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

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

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

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

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

Yep, I told you I was. That was right as you said, "You've misunderstood what I said." I could tell at that point you weren't here to discuss, you were here to argue.

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

I'm not sure how clear I can be by asking you to take a second look at your post and try to clarify your intentions. It was littered with unclear points and seeming contradictions. I was giving genuine feedback and a genuine person would have gone back, reviewed, and tried to clarify. I clarify what I mean all the time when asked genuinely because I understand the difficulty communicating through the internet and I'm trying to discuss, not argue. Not that I always succeed, but I do try. Your instant dismissal on genuine appeal meant that a discussion was impossible with you from that moment forward.

Again, you refuse to define (and maintain a constant definition of) "transgender people". I already caught you in one backtrack you won't own up to. — Outlander

I wouldn't debate too hard with Questioner. I get the feeling English is a second language, and they're unwilling to clarify their posts if you ask. You both could be going back and forth for a long time without any progress either way.

I'm feeling like this topic has also hit what it needed to and there doesn't seem to be much else to explore. I'll probably post another topic later this week that's going to explore another aspect of this.

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

Its why I keep seeing it as a secular religion. I grew up Christian and broke away on my own as I started questioning. I know the patterns of thought, avoidance, and behavior that come when you ask questions that violate the tenants of a religion. Otherwise intelligent people will double down on the weirdest and most logically deficient points if accepting it possibly threatens a core belief system. Its the same thing all over again here. I appreciate your accurate responses to the subject. Again, it doesn't mean you have to agree with me going forward, its just nice to see someone who isn't being weird about it.

Unless there are good reasons to believe that Michael is suffering from something like schizophrenia, it should be common sense to any rational person that C1 is a false conclusion. — Michael

Again, you're making a circular assumption.

Because the phrase is not ambiguous, only an idiot or dishonest person would interpret the phrase not in the way you want. Therefore its not ambiguous.

You're being very clear. I can use this, "Only an idiot or dishonest person would interpret the phrase in the way you do Michael," and it would be just as legitimate as your argument. Meaning, not legitimate at all. I'm done. You're just expressing the same thing again and again without addressing the arguments that the phrase is ambiguous. You assume it is not and declare it is not. That's not a discussion, that's circular preaching.

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

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

If you're not going to clarify a legitimate request for clarification, I'm not going to try to guess what you're saying. I've done that before in conversations and it never works out well for either party. Please continue to contribute to the discussion but I will bow out where it seems unclear.

If a phrase could possibly mean one of two things, but one of those things is utterly absurd, then unless you believe that the person who said it is suffering from psychosis, you ought use a little common sense and understand that they mean the non-absurd thing. — Michael

Unless you prove that everyone who uses the phrase in a way different than you feel its to be read is an idiot or dishonest, this in no way proves the sentence isn't ambiguous.

It's really simple. — Michael

I'm not going to answer anymore if you just repost the same point.

Although as referenced in a few articles above, there are studies that suggest that the transgender person's brain structure is dissimilar to both the typical "male" brain and the typical "female" brain. — Michael

Again, if those studies did not take sexual orientation into account, the study isn't valid as it is known that homosexual brains have some similarities with female brains. Finally, even though I feel this current understanding benefits my point, I also acknowledge that the brain science across the board is very much in flux and debatable. To my point though, you would need to eliminate the sexual orientation variable for it to be a worth while citation.

That's not what I've said.

What I've said is that if I say "trans men are men" and you think to yourself "Michael believes that humans with XX chromosomes who identify as men are humans with XY chromosomes" then either you're an idiot or you're being intentionally dishonest. — Michael

Oh, its EITHER you're an idiot or dishonest. My mistake. So basically people can't interpret the phrase wrong, because when they use it wrong, it due to stupidity or maliciousness. And yet that doesn't address my point that it could also be because its ambiguous. If you demonstrated that the phrase was always used correctly, that would be a counter to ambiguity. But you haven't even attempted that.

You see, I'm not denying those are possibilities, but those are possibilities for any phrase. That doesn't address the claims I've made about why it is ambiguous in terms of the arguments I've laid forth which you keep avoiding, something I've already mentioned twice and am tired of saying again. Either address the points in the thread, or be the straw man guy who's claiming that everyone who uses the phrase incorrectly must be an idiot or dishonest. Come on Michael. If you read a poster in another thread using that type of argument would you think they were coming to the discussion in good faith or a calm mind?

Thinking you're a man when in reality you're a woman is a delusional.
— Philosophim

This presents as a misunderstanding of the information I have shared. — Questioner

I don't doubt it. As I was reading your thread a few times I wasn't sure I understood your full intention.

This presents as passive-aggressive. My posts are well enough organized. — Questioner

Not at all. I even went out of my way to indicate that in no way is this a poor reflection on you. You even noted in your quote of me above that I misunderstood what you were saying. Genuinely, I'm having a difficult time understanding what you were trying to convey in that particular post.

I suspect that for all English phrases there is at least one person who has used a different interpretation to what is ordinary, but that doesn't mean that all English phrases are ambiguous. — Michael

Fantastic. We agree on a basic point that not everyone who uses the phrase means to indicate that the second 'man' in the sentence is only referring to gender.

A rational person should understand that people who say "trans men are men" are not saying "humans with a vagina who identify as men are humans with a penis" or "humans with XX chromosomes who identify as men are humans with XY chromosomes". You ought stop stubbornly insisting on this straw man. — Michael

You ought to stop using the implicit claim that anyone who doesn't use the phrase exactly as you say it is , is an idiot. You basically said, "Its used this way, and anyone who uses it the wrong way is incorrect. Therefore the phrase is not ambiguous." Considering an ambiguous phrase is one that can easily be interpreted incorrectly because its intention is not clear, you're not helping your case. You have not addressed the arguments I've given in this discussion as to why its ambiguous and demonstrated why they are false. You dodged the last point of discussion even after I gave you a day to calm down and think about it because you were too emotionally invested. And now you're just repeating the same points that didn't work. Please come up with a new approach Michael, or once again, please leave the thread.

Which logical fallacy?
— Philosophim

As I explained - mistaking a reality for a delusion — Questioner

Sure, but that that's the claim I'm making. Thinking you're a man when in reality you're a woman is a delusional.

Questioner, your post is a bit disorganized. I a couple of points that contrast with themselves. I feel it just needs a second pass to organize what you're trying to say a bit more please. This does not mean your wrong or imply any lack of capability on your part. I too sometimes don't organize my posts correctly and it confuses other people. Would you mind spending a little more time specifying your thoughts a bit? I'll answer then so that way I'm fairly addressing your points.

You've encountered people who believe that humans with a vagina who identify as men are humans with a penis?

I don't believe you have. — Michael

This is not an argument. You need to go talk to more people. Lets make this logical to remove the obvious emotional block you have. You are stating, "All people who ever use this phrase everywhere mean this one strict interpretation." I am stating "At least one person who has used this phrase has used a different interpretation."

It should be obvious now.

No person who says "trans men are men" is saying "biological women who identify as men are biological men". — Michael

Already pointed out that I've encountered people who intend this. There are some trans gender individuals who do use the word 'men' to indicate they have changed sex, not merely gender. You cannot know from the phrase alone what they intend without further clarification, therefore it is ambiguous.

It's quite absurd that this needs to be repeated and that this discussion has reached 19 pages. — Michael

Its quite absurd that you started calling people idiots who disagreed with you, and refused to answer my question as to why we shouldn't just clarify the phrase to "Trans gender men are adult human females who take on the gendered roles of men." Its also quite absurd that you come in and insult the discussion because the conclusion isn't what you want it to be. Obviously the results of 19 pages demonstrate this is something worth talking about unlike your desire to tell everyone they're stupid.

Philosophim would have a much stronger position if he were to just claim that without further context the sentence "John is a man" is ordinarily interpreted as "John is a biological man", but he's opted not to take this approach. — Michael

This is one of my many points that I've put forward in this discussion. You haven't even followed and make criticisms of things you don't know about.

The first three results in Google disagree. — Michael

Congrats on a quick google search. I've studied this issue for a while and have made comments that the brain science is still ongoing. Have you ensured that those studies separate homo and heterosexual brains? Because homosexual brains do appear to have features that are more associated with female brains. If your studies don't separate them, this skews the end results.

using this as a corollary of transgenderism is unsound reasoning - a logical fallacy - since thinking you are one particular person rather than who you are is a delusion. — Questioner

Which logical fallacy?

Transgender persons do not think they are someone who they are not - their brains truly are in reality male or female - and this is their reality, not a delusion. — Questioner

No, brain scans on transgender people prior to any medical intervention have brains that are no different than non-transgender brains. Currently the science implies that male homosexual brains do have some similarities between female brains. Does that mean we call a gay man a woman? No.

But there is ample evidence of the differences between a male and a female brain. — Questioner

No, there is none to my knowledge. Make sure you're looking at pre-medical trans gender studies and not post. The medications can change the brain.

BTW, transgender brains are normal. They just developed with a different sex than the body. — Questioner

If they are normal, and there's no evidence of any difference between a trans gender brain and a cis gender brain, then no, they don't have a sex different from the body.

I do take exception to the mention of "trans ideology and politics" - being transgender is not an ideology - but a recognition of a biological reality. And as far as "politics" go - do you mean the expectation that basic human rights are respected? — Questioner

Ah, that was just an intro paragraph line to explain where my interest in the subject came from. No, this conversation has no concern with rights, just language and phrasing.

I would say instead that the anti-transgender movement is based on ideology and politics — Questioner

Just as much as the pro-transgender movement is based on ideology and politics. To be clear, I am not anti-transgender. I am pro clear thinking, clear language, and avoiding ideology where possible.

You haven't followed the argument, missing the main point about privileging a sense. — Banno

He clearly has followed the argument. You don't want to let this one go Banno. May I suggest you might be a little ideologically captured here? You keep trying to use the word privilege when you know I had no rights based arguments for the conclusion. You are acting just like a religious person does when they can't quite prove that God is real. I don't know your religious outlook yourself Banno, but any person can be easily captured by ideologies that make them behave in ways they normally wouldn't.

You're generally an intelligent person who I believe has a genuine desire to do the right thing Banno. Take a step back and look at it again. Have we not both made our points? Have we not both come to areas of the discussion in which there is nothing further to be said? You keep coming back to this thread as if its some crusade, but just like the real crusades Banno, there's nothing worth the fight.

We're people who both love philosophy Banno. Isn't it a good time now to shake each other's hands, appreciate a good discussion, and move on? You don't have to agree with my conclusion. You don't ever have to state that I'm right. You are allowed to hold your own outlook of the debate, as am I. Lets let others judge for now.

Thank you for the defense Amadeus. Even if you had disagreed with my end views, I believe you've captured the points well.

I read of gender being referred to as an "expression" and as "cultural" - but insofar as transgender persons are concerned it is more accurately referred to as their identity. — Questioner

I have not addressed identity. A personal identity is simply an opinion of yourself. I have opinions of myself, but that doesn't mean people have to agree with it. My own sense of identity can also be objectively wrong. If I identify as Elvis Presley it doesn't actually make me Elvis Presley.

But, sometimes, the two processes do not result in the same sex. So, a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born. — Questioner

The real answer is that the science is still in flux. As of today, there is no identifiable brain difference between a transgender person and a normal person. At one point they thought there might be, but they didn't consider sexuality. Male homosexual brains have structures that resemble female brains in some way (though this is not completely settled either). Once sexuality was taken into account, hetero and homosexual male brains are no different besides a very slight difference in one area of the corpus collosum that was observed. So no, as of today being transgender is not identifiable in the brain.

But I'm curious, what do you think of the OP? Personal identity is not needed to discuss it.

Sorry Banno. Once you abandon answering the counter point, the counter point stands. And if you're not going to acknowledge that counter point after I pointed it out once already, then you are no longer a person worth engaging with, again. Answer the point and we can continue. Otherwise the point goes to me.

You privilege one meaning over others.

If you are not doing that, then you cannot maintain that "trans women are women" is false. — Banno

And again you ignore the part about 'privilege' including rights. My point stands.

Pretty simple stuff. — Banno

Philosophim Are you intent on playing Dictionaries for the remainder of this discussion? — Banno

I actually laughed at this one Banno. Yes, I am practicing in the fallacious art of "Posting the definition of terms so we both understand and can reference the meaning." :D

...advantage...
— Philosophim
...as, for example, you give the advantage to 'sex of the person' over 'gender of a person' when you say
I'm claiming the context of 'woman/man' unmodified is most rationally interpreted to mean 'sex of the person' — Banno

Quote the whole meaning Banno, not one word. Where is the mention of rights, exemptions, or immunity implied? While yes, gender vs sex have different rights, exemptions and immunity compared to each other, no where am I claiming if that is so or what they are in that sentence. Clarifying the difference between sex and gender also has nothing to do with privileges. But there is one point, and that is often ambiguous phrases intended to conflate two different terms with one another often want the rights, exemptions and immunity of the other for the term when the term itself cannot argue they deserve those things on their own. But you're not attempting to conflate right? And I'm sure not. So I fail to see where that sentence implies privilege at all.

Where have I ever advocated privilege?
— Philosophim

Exactly here:

I'm claiming the context of 'woman/man' unmodified is most rationally interpreted to mean 'sex of the person' — Banno

Privilege meaning: a right, exemption, or immunity granted as a particular benefit, advantage, or favor
OR
a right or benefit given to some people but not others
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privilege

Where in any of the sentence you quoted is there any implication of privilege?

Yours seems a pretty desperate account. — Banno

I'm not the one who keeps coming back every couple of days misrepresenting my point because they're more concerned with their outcome being seen than mine. I wouldn't mind if you decided to add something new, but its the same rehash and ignorant statements about my part of the discussion.

Your attempt to maintain polysemy while privileging a single biological sense is logically inconsistent. — Banno

"Priviliging?" Well this is new. Where have I ever advocated privilege? Mind clarifying what you mean by that considering its an argument I've never made?

A word is ambiguous when it has two or more possible meanings, and it is unclear which meaning is intended in a given context.

A word is polysemous when it has multiple related meanings that are all legitimate and established, and the word’s meaning shifts depending on context. — Banno

Basically what I said.

Woman is polysemous, not ambiguous. — Banno

Ok, I JUST told you I said the term was polysemous, while the phrase was ambiguous. You keep implying I've done otherwise because you're being dishonest. Banno, if you have to be dishonest to win an argument, you're not doing a good job.

And, in the gender-social sense, “trans women are women” is true. — Banno

If the context outside of the sentence itself is known. I'll post this again:

A term with multiple meanings. And in that case, if the meaning cannot be clearly gleaned from the phrase without outside context, it is by definition an ambiguous phrase. — Philosophim

There is no context within the sentence itself Banno. If I took the phrase and brought it to people without context, many people would rightly and logically assume due to the rules of English and normal culture that the second woman indicated 'adult human female'. That's what I've been noting all of this time. You should know that and be acknowledging that if you want to be an honest and good faith person in this discussion.

You're not adding anything new to this discussion, and you're actively ignoring or misrepresenting my position again. You're not being a good or noble person Banno, you're just being a troll at this point.

And I pointed out that it is polysemous rather than ambiguous. You conflate the two. — Banno

Banno, are you bored? I don't know how you can keep posting this and think this is a good argument.

Polysemous means, "A term which has multiple meanings". That's it. The 'phrase' is not a 'term'. What is often contained in an ambiguous phrase? A term with multiple meanings. And in that case, if the meaning cannot be clearly gleaned from the phrase without outside context, it is by definition an ambiguous phrase.

You keep conflating 'term' with 'phrase'. I do not.

Not at all. We went through this. There is no "context of 'woman/man' unmodified", no "true" meaning for such terms, beyond your preference for choose a "true" meaning in order to justify your claims concerning trans folk. — Banno

Again Banno, your entire dismissal of my points, either by pretending they didn't exist or ignoring them so you can spout an ideology is not what I'm interested in debating. But if you do come back later and imply a misspresentation of my stance, I will correct it for others to read. You know I never stated an essential meaning for woman, only rational arguments based on the rules of the English language, its history, and culture. And you also know my conclusion was that the phrase is ambiguous to most people, and thus should be clarified to more clearly impart its meaning.

Again, I'm no longer discussing with you on this issue, we already did that. I will not attempt to misrepresent your stance to my advantage long after our discussion, I ask you to return the same courtesy.

But "woman" is a polysemous term; one established meaning is biological, and another established meaning is gender-social. — Banno

Yes, it can have more than one meaning based on context which we've established already.

Contrary to the OP, in the gender-social sense, “trans women are women” is true. Insisting on only the biological sense is a misunderstanding of how language works, not a logical or empirical requirement. — Banno

You are ignoring the entire discussion we had earlier and not acknowledging that I'm claiming the context of 'woman/man' unmodified is most rationally interpreted to mean 'sex of the person', not 'gender of the person.' That's what the 'trans' and 'cis' modifiers are for.

Is this kind of like how "sick" "means" "impressive" and "hot" "means" "attractive" and/or "stolen", etc.? :chin: — Outlander

Very similar, yes.

I think it is interesting to see some confusion here in what is being said and what is meant: — I like sushi

Sure, pretty common with this topic. Why the link to a video about not having children though?

So I ask myself what's a good ethical metric. For me that's "everyone maximum wellbeing".
Which doesn't mean just happiness. It means potential for education, healthcare, truth and so on. — Jack2848

Not a bad metric.

Whereas a person's gender or sex is essential to one's identity.(Qualitatively). — Jack2848

I argue that gender is social stereotypes about he sexes. I do not believe that social stereotypes are should be essential to anyone's identity.

However. If a person truly believes they are a woman. And the cashier calls them a man even though they dress as a woman and have undergone surgery. Then although it looks irrational from the outside. From the inside it's not unreasonable that they ask to be called the sex or gender they believe to be or how they express. — Jack2848

I agree that it is not unreasonable to ask. It is unreasonable to expect that they oblige such a request. It is not a duty or moral obligation that people agree with your own internal view of yourself when it contrasts with what they observe.

On energy

The energy is easy. It takes less energy to say. Hi woman to someone wearing female clothes and who looks enough like one. — Jack2848

For you. If someone is asking that you refer them as a particular pronoun, then that is because you do not see them as you wish they did. Meaning you do not appear as that particular sex in their eyes, and you are asking them to lie. Its different if you are a particular sex and someone mistakes that. Then you're correcting a person to be aligned with the truth of the situation. If it would be a lie to ask someone to call me doctor when I am not, and that's just a job title, I don't see why its any less of an issue to ask someone to refer to me as the opposite sex that I am. I see gender as sexism and stereotypes, and I am not sexist nor agree to stereotype people.

Lying to people is hard. Asking you to ignore your eyes and ears and call someone something they are not is hard. Especially with those of a moral character who value honesty. It may be easy for you. But it is not for many people. Notice how I recognize it it easy for you. You should recognize and accept those who say it is not easy for them. No, they are not far right. They are not immoral. They are not bigoted. They are uncomfortable lying to people and being told its the right thing to do.

If tomorrow you fully believed that you were a woman. For years you are depressed. You make a vagina where your penis is. You dress like a woman and you take hormones and so on. And you fully belief that your brain or soul or whatever is a woman. — Jack2848

Your brain/soul is not a woman. Your body is. This is the confusion. How you feel about your body does not change its reality. It doesn't matter whether I feel like my face is scarred or not. It is. That is my body. Do you see why I disagree with your view here?

Then given that you would be asking to be called what you are rather than what you aren't when people mistakenly call you what you aren't in your reconstruction of the world. — Jack2848

We are not talking about letting people call you what they think you are. We are talking about people calling you what they know you aren't. If it doesn't matter that they call you something incorrect, there's no need to correct it. If of course someone interacted you in a way assuming you are a particular sex and it was important they be correct in that instance, you should correct them.

People are angry is universal claim. Technically i need only pick one person to prove it wrong. That would be me. But giving the claim some charity. I will take it to assume that most people in the world are angry that if they see a transitioned trans woman that if they meet them they would have to say "she" during conversation if they are near. — Jack2848

You are correct that is is a universal claim that I did not mean to apply as "all people". There are enough people angry about it in the world to be an issue. I won't even claim 'most' as I have no evidence of that. To be clear, they're not angry at being asked and being allowed of their own accord to call them he or she. They are angry at the demand. They are angry at the implication that transition makes you the other sex, and that there is some innate right to cross sex spaces. Anger alone of course is not a justification of that anger, but it is there enough to be a concern.

Additionally most people on the tv networks aren't angry. In fact. Most people that are annoyed , not angry with it. Would for far right. In my country. Yet only about 20% voted for the far right here. So again most people aren't annoyed enough let alone angry that they would vote for them. — Jack2848

I want to be clear I do not view this as a political issue. I have listened to people on the 'the left' also not like that this is an expressed social obligation. This is an intellectual and societal issue. Politics cause us to ignore this aspect and quickly make it a tribal issue. We should avoid that.

I would bet you thousands of euros and we go on the streets to ask people. If you see a transwoman. Would you be angry that there's a social not official expectation that you call them she while they are around? And I would take your money. — Jack2848

You mean i would take YOUR money. :) I don't think there's anything to debate on here. This is either true, or false, and I don't think either of us have the evidence for it. So lets not focus on people's anger, but the social obligation issue I've mentioned.

I am trying to communicate the idea that we should not be making special demands of society for individuals or pockets of cultures

I would say the opposite. We should help the less fortunate. — Jack2848

In polite culture, you are not obligated to help the less fortunate. No one has to donate to the homeless person on the street. What you should not do, is place undue burdens on the less fortunate. You don't yell or mock a homeless person who smells because they don't have access to a shower. It is nice to help the less fortunate, but it is not an obligation.

From my viewpoint, I do not consider transitioned or trans gender people less fortunate. Everyone has problems, that is theirs. We live in a modern society with good medical care, and they are largely able to get that care. They can still work, own a home, pay taxes, and go into public like everyone else. I owe them no more time or energy then I do any other person walking around. Should I place undue burdens on them because they're trans? Make fun of them, mock them, or any other horrible thing? Absolutely not. THAT is societies obligation. But I have no duty to lie to them, tell them something that isn't true, or treat them in any way differently than anyone else.

To be clear, I had an eye appointment one time and found the person taking it was a trans woman. It was very obvious this was a man, so how did I react? I didn't care. I spoke about the day, asked how things were going, dumb dad jokes, the works. They never asked me to call them a particular pronoun, and I treated them like I would anyone else. That's how a good society works. We all live and work together despite our differences without special treatment.

And if a person has gone through surgery to have a vagina. And they belief they have a soul or some brain composition that is female. Then I think we should take the option that takes less energy, creates more happiness and respect. And say "she" around them. — Jack2848

Absolutely not. A person can do whatever they want to themselves. I am under no obligation to agree with it. Someone can do facial surgery to look like Napoleon and earnestly tell me they are Napoleon. I am only under an obligation not to give them an undue burden over it, not to call or treat them like Napoleon. You are elevating a person's subjective view point as an obligation for other people to agree with. You can call them Napoleon if you think that is not. I am not denying you the right to call a person by their preferred pronouns. That is your choice. But it is a choice, not an obligation. And I am just as free and not morally obliged to agree with a person's subjective view of themself.

So yes they are regering to the cultural expectations they had for a sex. And I can imagine lesbian women getting annoyed. After hearing ''you're not a woman. You're a man''. — Jack2848

Correct. Lesbians and many men do not act in accordance with social stereotypes around their sex. That's the way it should be. No one is obligated to follow subjective social stereotypes. No one is obligated to agree with a person's subjective viewpoint.

It would then be even more horribly unfair. If the same people that would use or create such terms such as tomboy for woman qua sex. Would then claim that it is unfair to define gender mostly in cultural aspects and separate from genitalia. — Jack2848

No, it is unfair that people used gender to tell women they aren't women. And its equally unfair to use gender to tell other people that as a woman, you aren't actually a woman. Gender is prejudice and sexism, and about control. I am advocating freedom from sexism and social control based on subjective non-biological expectations of someone's sex.

I think I followed you well, but please correct me if I did not.

That's a personal definition of politeness.
Most would agree that calling them how they want to be called is more in line with politeness. I don't mind calling you Scarface if you ask me. Nor do I mind calling you Brad Pitt if you ask me. I'd love to. — Jack2848

No, that's an observed reality of polite interaction. Most people do not request to be treated in a special manner, either verbally or non-verbally, than other people in polite culture. They just want the same services and opportunities afforded others. People should be able to share the same water fountain. People should be able to receive the same services. When I get checked out by a cashier I don't tell them to address me in a special way. "No, that's DR. don't you see this lab coat that I'm wearing?" is out of line.

Now there may be individuals who do not mind this or are comfortable with this. But it is the point that it demands a behavior of a person beyond what is normal. That is something we should be gracious about when given by other people, but not something we should demand of culture and society. We do not expect the denominator of society to rise to the highest and most available of us. We expect culture to arise to the point of reducing conflict and unnecessary demands of others.

I don't find it hard to call you Brad Pitt if you ask me to. As long as we all know who you are and how the world works. Then even thought I don't have to do anything. I love to give you that good feeling. — Jack2848

Again, wonderful. I'm glad you have the energy, mentality, and enjoyment to do so. That is not most people. And it is not a demand that we should make of most people.

its an attempt to get society to treat you in a way that you personally desire, not accepting that the norms of society are not obligated to give you that. Again, this is either narcissism or mental delusion.

We have a very big amount of social contracts. Most abide by sat least some rules that in essence are ways that we try to get people to act in a way desireable to us. Not kill. Be emphatic. Not steal. Say true things. In that case we are all narcissistic. — Jack2848

No. These constructs are about letting people carry about their day without undue harassment or expectations from others. That is not narcissistic. Narcissism is the idea that oneself has the right to ask others special treatment for themselves, as an elevation of their own importance over someone else's time and energy. To demand another person give their time and energy is to assume one is superior to that other person. In some cases this is so, but it should not be asserted without strong reason.

"To my observations, the gender experiment has largely failed. People are angry."

That must be an internet echo chamber thing or a national thing. Most people I know are fine with it. They move on — Jack2848

"Most people you know" is not a metric of judging people. People's close circles are often similar in political and cultural outlooks. I use the internet to explore different cultures, including people with your perspective. I do not search out people who tell me what to think or 'head nod' while claiming their viewpoint is 'just right'. Turns out everyone does that to an extent. In addition, though not as much anymore, I have often stepped out and associated of people with different cultural backgrounds. It helps to give a sense of commonality across the differences, though this is still my own personal viewpoint.

This implies gender was invented because transitioned people needed to be seen as special .
But whether or not that is what you meant. — Jack2848

No. The invention and study of gender goes far before any trans gender issue. I'll recant the sentence and agree it was wrong. I am trying to communicate the idea that we should not be making special demands of society for individuals or pockets of cultures. I do not need gender to do that, and it was poorly put.

Gender in some form has always existed.
In the movie the godfather the Don says to johnny Fontane "you can act like a man" . But he is a man so he is acting like a man. People might have said to lesbian women "she isn't a woman" . — Jack2848

Correct. But it has always been in reference to the fact one is a man by sex. "You are not acting to the standards that I or this group personally expect a person of your sex to act." And what is that? Prejudice and sexism. Not exactly a viewpoint of people we should encourage, much less an idea that you should be treated any differently because as your sex you act counter to the prejudices and sexism that other people have of you.

Nice points and a good discussion. I have to step away for the day but I'll try to answer tonight if you have more.

Right here we go with the fallen world logic. — Outlander

While I believe this is an interesting topic you could make a thread on, I'm not seeing how this applies to the topic of this thread Outlander.

We seem to agree technically. But I think you might have missed the case I was making in the quotes section. (Re-reading it, it was probably my lack of clarity) — Jack2848

Not a worry! I will try to understand better.

Suppose that one day we find some configuration of a human brain (cocktail of chemicals and electrical signal tendencies or whatever) that correlate strongly with women. And a different configuration in the brain with men. And that some are born with a brain that usually correlates with women but is in a male body. As a result they would detect this. — Jack2848

Ah. Interestingly enough, it may not be a hypothetical. The brain science is still out on a final conclusion of this of course, but it seems that homosexual men have brain structures that resemble both male and female brain structures.

If that were so, then our current non empathy while missing that knowledge would be horrible to say the least. — Jack2848

There's an old saying. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." While I definitely understand your view, what the science above shows is that having feminine parts of your brain doesn't actually make you a woman. In our attempt to be sympathetic to an unproven claim, we accidently gloss over a proven claim and unintentionally label homosexual men as "Women in male bodies who should transition."

Empathy without responsibility and rationality can result in mistakes as well. Ever been asked by a homeless man for money on the street while he holds a gas can in in his hand? Empathy would inspire you to give it to him. Responsibility would do one better and offer to bring the gas to him. Rationality is realizing he was scamming you as he gets angry and waves you off to go look for another victim.

We should not have empathy for irresponsible and unproven claims. There is no regret if later we do find that the claim was both responsible and proven. There is no shame or wrong in denying that empathy until the full story is known.

Probably we want to not become delusional but we also want to be supportive. If a demented person truly believes they are in the 70's. And they won't reject that claim. That let them live in the 70's. While we obviously will recognize our modern day status. — Jack2848

Exactly. I think you and I are on once again, technically in agreement. The point in your examples is we know all of the information. One person is ugly, one person is not. We assume that both of them have socially positive demeaners. Should we let our instinct to gravitate to be nicer to Brad Pitt and meaner to Crad Shit lead our actions? Probably not.

But I get that ideally we would toughen up if we are the ones on the receiving end of difficult remarks. Because we have to survive. But I -wouldn't- say that you -can't- expect people to manage their emotions such that they could have this conversation in front of you without treating you like a monster. — Jack2848

I've thought about it for a good long while, and this is what I've come up with. Feel free to disagree, its always good to get another viewpoint. I believe we cannot expect people to hold our own viewpoints. That people's life experience, thoughts, and education are too varied to expect complex and rationally complete behavior. It is not that people are unthinking, unfeeling, or mean by nature. It is that people are often spending most of their energy taking care of their own immediate needs and wants. Healthy and well off people generally have time and resources to spend considering things outside of their immediate survival. But even then, the amount of time they spend is charity from their part, not obligation. Many spend that 'extra time' to further better themselves through riches, entertainment, or other things they desire to pursue in life.

Which means we are often left with basic culture. A common low denominator viewpoint that allows us to have a template for easy, polite, and productive interactions in public. These are things like, "Accept a person's individual expression. Don't insult people in public just because you don't like them. Don't go out of your way to shame or harm."

When people start demanding things of culture that are more complex, problems start to happen. Generally we are taught not to stare or point out things that stick out in society with people who have deficiencies or mental problems. But imagine if we started to say, "When you meet a person with a missing leg, you must call them 'long legs'" The problem here is we've gone beyond, "Be polite by not bringing up a person's deficiency," to 'Bring it up and pretend they don't have it!'" This runs counter to normal polite interactions and also now places a burden upon someone who interacts with someone who has a deficiency. Instead of, "Be passively polite" which takes little effort, its now an extra social rule combined with a phrase you need to know. In addition, you must not pretend that what is real is not. Its an unconscionable demand in to put on individuals in a free culture.

You're demanding of the person in public that they give time, energy and effort to learning a special interaction, and putting them in a state of distress where they must acknowledge something they shouldn't have to. It would be the same as if culture required that in an interaction with me, I must be referred to as handsome at least once. That would be demeaning from my point of view to be coddled as if I have the mind of a child, and again, uncomfortable to demand from other people.

Narcissistic or mentally delusional behavior entitles burden on other people when you interact with them culturally. It is an innately selfish or ignorant view that you think you as an individual should be elevated to any special ritualistic or linguistic importance in society. What should be owed is polite acceptance where one's deficiency is not overtly pointed out or lied about. The idea that a person should see a man or a woman and be told that they should be polite by using pronouns that reference the other sex is out of line. It is a violation of normal polite cultural interaction. It should be insulting to the individual being lied to. Which indicates again, either narcissism, ignorance, or mental delusion.

It is not that I don't have empathy for transitioned individuals. It is that I also hold that they have the same responsibilities in culture as everyone else. Be polite, don't demand special interactions of others, and you can expect that most people will gloss over your deficiencis and difference. I feel it is perfectly fine to call out that a transitioned individual is not special in anyway, a human like everyone else, and should not expect anything more in society besides polite acceptance.

I think this is innately understood at some level, which is why gender was invented and used as it is. In matters of sex, its quite obvious. When you throw a confusing idea like like gender in the mix, and try to elevate it over sex, its an attempt to get society to treat you in a way that you personally desire, not accepting that the norms of society are not obligated to give you that. Again, this is either narcissism or mental delusion. And I do not think it is kind, responsible, or rational to support or allow that kind of behavior in society and culture.

To my observations, the gender experiment has largely failed. People are angry. They know the norms of society have been overriden, and feel its a burden that they're not allowed to talk about. They can't quite put their finger on it, but slowly it is expanding over the culture as more incidents of transitioned people expecting language and culture to break its norms for them continue to occur. As such trans people are not being observed as integrated into the culture, but demanding individuals that want to stand out and fight the culture. That usually ends in faliture.

The trans community in my mind should cease any demands of society immediately. Let people call your sex as they observe you. Do not demand cross sex access. Dress as you like, transition, etc. but don't require special interactions. Just 'be chill'. Go about your day, live your life, and if people are rude to you simply because you are different, the culture will protect you like it would any one else who is outside of the norm. Because you aren't really different. Still human, still a person just trying to do things in public, a nobody that no one should make a big deal over.

↪Philosophim For both Phd and Masters you are expected to learn to write in a certain manner. Forcing people to meet high standards is a good thing. — I like sushi

Of course. I did all of that. To be clear, I completed my masters. I am well aware of what it takes to get one. :)

It is a mistake to think of your Masters or initial Phd as being a ground breaking. Your following Phd's should look more like what you want to say as you have already proven your ability to tackle this kind of work on your first Phd. — I like sushi

No, I did not expect my master to be ground breaking. What I did expect was the ability to explore higher level ideas with some support. I went to a few philosophy professors with ideas. Discussions typically started pleasant with the professor eager and friendly. Then as time would go on, I would get one emotion back. Fear. Not at me, but fear that I was solving a few difficult problems that they did not have the answer to.

I keenly remember one philosophy of science professor who I followed up with on the day's lesson. I spoke about the problem he pointed out and a solution. He froze up a bit and said he didn't quite understand it. So I wrote it on his white board and excitedly pointed it out. I remember finishing and looking over at him excitedly to see what he would say. He had his arms crossed. He stared at the board for a good few seconds in silence, no smile or emotion on his face. Then suddenly said with a hint of anger, "Well, you should probably be getting to class." I was just confused. I stammered, "Oh, ok then, thank you for the discussion." As I left down the hall a few seconds later I heard his office door SLAM shut behind him.

I recall another incident where I took a class from the lead of the philosophy department. I believe it was philosophy of law. In class when he pointed out a potential issue with a certain approach, I raised my hand and pointed out another alternative. He got a bit agitated with himself as it was a very good point. You see I was finding more and more that this was not a group of people who were constantly questioning things, trying to solve real problems, or creative people. Instead I found most were conservative linguists who liked to play language games with terms other people invented and constructed boxes out of cardboard to think in.

Once he was agitated, he took it out on me. He didn't counter my point, and other questions and comments I had stated in class had always been met with a friendly response. I had come with an answer that time that he couldn't counter, he hadn't thought of, and could potentially solve the major problem. You would think, "Wouldn't a fellow thinker be excited at the prospect?! Giddy with glee after years of an open problem to have a new avenue to explore?" Nope. Fear. Ego. Ignore the point instead of explore. Attack. A common pattern that is often repeated here as well. Unfortunately philosophy is not filled with people, or attempts to foster people with genuine curiosity, unique points of view, and those that want to push the field forward. It is full of uncreative people who are enamored with the language and problems that have been set and their own solutions to them then anything new.

I once found a professor who actually DID want to talk and didn't react with an autistic meltdown. One of my favorite parts of my first year. He was known at the time as one of the foremost 'skeptic' philosophers in America. We talked epistemology and the basis of one of my posts here. By the end of that discussion he said, "Maybe you have something there." To be clear, I also stated some ideas that I agreed were not good. I keenly remember after explaining one he just looked at me and said, "You've definitely had better one's than that." He was right and I didn't argue the point.

I had hoped to spring board at least one of these topics in an extra focus paper the next year. Unfortunately he was busy and I would have needed another professor to approve. I didn't find anyone interested in exploring it, and by that time I was getting disillusioned with the field.

I even brought up the, "I think you've got something there" idea up to the other grad students. Had a meeting to go over it. One or two were curious about it, the rest were mostly pissed. Many people will be friendly with you if you don't do something that disrupts their impression of their own superiority to you. Once you threaten that, humbleness is rarely the result that follows.

I've often wondered if its my physical appearance that could be at fault, but my time here has shown me otherwise. Philosophy is full of a lot of people who want to justify their own opinions of the world. They do not seek necessarily to challenge themselves, but affirm their own outlooks. Its why its full of ambiguous and esoteric language. In a normal field such terms would be cleaned up, while here they are clung to. I expect this behavior from normal people, but you would think the professionals in the field would adhere to logic instead of rationalization. I was hoping for professors who would help foster eager students who put in the work, but it seems only if you didn't rock the boat.

So my point is that the field does not foster creative types like me. I knew how to speak the lingo. I learned the vocabulary. I learned the literature. But I realized it was all a trap. You see you had to speak in terms of the old literature at all times. You couldn't clarify Descartes cogito, oh no. You had to reference someone else who had clarified it in their own way. Even though of course yours was genuinely unique after doing the research. Didn't matter. Do not be an upstart. Do not be unique. Do not be creative.

To be fair, most fields of work do not foster creative individuals either. You would think out of all the fields philosophy would, but reality showed me otherwise. Oh, and I have attempted to individually publish before. I have received rejection letters detailing that my work needed to be about a particular philosopher. I have crafted the same idea in relation to a philosopher so I could get my unique point across. That unique part was ignored to point out that a statement I had pointed out about that philosopher was not 'wrong' but debatable and I should go into that. Unfortunately my paper was already to the brim of word limits, and I found no way to add that in.

So I realized I really needed to publish a book. Except that's virtually impossible for an unknown individual. So later I wandered over here to see if people would consider new ideas. At least there's been some traction here. I've had some great debates with people who actually read it, and a few of my ideas still stand strong. I'm fairly convinced at this point that my epistemology paper detailing knowledge and inductive hierarchies solves multiple problems within epistemology, and that's only the first intended half.

So I take what I can get. The passion of my youth that had me write, study, and think for hours on end isn't there anymore. If the field had been open to me and helped mold a passionate and creative individual, maybe you would be reading things published from me. But I had no desire to fight the world or publish anything for ego. I just wanted to think. i wanted others to be able to think too. I don't even care if someone takes my ideas or work and publishes. I don't matter. Only the ideas do and whether they can help others solve problems in life.

So there you go. A little more about me and my life experiences if that helps you to understand better.

So there: i did what was asked of me, now I'm going to ask that I get banned from this message board so that it's no longer a source of confusion and anxiety. — ProtagoranSocratist

I'm glad you stuck around a little while longer and gave it a chance. I don't remember the exact date, but I believe in the next quarter or so this site will go down and a brand new philosophy site will open up. You'll be completely free then! In the meantime you should be able to turn off your notifications if you feel that's dragging you back here. Its been nice chatting you a few times ProtagoranSocratist. If I don't hear from you again, I hope you're having a confusion and anxiety free life. :)

Now though, having come back to it, with this forum, it has reminded me how it can be enjoyed just for its own sake. One of the awful issues when studying for a degree was, while we were studying very interesting topics, there was such pressure to meet deadlines that there was very little time to enjoy the subject matter. — unimportant

I remember those days.

A 'useful', in the real world, Protestant work ethic sense, application of philosophy would be areas like politics and ethics. — unimportant

Good points. I hope you enjoy your visit back at a more leisurely pace. :)

The reality is that some people are intolerant. That's independent of whether you're left or right. What is 'intolerant'? A person who is narrow minded, bigoted, or who favors prejudice over learning. This can lead such people to actively try to hurt you emotionally or physically to get their way.

When some people get into politics too far, they start to think 'their side' is more intelligent, empathic, and generally superior than the other. This leads to intolerance. You start getting more narrow minded and thoughts like, "The right are full of bigots" or "The left are full of morons". In reality, it is YOU becoming a moron. Ego is one of the greatest destroyers of an intelligent and open mind.

I talk to everyone. I've spoken to racists, homophobes, sexists, genderists, and people who think the other side should all just die. I've spoken with sexual reprobates, socially inept people, arrogant demeaning people, wealthy, middle class, and poor people.

Does that mean I accept or agree with everything they say? No. Do I put up with rude behavior while I'm talking to them? Not at all. But I do seek to understand them, I don't dismiss anything they say at face value, and I try figure out why and how they've come to have the world view that they do. That is tolerance. The ability to live, work with, talk with, and get by with in daily life without an intent to cause the other unnecessary harm.

My advice is to realize those who claim, "The left/right are X" are usually emotionally compromised people who have fallen for an ideology they can no longer be flexible on. This doesn't just apply to politics, but to all ideological groups. Intolerant behavior that would be chastised if one was alone, can find equally narrow minded people who seek to convince you of how superior, wonderful, and good you are if you join their side. Beware not to become one of them, as it is a trap every single person can fall into.

The presumption seems to be that transitioning does not treat gender dysmorphia. — Banno

Banno both Amadeus and I noted that transition was a treatment for gender dysphoria.

Right, if we say that gender dysphoria is a mental illness, and we have a cure (transitioning) then problem solved. — Janus

To my understanding it is not a cure. It is a treatment that lessens the impact of it, but gender dysphoria still persists in many transitioned individuals. Its like people who are chronically depressed. Depression medication doesn't necessarily cure depression, but it does lessen its symptoms and helps one cope to live life more normally. Take a person off of it, and they'll go right back to being depressed.

For the rest of the transgender folk who don't experience intense pain and suffering, but perhaps just some milder confusion and suffering attendant upon feeling "different" on account of their desire to identify as the gender opposite to their biological sex, there should seem to be no problem if they receive the counseling they may or may not need. — Janus

Correct. The ultimate goal is to regulate your desires and dissapointments in life like a normal person. You don't want to binge on alcohol and become a perpetual drunk that becomes homeless. You also don't want to wallow in agony because you're ugly and you'll never find anyone that loves you. Generally people learn to regulate these wants and needs or use healthy coping mechanisms to regulate them.

Therapy is approached first to see if the person can learn how to manage on their own. A depressed person might be told to fix their diet, start exercising, and go outside. An addict might be given a sponsor to help them out of their unhealthy desires. Sometimes though a person's brain chemistry is too off kilter and cannot be fixed by the individual or with common methods. As such, you escalate to medince. While all medicine is innately of some health risk and impact to the body, its worth it if it fixes the larger problem in their life which is causing them much more harm.

Transition is an obvious harm to the body and mind. In males the initial medicine eventually leads to chemical castration. If estrogen is introduced in more serious cases, there is increased risk of osteoperosis and deep vein thrombosis. Brain scans reveal that transitioned people on medication have parts of their brain altered over time. But it can lead to a person who was completely unresponsive or self-destructive in life to turn themselves around. If a person goes from being an absolute mess of a human being that can't take care of themselves or is one drug abuse away from an overdose, its an overall benefit.

If I recall correctly, Philosophim had strong reservations concerning regret after gender-affirmation surgery. — Banno

I'm not sure if I mentioned that here, but maybe in another thread. Its not that regret should be a factor in transition, its that it should be irrelevant compared to health outcomes for any treatment. The point of treatment is to make the patient is objectively, not subjectively better. If a person has improved physical and mental health markers, as well as living a better and healthier life than prior, their regret is irrelevant. Plenty of people didn't regret getting opioids during the opioid crisis, despite the fact many were becoming addicts with all the shriveling of mind, morals and lifespan that comes with it. You also might get a nice boost for something for five years, then later suffer poor health due to the treatment. Those five years may have given you such a high that you don't regret it, but its still an objectively long term poor health outcome.

That fact does not justify intervention by the state to "protect" people from themselves, unless perhaps if regret were found to be intense in the majority of cases. — Janus

Agreed. No one of any authority has any business enforcing subjective opinions or outcomes. It should always be objective outcomes that should be considered. Regret is purely subjective.

and my response was misworded and should have been referring to the "majority" rather than "all'. So, it should have read: " the assumption that the majority of transgender people experience gender dysphoria, i.e. profound unhappiness and psychic distress, is an unfounded generalization. — Janus

Not a worry at all. If you mean trans gender people, I agree. But if his intention was transitioned people, he's correct. The number of medically transitioned individuals far outweighs those who did it cosmetically.

The assumption that all transgender people experience gender dysphoria, i.e. profound unhappiness and psychic distress, is an unfounded generalization. — Janus

I believe he's talking about transitioned individuals. The only way to be medically transitioned is to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria. There are people who transition who do it for cosmetic reasons, but from the context of his post he's not referring to them. So unless a transitioned person faked gender dysphoria or paid for it on their own dime, its a safe bet that they have gender dysphoria.

Good post.

This has led to disability being seen as a gap between what a body is able to do and what it has been historically expected to be able to do, the gap between body and social expectation. — Banno

Its not the gap between body and social expectation, but physical expectations of basic human capabilities. Social expectations bring arbitrary subjective judgements and should not be used for objective analysis.

In general a physical disability is a physical state of being that does not allow you to function successfully in the physical expectation spectrum. Its physically expected that humans have two working legs, so most physically interactable designs are based around this. This is not subjective, but based around observed realities.

In general a mental disability is a mental state of being that does not allow you to function successfully in the mental expectation spectrum. Most people learn a language of some kind. Not being able to learn language is essential to interact with society without assistance, so would be a disability.

According to the social model, it’s not using a wheelchair that is disabling, but stairs that exclude certain individuals from some spaces. It’s not being unable to hear that disables, but the absence of suitable captions or signing. Disability is a choice made by societal expectations. — Banno

This is definitely backwards. If you aren't a designer or someone who builds for society, there are often many wants, demands, and desires while designing or building something. A good creator has a limit of time, money, and available materials to them, and part of the challenge of the job is creating a high quality product within these constraints. Designing to the statistical norms of biology is chosen for efficiency. There are 7 foot people walking around, but despite this most doors aren't that high. Taller doors necessitate more materials for the door, weight considerations of the door, and considerations of sturdy framing. So yes, most doors aren't 7 foot because of this.

This is why government has regulations. Because given the capability to do something cheaper and with less time and resources, most are going to choose that every time. As such we decide that society will bear the burden of extra time, resources and cost to keep certain minimum considerations when building things. This doesn't just apply to disabled people, but even everyday people.

More recent work has centred on the presumption that disability is inherently a bad thing. That rather than being inherently negative, having a disability is just one more way of being a human, not inherently a disadvantage or a negative, but treated as such by many in the community. — Banno

Of course its a bad thing. It diminishes your quality of life, capabilities, and increases your difficulties in society. Every one given a cost free choice of, "Healthy legs" vs "Stumps that you can't feel or move" would and should take the prior every time. You're still human. You shouldn't be mistreated for it. But yes, you're diminished in capacity. This just sounds like people who don't want to admit they have problems, which is just immature. Accepting the fact you have issues, are less then others in some areas of life, or any other thing you're saddled with that no one rational would choose for themselves, is everyone's responsibility to learn to accept and live with.

So here’s a start. Is there a defensibly “normal” human body? — Banno

Yes, based off of the median and/or average of human biology and health. Its what all medical guidelines and construction are based on. If you cannot without outside assistance, meet this statistical norm, then you are deficient or disabled from the norm in some way.