on a cross gender imply you are the other sex in any way? Of course not.

The purpose of the term transgender for transsexuals is to hide the term 'transsexual' as that has a largely negative connotation in society. Transgender is seen as more normal, as everyone crosses the gender divide at times, and some people just like to cross a little more right? So much more that they need to try to change their biology and be seen as the other sex.

The logical conclusion for a person who wishes to be 'transgender' is 'be what you want'. As long as you don't think it has anything to do with your actual sex in anyway, its fine. Its not where the issue lies. Its with transsexuals who wish to use and confuse gendered language as a euphamism to hide the fact they want to change their sex. These are the people who insist, "Trans men are men". Non transsexual transgender people generally have no disagreement with the distinction that they are one sex taking on the gender of another. It is those who take on the gender of another, and that is driven by consequence of wanting to be the other sex that wish to insist on you using terms traditionally used for sex for them. The insertion of, 'but gender' is a ploy to get the emotional fulfillment of hearing that word and emotionally equating that with sex. Since they know you won't do that if you see the term as a sex term, they use duplicity and unclear language to make you think its 'gender'. A fantastic example of tricking using another person for one's own emotional self-satisfaction.

This is a pet peeve for me. Though people may use the word "construct" to deny the reality of a thing, that's not the philosophical meaning of the word. — frank

I did not mean to imply that constructs are not real. They are real ideas. God is a real idea. It doesn't mean that 'God' as an identifying and existent entity is real.

In terms of gender, a realist would treat gender as a thing. So your own gender would involve contact with that gender thing. A constructivist would say gender is dynamic (I'm sure Joshs would approve) and made of countless interactions, some of which involves heritage. — frank

I tend to avoid terms like realist and constructivist because according to you, a realist would interpret what a 'realist' is differently than a constructivist would interpret a 'constructivist' as. This adds unnecessary terms and confuses the point I think you're trying to make.

Very simply gender is an expectation of one or more individuals in how a sex should act culturally in relation to the reality of its own sex. It is culturally sanctioned prejudice. "A man must be aggressive. Oh, you think a man can be timid? 'We' do not sanction such behavior." When gender is taken too far, it becomes culturally sanctioned sexism. So gender is very real. But its real in its culturally accepted prejudice about one's sex, not real as in a dictate that one's biology must follow because of the laws of physics.

This ignores that I said "carve off".

That tells you I don't take your logical conclusion in hand. — AmadeusD

I may not have understood your exact meaning then. According to the definitions above, sex and gender are two different identities. One's sex is one's biological embodiment, gender is a cultural expectation of how one of that embodiment should act culturally in relation to their sex. When you mean you didn't take my conclusion in hand, did you not agree with it or was this merely a separate proposal?

You raise the very good point that the use of 'man' and 'woman' is then fraught. Fine. It need not be: man and woman are 'adult' genders (akin to boy and girl) and describe cluster types of behaviour. — AmadeusD

To clarify, it is not clusters of biological behavior that are gender. So for example, on average men are more aggressive than women. But that's not gender. Gender is if society expects men to always be more aggressive than women. So a timid man might be insulted by someone claiming, "You're not a 'real man'. In this case man alone does mean gender, not sex, as the person clearly did not change their biology.

The case I'm making is that linguistically, the context of 'transman are men' having 'men' mean gender isn't clear or logical. And since a transman is not a male by sex, the statement is false.

The problem I see is that that requires that gender is a social construct. If gender is a social construct, you, personally, cannot choose your gender. — AmadeusD

Yes, again the grammar is a mess isn't it? If its a cultural expectation that sex A behaves in X way, and sex B behaves in Y way, sex B behaving in X way does not mean that they changed societies gender expectation. You cannot choose 'a gender', you can choose to act with your gender, or against your gender. The reality for the strange grammar is the game of, "I want you to say I'm the opposite sex without you realizing you're saying I'm the opposite sex". Obviously a person can act however they want despite cultural expectations. A 'transgender' person actively chooses to behave in gendered ways of the opposite sex not because they've chosen their gender, but because they want society to see them as the opposite sex. But because its not possible to change your sex, and people were already familiar with transsexualism, they attempted to disguise the term into another set of language phrases to 'rebrand' it.

And I think anyone running the line that you can be born in the wrong body may not require to be taken seriously by adults. — AmadeusD

This is the power of unclear and manipulative language. You can convince people God exists and they'll live forever in bliss if they do good things, or suffer forever in agony if they do bad things. Oh wait, you only live forever if you believe in God, but, isn't suffering forever also living forever? The point is to elicit an emotional response loyal to the vocabulary and phrasing to control their aims instead of clear and rational language.

It should just be about grammar you submit. — Hanover

For the purposes of this discussion, yes.

What I'm getting at is that social rules have ontological impact. — Hanover

True, but does that apply to speech? Let me give you another example. There is a religion that is oppressed in society for the longest time. Eventually the society gives freedom of religion. People are now free to believe what they want. The members of this religion begin to ask for more. "You must now claim God is real. This is because despite giving us legal freedom, people don't believe that God is real. This is causing them to still discriminate against us and say we are delusional."

"But lo", some of the members of society say, "We know that God is a construct of the mind, not reality."

"You are merely asserting that God is not real to assert control over us despite us being legally recognized as having the right to worship and declare we believe God is real. Because God is simply the advent of creation, we will simply note that if you believe in the Big Bang, you believe that is "God" We will convert the people emotionally to the word "God" so that way they give us what we want and treat us with respect.".

And so it was decreed in this society that not only could this religion now worship without oppression, the rest of society needed to use their words and phrases to not offend them and make up for all the harm that had been done to them over the years. To utter, "God is not real" would result in banning, job loss, social shaming, and accusations of a person being bigoted. All of this was done in the name of good, of making sure the oppressed minority would finally have the respect and acceptance of its belief not only allowed, but forcefully accepted by everyone else.

If you wish to persuade someone that they should change their view of things, you can either try to manipulate them through language and rationalization, or use rationality. Rationality of course is often times crude, painful, doesn't respect social norms, and might end up in a result that people do not want. But isn't that what the goal of philosophy is? To challenge the church? Our notions of knowledge? To question if a transwoman is a woman?

The same holds true for all entities in a society. This means that society can (without violating a holy decree) ascribe the necessary requirements to a biological male and a biological female such that both are really, truly both men. — Hanover

Of course society can, just like they can get you to say, "If you believe in the big bang, then you believe in God." But is that what society should do? Creating a term of male and female as both 'men' seems to remove specificity and clarity to the language, not add to it. And that is the point of language. Not moral or social change. The point of language is the clear communication of ideas. And to me anyone who interferes with that is attempting to control how other people think. And I think an undebatable civil right is the ability to be able to think and speak as you wish.

We would simply have sport divided not upon gender, but upon biology, — Hanover

By sex. It was never divided by gender. And the transgender community knew this. They wanted to redefine it so they could get in because the real goal was never to recognized as 'the gender' of another sex, but recognized as the other sex itself. When JK Rowling commented that she accepted transgender people but she thought sex separated spaces should remain sex separated, she got the pushback that she did.

Its the game. To get you to say they are the opposite sex without saying they're the opposite sex. This is why there's the need to get people to repeat the mantra, "Trans women are women". They want you to view them as the opposite sex without saying they are. Otherwise they would simply go, "Oh, you're right, I guess a woman is by sex, and we're really one sex just taking on the gender of the opposite sex. We don't mind you pointing out this fact at all." The problem isn't that the word woman means sex. Its that they need you to say it so they can get you to think they are, but they know people will push back if the word woman is explicitly seen as sex. Gender is used for good ol' equivalency fallacy here.

That is the debate, but keep in mind that it is your anchoring that determines your grounding, but no one suggests the grounded entity metaphysically changes based upon what it is anchored to it. — Hanover

Correct. To assist for Copernicus, "You can call something whatever you want, it doesn't change the reality of what it is."

If you hold that what is a man is socially anchored in the ability to impregnate a woman, having certain legal documents, and having certain genitalia
and you ground those traits to only XY humans, then you have a real man only under those criteria.

By the same token, you have a real female if your anchoring relies only upon psychological belief of the person. However, for that anchoring to count, social acceptance of that anchor must exist (which is absent in your counter examples). But, should being an American one day be socially determined by gun ownership, then that will one day be so. — Hanover

Great explanation. The goal of the OP here is not to address the social aspect of the man and trans. Its addressing what makes most logical sense if one is to phrase the words into the sentence, "Trans men are men." I'm viewing it as a puzzle of wordplay, and what makes most sense given the phrasing. It is instantly erased if someone states, "Trans men are females who act in as the gender assigned to males", but it is the insistence of the trans activism community in phrasing it exactly as "Trans women are women" that interests me. If we remove any ulterior motive for wanting to do so, I simply find the grammer inadequate and flawed if one insists that 'man' in this situation should only refer to gender.

So, the question becomes whether gender anchoring is changing, and the answer is that it is for some but not others. — Hanover

To clarify on the OP, this is more, "Is it logical for it to change from a grammar and definition standpoint." No, not really. And if it doesn't make any sense to by grammar, then we can assume its intentionally crafted for an emotional outcome. Considering I've been attempting to make the conversation about grammer and everyone makes it about something else, this shows its not really a problem of grammar. Any ideology that insists on poor grammer and ambiguous definitions for its ideology is essentially circumspect. Its very similar to religious arguments about God that use ambiguous terms and phrasing that must be repeated as truth.

That is a social battle, with lines on both sides, seen as a matter of civil rights by some — Hanover

Yes, I might make a topic on this idea later. I've never understood the idea that changing a word to mean gender instead of sex is some type of civil right. I can see debating about letting a trans person into a cross sex space as a right, but definitions of words themselves are not rights nor should enter into moral debates. Words are about conveying ideas accurately and clearly. Anyone who wishes to muddy the waters is trying to lie, obfuscate, and push an outcome a person would not agree to if the idea was clear.

But, to the point of social realism, whatever the anchors and whatever the grounding, the man or woman is a real man or real woman at the conclusion. — Hanover

Correct me if I'm wrong in your intent, but I think you're trying to convey that no matter the label of a man or woman society chooses, your existence doesn't change. There is no 'real man' as a definition apart from social construction, there is only the existence of an individual no matter what society labels them.

Don't look for an all purpose essence. Look to particular cases of use. — frank

I am looking at is a linguistic argument. Does it make sense to say the phrase, 'trans men are men' and change 'man' in the second reference to indicate gender and not sex? No. I find the phrasing a great philosophical word play to analyze.

My take is that 'transgender' needs to be read prima facie. transgender. In this way, we simply carve sex off from gender. They are related in many ways (even on relatively flimsy ideological takes) but are clearly, imo different things. — AmadeusD

This is the OP's take as well.

So if you hold anything essentially male or female to constitute 'man' or 'woman' then that's an issue for your terminology. — AmadeusD

Correct and in agreement with the OP if man is taken as pointing out the sex of an individual, not 'man as gender'.

The alternative that the transgender community proposes is that 'trangender men are men' is more tautological in the fact that they say 'man' in this instance refers to 'male gender', not 'male sex'.

The question then is, "If 'man' by default without modificaiton is defined as 'male gender' and not 'male sex' is this a clear linguistic phrase that makes logical sense and that we should switch to?" The answer is no. There are already modifiers to 'man' that switch it from 'sex' to 'gender'. Cis and trans. If 'male' is defaulted to 'male gender', then the terms cis and trans no longer have any meaning.

"Cis men are men and trans men are men" conveys no pertinent or useful information in this case, and trans and cis would effectively be synonyms. Cis and trans only have a differential when referring to gender in relation to the sex of the individual. When saying cis man we have to note the full definition of, "A man by sex who acts as a male by gender"

If male defaults to sex, there is no additional word needed to correctly communicate the phrase 'transgender men are men'. If it defaults to gender however, we need some new word or addendum that indicates we are comparing sex and gender. Since we already have a perfectly good word, "male" that denotes sex, and a man is 'an adult male', we are simply overcomplicating the language.

So the clearest and most logical use of the word 'man' in relation to the term trans man, is 'adult human male by sex', not 'by gender'.

I correctly asserted that in the past a moderator stated that he would ban people for disagreeing that transgender woman is a woman. That's a fact. — frank

I think in the interests of being on scope with the OP, we shouldn't call out moderators or accuse the site of being overly restrictive in the past without a citation and context. Today I'm able to post a discussion about the question of the phrase 'trans x is x' without any threat of banning or moderation. That's a credit to the site and the people who run it.

Frank, do you have any criticism or addition to the OP's argument? I promise I won't vomit all over you. :)

I didn't counter him. I responded to the fact he presented. — Copernicus

Ah fair. My apologies, I'm just trying to clear up the vocabulary. I'll let TClark respond.

If transwomen are women or transmen are men just because of cultural or habitual identity, does carrying a gun or shooting down schools make a Norwegian an American, or does loving KFC chicken make a caucasian man an African American, regardless of ethnicity or nationality? — Copernicus

That's not the argument he was making. He was noting that the term 'man' may rely on biology, but it is not a fixed biological definition like 'spleen' for example. Since a man is 'an adult male', the definition of adult can change based on the culture. He was not arguing against the point I was making that we use man to reference a biological male, or indicating we should change it to mean a gendered one. He really wasn't addressing the OP, just noting that 'male' is a strict biolological referent while 'man' is a definition that can change due to the addition of the socially constructed identity of 'adult'.

I suggest you carry on discussing your OP, because I won't be posting in this discussion again. — Jamal

Fantastic, thank you.

That said, since it became clear yesterday (or whenever it was) that you were, in an arrogant and ridiculous manner, refusing to think through or face up to some important challenges to your obviously fallacious OP, I have avoided the discussion and intend to stay out of it. — Jamal

I'll post in this topic as much as I want. — Jamal

No actually. I'm going to reach out to some other moderators and request that you not.

That is a really stupid post. — Jamal

Remember this one sentence post you did yesterday? If anyone on this forum posted such a troll response and I forwarded it up to a moderator, they would be warned. You are an administrator and you need to act as the example that other posters are supposed to follow. You are the one who first introduced insults and personal attacks against posters in this topic, namely me. It is your responsibility to be BETTER than a troll, and you lapsed in judgement here.

I'm in a leadership position in my job. If I had someone call me out for breaking my own rules, I would apologize and tell them I wouldn't do it again. Not tell them, "I do what I want" right? Lets see if you have what it takes in your next post. Show the forum what kind of person you are.

The fact that you don't know that moderator threatened to ban anyone who denied that transwomen and women just shows you weren't paying attention. — frank

Lets be polite please. Also lets stay on topic with the language argument of the OP please.

My God frank, you are mightily obnoxious today. — Jamal

Jamal, you are adding personal attacks and not encouraging people to remain on topic despite being an administrator. This topic obviously is highly emotional for you. If you cannot control that, please refrain from posting in the topic.

To be fully objective, it's a biological man who identifies and presents as a biologucal woman. Your definition suggests a third gender. — Hanover

I believe his definition implied a tautology. "A trans man is an adult female that purposefully acts in the gendered way society expects of an adult male.' = itself

And it's not about how many people use a word to mean something in particular; it's about how powerful those who use it in that way are. — baker

That is one aspect for sure. But another aspect is the usefulness, reasonableness, and ease of use of the term. If it is reasonable, useful, and easy to change the term's meaning, people will. My point in the OP is that the term man meaning 'adult male' not only is historically the correct use, it is reasonable, useful, and easy to use. Whereas it may be that in certain contexts man can mean, 'male gender', in the general phrase of 'transgender men are men', the context of 'male gender' for man leads to unclear, illogical, and hard to use language.

Should someone call a trasman a woman or a transman, the objection isn't simply one of misuse (like if I called a spider an insect and not an arachnid), but it's one of ethical impropriety. — Hanover

The OP is not an argument of ethical impropriety as I note in my reply here to Baker. Its simply poor grammer, does not convey a clear idea, and is ultimately inferior to using man as 'adult male' for the reasons I've cited in the OP.

A man wearing a skirt does not mean they are being transgendered. It means that wearing a skirt is now gender-neutral. — Harry Hindu

A clarification. Crossing the gender line is a transgendered act. This is independent of one's own viewpoint. If one purposefully commits a transgendered act, knows and accepts that the action belongs to the gender of the opposite sex, they are purposefully being transgendered. If a person commits a transgendered act, but doesn't accept that the action belongs to a gender, then they are being gender neutral.

Gender neutral means that we stop having these expectations of the sexes as opposed to transgenderism that amplifies the expectations to the point of being sexist. — Harry Hindu

Gender is a fine line between expectations and sexism. Gender is mostly in the realm of pre-judgement, or prejudice. Healthy gender is typically a one step away from biological differences. Unhealthy gender is farther away from biological differences and is used for control. This is what we would call sexism.

So, Philosophim, is this the sort of content you were looking for? — BC

Not quite. A little too in depth for what was needed here I believe. I'm just approaching the phrasing and noting that if we define sex and gender seperately, it still doesn't make sense to say a 'transman is a man' as defining man as 'male gender' doesn't even lead to a useful sentence. This seems to be a much more in depth criticism of sex, gender, and transgender than I am intending here.

I wasn’t addressing the question of whether a trans man should be considered a man or a trans woman should be considered a woman. My comment only addressed the fact that the answers to the question are not primarily biological, but are rather social and linguistic. — T Clark

Ah, in that context I agree 100%.

The difference between man and woman is a social and linguistic one. This is evidenced by the fact that the definitions of man and woman have changed over the years. When I was young, you had to be 21 years old to be considered a man or a woman. That has been redefined so that 18-year-olds are now seen as such — T Clark

Yet what has stayed consistent is a reference to sex and age. What we consider the age range for an adult has changed, but not that we ever considered a man as 'a female'. If I read about men and women from 100 years ago, do you think, "They mean men by gender, it could just as easily be a female or male"? Of course not. The common understanding has been that 'men' are adult males.

And thus in regards to trans men, the trans modifies the discussion to mean "the gender of male", but does not claim the sex is male. Thus "trans men are men' is not true if man is being used as an indicator of sex. In the case of trans men are men in regards to gender, theres still the issue that if man is meant to be gendered, there's no way to differentiate between "Cis men are men". The only way to have a meaningful differentiation of the phrase is if 'man' by default refers to 'an adult human male' or by sex.

As "trans ideology" has developed, I have no confidence that it is a valid concept. — BC

While I do appreciate your weigh in, I'm trying to focus the discussion on the words and phrases themselves. Whether a person agrees with trans ideology or not should be irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This is an attempt to tackle the philosophical concept of stating "Transmen are men" and how we can interpret that to mean anything logical. Would you like to weigh in on that portion of the OP or counter some who are insisting that the OP is not correct?

Whether or not, I agree with your answer, in the past similar types of conclusions have led to threats of banning. — T Clark

I will have faith that a philosophy board will let people do philosophy.

The terms are as fluid as gender is supposed to be. They are a package, containing both sex and normative role. Which meaning is emphasized depends on context — hypericin

Right, but it doesn't mean two things at once in the same context. What context is it reasonable to use man as sex vs man as gender? Note my reply above where I note that 'man as gender' does not provide clear or meaningful information when used in regards to trans and cis.

I am explaining to you that the English word "man" can mean "a person whose biological sex is male" and it can mean "a person whose gender is male". — Michael

Ok, this is the first time I've seen you try to define it explicitly. So we have two definitions for the word. Then to be clear, if I state, "A trans male is an adult female by sex that acts as a gendered male," you would have to agree that in this context, this is a correct statement.

You would also agree that if I said, "Man", and meant gender only, that saying, "A trans man is a man by gender" that still leaves out the question of sex. Because we have another phrase "Cis man". "A cis man is a man by gender". Do you see that without a reference to sex, the terms trans and cis are synonyms and meaningless?

Therefore trans and cis only make sense when noting a person's gender in relation to their sex. So "Trans men are men" and "Cis men are men" cannot have man being a gender context alone if the phrases are going to make any sense or have any logical distinction between them. Thus while perhaps there can be a context in which "Man" is a referent purely to gender, it cannot be so in the case of these phrases.

That being said, I also asked you what context is needed for man to mean sex versus man to mean gender. Further, in the case in which man is used as gender, what term do we use to identity adult male by sex to differentiate 'man by sex' vs 'man by gender'?

It’s so glaringly untrue that one can only wonder why one is really saying it. — NOS4A2

I'm trying to discuss this from a logical standpoint of vocabulary, not asking for a person's motivation for wanting one or the other. I'm sure that's another philosophical discussion that could be had, but I want to focus here on the logic of the terminology and use itself. Appreciate the contribution regardless NOS.

Plenty can be lobbed your way. It's just not worth it. I have my sanity and peace of mind to preserve. — Jamal

I suppose discussions on a philosophy board can be tiring and not worth it. And when one isn't able to argue one's points effectively, and realizes they are at risk to be proven wrong, it can affect one's sanity and peace of mind. Go watch a few shows of Friends on Netflix or something today and don't worry your silly little head over matters like this.

That is a really stupid post. — Jamal

Ha ha! You do realize that the person who first insults the other person in a normal discussion is the one who has no real answer right? Thank you for confirming that you cannot counter my point and only an insult of dislike can be lobbed my way.

I'm simply assuming that if the definitions are true, can it be logically claims that a transman is a man? No.
— Philosophim

If he has XY chromosomes, yes. — Copernicus

Yes, in modern day separation of sex and gender, chromosomes indicate a person's sex. I don't think we're in overall disagreement Copernicus, but I think we're talking about two different definitions in regards to gender theory. You may want to check out gender theory before continuing so we're on the same page. I appreciate the discussion regardless!

Obviously if "man" is only about sex, trans men are not men. But this "if" is what is being debated, so you're just begging the question. — Jamal

I'm not begging the question at all. Clearly defining terms then thinking if claims using those terms lead to logical outcomes is a normal discussion. You are very free to define 'man' in another way, you'll just need to argue why it is and if that definition makes sense in normal language use. If you want to argue a specific counter to the point I've made, feel free.

The debate has been going on for years, and you have made no attempt to research it or address the arguments that defend the notion that trans women are women etc — Jamal

Now this is a proper logical fallacy called Ad Hominem. You're attacking assumptions and qualifications about my character instead of addressing the points.

See for example the idea that "man" and "woman" are cluster concepts:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/ — Jamal

Fantastic, but I am not here to debate with an entire wiki on sex and gender. Is there a specific argument you want to make that would counter what I've noted in the OP? Just because there are discussions about alternative definitions to man and woman does not mean that you can make the existential fallacy that they are correct in reference to the discussion I've started here.

Must be a pretty stupid theory coined by confused people. — Copernicus

Your opinion is your own, I'm not here to argue for or against the validity of it. I'm simply assuming that if the definitions are true, can it be logically claims that a transman is a man? No.

It doesn’t just have one meaning. It can refer to sex or it can refer to gender. This isn’t to say that it is equally likely to refer to gender as sex. — Michael

Neither does sheep. You are still avoiding the question. Please give me a clear definition of man. If it has multiple meanings, explain what context is required for it to change meaning.

No offense, but that's horsheshit. And as a radical individualist, I don't believe in community or culture. — Copernicus

You don't believe in 'following' community or culture. Obviously you believe community and culture exist. Gender according to gender theory is the cultural expectation of non-biological behavior of a sex within that culture or community. You do not have to follow or recognize the gender of that community or culture, but you should be able to recognize that communities and cultures have expectations of behavior of people within them. Expectations of behavior in regards to a person's sex are gender.

Transgender is having both male and female sexual parts in a single body (naturally or surgically). — Copernicus

There is no definition of transgender that I am aware of that uses that definition. That's normally called intersex or hermaphrodism.

SEX. Gender means Sex. — Copernicus

This is an older meaning of the term prior to gender theory. When talking about trans individuals, gender is defined as I've noted above. Transgendered individuals are not transsexual individuals. A transgendered individual acts and behaves as is expected of the opposite sex within that culture. If you have not been exposed to these definitions before, I can see how they can be confusing. If you wish to use sex and gender interchangeably to refer to sex, that's fine on a personal note. If you are communicating within the context of a transgendered individual, just understand gender is not the same as sex anymore.

And what does the word 'man' mean without those modifiers?
— Philosophim

It's an umbrella term that includes cis men and trans men. — Michael

That is not an answer. If I asked, "What is a sheep?" and you replied, "Its an umbrella term that includes black and white sheep." you would think I wasn't thinking very logically or actively avoiding the question. Define the word man without reference to modifiers please.

If a male wears a skirt, they are acting in a transgendered way.
— Philosophim

I don't agree with this view. I have individual freedom to wear what I want, unless I'm breaking laws or protocols. My gender is solely tied to my sex. — Copernicus

Gender is cultural. Meaning that if you understand the culture of a place, agree with that gendered culture, and purposefully act in a way that is against the gender of that that culture for your sex, and intentionally take the gender of the opposite sex, you are acting transgendered.

Obviously a person can believe that a man and a woman can wear a dress and it has nothing to do with their sex. However, the culture will. If you insist to the culture that wearing a dress has nothing to do with being a woman, then you are having a subjective conflict about gender. That is not transgender. Transgender is agreeing with a particular viewpoint about what non-biological behavior should be done in public by men and women, then purposefully doing behavior that is expected of the opposite sex, not yours.

Culture is a social construct. Sex/gender is not. — Copernicus

According to gender theory gender is a social construct. What definition would you like to propose for gender instead? Why is that a better definition to use than the one's I've put above?

Yes, you logically said that.
— Philosophim

No, I didn't. I said that the word "man" is used to refer to cis men and used to refer to trans men. — Michael

And what does the word 'man' mean without those modifiers? What do those modifiers mean when they're added to the base word 'man'?

No, it is not an empirical fact that when people generally use the word man, that they are thinking it is equally as likely that it is an adult human female behaving like a man.
— Philosophim

I didn't say that. — Michael

Yes, you logically said that. If 'man' was seen by the majority of people as purely a gendered term, not a reference to a person's sex, then logically a 'man' could be equally likely to be male or female. The fact that you imply that you don't do this, tells me that when you hear the term 'man', you normally think its a male. If you truly thought man was only gendered, you would not have protested my point.

How is cultural expression "gender"? I think you coined the definition yourself. — Copernicus

Good question for clarification. There is a difference between being male and female, and how one acts culturally in regards to one's sex. One simple aspect is clothing.

For example, wearing a skirt in America is expected to be worn by females, not males. If a male wears a skirt, they are acting in a transgendered way. They understand the culture views this as clothing that is expected to be worn only by females, and as a man they actively choose to wear a skirt despite knowing this.

Contrast this with Scottland where men are expected to wear kilts, which is basically a skirt. Wearing one fits the cultural expectation of a man, and if a woman actively wore a kilt prior to the 1800's where it was only men, this would be seen as transgendered within Scottland.

There is nothing inherent in being male or female that would drive a man not to wear a skirt and a woman to wear one. Why the culture went that way is not the question here, but that it can. Things that are not in reference to one's sex are public actions and things that a person can do without it being a reference to their sex. For example, "Supermarket cashier". It is non-biological actions, roles, clothing and any other non-biological action that a society judges in regards to one's sex that is gender.

A related post from 2019 ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/336888 — 180 Proof

Much appreciated!

Yes. To me,men and women are sex.

And what you designated as gender could be termed as hormonal traits. — Copernicus

Yes, they are sex differentials. I amended gender to be more clear:

Gender - A cultural expectation of non-biological behavior in regards to an individual's sex

In other words, physical and biological aspects of one's sex are not cultural expectations of behavior. They are biological realities. There is no 'hormonal trait' which leads a woman to wear a dress and a man not to. Those are cultural expectations of non-biological behavior in reference to one's sex.

Oh boy... we're differentiating sex from gender. I see. — Copernicus

That is the modern day terminology in regards to transgender issues, yes. I note the definitions in the OP, do you disagree with them?