Just because one person (or perhaps many) were born almost frighteningly gifted (Nikola Tesla, Nietzsche, Socrates, etc.) doesn't mean you can just "identify" as what some people are for no other reason than because you feel like doing so. Can you? — Outlander

Trans men aren’t identifying as someone with XY chromosomes or as someone who was born with a penis.

When they say “I am a man” they are not saying anything about their biology.

This discussion was merged into Disambiguating the concept of gender

Trans women are not women — Malcolm Parry

Trans women are not biological women. We all agree on that.

The disagreement stems over whether or not "women" always means "biological women". The claim being made is that there is a distinction between sex and gender, that the terms "man" and "woman" are also used to classify gender, and that people can be women in the sense of sex but men in the sense of gender.

And then the further (political) claim is that in many cases if we are to separate people according to whether they are a man or a women, it is more sensible to separate according to gender rather than sex.

You're failing to provide reasoning as to why bathrooms should be divided by gender when they have been divided by sex AND sex and gender are distinct. — Harry Hindu

I don’t think bathrooms should be divided by gender. I think bathrooms should be unisex.

But those who are argue that bathrooms should be divided by gender argue for one or more of the following:

1. Trans men are uncomfortable using the women’s bathroom and trans women are uncomfortable using the men’s bathroom
2. Trans men face greater risk of abuse using the women’s bathroom and trans women face greater risk of abuse using the men’s bathroom
3. Cis men do not face greater risk of abuse when trans men use the men’s bathroom and cis women do not face greater risk of abuse when trans women use the women’s bathroom.

What is the relationship between sex and gender? — Harry Hindu

Gender roles and identities are almost always determined by sex.

If we're talking about making changes to bathrooms to accommodate certain beings, then the same can be done for animals by creating entrances that enable animals to enter the public restroom more easily. — Harry Hindu

Allowing trans men to use the men’s bathroom and trans women to use the women’s bathroom does not require or entail that we allow animals to use our bathrooms. You’re making the same incoherent slippery slope argument that people like Mike Johnson use against same-sex marriage. It’s absurd and not worth addressing.

That electricity and chemicals is produced and managed by the human being, and nothing else. — NOS4A2

The inner ear is caused to generate nerve impulses by soundwaves stimulating the cochlea. That's what it means to hear things in the environment. It's how we're able to navigate and interact with the world. If the inner ear generates these nerve impulses without being caused to by external stimulation then there's likely something wrong with the ear. Tinnitus is a possible symptom of such a thing.

Where do you propose we begin the act of hearing? Some arbitrary point out there in the environment? — NOS4A2

I'm saying that hearing is (usually) caused to occur by external stimulation. If you "hearing" voices is not caused by external stimulation but only by your own biology then you likely have some neurological or psychological illness.

I wouldn’t try to argue that because the brain and muscles are a part of the same physical, biological system, the majority of which is required to contract muscles. — NOS4A2

The human body is not an isolated physical system. Its internal behaviour is causally influenced by external stimuli, whether that be a shockwave causing my internal organs to rupture or light causing my photoreceptors to stop releasing glutamate.

Under your account you seem to be saying that the photoreceptors cause themselves to stop releasing glutamate, as if its relationship to being stimulated by light is merely correlative and not causal. That's just simply mistaken.

What is an example of prior physical causes external to the body? — NOS4A2

Light, sound, smells, etc. The very fact that we sense and respond to the external world is only possible because the external world causally influences us.

I still don’t know how eliminative materialism entails that human behavior is a deterministic response to prior physical causes. — NOS4A2

Because all physical events have some prior physical cause, and if eliminative materialism is correct then there’s just a physical brain and a physical body and not some non-physical mind that “interferes”. There’s just electricity and chemicals responding to physical stimuli causing muscle fibres to contract or relax, and other such things.

Further, even if you assume determinism, many of the “prior physical causes” are prior states of the brain and body, which is still the person in question except at an earlier time. — NOS4A2

Yes, I haven’t claimed otherwise. How the brain and the body respond to external stimulation is determined by its current structure and inner workings, just as how a computer responds to me typing on the keyboard is determined by its current structure and inner workings, but it is still the case that the human brain and body, like every other physical object in the universe, is causally influenced by things external to itself.

If you want to employ causal chains to explain it then the causal chain occurring in one environment is taken over, used and controlled by another system, operating its own movements and providing its own conditions, and utilizing its own energy to do so.

You can't just cut a long causal chain into individual pieces and claim that one part is not the cause of the subsequent part.

You might as well try to argue that the brain doesn’t cause the muscles to contract because once the electrical signals have left the brain and entered the muscle the muscle has “taken over”. So I guess we can only say that the muscle causes itself to contract?

Human beings are unfathomably different than venus fly traps, sunflowers, and computers. Different physical systems means different behavior. — NOS4A2

The human body might be more complex than a plant and a computer but its internal behaviour is still causally influenced by external stimulation. The human body is not an isolated system.

I still don't require non-physical minds to explain any human behavior, so don't need to bite any bullets. I'm not sure what you're on about. — NOS4A2

If you want to argue against determinism (whether compatibilist or incompatibilist) and in favour of libertarian free will, then you must reject eliminative materialism, because eliminative materialism entails that human behaviour is a deterministic response to prior physical causes, both internal and external to the body.

The mechanical energy of a sound wave, for instance, is converted into electrochemical energy in a process called "transduction". That behavior, that act—transduction—is an act of the human being and not the sound wave. — NOS4A2

Yes, and photosynthesis is an act of the plant, not sunlight. But it is still the case that sunlight causally affects plant behaviour and that sound causally affects human behaviour. The soundwaves cause transduction to happen which causes neurons to fire which causes the muscles to contract and relax which causes the ball to be kicked which causes the window to break.

As I said before, your claim that one causal chain ends at this point and that a second causal chain starts immediately after, and that there's no causal connection between the two, is both inconsistent with physics and an arbitrary delineation.

It's not like saying that. Venus fly-traps, sunflowers and computers. See if you can stick to human beings for once instead of evading the arguments with false analogies. — NOS4A2

They're not false analogies. If eliminative materialism is correct then human organisms are not special. They behave according to the same biological and physical principles as non-human animals which behave according to the same biological and physical principles as plants which behave according to the same physical principles as non-organic matter. Their internal behaviour – be it brain activity, photosynthesis, or electrical currents – can be caused to occur by external stimulation. That is simply an irrefutable fact about how physical systems work.

If you want to continue to argue that human behaviour is somehow exempt from this then you need to bite the bullet and reject the eliminative materialism that you so often endorse.

What I mean is nothing else in the universe is source of a human being's actions. The electrochemical signals sent by your brain to your arm, for example, are not foreign to you. A response to foreign stimulus is still such an act, and caused by the only thing that can perform it: you. — NOS4A2

This is like saying that because the electricity in my computer's hard drive is not foreign to the computer then I am not causally responsible for letters appearing on the computer screen as I type on my keyboard.

It's such a ridiculous attempt at a copout.

All physical events are a response to prior physical events. Matter doesn't move apropos of nothing. The human body and brain are material, and behave according to the same principles as all matter. If my arm moves it's because it was caused to move by something else, often electrochemical signals from the brain, and if these electrochemical signals are sent then it's because they were caused to send by something else – and oftentimes they were caused to send by stimulation of the sense organs. That's just how biology works.

It's not clear to me what you mean by "a human being is the source of his own actions". I think you're equivocating. If you mean by this something similar to "a Venus flytrap is the source of its own actions (e.g. closing its jaws)" then it does not contradict what I am saying, because it is also correct to say that a Venus flytrap's jaws are caused to close by a fly's movements. But if you mean by this to argue that humans (unlike Venus flytraps) have something like libertarian free will then this requires either that physics as we understand it or eliminative materialism are false such that the electrochemical signals sent by my brain to my arm are not a causal response to sensory stimulation but a response to some mental "will".

This led to the UK government declaring that "woman" refers to biology. — frank

Not quite. The ruling is that, “the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”

It’s specifically in reference to this section:

In relation to the protected characteristic of sex—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a man or to a woman;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex.

The court notes that there is already a section that protects gender reassignment, and so it would be redundant (as well as out of context) to take the words “man” and “woman” in section (a) and “sex” in section (b) to also refer to gender identity.

Right, and we can create a causal chain back to the Big Bang and say the Big Bang causally affects my behavior. — NOS4A2

Yes. Determinism is the inevitable consequence of eliminative materialism.

You put words and soundwaves in the subject position and listeners in the object position. “Agent” is another one, a being with the capacity to act and influence the environment. You reserve agency for words and the environment but not for human listeners. It is these little tricks that are the misleading aspects of your arguments. — NOS4A2

I haven't done anything like that. I have simply pointed out that – if eliminative materialism is correct – the physics is clear; the wider environment causally influences human behaviour, just as it causally influences animal and plant behaviour, and so your suggestion that another person's speech cannot causally influence my actions is wrong.

You somehow seem to want something like libertarian free will whilst also denying anything like a non-physical mind. These positions are incompatible. So, once again, you need to pick your poison and abandon one of these two positions.

In a democracy, it just comes down to what the community wants. You can argue against the prevailing view, but I would pick something more persuasive than what about intersex people? — frank

If someone’s opinion on who should use which bathroom stems from a flawed understanding of biology then being educated on the existence of intersex people is relevant, and if they can understand what it means for an intersex person to nonetheless identify as being male or as female then perhaps they can better understand transgender men and women. Maybe then they will reconsider their opinion on who can use which bathroom (as well other issues related to transgender people).

We could say that everybody who has an identified biological sex goes to the restroom that aligns with that. People who don't have a biological sex go wherever they want. — frank

We can say anything we like, but what's the justification behind this decision? If it's acceptable for someone who is intersex to identify a woman and use the women's bathroom then why isn't it acceptable for someone who isn't intersex to identify a woman and use the women's bathroom?

If physics and eliminative materialism are correct then sound waves causally affect sense receptors which in turn causally affect brain activity which in turn causally affects bodily behaviour.

Your talk of “subjects” and “agents” seems to mimic the very folk psychology that you claim to deny. This talk is misleading (according to your own views on the matter). In principle my body is caused to move by speech (and other things both internal and external to the body) in the exact same way that a sunflower is caused to move by sunlight or a Venus flytrap by a fly’s movements. The human body (including the brain) might be far more complex than any plant but it still behaves according to the same physical principles.

@NOS4A2

You may have missed this:

But there, in the ear, is essentially where the effects of the mechanical soundwave ends, and a new sequences of acts begin. — NOS4A2

This seems to me like saying that if I kick a football through a window then I didn’t cause the window to break, as if I’m causally responsible only for kicking the ball and not also for what the ball does to the window after being kicked.

Your suggestion that this sequence of events is one causal chain, that this subsequent sequence of events is a second causal chain, and that there's no causal connection between the two is both incompatible with physics and a seemingly arbitrary delineation.

Brain states and mind? Not so much, though I do not begrudge their application in common use. — NOS4A2

A brain state is just the state of the brain, i.e its composition and the behaviour of its neurons. It is the way it is because of a long chain of causal events, both internal to the body and external. Our brains are not isolated systems.

----

Also of relevance is causality and the science of human behaviour. Unfortunately I don't have access to the full paper, but as a summary:

In this paper an attempt has been made to show that the arguments advanced against the possibility of a scientific study of man are without foundation. Of course, the truth of either strict determinism or statistico-determinism has not been established conclusively; for this cannot be done by logical analysis alone, but requires actual success in the scientific search for uniformities. Since the important arguments against determinism which we have considered are without foundation, the psychologist need not be deterred in his quest and can confidently use the causal hypothesis as a regulative principle, undaunted by the caveat of the philosophical indeterminist.

The general point is that your claim that speech can't influence behaviour is incompatible with eliminative materialism, which you seem to endorse.

So either speech can influence behaviour or eliminative materialism is false. Pick your poison.

Exactly. 1 and 2 establish that it would be off-topic to discuss bathrooms in a discussion about gender. You're making my argument for me. — Harry Hindu

No, because many disagree with (2). They will claim that bathrooms ought be separated by gender, not sex.

Again, what does intersex have to do with gender? — Harry Hindu

I explained it quite clearly. To say that trans women can't use women's bathrooms because they're not biologically female but that intersex people can use women's bathrooms even though they're not biologically female is special pleading.

You are the one claiming that women's bathrooms are not exclusively for biological females. I'm asking how that does not prevent anything from using the public restroom. — Harry Hindu

The same thing that already prevents them (or doesn’t, in those cases where a stray cat or bird enters a bathroom).

You’re not making any sense.

What I'm saying is that if gender and sex are not the same thing, the discussing intersex is off-topic. — Harry Hindu

It's not off topic. It is perfectly consistent to accept both of these:

1. Gender and sex are distinct
2. Bathrooms ought be separated by sex, not gender

The problem, however, is that intersex people exist, and so how do we maintain (2)? To say that trans women can't use women's bathrooms because they're not biologically female but that intersex people can use women's bathrooms even though they're not biologically female is special pleading.

If women's bathrooms are not exclusively for biological females, and vice versa for males, then your argument would allow animals to use the public restroom. — Harry Hindu

Jesus, this is absurd. You sound like Mike Johnson:

Homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and, the studies clearly show, are ultimately harmful and costly for everyone. Society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle. If we change marriage for this tiny, modern minority, we will have to do it for every deviant group. Polygamists, polyamorists, pedophiles, and others will be next in line to claim equal protection. They already are. There will be no legal basis to deny a bisexual the right to marry a partner of each sex, or a person to marry his pet.

You're not answering my question. Why do you group trans-people with people defined by their sex if sex and gender are separate things? You are making a category mistake. — Harry Hindu

I'm addressing the relevant issue.

You say that an intersex person can use whichever bathroom they are most comfortable using. So why not allow a non-intersex person to use whichever bathroom they are most comfortable using?

And presumably you understand what it means for an intersex person to identify as male or identify as female (despite knowing that they are intersex). So why can't you understand this same thing happening for some of those who are not intersex?

The men's bathroom is exclusively for men and intersex people. Women's bathrooms are for women and intersex people. — Harry Hindu

Why?

Why not: the men's bathroom is exclusively for any biological man who identifies as a man, biological woman who identifies as a man, or intersex person who identifies as man and the women's bathroom is exclusively for any biological woman who identifies as a woman, biological man who identifies as a woman, or intersex person who identifies as a woman?

Because sex and gender are separate. — Harry Hindu

I thought you disagreed with this view?

So you're comparing apples and oranges, right? — Harry Hindu

I'm pointing out the inconsistency in your view. If intersex people are allowed to use women's bathrooms then women's bathrooms are not exclusively for biological females, and if women's bathrooms are not exclusively for biological females then why can't trans women use them?

Intersex people can use whichever bathroom they want. What does this have to do with trans-people? A vast majority of trans-people are not intersex. — Harry Hindu

So why is it acceptable for intersex people to use whichever bathroom they want but not trans people? In allowing intersex people in men's bathrooms and intersex people in women's bathrooms you've already accepted that men's bathrooms are not exclusively for biological males and women's bathrooms not exclusively for biological females.

Right, but if sex and gender are separate, then why isn't your rebuttal that we are off-topic rather than assume the premise that sex and gender are the same which is where the bathroom, sports and prisons issues are rooted? — Harry Hindu

Because it's not off topic.

It's a simple question, so I don't understand why you won't answer. Which bathroom should intersex people use?

You keep bringing up intersex. — Harry Hindu

Yes, because people like you are claiming that only biological men should use the men's bathrooms and only biological women should use the women's bathrooms. You are the one saying that bathrooms should be divided by biological sex, so I want to know what you think we should do about people who are biologically intersex. Are they allowed to use public bathrooms? Which bathroom should they use?

Why have a discussion about bathrooms, sports, and prisons if sex and gender are separate things and bathrooms are divided by sex, not gender? — Harry Hindu

I just addressed that. If bathrooms are divided by sex then what do we do about intersex people? Are they not allowed to use public bathrooms?

Why did you oblige them and not just say they are off-topic? If I recall, you brought up sex earlier in the thread. — Harry Hindu

Because it's somewhat relevant.

If someone claims that men's bathrooms are only for people who are biologically male and women's bathrooms are only for people who are biologically female then we must ask which bathrooms any intersex person should use. Or are they not allowed to use public bathrooms (or compete in sports, or go to prison, etc.)?

But why are we discussing sex — Harry Hindu

Because some, like Malcolm Parry and AmadeusD, claimed that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.

I was simply responding to this to correct them. Human biology isn't as simple as they think it to be.

Intersex is not a trait that is passed down to the next generation — Harry Hindu

Sure, genetic disorders can be passed down to the next generation. — Harry Hindu

?

Intersex is not a trait that is passed down to the next generation like the traits that natural selection promotes for evolving into a new species. — Harry Hindu

See Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development:

A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.

Is there ambiguity in being a human? — Harry Hindu

Yes, if by "human" you mean "homo sapiens".

Homo sapiens evolved from homo antecessor, but there was never some single generation where someone who was unambiguously homo antecessor gave birth to someone who was unambiguously homo sapiens.

It was a gradual development from one to the other, with generations of ambiguity inbetween.

The point is that it isn't an counterexample if we go by the definition that being anything means having a majority of the traits for that thing. — Harry Hindu

The particular question I asked was:

Given that some human has ovotesticular syndrome caused by 46,XX/46,XY chimerism, what is the biological feature that either makes them a male or makes them a female? Of particular relevance are those with bilateral ovotestis and/or streak gonads, as well as ambiguous genitalia.

In this case even your "having a majority of the traits" doesn't work, because they have both sets of karyotypes, both sets of gonadal tissue, and genitalia that is neither clearly male nor clearly female.

That is total number of cases of this disorder that are known. I would say 28 out of say 12 billion. is not statistically significant number to overhaul the binary nature of sex. — Malcolm Parry

Just one counterexample is sufficient to disprove your claim that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.

Can one be unambiguously human? — Harry Hindu

Do you mean to ask if one can be ambiguously human?

Because to answer your literal question, I would say that I am unambiguously human.

I think your question was an attempt to undermine the concept of biological sex. — frank

No, I am trying to explain to them that it is not the case that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.

There are real people who really exist who do not fit within such a neat and tidy dichotomy.

It's not important to categorize those people as male or female. — frank

Malcolm Parry and AmadeusD are claiming that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.

My question to them (and to which you respond) was an attempt to have them try to understand that human biology is not so black and white.

But then why are people born with less than 10 fingers, or born without legs still considered human? Isn't being human more than just having 10 fingers and two legs? Aren't there multiple traits that make one a human, and not just one? Wouldn't this mean that if you have a majority of those traits you're considered a human? Why would that not be the same for sex? — Harry Hindu

I'm responding to @frank's claim that someone is biologically male if and only if they (only) have an XY karyotype and biologically female if and only if they (only) have an XX karyotype.

He's the one trying to define "biologically male" and "biologically female" according to a singular trait, not me.

I don't know why it's important to work that out. It remains true that a biological male has XY AND no-XX. A biological female has XX AND no-XY. Simple. — frank

Because there are people who do not fit within this binary classification.

Therefore either a) these people are neither biologically male nor biologically female or b) your attempt at defining what it means to be a biological male and a biological female is wrong.

A man has XY & lacks XX. — frank

Some people have both XX and XY. Are they male or female?

Some people have XX male syndrome. Are they male or female?

Some people have XYY, some XXY, some XXXY, some XXXXY. Are they male or female?

I was corrected by AmadeusD.
Even if there are 500 anomalies that is exactly what they are. No spectrum — Malcolm Parry

Then I’ll ask the question I asked before:

Given that some human has ovotesticular syndrome caused by 46,XX/46,XY chimerism, what is the biological feature that either makes them a male or makes them a female? Of particular relevance are those with bilateral ovotestis and/or streak gonads, as well as ambiguous genitalia.

I was interested in the syndrome did a bit of googling and the conclusion was that some people were a bit of both. It was a syndrome with 500 known cases. I was corrected by a poster and was happy to be corrected because tiny pockets of developmental defects doesn’t seem change the science of 8 billion people on the planet.
Why is the change for the worse? — Malcolm Parry

I think he's pointing out that you started by claiming that every human is either unambiguously male or unambiguously female without exception, then you accepted that at least 500 people are an exception, but then later went back to claiming that there are no exceptions.

If they have active SRY, they are male. IN a female, there is no SRY active in/on any cells. — AmadeusD

See Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development

A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.

...

Both the mother and daughter had normal SRY (sex-determining region of the Y chromosome) sequences...

Under your account, both of these people are biologically male?

Also of interest is Self-fertilization in human: Having a male embryo without a father

Chimeras are the result of fusion of two zygotes to form a single embryo, producing an individual with genetically different kinds of tissue. If the fused zygotes are of different sex, the individual develops both ovarian and testicular tissues. The majority of these people are best reared as females and many pregnancies with living offspring have been reported in persons reared as females, and several cases has fathered a child.

...

A scenario is presented here for a woman to have a son without a father: she is a chimera of 46,XX/46,XY type resulting from the fusion of two zygotes of different sex types and she develops both ovary and testis in her body.

...

Both gonads are functional and produce spermatozoa and oocyte respectively after puberty. At the time of ovulation, estrogens increase the motility of the oviduct on the left side which results in a negative pressure in the tube and oocyte and sperms are picked-up into the tube with the help of this vacuum effect, taking both gametes to the fertilization site in the oviduct. Since the sperm contains a Y chromosome, this fertilization gives rise to a XY male embryo.

Although there have been no documented cases of self fertilization, it is not prima facie biologically impossible.

If you disagree with my responses, that's fine - but you're arguing as if I haven't put a nice lid on it, from my side of things. — AmadeusD

I understand that you believe that a human is a biological male if and only if they have at least one cell with an active SRY gene (and female otherwise), and that having an active SRY gene is a binary trait with no ambiguity or degree.

And I am pointing out that this is a flawed understanding of both human biology and the English adjectives "male" and "female".