What do you imagine to be the ideal endpoint of rational self-definition within the trans community? In the best of all
possible worlds, how do you see people taking about and performing gender in 50 years? How do you prefer to think about your own gender? — Joshs

Good question. In the best of all possible worlds:

1. All emotive language is relegated to local social groups. Transgender/sexual language is detailed, precise, and clear in the language cross culturally.
2. Universal acceptance of one's personal expressions and worked out compromises within how that should be expressed within the larger culture.

As for me personally? I don't think of myself in terms of gender. I'm the sex that I am. That's it. I understand there are certain societal expectations of me because of that sex, but I don't find them any more inconvenient or important then any other expectation about me like my looks, my height, my job, or my living space. Ideally, I think that's where we should all be. I don't want to be disrespected for attributes about myself, but I definitely don't think I'm special or should have these things called out either. I'm not, "A short person". I'm just me.

Ideally, I hope people in the trans community gets to the point one day where they realize "They're just people", another part of the human race that is completely unremarkable for being who they are. I feel we're reaching that point with people being 'gay'. Instead of anyone caring if you're gay or not, people treat you based on who you are as a person with your day to day actions. Are you fun to talk with? Are you a good person? Do you lift the world up or bring it down? These are the things that are important. Less of a 'community' and more of a 'part of the human race' mentality.

I've had my fair share of posts a while back on these gender issues which in hindsight only appeared out of a pathetic defensive need. I had, at that time, recently come to find a person close to me is transgender of a certain sort at a certain stage in the process. As of late, after taking a break, I've come to grips more with the perceived looming threat that questioning this "narrative" comes with. — substantivalism

I understand a close friend of mine is thinking about transitioning. We've had conversations like this, though they were difficult at the time. Its at emotional times like these that I feel we should ask ourselves to be more objective.

Emotional appeals are often irrational and not fully voiced. Its a simple example, but when someone complains about a movie. "I didn't like the movie, it sucks." "Why?" I don't know, but the director should be fired and never make a movie again." While this interchange is inconsequential between friends, if the person has the power to actually fire the director and ensure they never make a movie again, we need to ask if the action taken from the initial emotion is rational.

To me, the transgender/transexual community is finding its footing in its desire to be accepted by society, as well as accept itself. As such it is at an extremely immature stage of rational thinking, and is mostly in a reactive and nascent stage of thought. If it remains this way, it will fail. People do not tolerate such things for long. It needs rational discourse. It needs to refine its language and be more clear in its desires and intents. It needs better arguments. If not, I feel it will cause damage both inside and outside of its community and find itself in a worse position than it started with.

A -> B -> C Nothing caused A. A is a first cause[effect]
— Philosophim
With all due respect, Philo, I think you are mistaken: nothing causes A, etc (re: random vacuum fluctuations). — 180 Proof

No worry, challenge away! You have a lot of experience and a keen mind, I definitely want to hear what you think.

I don't think we're in disagreement here. A "first cause" as I define it is the beginning of a causal chain. Meaning a first cause is not a 'first caused', but something which exists as the start of every chain of causal questioning. A first cause 'is'. Which means that yes, nothing causes A. But A is the start. In your case, the universe has no start, but has always existed. There is nothing which caused the universe to always exist. There is nothing which caused a 'start'.

And that's the beginning of the causal chain which explains our universe. If we were to take all the causal history of our universe and place it into a set, there would still be the question, "What caused the universe to be infinite and have always existed?" The answer is: "Nothing". There was nothing which caused our universe to exist in this way, it simply does. There are now no more questions of prior causality to explore. Thus the start of the causal chain, or the first cause.

Different existence isn’t more existence.

Being is just what is in the sense of the whole; and the whole is not increasing when you combine two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. It is a transformation of parts of the whole into different stuff. — Bob Ross

Lets tackle this a minute as I think this is really key to what I'm doing here. I'm not saying I have it figured out, so I really want to look at this more closely. The allowance of different existence is more existence than if it was not there. If hydrogen and oxygen had no potential to combine into water, that would be much less existence in the world. For one, life as we know it would be impossible. So its a fact that there is more existence in the universe that hydrogen and oxygen can combine into water.

The question is really my measurement. I can calculate potential existence which is all the ways a material existence can express itself in combination with other existences. Those combinations create new identities, which are expressions of existence that could not happen when isolating the individual identities that make up the new one. Thus, one potential existence is "Hydrogen can combine with itself and oxygen to create water." But then there's the potential existence of its reality over time. While hydrogen has an overall potential to become water, does it have the potential to become water in the next second based on what's around it? Basically 'contextual potential' versus overall potential.

I haven't included contextual potential yet as its hard enough just thinking about and communicating existence as flat potential in combination with expressions etc. We've been implicitly talking about it however when we talk about constrained examples. It comes into the light more with difficult to realize potentials such as a life. While it is extremely easy to end a life, it is relatively much more difficult to build one again. I don't know how to measure that value and may be another form of statistics if dived into deeply.

So for the most part, I've kept it out of the conversation and decided to keep it as simple as possible. Thus I note that hydrogen and oxygen can bind into water, through I don't measure their statistical likelihood or difficulty in doing so. This is mostly a side consideration though, and the most important thing is that there is something to the potential formation of water. This allows all of life. Eliminate that, you and you eliminate a lot of potential existence.

I think we are in agreement, then, that your ideal state is the most complicated actually possible state of arrangements of entities in reality with the addition that this state is self-sustaining. I think that amendment covers your concerns here. — Bob Ross

Yes, we haven't explored too much in depth, but the theory in general I feel fits into bits and pieces of other moral theories I've explored. Harmony is often times a higher level of existence than its lack. Nice to see an agreement!

1. I wasn’t referencing my view of ‘objectivity’, because it is irrelevant to my earlier point (about your view lacking evidence and argumentation for it being, in principle, about objective morality). I was using the standard definitions in metaethics and colloquial settings. — Bob Ross

Ah, I see! I will agree I have not been able to prove there is an objective morality. All I've been able to argue is that if there is an objective morality, 'existence is good' is the only logical thing I can see it being. Thus it is by no means an empirical conclusion, but a logical one. But this is generally what philosophy is. If it was empirically confirmed, it would be a science. From my initial conclusion, what I am building is arguably not objective either, but an attempt at measurement that fits in with the initial conclusion. It is an attempt at building something objective, though this can only be proven with exploration. Its not an easy task, but I feel there's something there in its initial setup.

All moral theories, and all epistemic theories, rely fundamentally on intuitions: that isn’t unique to ‘subjective moralities’. However, I agree that, under ‘subjective moralities’, it is entirely possible for one person to be right that something is wrong (that a normal person would intuit is wrong, such as “torturing babies for fun”) while another person could be equally right that the same thing is right—since the proposition is indexical. — Bob Ross

I would say intuitions are generally what spark disagreement. An objective morality, if discovered, would transcend intuitions. And I do not mean a claimed objective morality, but a solidly proven one. Our intuitions that the Sun circles around the Earth my exist, but they are objectively wrong. An objective theory of morality would be able to claim, "Your intuition is objectively wrong, and here is rationally why."

So in your case where you invent a scenario that goes against both of our moral intuitions, you need to present a much more specified and provable argument for it to be taken seriously.

Absolutely not! That was a basic, reasonable hypothetical akin to any hypothetical you will find in normative ethics; and, as such, you need to be able to respond and contend with it without trying to shift the burden of proof on the opposition. — Bob Ross

If this were a subjective claim to morality, I would agree. But this is not. We're trying to be as objective as reasonably possible. I'm not trying to shift the burden of proof or say you can't use the example. I'm noting that examples have to attempt to use the objective theory to be good examples. The key to this theory is that morality is measurable in some way. Where we cannot be precise, we must be able to at least reasonably approximate, estimate, or use previously concluded guidelines.

That’s like you asking me: “In your theory, how does it handle the 5 vs. 1 trolly problem?”, and my response is “the scenario you have invented needs to be presented in a much more specified and provable argument to be taken seriously” — Bob Ross

No, that's a much more defined problem. In fact, I can answer that now. Taking into consideration that the person does not know the value of the human beings on the tracks, and the statistical likelihood that any one person is going to equal or surpass the impact on existence that 5 people will in total, you should change the track to hit the one person every time.

In fact, the conversation might go a lot smoother if we stick to well defined and commonly known ethical scenarios before going into our own inventions. But if you wish to keep the example you've given, there are a few things you must clear up for this to be evaluated correctly. This theory is about measurement. If you create a situation with relative measurement, you need to be specific about how much is being gained and lost in the exchange. I'll summarize the problems with your example again.

a. 'Unlock potential' is not a measurement
b. You cannot exclude the consideration of alternative ways of 'unlocking potential', or at least give me a reason why. If killing a baby would save millions of lives, but so would clapping my hands, then clapping my hands would be the moral thing to do. If the only way to save millions of lives was to kill a baby, then killing the baby would be the moral thing to do. That doesn't suddenly prove the abstract, "Killing a baby to save millions of lives is objectively the right thing to do." Context is key.
c. We need to start simple and work our way up to complex problems. If you had set the scenario up as, "If we don't torture this person, then people will die." this would have been something more easy to evaluate. Which is why I broke it down further into the important base question: "What are the moral values of human emotions"?

Give me some credit Bob, I'm not trying to dodge. :)

First, what does it mean to "unlock potential?"

It meant, in the scenario, that Dave, through experience, increases his abilities to torture people which is used in the field. Without it, arguably, he will not perform as proficiently in his work nor will he do it as creatively and skillfully as he could have. — Bob Ross

There are still a few problems with this. Why is torturing people good under the theory? You assume it is good, but this must be demonstrated first. Why is torturing this man the only way to become good at torturing? Does a soldier need to kill sick people before they go into the battlefield and kill the enemy? Its an odd scenario.

On top of that, the avoid any derailments, I stipulated that Billy has only an hour left to live, so it isn’t like Dave is significantly inhibiting or decreasing Billy’s overall potential — Bob Ross

I actually really liked the 'he'll live only an hour'. I think that provides some interesting consideration, you just have a lot of other unclear points and questions that need answering first in your example. In fact, this was the very type of example I gave in the submarine. Everyone is going to die in an hour, one person can kill the other nine to live nine hours. And in the end, its more moral for everyone to live for one hour. But you'll note I eliminated other considerations down to the point we could focus on just the time to live. Try narrowing down all incomplete aspects or variables of your example.

Second, is this the 'only way?'

Not a valid question in this case. The question is “in this scenario, would Dave be doing anything immoral by torturing Billy?”. — Bob Ross

No, a completely valid question when using the theory of existence. Its a theory about measuring existential gain and loss. Its necessary to discuss about what is relatively being gained and lost. When you enter into this theory, you must present moral scenarios using what the theory requires.

Third, is this proven or assumed?

Doesn’t matter: it is assumed as proven. That’s the whole point of hypotheticals (: — Bob Ross

To be fair here, I should have detailed what I meant. Do we have a measurable result that can conclusively show "This man will now be able to extract information from an enemy better than he would not have been able to before." Its a theory about measurement, so when we're asking to look at a result we need to have it measured in some way to make a comparison.

With respect to your treatise on emotions, I think it derailed the conversation — Bob Ross

It wasn't intended to derail, only explain some initial thoughts I had when I first started this theory years ago. This theory is not a carefully concocted theory that I've spent years mastering. Its a baby. With babies you like to talk about some of your feelings about them sometimes. But to be fair, you're probably more interested in the theory then my feelings about it. I'll try to keep the commentary down and just focus on the points. :)

Appreciate the conversation as always Bob!

So, A→C. Okay, you've shown me the transitive property via implication. No dispute from me, but the transitive property by implication is not what I'm focusing on when I accuse you of evasion. — ucarr

Then please be more clear. When you just throw a sentence with a question I have very little to go on. You need to give more context to your question. What are you intending? What are you trying to say? Are you asking the question as a challenge, or as a means for clarification? I don't know half the time and its frustrating when I'm trying to engage with you honestly when you do this.

As you can see, I ask you about the physical connection between first cause and the members of its causal chain. This is a particularly important question for you to answer because you say first cause is not a member of the set of its causations. — ucarr

Now this is much clearer. Try to give context and examples like this to your questions in the future Ucarr and we'll both have a better time. Yes, its not a member of the set of causations that involve time. But that set is a portion of the entire chain of causality. Lets say that there was an answer. A -> 2T + infinity = Y. In other words, the infinite universe was caused by something else. Now you can see the set is not the entire causal chain, but a part. Did A cause that specific eternal universe? Yes or no. And if nothing caused that eternal universe, then the final answer to the causal chain of why that eternal universe existed is that it was not caused by anything else.

Another way to see it is look at it as a finite universe, 2T + 1 = Y where the limit of T is 1. Or a finite universe with infinite sets of causality on its inception 2T + infinity = Y where the limit of T is 1. Or a universe with finite causality but infinite time 2T + 1 = y where the limit of Y is 0 but T has no limits. In all cases there's still the question, what caused it to be? And in all these potential cases, there is nothing else that caused this to be. The set is just a representation of a part of the causal chain Ucarr, not the entirety of the causal chain itself. The first cause is always part of the causal chain, as it is the start of the chain.

No. You fail to note the importance of "distinction" in context here. — ucarr

So that's an indicator to please add more context to your questions. Explain your thinking behind them. Otherwise I'm just guessing or assuming what you're meaning, and it may not be what you intended.

I'm specifically talking about what sets off first cause from its causations. The emphasis here is on the physical relationship between first cause and its causations, not on the definition of first cause. — ucarr

The physical relationship? I don't know, this is not an empirical assessment. This is an examination of a causal chain which is a question of, "What necessarily prior lead to this state of existence". We can capture a state of existence in as much or as little time as needed. "What happened 5 second ago to cause the current state of affairs? Ten seconds. 1 million seconds. What if we just examine what lead to the state result after all of the seconds? Why do we exist today? The big bang. What caused the big bang? Nothing. Lets take all of the seconds if they are infinite. What lead to the state of all of this existing? Nothing.

Now the question arises: "How is the second law of conservation preserved?" You must answer this question about one of the foundational planks upon which physics stands. — ucarr

I thought we already covered this on the idea that the first cause's inception is not bound by laws of causation. If you intend something else, please give an example of what you mean to this question.

Since causation is specifically concerned with how one thing causes another thing, it follows that claiming first cause is not directly connected to its set of causations results from direct observation of this disjunction. — ucarr

Again, I've never claimed this. You are confusing a set as the entire causal chain instead of a part of the causal chain.

You charge me with attacking you instead of attacking your thinking supporting the proposition. — ucarr

When i asked what you thought about this:

Does this raise a question about the practical value of isolating a first cause in abstraction? — ucarr

You didn't answer the question. You made it about me.

I think in your mind you've journeyed to a lonely place defined by the absoluteness of its isolation. Moreover, the solitary denizen of that yawning emptiness flails about, haunted by unbreakable seclusion. — ucarr

How else am I to interpret this? I wasn't attacking you, I was pointing out not to give your opinion about what you think of me, and just keep to the question about the theory.

you're hurling at me a derogatory opinion about my frustration with your perceived endurance of the veracity of your proposition. — ucarr

No, the only things I've been frustrated with are one sided questions without further explanation or not answering my question by giving an opinion on what you think about me. You are allowed to have your frustrations with me as well, I'm not perfect. Noting them helps each of us learn to give the other better communication and intent.

Well, causation -- whether viewed logically or empirically -- entails by definition a physical relationship between cause and effect, or am I mistaken? — ucarr

By physical I definitely mean existent. I can't tell you the exact mechanism between every cause. But causality can be simplified to, A exists which leads to B existing. So again, A -> B -> C. If there is no A, B is the first cause. If there is nothing that exists which causes A, then A is the first cause.

Is it not possible for a living organism to be a first cause? — ucarr

Yes. We went over this in depth with the idea of a first cause as an atom remember? We talked about all the parts, and how they would need to incept all at the same time, which technically means each part is a first cause that just happened to line up with the other first causes? We can shorten that specification to anything like 'a living thing'. This one has been a while and we've only gone over it once. If you need more than the reminder, feel free to ask.

There's no doubt of it; you're first causes hold the position of God. Inescapable God needs to be inspirational, or is the universe really that cruel? — ucarr

For the universe to be cruel there would need to be intent. There's no intent. Its not cruel or kind. It simply is. We as conscious beings can make the universe cruel or kind. My point is even if there existed a conscious God that had a plan, that plan would be completely made up by God with no higher purpose behind that God itself. Its the same boat no matter what. So smile, treat others well, and live a good life. :)

This is an argument not for causation -- first or otherwise -- but against it. It's a recognition and endorsement of self-actualization. — ucarr

I don't understand how self-actualization is against the idea of a first cause. They're two separate things in my book. I think a logical realization that ultimately, the reason for the universe is no higher than its uncaused inception, helps us to realize how important it is that we make something good out of what's here. Mud in the ground has no use on its own, but with some care you can make a house right? Take what's in the universe, enjoy it, and make it better than what it is in itself. Give it the meaning only you can.

Discussion on stoicism and their thoughts on death? — pursuitofknowlege

Doctor to a Stoic: "You're going to die"
Stoic with a bland expression on their face: "Ok".
Stoic dies months later expressionless.

Not much else to explore really. :D

But no one thought the people called dykes or fags were homosexuals. — Bylaw

I don't know where you got that.

Dyke is a slang term, used as a noun meaning lesbian. It originated as a homophobic slur for masculine, butch, or androgynous girls or women. Pejorative use of the word still exists, but the term dyke has been reappropriated by many lesbians to imply assertiveness and toughness.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyke_(slang)

Faggot, often shortened to fag in American usage, is a term, usually a pejorative, used to refer to gay men.[1][2] In American youth culture around the turn of the 21st century, its meaning extended as a broader reaching insult more related to masculinity and group power structure.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot#:~:text=Faggot%2C%20often%20shortened%20to%20fag,masculinity%20and%20group%20power%20structure.

The root of both words has always been about homosexuality. Yes, that slang further evolved into an insult to people, but that insult has always had the implication of homosexual underneath it.

My point was that tom boy was not used in this way. I can't even imagine a child or teenager calling someone a tomboy with hatred. — Bylaw

Then you weren't around when it was used on the playground. It was very often used as an insult by kids at other kids. But lets not get so bogged down in this that we get away from the original point that transgender is a cultural expectation in how a sex should act.

I don't see how their belief changes me. Yes, it's their decision, thoughts arose in their minds. Nothing happend to me. — Bylaw

I never said it did. My point is you are not a transgendered individual without a culture upon which you can measure it. Let me give you an example. Lets say a few women in your neighborhood start wearing orange shoes. Then you as a man start wearing orange shoes. Is that transgender? No, because no one cares.

Now lets say women start wearing orange shoes, and society for whatever reason starts to say, "Ah, orange shoes are feminine now." If you as a man start to wear orange shoes, you are now transgendered. The act of you 'being' by what you like, how you act, etc., is not inherently gendered or transgendered. Because gender is how others expect a particular sex to act. If no one has an expectation for a sex to act a particular way, then acting that way is not labeled as transgendered. Do you understand? You cannot be transgendered. Only society can make you transgendered.

I don't grant changes in them to be considered a change in me — Bylaw

Correct. And that's the point. You are you. Gender is an expectation of how you should act based on your sex by culture, which is enforced by others. You alone cannot be transgendered. You must have a societies gender expectation to cross.

How does someone know that they are transgender?
People can realize that they're transgender at any age. Some people can trace their awareness back to their earlier memories – they just knew.

Right, but only because society created a gender and their innate selves did not want to go along with that expectation. A boy who likes the color pink is transgender in their color preference in one society, while not transgender in their color preference in another society. What is societally independent is transexualism. The desire to change your body to the other sex is not societally created, and is a personal desire of the self.

For many transgender people, recognizing who they are and deciding to start gender transition can take a lot of reflection. Transgender people risk social stigma, discrimination, and harassment when they tell other people who they really are.

This is why its important to define transgender and transexual clearly. 'Gender transition' is nonsense. You cannot change your gender, as society is the one who creates your gender. You can defy your gender that culture ascribes to you, but you cannot transition. I can be a man who acts like a woman in all respects, but people still expect that as a man, I act a particular way, or gender. Transition can only be applied to transexuals. That is the act of body alteration to emulate the other sex in an attempt to appease personal desires, or attempt to be perceived as the other sex by society.

Do I become transgender if I get off a bus in the midwest, but stop being transgender when I get back on the bus since the other passengers are, like me travelling through the midwest? — Bylaw

Within the different cultures, yes.

How do we know if someone is transgender? Must others in the dominant cultural group openly express the judgment? — Bylaw

Yes.

If you understand those expectations, and go against them in public, then you are transgendered in your explicit violation of the cultural norms.
— Philosophim
So, if I don't know, then I am not transgendered while I am there? But then I at least partially own my gender. It would be part of my identity. — Bylaw

If you never knew that you were acting transgendered, then you would not know you were transgendered in that culture. If someone tells you that your actions are 'crossing gender lines or not meeting expectations', and you still act that way, then you know you are transgendered in that cultural expectation.

But then I at least partially own my gender. — Bylaw

This may be semantics, but I don't think you own gender. You decide whether to meet or defy a culture's gender expectations. That does not change other's cultural expectations. You can own crossing gender. You can even say as a man, "I act like society expects a woman to act." But you don't own the female gender. You are crossing into the female gender of that society. You don't get to dictate or own what that gender is.

If people are judged mentally ill in a certain culture for doing things considered within the range of the normal in my culture, and I go there and do them, I am not mentally ill suddenly. — Bylaw

You are mentally ill in that culture, yes. This is why medical diagnosis attempts to cross culture and rely on science careful research and thinking.

Perhaps I am rude not to respect their traditions, given I know it, but I am not mentally ill suddenly then healthy when I get back on the plane. — Bylaw

Because mental illness in this case is not defined by you, but the culture you visited.

I don't think there is consensus at all about how transgendered is used. — Bylaw

Then that is a problem with the word. Words that convey ideas need to be as clear and unambiguous as possible, especially in major discussions about laws and life. And that's what we're doing here. Clarifying the word to the point where it can be used across cultures and allows consistent and rational communication without contradictions or bleeding unnecessarily into other terms.

But yeah, if someone says to me in my kilt that I am dressing like a woman, I'd probably say, 'Actually no. I'm not. But I know men here don't do this.' Unless I thought a crowd was ready to beat the hell out of me. But I wouldn't grant that the person was correct, except for self-protection and then I'd be lying. — Bylaw

Right, you would be implying that "Men in my culture wear kilts." Not that, "I decided alone that men wear kilts." Gender is cultural, and the culture does not care about whether we think its correct or not. We can try to persuade someone that its ok for a sex to act a particular way, but ultimately they have to agree with us. We can also decide which culture we belong to, or the gender definitions that we accept as defined, then decide to obey or cross. But we don't get to decide how gender is decided in any particular culture alone.

This ties in very closely with other traditions you mentioned. There is no objective reason or declaration from God that I wear a particular head piece or bow at prayer. Its culture. Culture can include gender, and it cannot. If I defied bowing at a particular point in prayer despite people telling me I should because in my religion I shouldn't, I would be transculture. (We normally say crossculture). Gender is just another aspect of culture, and follows the same norms just with expectations about how sexes should act instead of situations where sex is not important.

I’m more interested in why this has become such an issue at all. — Mikie

I have a good friend who once said, "The age of the internet got rid of taboos." I like the general sentiment. The motivation behind this is people who are different that want to be accepted into society. Its a re-examination of past prejudices and labels. I think its a fantastic subject to discuss philosophically.

Why I do think its become such an issue is because the definition of transgender vs transexual has been blurred. Its confusing. People don't understand it. Laws are being made to help accept trans people into normative society, but we must still balance accurate language use, as well as the logic of what is acceptance versus imposition.

My first impulse is to deem your non-response a blatant evasion. Could it be you have nothing to say about a first cause and its followers? — ucarr

Look at this again Ucarr. A -> B -> C Nothing caused A. A is a first cause. I don't see me evading anything, you seem to be overcomplicating the issue or seeing something there that I don't.

Why is a thought experiment to such a conclusion worth your time and effort? — ucarr

I have listed this repeatedly. Please go back and re-read where I mention the value of realizing what a first cause is and its consequences. I would relist this if it were once or twice, but I've already mentioned this at least 3 times.

So, first cause possesses the distinction of prior nothingness? — ucarr

Yes. This has been said numerous times as well Ucarr. Please stop asking the same questions again and again and just start asserting your thoughts. I will correct you if you make a mistake. My current correction is your mistake in asking the same question again and again. :)

Such an emergence would be stupendous if coupled with playing the role of an on-sight parent nurturing children, but you say, with pique, first cause is not party to its descendants. — ucarr

It would be stupendous. But such an empirical claim must be empircally proven. If you claimed, "This pregnant woman incepted out of nowhere with a biological age of 23," you better have airtight proof that your claim matches reality.

I think in your mind you've journeyed to a lonely place defined by the absoluteness of its isolation. Moreover, the solitary denizen of that yawning emptiness flails about, haunted by unbreakable seclusion. — ucarr

Yeah...that's an opinion about me not about the theory. Maybe you've just reached the end of exploring this Ucarr. We've gone over it numerous times, it still stands, and maybe its time to accept that. Admitting it works for now doesn't mean you have to like it, or that it can't be disproven in the future. But if we're descending into insults about the creator of the idea, it seems like the idea is pretty solid and there's nothing more to be said for now.

What sort of questions about nothing cry out for answers? Let's suppose our world has nothing for its ancestor. How does nothing animate and uplift human nature? — ucarr

Why do you need something else to do that? If there was something out there that intended humanity to be inanimate and hated human nature, wouldn't you give it the metaphorical finger and uplift humanity anyway? Purpose is not found from without. It is found from within us.

First cause has no truck with us? How dismal. — ucarr

Lets say there is a God Ucarr. It would know its a first cause. Meaning it would be in the same boat you're talking about. "Why am I hear? There's no outside reason for me, a God, to exist. Oh woe is me!" The God would need to make the same decision we do. They must find value and purpose in their own existence. So Ucarr, there is no escaping the reality that even a God has no prior cause, no prior purpose, no sanctioned greater purpose than what they are. That doesn't mean we can't decide to make purpose. To enjoy our humanity. To live life in a way that creates a world that satisfies us and those around us.

I find this peculiar and a bit confusing. The same amount of existence is there irregardless; so how is it really ever more, other than by the waive of a magic wand? — Bob Ross

Because two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom next to each other are not the same as water. Water only exists when a particular combination happens, and water has aspects that are different then hydrogen and oxygen alone. This base pattern is repeated through molecules, living creatures, intelligent creatures, and societies.

The ideal state of anything for you appears to be the most complicated possible arrangement of entities and composition thereof. — Bob Ross

While including the observation that sustaining this over time is more more existence overall then something which concentrates too much and causes collapse. Yes, complexity is a result of this, but not at the expense of existential longevity. It is a balance. As a reminder 100 existence over 1 second is not ever going to come close to 1 existence over all time.

By common standards both in metaethics and colloquial discourse, a moral judgment is objective if it is stance-independent and, subsequently, a moral theory is a form of moral realism or, colloquial, of “objective morality” IFF it describes what is stance-independently wrong and right; and the justification you gave for it being objective was merely that any rational agent would agree or, if I remember correctly, that it is internally incoherent to posit otherwise. — Bob Ross

I'm surprised to see you list that. I generally understood your view of subjectivity to mean the fact we could not ever understand the thing in itself and were therefore 'subjective' in any attempts to capture it. I agree with the portion about being subjective beings, or 'subjects', but do not find that to be what 'subjectivity' describes. We can handle our attempts to define things concurrent with things in themselves objectively or subjectively. But, the act of being a being or a subject which can attempt to attribute identities that are concurrent with things in itself is not 'subjectivity' as usually understood.

While you may believe the moral theory is subjective, and I do agree that parts of this discussion must be subjective as we do not have the means to elevate certain points to testable objectivity, the more important point is that deciding whether to BE moral, is a subjective act. I can see "X is objectively moral", but there is nothing which necessitates that I care. There is no punishment if I do not follow it. Many times there may not even be any personal reward. Whether this proposal of morality is objective or not, there is nothing in reality that compels a person to evaluate and be objectively moral beyond society and the self.

For life to have its full potential, suffering should be minimized where possible as it prevents life from acting as fully as it could.

This doesn’t seem to imply that it is wrong, though, to torture someone in a manner where they do not benefit from it. For example, it seems quite plausible that in some situation allowing a person to torture someone else would actually total net increase potential existence by “unlocking” the full creativity and potential of the perpetrator. — Bob Ross

Ah good, I've been waiting for discussions like this. When I first came up with this theory I explored it for a while. But then, I became terrified. I realized that a subjective form of ethics gives people wiggle room. It allows most people to rely on intuitions, and we can rely on a general good in society that usually keeps things together. But then I thought, "What if you could take a little of what is here and turn it into evil?" Either through misunderstanding (which is fixible) or more worrisome, malicious intent to control.

I feel this is mostly because moral precepts once ingrained in an individual, are incredibly difficult to change. Why that is, I can only speculate. But my observation is that generally such things are core to a person in some special way. Can you imagine a dictator teaching an 'objective' morality to its populace, ingraining the youth from a young age? One that was just enough as a strong start to a theory, but then twisted to their own design? Its hard enough to convince people their subjective morality is wrong, but a rationalized 'objective' morality? I honestly don't know if people can handle it. This is not in regards to this theory alone, but any objective theory of morality in general.

To this point, we also need some guidelines in discussing this attempt at objective morality that will help the most. If our intuitions tell us its wrong, we need a VERY good reason and clearly proven means to say, "This is still objectively true despite our moral intuitions". So in your case where you invent a scenario that goes against both of our moral intuitions, you need to present a much more specified and provable argument for it to be taken seriously.

Lets examine your scenario more closely and I think we'll see its not an objective scenario, but an abstract scenario. First, what does it mean to "unlock potential?" Second, is this the 'only way?' Third, is this proven or assumed? I see you making a similar mistake to the "I tear a piece of paper in half therefore I have two pieces of paper now." You're using language that isn't clearly measured to ask about a theory that requires us to clearly measure (or at least follow guidelines from previous measures).

To really analyze this we need to break it down into pieces. The most easily measured piece is to simplify the scenario into a much simpler one where we can 'measure' one thing at a time. For now, lets start with a very simple scenario. "Hurting others for pleasure". And yet looking at even this, there's an even simpler question: "What is the moral value of emotions in humans?" An objective morality must build itself piece by piece. This is the approach we must make to every moral quandry.

Of course this is laborious and can easily be bogged down in technicality and as precise measurement as imagined. So we must try our best in this casual conversation on a philosophy board to find a reasonably small measure to discuss that does not require careful calibration, while also not being too abstract.

With that, lets start on your first piece: "What is the moral value of emotions in human beings?" I'm sure there is entire literature on this topic alone, but let me try to condense this to a few points I think we can both agree on.

1. Emotions are a way to quickly make judgements that compel action.
2. Moral actions are those which preserve the current total existence, or create more.
3. Moral emotions are those which lead to judgements of equal or greater existence to one's current state of being.

Of course, then there's the question of 'the emotion itself'. In other words, we take the judgement away from it. If i could take a pill which erased all negative or uncomfortable emotions, would that be good? The problem is we are beings that need to make judgements to live. At its most basic, the simple act of eating. If I never made a judgement to eat again, I would die.

But what if I tracked calories and simply ate because I knew I should? What if I could make judgements correctly in my life without needing any emotion, thus thus I could always be happy and content while still making all the correct judgements in life? As you can see, we are in the rabbit whole of breaking this down. Eventually we could go into the overall chemistry of a person. What would being constantly happy do to you? Do we find we actually need a certain amount of chemical stressors in our lives to live longer? We could spend papers and days going down the scope rabbit hole of questions and building block.

So as you can see, there is a difficulty of "Where do we stop to have a meaningful conversation and get anywhere?" What if my not addressing the chemistry of emotions actually IS important when we finally get up to the part of torture? This is where we must create some guidelines.

1. If both parties agree that a claimed moral action seems unintuitive according to the theory, scope must be continually reduced to explain where this comes from.
2. The more esoteric and unlikely the example, the more specification in the example is needed.
3. Complex examples should be built out of already understood simpler examples.
4. If the complexity is too much to explore, both parties can take previous guidelines and agreed upon intuitions as 'good enough for now'.

So, examining your thought experiment, to me the most simple and common scope I can think to start with is about emotions moral value in relation to judgement. Lets see if you agree with my processes and guidelines above and see where you align with this first proposal about emotions as I've already typed enough for now!

What you say above is a re-wording of some of your earlier statements. What you're saying is generally clear, but now I want to take a closer look at some details. You say a first cause is not part of its causal chain. After inception, when the first cause is in the world existing as it exists, how is it physically related to its causal chain? — ucarr

That's definitely not what I intended. The first cause is the start of the causal chain.

Let's imagine a new type of bacterium incepts into our world. Empirical examination leads medical science to believe it causes a new type of disease with unique symptoms. During its lifetime, the first cause bacterium reproduces. As the first cause, is the first cause bacterium distinguishable from its offspring? — ucarr

It is distinct in the fact that if we were to trace the bacteria back to the first, we would find there was no evidence of there being a prior bacterium.

Does this raise a question about the practical value of isolating a first cause in abstraction? — ucarr

What do you think? Ucarr, I've told you the value already in understanding the idea. What do you think about that?

If an effective treatment for the new type of bacterium is developed, does any knowledge of the first cause bacterium, whether abstract or empirical, amount to anything more than an academic exercise in thought experimentation? — ucarr

If you cure cancer for one person, that doesn't require us to learn the full ancestry of the person. The logic is about prior causation, so its use is in questions about prior and ultimate causation.

What I remember pertinent to first causes within the context of causality is that after inception, a first cause is henceforth subject to the laws of physics in application to all things inhabiting the natural world. — ucarr

Correct. More accurately, it exists in the way it exists, and interacts with others in a resultant manner that can be codified into rules and laws.

Here's a question I think unaddressed and important that arises: With the exception of first causes, is it true that -- within the everyday world of things material and otherwise -- all things are part of a causal chain that inevitably arrives at a first cause? — ucarr

Yes. To not be would be complete and utter chaos that could never be understood, codified, or made into any sort of law.

My issue with contingency is that we don’t know enough about reality to know if all things are contingent.
— Tom Storm

You respond to Tom Storm's uncertainty about universal contingency with "correct." Is it the case your thesis posits universal contingency abstractly while, in fact, empirically you're uncertain about it being true? — ucarr

Correct. An empirical verification would only occur if we examined everything in the universe and came to a scientifically concluded result. Arguably, this is beyond empirical verification. So in any empirical test, we look for contingency. So far no one has ever established in any empirical test that contingency does not exist.

Is it the case your uncertainty -- if it exists -- stems from a lack of empirical verification? — ucarr

It is not uncertainty in the logical sense. It is the correct and logical conclusion to draw in the empirical sense. There are many conclusions that we cannot make when referring to the empirical that are largely accepted in the purely logical sense.

You've addressed the issue of empirical verification by saying it's a nearly impossible standard to meet. To my thinking this throws doubt upon the probativity of your thought experiment. — ucarr

A fair doubt to have, but when we cannot explore things empirically, logic based on what we currently know is all we can do. Can I empirically verify that pie can exist in reality as an irrational number? No. Pi's irrational measurement extends beyond our tools. However, we can estimate using significant digits and use it. Pi as a logical number is irrational and infinite. Pi as an empirical number is finite.

For a parallel, consider Einstein and his theories of General and Special Relativity. He developed them abstractly as thought experiments employing calculations. Subsequent to the publication of his papers, empirical verifications of their claims were established. The logical and the empirical are sometimes two halves of one whole. — ucarr

Correct, and I believe I've used this example before. Logically, the theory worked. But it still had to be tested empirically to confirm it as empirically true. Prior to the empirical test, did it mean it wasn't logically true? No, it was logically true with what was known at the time. This is why it was even attempted as an empirical application to begin with.

The logical layout of the necessity of a first cause, and its logical consequences, have a clear map to lay out in an empirical test. In most instances, its impossible as no one can predict when a first cause will happen. But, it could be an accident one day in a lab setting that a first cause happens. That's extremely unlikely of course.

The more important aspect of the logical nature of a first cause is to ensure that people don't throw around empirical claims like "The big bang or God" is a first cause. Because a big bang or God could potentially be first causes in potential, but to claim they are in actual requires empirical proof. We can no longer say, "The big bang is logically a first cause." No, its not. Any question of any specified claim of a first cause is no longer in the realm of the logical, but the empirical.

because, as I've learned from Gnomon, causation is believed but not yet proven. — ucarr

I would question what you mean by 'not proven'. Without causation all of science and reason goes out the window. If causation is gone, then I can't say you typed your reply to me. "You" didn't cause it. And that's absurd.

I write the above paragraph in reference back to the importance of: "It's not clear to me if the universe contains things that are causations mixed with things not causations." — ucarr

According to the thesis I've put forward, its logically possible. First causes would not be causations, but everything after their inception would be.

I know you think I'm pettifogging your thesis with irrelevant blather; I hope my questions are piquant. — ucarr

I did not think this, I was just tired of one sided 20 questions without feedback or further interactions. :)

I know what the one's called 'dyke' went through. I know what the guys called fag went through. — Bylaw

Right. And my point was that sexual preference has been treated much more harshly and in a different light than transgender. There is tacit acceptance of transgender actions up to a point. Even a hint of an incorrect sexual preference was often extremely villified. The grander point is they are two separate topics, so lets keep it that way if possible.

Well, we're all doing that, we're just at varied distances from the places that see them this way. And given subcultures and individuals, we're all probably near people who do this. Stuff happens when they see me. The do/feel/react in certain ways. — Bylaw

No disagreement. If you're separate from that culture, you're not 'transgendered'. And this is also my point in dividing transgender from transex. What gender is, can be so different from culture to culture that we can't use gender as a cross cultural description of a person's sex. Sex does not care about culture and should not be confused with gender.

Viewing you as transgendered doesn't make you differently sexed.
— Philosophim
Nor does it make you differently gendered. It doesn't do anything unless it leads to action on the part of that person making the judgment. — Bylaw

That is determined by the culture you are in. If you are viewed as transgendered, then you are in that culture. You can try to change their minds, but its ultimately their decision.

That last sentence says it for me. The actually event is in the beholders. I act in way X in my city and people don't see me as transgendered, except in some neighborhoods. I travel to another land or enter a subculture's turf in my country or meet by partner's parents and her big family. They judge me differently. I didn't become transgendered. — Bylaw

You became transgendered in that culture. I think this is the confusion some people have. You do not own gender. Gender is not a personal identity. Culture creates gender and you decide to act in accordance with those expectations, or not. If you understand those expectations, and go against them in public, then you are transgendered in your explicit violation of the cultural norms.

A man who wears a kilt in Scotland is not transgendered. A man who wears a kilt in a cultural setting where its seen as female gendered, they are transgendered in their specific dress. When you 'identify' as a gender, you are explicitly identifying your gender with what is regarded as gender within that specific culture. So if you're a Scottish man and get told you're "Dressing like a woman," you would claim, "No I'm not! This is a kilt that men wear!" Your gender you are referring to is the male gender in Scotland. You don't own gender. Gender owns you because it is an expectation from people other than yourself that they expect you to comply with.

I haven’t mentioned the move to discard black in favor of African American. What was behind this initiative? The concern was that black, in referring to a biological
feature common to certain people , associated that group with the concept of race. — Joshs

An odd goal if you're going to make it about geographic locations which are strongly associated with race. It wasn't to eliminate the concept of race, it was an intention to remove the negative connotation people had with the word 'black'. That also failed. Many black people do not like the term african american. They don't have African ancestry, they've been in America for generations and find the term insulting. And people just take the negative connotation they have with the word black and carry it over to African American, making them a two word description that's that much different from a one word 'caucasion' or 'white'. Strange we don't say, "European American" for white people eh?

It was
thought that African, on the other hand, would direct one toward a cultural rather than biological identification, just as indigenous or native peoples accomplishes relative to ‘Indian’. — Joshs

Which again, is terrible. If you're a fifth generation black man in New Jersey, you have nothing culturally in common with Africa. Race does not dictate your culture. Its racist to think that way.

Race is no longer considered by geneticists to be a coherent scientific notion, and has been used mainly to discriminate against individuals. — Joshs

No, race is very important still. Both to combat racism, such as shunting all black communities into their own district despite odd geographical breakdowns in the district, and more objectively in the medical community. If you're black, you are more likely to have certain genetic diseases or issues that someone of another racial decent would have. Its difficult to impractical to erase race. We want to erase prejudice and racism associated with race. A person should be able to say, "I'm black" and that be no more impactful on someone's judgement about them then, "I have brown hair."

The term ‘person of color’ achieves something similar but in a more inclusive way. It’s important to note that built into the embrace of blackness as a term is that it includes within its meaning the sense of being a minority in danger of marginalization. — Joshs

Sounds like its about being afraid from calling out people who aren't white, but still get lumped in together as 'not white'. Isn't it odd that white is not a color with this phrase?

It’s important to note that built into the embrace of blackness as a term is that it includes within its meaning the sense of being a minority in danger of marginalization. In other words, it is considered important that a word which distinguishes one group from others on the basis of the particular surface indicator of skin color should be used not only as a banner of pride but of continuing struggle for acceptance. — Joshs

I'm going to preface this with some information about myself. I taught high school math at minority inner city schools for five years. Often times my kids and parents were 60% black and 40% hispanic. So my views on this are real world practical and not armchair theory. If you want to accept people, don't give them special words or terms. Also don't eliminate race, because black people are black, hispanic people look hispanic, etc. Neither shame NOR pride should be given about someone's race. Pride should be in your accomplishments and character in life. Educate people that race does not mean culture.

I also lived several years in an all black apartment complex as a white person. I got to know a few blacks over the years and I can tell you right now, being black does not mean you ascribe to 'black culture'. I would say off the cuff, 20% of people really liked stereotypical black culture, about 60% just went along with it, and 20% hated it. People are people and no different than any one else. There is no pride needed in being black, just like there is no pride needed in being white. Its just a biological aspect of yourself, nothing more.

Also, in places of economic success, you find there's really not a 'struggle for acceptance'. I've worked in high level jobs with middle class black workers who were popular or not based on their personality, not because they were black. We have to be very careful not to ascribe anything to skin color or race besides the biology, and how that was adapted for the climate their ancestors adapted to. Anything else flirts with prejudice and racism. I see the same flirtation with transgenderism and sexism when people assume gender affects sex.

This strategy to knowingly keep using a term that in part connotes marginalization is seen in the embrace of the word ‘queer’. It has built into its sense both the recognition that certain groups have been considered as freaks, perverts or pathological by the dominant culture, and that these groups are turning that meaning into a positive by celebrating their non-conformity. — Joshs

Correct because this word was a poorly defined word used to lump a group of people into a weird and negative context. The root meaning of 'queer' is 'strange'. I agree in this instance to change the word. Homosexual is more of a scientific identity, and I would think the slang term of 'gay' would have more negative connotation. I think in general because these words aptly and accurately describe the situation, "A person of one sex who has attraction to another person of the same sex," that its not innately offensive. The concern here is to make sure that people don't discriminate against homosexuals, no matter what we call them.

You have argued that black means the same thing as negro or colored; they all refer to skin color. But the fact is all these words mean different things in different contexts for different people. What is relevant here is that there were predominant meanings associated with some of them that were damaging to the group they weren’t being applied to. — Joshs

I understood your point about changing from negro to black. But did you understand my reply in how that does not apply to pronouns?

it’s emergence was associated with bold messaging such as ‘black is beautiful’ and ‘black power’. Beauty and power are concepts that were not generally associated with negro and colored. Blackness was designed to be as much a cultural as a physical concept, reflecting the rapid and dramatic changes in attitude that took place in the 1960’s. — Joshs

I still think this is a damaging solution. You are not beautiful because you are any type of color. You are beautiful because you are pretty to others. You should not have pride nor shame in your skin color. It shouldn't matter besides attraction preference. That's where we need to get to as emphasizing that your skin color or sex makes you more or less special is just another form of racism and sexism.

Many women would say yes. But what evidence do we have that cultural stereotypes are ingrained within the word ‘she’ that have affected women on a day to day basis? For starters, applying for a bank loan, mortgage, credit card or job was a very different experience for a woman than for a man. — Joshs

Which, if true, does not change my point about pronouns describing people's sex. If your name is Angela, a gendered name associated with being female, it doesn't matter if you mark, "he/him" on your application. People aren't stupid. A better solution is to not name your kid names highly associated with one gender so people don't know from your name alone. And if you notice on forms, people do not ask what sex or race you are except to keep it optional. Changing pronouns and clearly telling people what they are brings sexual connotations to situations that shouldn't require them.

Again, the more important part is to ensure that women are not discriminated against. That we educate society that barring certain biological general differences, one should take a person on the merit of their character and actions than their sex.

But one might ask, is there a way to change attitudes about femaleness without eliminating she? — Joshs

No. People are going to look for sex always. Just like people are going to see that a person is black or white. Pretending it doesn't exist, or saying, "I'm white" when you're clearly black, is not a rational way to solve the problem. The problem isn't with being a particular sex or race. Its about societies prejudices and isms in how race and sex are treated.

So far I’ve been arguing that harmful cultural prejudices make their way so frequently into what we mean when we use a word like ‘negro’ or ‘she’ that the groups affected by these uses felt it necessary to call attention to such uses by playing with the language. — Joshs

I don't think this happens frequently. It happens. And when it does, we should evaluate how to handle it.

Your concern has been that, however we decide to re-educate ourselves concerning the detrimental cultural aspects, we must protect those words that provide a clear meaning of physical and biological differences. “Blackness” allows us to have our cake and eat it , too, by changing attitudes without getting rid of the physical meaning. But eliminating words that refer to the biological sex binary would seem to block access to such clarity. — Joshs

Yes, that's basically my point. We can't ignore biological realities, and sexual biology is a reality that has real consequences in life. We need to work to stop sexism, not eliminate the identification of sex.

But how many of the occasions when we reflexivity use the word ‘she’ involve a need to know the biology of the person we are dealing with? — Joshs

Probably not many. In my own writing I generally avoid pronoun usage unless its pertinent. If I'm talking about a woman giving birth, I'm going to use the word she. If I'm talking about someone doing heavy lifting I'm going to use pronouns because physical labor is associated with strength, and it gives a picture of they type of men and women in that job.

People in general are not 'not a sex'. So when describing a person its fairly important in the written or spoken word. I can say, "He was wearing a dress," versus "She was wearing a dress," and different images come to mind. Its not a statement that makes any judgement values. Its just a statement of the situation that conveys the reality of what's going on clearly.

I suggest the reason for this is our tacit assumptions that our cultural assumptions concerning the roles of and behaviors don maleness and femaleness of those we are interacting with is relevant. — Joshs

While I agree people are going to ascribe cultural expectations, or gender to hearing about a sex, there are also practical and biological considerations as well. If I'm interested in a mate based on my sexual preference, I want to know the sex. And as mentioned earlier, its nigh impossible for most people to imagine a sex neutral person as that isn't the norm of day to day experience, or the reality of the people we are describing. Just as we should not be ashamed to mention a person is black as an attribute only, we should not be ashamed to mention sex as an attribute only.

Some may accept a biological binary, some may not. For those that do, they can simply refer to it directly, leaving out all gender implications. — Joshs

This is honestly what I'm going for. Let sexes be the sexes and understand that gender is a cultural construct that flirts with prejudice and sexism.

Do you think that the umbrella of transgender can include within it a notion of gender not tied to any knowledge of biological sex? For instance, those who believe that everyone has their own unique gender, just as everyone has their own personality dispositions. and that biological sex is not relevant to this fact. — Joshs

No. That's just an aspect of your personality. Gender is "Cultural expectations of your sex". Expectations from you apart from your sex are just cultural expectations of people. If you remove sex, you remove gender.

Also, I really appreciate your thoughts and replies. I can see your viewpoint articulated well and I hope the discussion is enjoyable. :)

↪Philosophim I really respect your responses to Joshs. Wanted to throw that out. He's playing a game, and you're not biting. It's great to see. — AmadeusD

While I appreciate the compliment, I caution against despairaging anyone here for their view. Josh's argument may be genuine, and that's what philosophy discussion should be about. Lets hear each others viewpoints and think about them. Josh is not insulting me nor do I believe he is trolling. Lets just give people the benefit of the doubt for productive conversations. :)

I don't think this is morality, this is just a proper way to identify people.
— Philosophim

You are way too educated and too smart to let yourself get away with this sort of thing. I'm going to leave it there. — unenlightened

I also appreciate the compliment, but in my own understanding and assessment of morality, I really do not see it as a moral issue. If you want me to explain I will, but I also understand if you wanted to simply post your comment and leave it.

I believe people should be free to do what they want to do in life. There are people who also want to cut their arm off. If after a discussion they still want to, let them.
— Philosophim
Are we really at such a point that a 'discussion' mitigates other such concerns that may have primacy with regards to such extensive/extreme modifications. — substantivalism

Yes. People are more rationalizing than rational. It takes effort and often times training to truly think rationally. Rationalization is about creating arguments that give you what you want. A person who is rationalizing will not accept rational refutation of their rationalization easy, because the point wasn't to be rational, it was to give the mind a non-cognitive dissonance way of justifying getting what they want.

And before I or anyone else thinks they are above it all, we're not. We all do it on some basis and its easy to slip up even when actively trying not to.

At this point she understands within that culture that her behavior is seen as belonging to the male gender, not the female gender. If she says to herself, "I don't care, I'm still going to be me." she is transgendered in that culture.
— Philosophim
I'd still quibble over the language. I'd say now she knows how she's going to be judged there. And she doesn't really have a way to not be her, at least in the short term. She'd just be hiding who she was, and like feeling the aggression and hiding it. So, if the views make her something, she's still that something, but managing the camouflage it. — Bylaw

No denial that she's hiding what she is. Gender often asks us to behave, act, and dress in ways we would rather not. Much of gender is a holdover from a less technologically advanced and enlightened society, and is too often an undercurrent of sexism. Gender is a social construct, and a social construct that pressures you to act, dress, or behave a certain way.

So, are you transgender as a transvestite when you dress that way, or all the time? — Bylaw

All that it takes for a person to make a transgender action is to do something cross gender. What I think we in society label as a "transgender person' is someone who engages in cross gender behavior in public in their daily life. Everyone is going to cross some culture or group of people's idea of how a man or woman should act. If a person constantly and willfully crosses that line, despite knowing the culture would frown on it, that's being a 'transgender person' in that culture.

What if you are traditionally male in your culture 99% of the time, but once in a while you dress up as a woman to get sexual pleasure? — Bylaw

Sounds like a kink or fetish to me. Which is fine. In matters of sexual gratification, "You do you." :) Specifically why I wouldn't consider it a cross gender action is that society does not assume that women and men's expected dress is designed for their personal sexual pleasure.

Or, the same man otherwise who instead likes to be dominated sexually, sometimes. I suppose I am probing here because I think it might be better not to label people and in a binary way — Bylaw

See, this is one of the weirdest things to come out of the transgender community to me. Sexual orientation, sexual fantasies, and sexual practices, do not change your sex or are even transgender in my view. Sex is weird on so many levels I just don't blink an eye. Sexual pleasure and kinks are often about taboos or 'I shouldn't be doing this." Which is normal to both sexes. Its completely unsurprising that cross dressing or cross gender role play would turn some people on. We already processed that sexual orientation doesn't change your sex with gay people. That would be like saying, "As a man you had sex with a man, so you're a woman now." Its absurd to me.

But that's just the thing: to me, at least in general, they were not told that. It was not a term of insult, nor was it part of getting them back on the right side of the gender fence. It was a kind of minority normalness. Oh, she's a tom boy. Now that might have been in the subculture I was in, loosely urban U.S. — Bylaw

I think because you were not a tom boy, that you don't have the understanding of what tom boys went through. Further today we're seeing some tom boys being told they're transgender and should transition. Finally, I'm sure you understand you don't have to say specific words to understand that logically, you're implying something underneath. Calling someone a tom boy is expressing publicly that a woman is not behaving within the cultural gendered norm of their sex.

There was a qualititative difference between being called a tom boy and being called a 'fag' say. One could say, parent to parent, Oh your girl's quite the tom boy and not get into a fist fight. — Bylaw

Same with calling someone else's son a girly man or mama's boy. Being transgender doesn't have anything to do with your sexual orientation. The issues with sexual orientation and crossing the gender divide differ in societal importance, and in general there was a much bigger backlash to sexual orientation crossing than gender crossing.

My quibble has less problem with this last description - the actions are transgendered there, which they would be even if I never realized during my whole stay. Rather than become transgendered. — Bylaw

To be clear from earlier. Everyone makes transgendered actions. To be identified as 'transgendered' you must be someone who willfully violates gender norms consistently and willfully.

I did understand that one wasn't changing sex in this situation. I just don't think you're changing anything at all. The new situation is what is happening in the way you are viewed. Just as the viewing one as male - if the other group thought you were actually male when you're not - doesn't make you male, the viewing you as transgendered doesn't make you differently gendered. — Bylaw

Viewing you as transgendered doesn't make you differently sexed. Being transgendered by definition, is committing actions associated with the cultural expectations of the other sex, and not your sex. You do not own gender. Culture does. Gender is not genetic. You can be a girly boy or a manly man. Neither is gender. You can like painting your nails or not as a man. That is not gender. Gender is culture's expectation of how you should act based on your sex.

Good conversation Bylaw, I really appreciate you digging in. :)

↪Philosophim Nicely put. My issue with contingency is that we don’t know enough about reality to know if all things are contingent. We know a little about of our localised universe. — Tom Storm

Correct. This is not an empirical proof, but a logical proof based on what we know today. Its nice to someone understand it right off the bat. :)

Since both of your equations evaluate to the same result, I wonder whether there's any meaningful distinction between them. — ucarr

I don't considering each time tick that passes we have a different number of causations added. But if you don't think its meaningful, tell me why!

I understand you to be telling me you arrive at your premise:
Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause
— Philosophim

by way of a thought experiment. — ucarr

Yes, this is an example to help you understand the abstract points I've been making throughout our discussions. Is the thought experiment logical? Does it add clarity to the abstract? What do you think of it?

Do you have a point...
— Philosophim

Keep trying Ucarr!
— Philosophim

What do you want me to understand from this? — ucarr

I want to hear your point of view. I want a discussion. I don't mind answering some questions, but you've only posted questions for the last six posts without any feedback, and I'm failing to see this going anywhere at this point. Please try to engage and not make this a one sided 20 questions alright? Did you understand my point two posts ago? I don't know, I hope you did. Its getting to the point where I expect you'll ask, "What time is it?" "Is it true this means you like the color blue?" :D I'm laughing over here but really, please try to not just ask questions.

It's not clear to me if the universe contains things that are causations mixed with things that are not causations. Is it the case that whatever is not a causation is a first cause? — ucarr

I have been over this numerous times at this point. Its been answered already several posts up, please review. We had a lengthy discussion about first causes and how they enter into causality once formed. Please look for that again.

Regarding: 'up to the point in which we ask, "What caused that universe?,"' it's not clear to me when this point is reached. Is this the point when: "It entails eventually putting it into a set." — ucarr

Yes. We take the entirety of the causations over the infinite time in the universe then ask, "What caused this to be?" Why is it 3T + infinity = y instead of 2T + infinity = y? Do you see my frustration here? I feel like I'm going over the same stuff again and again. Please take some time to review what I've already written first before asking questions as we've covered a lot already.

Does this evaluation of all causations into a set occur in time as we know it? — ucarr

What? Are you saying that the formulation of the formula 2T + infinity = Y occur in time? A causation chain in total is not taken in 'time'. Its an evaluation of everything that has happened so far. You are given the formula 2T + infinity = Y. This formula contains all the causality by time in that universe. So you say, "That's neat. What caused the universe to be infinite and eternal in that way?" Is it "Nothing" or is there something else that caused it? If there's nothing which caused it to be eternal, then there was nothing that deigned its inception; it simply is. A first cause to all the rest of the causality.

The infinite causal chain equals members populating a set; they are more commonly referred to as the universe? — ucarr

No, as mentioned before its the set of all causations within that universe up to the point in which we ask, "What caused that universe?"

At this point, you have evaluated down to two things: first cause; causal chain as members populating a set? — ucarr

Ucarr, this is not complicated. Do you have a point or are you just going to keep asking odd questions? I've told you what this is several times already.

Am I correct in understanding you to be saying the procedure for comprehending the value of an infinite causal chain entails looking at the infinite causal chain as a whole? — ucarr

It entails eventually putting it into a set.

Moreover, am I correctly inferring that by looking at an infinite causal chain as a whole, I'm drawn by a sequence of reasoning to the necessarily logical conclusion that an infinite causal chain is a first cause? — ucarr

No, the chain is not the first cause. The first cause of the chain occurs after you take all other causality within that universe. So you have mapped out that it is eternal and infinitely regressive. What remains after that is, "What caused the universe to be?" Go backwards if you wish. Start with the set, then you can explore every single bit of cauasality within that set. None of what is in the set caused the set, an infinitely eternal universe, to be.

Given a first cause, is it correct to say the next thing following the first cause -- the first thing caused by the first cause -- appears as the first causation? Subsequent links in the causal chain are, likewise, causations? — ucarr

Seems good to me. This is definitely clear in a finitely regressive universe. In the case of the formula of an infinitely regressive universe, because there is infinite time and we are capturing all possible causations within infinite time, there is no 'first causation". Essentially the first cause comes about after we capture all possible infinite causations in that universe, then ask the next question, "What caused it to be this way?"

Why is it 2t + infinity = Y and not 3t + infinity = Y?
— Philosophim

Does Y have an infinite value? — ucarr

Anything + infinity is still infinity. I'm not questioning at this point whether this is possible, we're just looking at what its like to capture the set of all causations within an infinite universe.

And one could argue the purpose of the word negro was to describe color of skin. — Joshs

I did note that. And I also agreed with you that it had grafted a connotation onto it that was entirely too negative as to ever be disregarded. I also noted however that the new word continued with the non-offensive use of the term which is simply describing skin color.

This is not a good analogy for the change of pronouns.

1. You aren't disregarding the old words to make a new word, you are using the same word. We're still using 'him' and 'her'. This would be like me still continuing to use negro but saying, "Yeah, but it doesn't mean slave or black anymore, don't think that way."

2. The disregard for negro was to regard what was offensive or oppressive. There is nothing offensive or oppressive about the part that pronouns were used primarily to identify sex.

So you are not creating a new word to keep the inoffensive part of an old word. You are saying we remove the inoffensive point of the word and replace the meaning of the word with something else entirely. Why erase a word describing sex? What's the benefit?

But it was likely never simply a neutral label, because it was shaped right from the start by the cultural context of its use, just as pronouns were never purely about biological sex. The modern scientific concept of sex didnt even exist until recently. Tracing the etymological history of male-female pronouns through different cultures would produce in every case meaning in which whatever ‘natural’ sense of the binary was hopelessly and inextricably entangled with cultural understanding of gender roles. — Joshs

I would like to hear more specific examples then general claims. My understanding is that in most cultures for most uses of the use of pronouns, it refers to sex. This is also not argument against my point as to why pronouns are better used to describe sex than gender. Please address that point if you would.

You want to be careful here , because look how easily we could insert the word ‘negro’ into your account. In fact , conservatives like William F . Buckley used a justification not unlike your argument for not supporting the civil rights movement. — Joshs

Don't just tell me I should be careful. Tell me how I'm doing the same thing. Otherwise I'm going to handwave this away considering your analogy with negros doesn't work.

The burden was upon the negroes to convince the larger population of the need for the changes they advocated. I agree that whether one’s cause is worthy ultimately will be decided not simply by our own desires but by convincing others. — Joshs

Correct. And as philosophers we should ask if their arguments are valid and helpful. If we started spreading telling all of the children in America that the president should be a king, does that make it right? Of course activism is happening. That's not an argument for it being right. Try to go back to my points that sex is a fine neutral term that crosses cultures, whereas gender creates cross cultural problems in communication.

Why do you think it has become important for those advocating for changes in the way society thinks about gender to alter the traditional association of pronouns with plumbing? Isnt it because they believe that the use of these
pronouns has evolved in most cultures to associate maleness with power and privilege not accorded to femaleness? — Joshs

Wouldn't it be far easier to get people to stop associating maleness with power and privilege? Do you think changing the meaning of pronouns is going to erase this? No, that's stilly. People associating more to a word than its meaning and general use are using slang. If there is slang that implies being a 'he' means power, then the slang needs to be addressed, not the culturally neutral term of the pronoun.

So how do we define what it means for the meaning of a word to be used accurately? — Joshs

'He' is a biological mail, 'she' is a biological female. That's it. Anything more attributed to that then this is slang, and an issue with the people involved not the language.

The etymological history of language shows that the meaning of words continually shifts over time. Shouldn’t accuracy of words be defined on the basis of the dominant way they are actually understood by a culture, rather than by recourse to categorization based on a presumed authority ( such as biological plumbing) that the culture is not paying attention to? — Joshs

Of course words can change over time, but there is still the question of whether this is a positive or negative change. What you're talking about is stereotyping and sexism. First, the entire culture is not using pronouns as a form of oppression. Most of us are just using it to identify sex.

Second, anyone who uses them as a form of oppression is adding more to the word than intended. They are 'genderfying' the word. And as you can see, that creates a problem doesn't it?

Third, there are multiple cultures who all have their own uses of words, but when we communicate cross cultures we understand we need common ground. The minority culture may ask the majority culture to use the minorities terms, but they may not demand it. Makes sense right? If most people used the word 'cool' to describe something awesome, and a minority demanded that the majority stop using it that way, I don't think it would go so well.

Why was the word negro changed to black? After all, one could argue that it is merely a translation of the French word for black into English. But those who advocated for a change knew that this is not how negro was understood by the dominant culture of the U.S. in the mid 20th century. The word black was chosen as a more accurate verbal representation of a being with equal social status to whites than the word negro symbolized. — Joshs

Excellent point. But we have a very objective reason. Slavery. A difference of use that was so controversial an entire war was fought over it because negro was synomyous with 'inferior person'. But pronouns don't have an objective abuse like this. Further, the color change had the same underlying meaning it was trying to get to, "that they had black skin". The idea that pronouns change to gender defies the entire purpose of the underlying word, which is to describe sex.

Similarly, allowing individuals to chose their preferred pronouns over ‘he’ or ‘she’ is designed to offer a more accurate verbal representation of what they consider as their gender and/or how they want their social status to be perceived. — Joshs

Society is not obligated to view you how you view yourself. This is what a child does. "I'm strong!" "No you're not" *Child gets mad and storms off* Part of maturing is realizing that you exist in society and other people see you differently than you see yourself. Part of existing in society is learning how to get others to see you the way you want, which requires effort on your part. No one is every obligated to see you as you see yourself simply because you tell them they should.

If I want others to see me as strong, I need to lift heavy weights. If I want others to see me as kind, I'ld better act kind. Even then, people will have their own opinions. "Nah, they're not that strong, that's just 120 pounds" "Kind? All they did was listen to another person's problems, that's basic."

Now, can someone tell a local group, "Hey, would you mind calling me he or she? It makes me happy." That's fine. People can say "No" or they can say, "Yes". Its up to them. But it is using the word differently as initially intended, asking them to covert it to a slang which describes gender in that group. No one is obligated to participate in your slang. No one is obligated to see you as you see yourself. It may be kind to. Some people may not mind. But it is never an obligation or something that should be enforced as being official.

The ongoing reinvention of gender-related language is a an experiment still in progress. Like all etymological changes that have taken place in history, we will likely go through a number of permutations before society settles down for a time with a consensus on what ‘accurately’ reflects the emerging understanding of the relation between sex, gender, status and power. — Joshs

That is what we're doing here. Appreciate your input to the discussion. :)

But I am assuming we will not be returning to ‘he’ and ‘she’ for the same reasons that ‘negro’ is not likely to be making a comeback any time soon. — Joshs

I disagree, on the points I addressed earlier.

This isnt quite accurate. ‘Trans’ isn’t simply slot ratting within an already defined and culturally familiar binary. It can mean ‘transcend’ as well as transition within. — Joshs

I'm not sure I understand. Gender is a cultural expectation for how each sex should act within that culture. But culture doesn't make all actions about gender. For example, all people wear shoes. All people breath. Its not transcending gender, its just being a human.

Maybe you mean in a case in which there is an expected way for one gender to act, but not an opposite in the other gender? Can you give me an example, I think that would help.

It can just as well be true that a transgender perceives themselves to be acting in a way that defies all expectations of a culture. — Joshs

See, if a man or a woman started to walk around barefoot, I wouldn't see that as transcending gender. That's just defying cultural expectations for people.

So, if it is not intentional then it's not transgendered? Do we mean intentionally deciding to cross gender traits or intentional in any way? — Bylaw

Great question that I'll try to clarify. Lets say a woman acts 'aggressive' and no one blinks an eye. Within that culture, its accepted that someone of her sex can act that way. However, she enters into a culture where aggressiveness is seen as male. People tell her, "You're acting like a man with that aggression." At this point she understands within that culture that her behavior is seen as belonging to the male gender, not the female gender. If she says to herself, "I don't care, I'm still going to be me." she is transgendered in that culture.

Basically, its understanding the gender of a culture, then not being pressured by that culture to follow the gender expectations.

And, not an example of the same question, is a transvestite, transgender? — Bylaw

Yes. To be a transvestite is to dress in the manner as the opposite sex that clearly conveys this to other people. This does not mean they are transex, just transgender.

Perhaps today some people would call a Tom Boy transgendered, but when I was growing up those girls were not considered transgendered and things were vastly more conservative about gender roles then. It was one of the types of normal girls. If someone had thought they were truly transgendered they would have used a much harsher name. — Bylaw

Just because we use the term transgendered more today doesn't mean it can't be applied retroactively to the past. Telling someone, "You're acting like a boy," is telling someone, "You're acting like the wrong gender".

Of course other people can disagree. But saying that the Malaysians disagree, doesn't mean I am transgendered. I haven't become something else. I am in a place where some people would think I am outside the proper role/set of traits. I'm not saying they are wrong and I am right. I may not even be thinking I am anything in particular. But I don't become something else because of how they see me. — Bylaw

To be clear, being transgender does not mean you've changed your sex. You have not become, "Something else". You are simply dressing, acting, or behaving in a way that a particular culture expects people of a particular sex to do. If I'm a male that likes putting on nail extenders and painting them hot pink, I'm still a male. The action I'm doing is transgender, as normative American culture expects that only women do this.

Here's a more historical example:

“It was related to the mother color of red, which was ardent and passionate and more active, more aggressive. Even though you reduce the shade level, it was a color that was associated with boys,” Eiseman said.

An article titled “Pink or Blue,” published in the trade journal The Infants’ Department in 1918, said that the generally accepted rule is pink for boys and blue for girls. “The reason is that pink being a decided and stronger color is more suitable for the boy,” it said."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/12/health/colorscope-pink-boy-girl-gender/index.html

As you can see the colors which are escribed to modern genders were once reversed. Did men suddenly become women and vice versa once we switched colors? Of course not.

It makes me think of how people who have very rigid ideas about what a boy then man should be like and what a girl then woman should be like often put in a lot of effort training boys and girls to fit their roles. If they are right that boys are like X and girls are like Y you shouldn't need all that training. Boys will be boys and girls will be girls. All the training and shaming to form correct roles is a sign that they are precisely NOT natural, or you could let nature take its course. — Bylaw

I agree! I think we can take questions of 'transgender' and look at them more in depth. If your boy is open with their feelings, why do you think that shouldn't be? They're still a boy whether they hide their feelings or not, so what's the reasoning behind a gendered idea that they should be stoic and unsharing? Separating the body and gender continue to show more benefits and clearer points then blending them together.

In culture, the matter of trans identity is still finding its way. Trans people themselves have a range of views and approaches. For now my opinion is that we need to remain open to a range of understandings in the space and not police the language and conceptual frameworks too much. That's all. — Tom Storm

This I can understand. My counter, and you may disagree with me, is that trans people are people, not a specialized group. We all speak English and share language. It is the responsibility of those that want to move beyond their isolated culture to invite us all in and allow our input as well. I appreciate your viewpoints Tom, we'll catch you another time!

So a woman who wears a suit is still a woman. How she expresses, dresses, or behaves, has no impact or change on her sex.
— Philosophim

This is you imposing your morality on the world. It may be your ideal, and how you would like it to be, but it is a long, long way from the actual. — unenlightened

I don't think this is morality, this is just a proper way to identify people.

The actual is that a woman with a beard is a freak. Therefore, a woman with a beard might prefer to 'pass as a man'. And in that case, your insisting on referring to her with the female pronoun is not merely oppressive, but dangerous and possibly life-threatening. — unenlightened

This is a case of morality. First, I'm not saying people can't emulate other sexes and attempt to pass in casual settings where sex does not matter. I'm only noting that when sex does matter, emulation should be deemed good enough. Growing a beard does not mean a woman has a prostate exam for example.

Calling a woman who is emulating as a man is not dangerous. What's dangerous is if people think they should commit violence against a woman who is emulating as a man, or has secondary sex characteristics that are typically associated with a man. We have not yet discussed pronouns yet, but we may here.

The problem with pronouns is they have traditionally been sex driven, not gender driven. In old times if I was told I was going to meet my future wife and I would love her, everyone knew she meant 'female sex'. Now, that doesn't mean this tradition needs to continue, but there should be a good reason to change it.

So, lets think about it. Gender is a cultural construct, or an expectation of how a particular sex should act. Is this consistent across all cultures? No. In fact, this might not be consistent across even small groups of people or individuals.

The purpose of communication is to convey an idea clearly and efficiently. When I say a 'car' you don't think a 'truck'. When pronouns mean sex, the conveyance is clear. Bodily female or male. Pronouns, which are not culturally bound, must remain culture neutral to keep their clear conveyance. Since different cultures have different ideas of gender, it is not rational for pronouns to be used to match culture, to keep their clarity.

What you're looking for is 'slang'. Slang happens when we take a word that means one thing in a language, and repurpose it within a culture. Thus the word 'drip' can mean more than water droplets trickling, but 'snazzy dress'. If I call someone a snazzy dresser instead of saying, "You have drip", I am not participating in slang, but cross culture language.

This means that if a group of people, or a sub culture wants to call a transgender person a pronoun that doesn't fit their sex, its fine. But that's slang, not official. Requiring other people to use slang is of course, wrong. Being offended that people do not use slang is also wrong. I don't have to use the word 'drip' or 'jelly' or 'cool' if I don't want to. Can people who use slang push it to become part of the vernacular? Of course. But that doesn't erase the other meanings of the word in the culture either. I have no issue with people using pronouns as slang. But if they insist that pronouns as slang should eliminate the normative use of the term, I'm going to reject that. Pronouns as sex identification is far more valuable as a culturally neutral term than as slang.

Firstly, as has been pointed out, the genetic picture is subject to various anomalous and exceptional conditions that have been somewhat discussed by others. This does not altogether prevent one from establishing an absolute rule such that there are exactly two kinds of human genome that we could call male and female, and we could then extend this from the genotype to the phenotype. — unenlightened

You may have missed my discussion with AmadeusD, but we went over that. I have no issue with more than 2 sexes. I also have no issue with someone saying, "There are two sexes, and this is a genetic variant with different phenotypical expression". The point that I care about is that sex is tied to something beyond culture and opinion. Makes sense right? Just for the act of sex alone based on your orientation. People sleep with bodies, not personal identities.

But then, apart from declaring that an individual falls genetically into one or other camp, what does it actually say about the individual? If it says nothing, then it it becomes completely trivial, and uncommunicative in almost every circumstance outside of the gene lab. — unenlightened

Correct. No disagreement here. It only matters in specific cases that are tied completely to biology. So men can't menstruate for example. There are certain diseases and conditions that can only happen to men or women. Sex is about biology, and nothing else.

But if it says something significant about the individual, it falls into exactly the generalising and potentially prejudicial vagueness you are trying to avoid. — unenlightened

Right, this is gender. And yes, you're correct. Gender is often prejudicial, and can sometimes cross into sexism. My point is when you tie gender as necessarily coming from sex when it clearly doesn't, for example saying you're a biological woman if you paint your nails, its sexism. We have bodies, and gender is our opinion about how those bodies should behave and express themselves within a particular culture.

I have mentioned sports, where men and women of either sex are sometimes separated on the basis of hormone levels, and prisons, where genitalia would seem to me to be the thing to be mainly concerned about. — unenlightened

I really haven't waded into the sports discussion, as I'm more concerned about clarity of language first. Sports to me is about bodies. Therefore there should be questions about transexuals in sports, not transgendered people in sports. If I'm a biological male who has done nothing to become transex, I should not be allowed in a woman's sport. I leave it to the medical community to determine how far a man should transsex to be viable competition in woman's sports.

Prison is the same. Do we separate women and men because of gender, or because of the physical realities of their sex? Its sex. Therefore a man who expresses their gender associated with their idea of a woman, should still be in a male prison. A transexual women could be in a female prison after an evaluation has been done to determine how much transex has occurred for the safety and sexual protection of the other sex.

"...men and women of either sex..." this is the sort of cumbersome usage that results from your definition of sex. I don't like it, but it seems to follow from your definition that we would have to talk in some way about hormones, genitalia, physique and social grouping in 'sex-neutral' ways. — unenlightened

That wasn't my intention and perhaps I wrote that poorly. Sex would be biological, so clear. You would be a female on hormones, or a male on hormones. I think what makes more sense is that such things would be stated in 'gender-neutral' ways, as gender is not sex or the body, it is an aspect of culture.

Or, and this is my suspicion, the whole idea is, that having made the ruling and established its writ, that it should be applied universally and enforced and imposed, limiting folk to 'what their genes say'. — unenlightened

Do not be suspicious, say what you mean. Treat me as an honest person until I show you otherwise. We need honest and trusting discussion to be productive. Say what you feel, I will take no offense. This is philosophy, not politics. Here is where we should be willing to say and explore every facet without judgement (ideally anyway).

My point is that sex is bodily, so areas of the world that are separated by bodies should not consider transgenderism. Like I noted with sports and prisons above. And on the flip side, areas of the world that are separated by gender, should not concern themselves with differences of sex. So a woman who wears a suit is still a woman. How she expresses, dresses, or behaves, has no impact or change on her sex.

What does Y stand for in your equation? — ucarr

Total number of causations within that point of time on the chain.

↪Philosophim Transsexualism is in the DSM-5. It is an actual medical condition that one can get diagnosed with. Upon receiving the diagnosis the patient receives a prescription for HRT. — BitconnectCarlos

Ah, there has been a trend to move away from transsex as a mental disorder. I do not attribute it as a mental disorder here. But, if you want to attribute it as a mental disorder, than you are correct.

So, it's correct to say your core proposition within this conversation goes as follows:

Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause — ucarr

Correct.

A transgendered person exhibits cultural actions that defy the cultural expectations of their sex.
— Philosophim
That, then, would be everyone, given that different cultures and individuals have different criteria and also given that pretty much everyone will have exceptional moments in their lives where they exhibit 'out of character' traits (in crisis, when tired, for fun, in private with someone they trust and so on.) — Bylaw

Then let me clarify. It is intentional and continual exhibition of cultural actions within one's culture that defy the cultural expectations of their sex. For example, If in a culture it is acceptable for men to wear a particular type of skirt, a kilt for example, but a woman decided to wear one, she would be making an intentional transgendered action.

In America there is a term for women who act like men in terms of aggression, actions, and language. Its called a "Tom Boy". That's a transgendered woman in her actions. Of course, in a culture where aggressive women are the norm, she would not be transgendered. Transgenderism is the stereotypes, prejudice, and social enforcement of behavior actions based on your biological sex. It is highly mutable and can differ not only from culture to culture, but from person to person.

In fact, we can break 'transgendered' up into several different types. There could be 'self identified transgender' vs 'accidental transgender' vs 'local culturally transgendered' etc. As noted, gender is highly mutable and can differ wildly from person to person.

I also feel like we are giving to much power to the observer when we say someone changes gender when others judge that they have done something that doesn't fit cultural expectations. Like if I take a trip to Malaysia and suddenly on a street in a village I become a transgendered person. I don't think that makes sense. — Bylaw

Yes, you would be transgendered in that culture. You would not be transgendered in your culture. Anytime we talk about culture, we involve at least one other person, or observer. The only way we remove other people from culture is if we have a completely personal opinion as to what a gender is. So for example, lets say that I believe wearing a dress as a woman is transgender. In my culture, every woman wears dresses. But in my mind, only boys should, so I say that all women are transgender. This is fine for my personal idea of transgenderism. But the moment I involve one other person, my own personal identification can be disagreed with by other people.

Are there personality traits that entail one is REALLY a woman or REALLY a man, or not? — Bylaw

The only way this is possible is if only a man, or only a woman, could exhibit a personality trait. If even one man or woman exhibited a personality trait that we associated only with the other sex, then that would dispel the notion that that particular personality trait was derived from being that particular sex.

To say otherwise is sexism.

I see no safe haven to be ourselves on any part of the political spectrum. — Bylaw

Which is what we have philosophy for! We can remove politics and discuss freely the definitions and nature of the issue. Here we are allowed to question and wonder without judgement or threat. I honestly feel this is where the issue can be resolved, not in politics.

Transsexualism is a condition. A transsexual may present as their assigned gender (especially before they begin HRT), so they may not be transgender at that point. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sure I would call transexualism a condition. Transexualism is an action of bodily modification. Your statement is like saying, "I'm a body builder" but you've never lifted a weight in your life. You are a body builder after you start body building. You are a transexual after you start modifying your body.

If you have not transitioned your sex, but practice aspects of gender that you perceive as being associated with the other sex, then you are still just trasngendered. Once you transex and practice as that sex, I would say you are no longer transgendered, but acting as the gender your have changed your sex to. Does that make sense?

By making a small change to your last sentence, I get a proposition: Logically, a universe cannot exist that does not inevitably arrive at a first cause within its causal chain. — ucarr

To make it even simpler, remove universe. "Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause". I say this because we might have definitions of 'universe' that might differ here based on the context of the conversation.

The important point is the causal chain. So for example, if universe 1 creates universe 2, universe 2 is part of the causal chain that leads to universe one. If universe 1 and universe 2 incept as first causes, they are two separate causal chains. The easier and core problem is demonstrating a causal chain that does not have a first cause.

This will be my last reply. The reason why, is that you are wilfully ignoring almost everything I have said to service a continuation of your point, which has been dealt with ad nauseum throughout several thorough replies. — AmadeusD

Again, I think you're misreading my intentions, and I can't seem to read yours. You're coming across as angry and hostile. Which is fine. But I'm not seeing this as a productive conversation right now. I genuinely don't understand where you're coming from with your last few replies, and that tells me something is crossed in the communication that isn't going to be resolved over the forums this time.

So I think its best that you've said your piece, I've said mine, and we go our own way at this point. Makes sense right? You're battling a lot of other people in this thread, so have the gift of one less. :)

Where did I state this was a mental condition? Do women have a mental condition for wanting to wear dresses and paint their nails? No. — Philosophim

I did not intimate that you did. If you read what I wrote and took that you from it you literally had to make up a load of words that I didn't write. Apart from this, this utter strawman you want me to reply to is insulting. — AmadeusD

Does it not strike you as pathologising to label enjoying certain fashion as some kind of mental condition? (transgenderism is a mental condition, whether or not you think its an illness - its a condition of hte mind, if you see what i mean). — AmadeusD

So you can see why I'm confused here. And you're confused that I'm confused. And I'm confused that YOU'RE confused. And now you're yelling and saying things like, "How can you be so bad at English?!" I feel like you're juggling too many conversations at this point and getting things crossed up.

I'm not seeing the contradiction,
— Philosophim

Sorry, are you actually having trouble understanding plain English here? You literally quoted where i said i saw a contradiction and you cleared it up. — AmadeusD

Have you considered your English isn't as clear as you think? I have to redo and clarify what I've written all the time. When communicating with other people its often true that things which seem clear to us in our head are not conveyed as we wish when it meets other minds. Notice, I'm not putting the entire blame on you, but also noting that what I'm writing to you seems to keep being misinterpreted as well.

So I think the issue is unresolvable, we should tip our hat to each other, and try this again another day.

You do love your definitions don't you. — unenlightened

I do. I've found in many discussions over the years that unclear or poor definitions are 9/10ths of the problem. Not to say I'm not guilty of using poor definitions of my own. But I do try where possible not to.

I clearly wrote that if gene therapy developed to allow more radical changes in genes, then one's genetic make up would not be immutable and become a lifestyle choice. Just as it is already a lifestyle choice to modify one's hormone levels and body form. You interpret the conditional as an absolute, because you did not read to understand, but to dispute. — unenlightened

See? Now I'm guilty of being unclear. :) The point is that sex is genetic. If you could change your genes, then you could change your sex. I have no problem with that. Modifying specific sex hormones or castrating your normal hormone production organs doesn't make you the opposite sex. If you're a male, you're now a male with low testosterone and higher levels of estrogen. If you get surgery to cut your breast tissue out, you're a woman with missing breast tissue.

A male Eunich, is still a male. A woman in a suit is still a woman. A man who paints their nails is a man who paints their nails. This is clear and universal no matter what one's gender intentions are. I think that makes the issue clear and unambiguous while avoiding sexism. If you see a problem with this, what's the problem in your view?

" Tying lifestyle with sex or race is the definition of sexism and racism." As for this, it is really just bluster. — unenlightened

This is not bluster. This is very real. If you say, "Because you're black, you have to like basketball," that's racism. If you say, "Because you're black, you probably like basketball," that's prejudice. If you say, "Because you're a woman, you paint your nails," is sexism. "Because you're a woman, you probably paint your nails," is prejudice. Tying expected culture with the physical attributes of a person is the source of prejudice and isms.

If one notices for example that black men are hugely over represented in the prison population, that might be because of lifestyle being associated with race, or it might be because of a racist culture. — unenlightened

But does that mean that going to prison means you're black? Or that if you're black, we should say, "You're probably been, or are going to prison one day?" In the case of a fact, that more people who are black go to prison, it is important that we understand it is either culture, or other people's culture that have put them there. We don't say, "It is an aspect of being born black that causes you to commit more crimes." right?

Women spend more time, money and effort on their appearance than men on average. This is a trivial social observation, not sexism. — unenlightened

If its a social observation, its likely prejudice. But lets avoid that. Lets say we have actual facts that women spend more on their appearance than average. Is that across all cultures? Is that the destiny of a woman's DNA that this be? If I'm a woman who spends less on my appearance than most men, does that mean suddenly I'm not a woman anymore? My sister never paints her nails, wears minimal make up, and doesn't wear dresses. She's married to a man and has two kids. Is my sister not a woman? Is she a gay man who had children with her gay lover? While this might seem silly, I have seen gender/sex discussions devolve into such nonsense. My sister is a woman by her DNA, not her expressed culture or actions.

Sex is not an identity. Sex is an embodiment.
— Philosophim

Again you use your definition to prove other definitions and conceptions wrong. You know that is illegitimate argument. — unenlightened

No, because I've clearly separated culture and expectations associated with someone who has a particular body. And what is male and female based off of? What are we crossing? The sexual aspects of bodies. Gender is the cultural expectations we heap upon those different bodies. That's why its 'trans' gender. Trans means to move. You are moving from a gender expected of a female, to the gender expected of a male. You are not becoming male in body. That would be transex. Isn't that clear and unambiguous? What's wrong with it being clear and unambiguous?

Bodies can be modified, and this I suspect is what motivates you to retreat to genes as the last refuge of immutability. — unenlightened

No, its not modification. Its that there can be variety in sexual expression. A man can have extremely low testosterone. A woman can have abnormally high testosterone. That doesn't change their sex. Whether you modify aspects of your body, or the phenotype of your body is naturally 'abnormal', it doesn't change your sex. If I put blackface on am I black? No different than putting whiteface on doesn't make me white.

The story of mankind, and in particular of the scientific revolution is very much one of liberation from the immutability of nature. And every stage has suffered resistance from the old guard. — unenlightened

I have no problem with modification. You seem to be attributing things beyond my argument. If transex people wish to modify their body, I have no problem with this. I believe people should be free to do what they want to do in life. There are people who also want to cut their arm off. If after a discussion they still want to, let them. You seem to have a problem with me trying to make the language between gender and sex more clear. Why? What advantage is there in keeping them ambiguous and confusing? That's not advancement.

Eunuchs go back a long way before genetics were dreamed of, and the technique of controlling and modifying sex has been applied to humans and domesticated animals since antiquity. These were and still are seen as sexual modifications - one does not hear much about the gender identity of geldings. — unenlightened

Of course. But they're still male eunichs. We're taking males and making sure they can't reproduce. They don't magically turn into women.

In animal husbandry, sex is a function, and one to be controlled, not at all immutable. Not penis, but functioning balls define the male. — unenlightened

"Primary sex determination is the determination of the gonads. In mammals, primary sex determination is strictly chromosomal and is not usually influenced by the environment. In most cases, the female is XX and the male is XY. Every individual must have at least one X chromosome."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9967/#:~:text=Primary%20sex%20determination%20is%20the,at%20least%20one%20X%20chromosome.

In otherwords, its a male without balls. And of course this would be identified as such. A male without balls cannot be milked or birth. They don't say, "Its a female cow that can't be milked or give birth."

These are perfectly understandable usages that reflect the complexity of life rather better in my opinion than a rigid definition can manage. — unenlightened

As you can see, they don't. I have a very important question for you. Why the resistance to clearer definitions and language? Why the resistance between the division of sex as embodied, and gender as culture? What advantage does that give? Doesn't it seem dishonest to coach your words in ambiguity as if you're hiding something? Honesty is straight forwards and unambiguous. So lets have some honesty.

You seem to be universalizing my response about one aspect of one issue in order to dramatist a point. I make no such claims about language generally or the community - only what I said about this one matter. — Tom Storm

What I guess I am saying is that your demand for clear language to me seems like it's trying to fence in some complex ideas that have no convenient solution. — Tom Storm

Then I'm sure you understand now why I'm trying to make words more specific and don't have a disagreement with that. If you are not making claims that it is better for terms to be ambiguous, then you should understand I am not attempting to fence anyone in. Clearer and easily understood terminology is better for the community then ambiguous opinionated terminology.

This is a safe place to discuss topics. I'm very familiar with and supportive of the transgender community and this is not about being a bigot or hurting people. If you don't want to answer me, answer yourself in a quiet moment.

My answer is an attempt to supply you with a different frame for this matter. What I guess I am saying is that your demand for clear language to me seems like it's trying to fence in some complex ideas that have no convenient solution. — Tom Storm

That's why we're on a philosophy board though right? What's convenient about discussing morality, God, or any other host of debated topics? This is avoiding the question once again. You don't have to agree with my definitions. "Why is it good to have language that devolves into ambiguous personal opinion, versus language that is clear and unambiguous?" I think this is a very important question. Why do you think undefined and opinionated words benefit the community?

Maybe there is a more open ended set of descriptors we can use to broaden the language for trans? — Tom Storm

What is the advantage of making words less specific and unclear in this community?

Either way it isn't really a critical problem from my perspective. — Tom Storm

Seems important enough for you to have waded in. If you leave now, I'm not going to see your viewpoint. You seem to think that the community needs ambiguous and opinionated language. Why?

No, I do not believe you can categorize people into neat boxes like this. I would not support trans groups who say only one way to be trans either. — Tom Storm

This didn't answer my question. My question was, "Why is it good to have language that devolves into ambiguous personal opinion, versus language that is clear and unambiguous?"

As others have posited, what makes us gatekeepers in this matter? Sports and schools and prisons and changing room owners can work though this issue as they need. — Tom Storm

Asking for clear language to communicate and discuss ideas is not gatekeeping. It is a requirement for honest and productive thought and conversation.