You can be pro-transsexual in every way possible and still be against transition surgeries. — Hanover

Strictly speaking within the current professional vocabulary (as part of psychology and in the Netherlands at least) you can be pro-transgender and against transitioning. Pro-transsexuality is specifically about changing sex.

Strictly speaking within the current professional vocabulary (as part of psychology and in the Netherlands at least) you can be pro-transgender and against transitioning. Pro-transsexuality is specifically about changing sex. — Benkei

I think a "not" is missing in this post, right?

At any rate, that's a confusing stance because there are many transsexuals who choose not to have surgery to their sexual organs but in all other regards live as the opposite sex. It also overly emphasizes the significance of the sexual organ as identifying the gender.

No, I double checked and what I wrote is what I meant. I only learned this last week when I contacted a leading Dutch researcher on this.

Transsexualism isn't really used anymore, because the feeling of gender dysphoria has little to do with (biological) sex according to her. Even though transsexualism was the term we were using 20 years ago.

How is it possible.

It isn't from a scientific perspective. How has it become so accepted as a concept? — Andrew4Handel

In what way isn't it possible? Are you defining physical gender based on whether or not they have a dick or vagina? Or are you talking about chromosomes? With the latter, which is more accurate for physical gender, it's not as clear-cut as perceived physical attributes of genders. There are genetic events during development that could alter the physical gender so much that it's not really clear which gender a person really has.

But we also have, as MadFool points out, the mental perception of gender. I presume you are a man? How do you know this? Is it just because of the physical properties of your body? In CIS people, we have the perception of our own gender in line with the physical properties of out body. In order to understand transgender people, you have to imagine that your perception of your own gender, beyond the physical properties of your body, is out of sync with each other. It's a combination of perception of your own behavior, social interactions, cultural identity and sense of physical body. If all of these leans towards a gender that isn't in line with your physical body, then transitioning the physical body will give you harmony in the same way as a CIS person feels in harmony between the mental perception of gender and the physical body.

Before the discovery of hormones and extensive advances in plastic surgery there was no way to live other than in the body you were born in. There is no evidence of mass trans suicides before they could get surgery and hormones. — Andrew4Handel

There's no evidence that it didn't happen either. There's also very little evidence of them since the little that is known about transgender people before modern times showed that they were most often killed and forced to comply with society. Just like women needed to comply with society, not vote, force themselves to keep within living standards and physical norms that the times demanded. Did that mean there were no women who fought against such standards? What do you think happened to women who stood up against the social norms of the time silencing their voices?

It sounds more like you know little about the history of both women and trans people throughout history.

Someone to recommend whenever there's talk about transgender culture, sex changes and related topics is Contrapoints. She's, compared to many in here, an academic philosopher who's been aiming towards explaining many of these things with a scope of philosophy. We also have Philosophy Tube with Olly who just transitioned to Abigail, although she's not really focused on gender-related topics and more focused on pure and time-relevant philosophy.

https://www.youtube.com/c/ContraPoints/videos

Transsexualism isn't really used anymore, because the feeling of gender dysphoria has little to do with (biological) sex according to her. — Benkei

That's a confusing statement. Gender dysphoria means that your internal gender identification is opposite from your physical gender. You're saying that has little to do with biological sex, but I can't see how we can subtract out the biological sex element from the gender dysphoria equation, considering having a mental state inconsistent with biological sex defines dysphoria.

That's a confusing statement. Gender dysphoria means that your internal gender identification is opposite from your physical gender anatomical/biological sex. You're saying that has little to do with biological sex, but I can't see how we can subtract out the biological sex element from the gender dysphoria equation, considering having a mental state inconsistent with biological sex defines dysphoria. — Hanover

What you say makes sense, I'm just repeating what she said. One way that could work is if gender identity is independent from biological sex. If that's how it works then it's only after that identity is established/expressed that dysphoria may arise but not necessarily.

I think we can recognise that if there's gender identity on the one hand and biological sex on the other then transsexualism relates to changing biological sex and transgenderism is about changing gender identity of which changing biological sex can be a part but not necessarily so.

I think the difference is that "transsexual" mostly refers to those who medically transition, whereas "transgender" includes those who don't.

All these distinctions can be sorted out, but I'm not really buying into all these hyper-technical definitions of terms, as if they are specialized terms of art with consistent usages within particular fields. It sounds like different people use the terms differently and some insist that their usage is more correct than others. You then end up with people correcting you while you're speaking by telling you that you speak imprecisely and that you offensively use terms with negative connotations. And there's the frustration.

While the distinctions might be important, the word play diverts the conversation from how we ought to treat people as opposed to what we ought to call people. My concern over insulting a transsexual person (if that's even the proper term nowadays) isn't because I have any concern I'll do anything malicious, but it arises over whether I might call them the right thing, and honestly, I don't even have reason to believe transsexuals are a hyper-sensitive bunch and would terribly care much. My suspicion is that much of this technical political jargon debate arose in academia and not among the most affected, but I could be wrong.

There's no evidence that it didn't happen either. There's also very little evidence of them since the little that is known about transgender people before modern times showed that they were most often killed and forced to comply with society — Christoffer

The point I made is you could not be trans in to days sense of having cross sex hormones and plastic surgery etc because it wasn't technically possible not because of prejudice. There could only be gender non conforming people.

Nevertheless you can't just claim there was a wave of trans suicides and murders in history without
citations or evidence.

Contrapoints. (..) Philosophy Tube with Olly who just transitioned to Abigail — Christoffer

I have watched both their videos. Is there something they have said you would like to share. They are both cases of adult men who didn't commit suicide due to dysphoria and "transitioned later in life"

Contra actually outed herself as an Autogynephilic which is an unpopular but most supported theory of male to female transsexuality. Contra also debated with Blaire White before Contra transitioned where Blaire described a neo vagina as a wound that you need to dilate regularly to stop it healing and said that gender dysphoria was a mental health problem not something to be celebrated.

Here's some real-world stuff to contemplate.

Ok, we can agree on that much that wanting others to suffer is morally wrong.

Do you acknowledge that transgender folk alleviate their own suffering by their actions? — Cheshire

In the same way that a person with anorexia alleviates their suffering. They may alleviate some mental suffering at the expense of their body suffering. Having a hole created between your legs to imitate a vagina and having to keep a stent inside to prevent the wound from closing isn't my idea of alleviating one's suffering. The body knows better than the mind what it is as it attempts to heal the damage done to the body by the mind.

Here's some real-world stuff to contemplate. — Banno

ok

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWgnepX54Lg

^A real life situation where a black woman along with other women encounter a transwoman with a penis in a spa changing room and start complaining to management.

I feel really bad for that receptionist because you know it's not her who makes the rules here. In any case, the moment you pull the "we're protecting little girls" line it's no longer an argument, it's an order. Can anyone honestly watch that video and tell me that they'd do any better than the white man who tries to confront the anti-trans black woman? The message is clear: Some portion of women want trans women out of their intimate spaces, and we need to balance acceptance for trans folk against concerns like the one made in the video.

I can't help but think that as a man I'm entitled to less of an opinion on this issue than a woman.

Can anyone tell me the correct philosophical response to: "You're traumatizing my little girls."

I don't agree in this case. Those who deny gender as something separate do so for specific reasons. The distinction clearly matters and makes all the difference between those considering gender separate from sex a delusion and those accepting it as a natural occurring phenomena and the latter is only possible if they are indeed different things.

^A real life situation where a black woman along with other women encounter a transwoman with a penis in a spa changing room and start complaining to management.

I feel really bad for that receptionist because you know it's not her who makes the rules here. In any case, the moment you pull the "we're protecting little girls" line it's no longer an argument, it's an order. Can anyone honestly watch that video and tell me that they'd do any better than the white man who tries to confront the anti-trans black woman? The message is clear: Some portion of women want trans women out of their intimate spaces, and we need to balance acceptance for trans folk against concerns like the one made in the video.

I can't help but think that as a man I'm entitled to less of an opinion on this issue than a woman.

Can anyone tell me the correct philosophical response to: "You're traumatizing my little girls." — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sure this is an issue. If the spa had been clear (or maybe even was clear?) on how it deals with transgenders then it's just whatever the house rules are.

And if little girls and boys can get traumatised from just seeing genitalia maybe people need to reconsider what they are teaching kids about sex in the first place. Especially in a spa, which tend to be mixed in the Netherlands anyways, nakedness isn't sexual. I suppose if you're an upstuck Jesus freak this sort of thing will scar you for life but we can squarely blame the parents for that.

I can't help but think that as a man I'm entitled to less of an opinion on this issue than a woman. — BitconnectCarlos

Why? The issue effects you as well. If transwomen (whether with or without a penis) are not allowed in women's changing rooms then they'll be in men's changing rooms. And transmen (whether with or without a vagina) want to use men's changing rooms.

Why? The issue effects you as well. If transwomen (whether with or without a penis) are not allowed in women's changing rooms then they'll be in men's changing rooms. And transmen (whether with or without a vagina) want to use men's changing rooms. — Michael

Then maybe a third changing room might be plausible? I can 100% understand why transwomen wouldn't want to be in men's locker rooms.

Transmen in men's changing rooms are not the same as transwomen in women's changing rooms for reasons beyond my control. Somehow you never really hear of transmen traumatizing men with their vaginas in changing rooms.

And if little girls and boys can get traumatised from just seeing genitalia maybe people need to reconsider what they are teaching kids about sex in the first place. Especially in a spa, which tend to be mixed in the Netherlands anyways, nakedness isn't sexual. I suppose if you're an upstuck Jesus freak this sort of thing will scar you for life but we can squarely blame the parents for that. — Benkei

Then the problem is Judeo-Christian morality, but good luck convincing America of that. What is the replacement value system here, by the way? Do we know of an alternative framework we should be shifting to here?

Can anyone tell me the correct philosophical response to: "You're traumatizing my little girls." — BitconnectCarlos

Use a cubicle? Have that talk? If the sight of difference traumatises the little girl, I'm not sure that's anyone's fault but the parents'. Otherwise you can use this excuse to excuse many an act of hate.

Then the problem is Judeo-Christian morality, but good luck convincing America of that. What is the replacement value system here, by the way? Do we know of an alternative framework we should be shifting to here? — BitconnectCarlos

I know plenty of Christians that go to mixed spa's. So it's not just religion. But in any case, I think expectation management goes a long way and think it's perfectly fine to decide one way or another. I think it's both reasonable to say that you should change in the locker room coinciding with your primary genitalia (penises or vaginas), so sex based, or based on gender identity. I think it shouldn't be an issue either way as long as the rules are clear. Or have cubicles, or have everything mixed from the get go etc. There's plenty of pragmatic solutions possible.

I know plenty of Christians that go to mixed spa's. — Benkei

Mixed spas are a European thing. We're much more uptight over here. It's a thing.

What is the obsession over feeling like we NEED to distinguish human sex? (Other than knowledge of anatomy for medical purposes)

What is the obsession over feeling like we NEED to distinguish human sex? (Other than knowledge of anatomy for medical purposes) — GTTRPNK

Ask your mother.

Thank you for your contribution.

What is the obsession over feeling like we NEED to distinguish human sex? — GTTRPNK

Human sex is distinguished by observation. Women and girls have uteruses and vaginas. Men don't. It is not a creation or construct it is an observation of biological reality.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kT0HJkr1jj4

This video covers the topic pretty well. But to your point it usually is pretty easy to tell if someone is a transgender person either before or after hormones or surgery.

Sex/gender is not a spectrum any more than being born with more or less than ten fingers, or with or without a tail is part of a spectrum. Being born with more or less than ten fingers, or with a tail is considered abnormal, or uncommon/rare. Rare events are not considered to be part of a spectrum, rather outliers of the spectrum. A spectrum would be differences that occur commonly, or at a similar rate as the other items in the spectrum.

Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:

- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)

Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these. If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.

Two widely separated clusters is not the same as a spectrum.

Chromosomal sex is not the entirety of sex. There’s also hormonal sex and anatomical sex. If anything, anatomical sex is the original referent of the word, from before we knew anything about hormones or chromosomes. And there are some people naturally born with a chromosomal sex that differs from their hormonal or anatomical sex (women AFAB but with XY chromosomes), and everyone has always referred to them by their anatomical sex (as we usually don’t know anything but anatomical sex about anyone).

Hormonal and genital sex can be changed already, and it’s only a matter of time before chromosomal sex can be changed too (hello CRISPR). — Pfhorrest

I think this picture of changing sex is insidious. A woman who has her breasts removed because of cancer is not becoming more male. A man with long hair is not becoming more female. There are two distinct sex categories male and female which are need for reproduction one produces sperm, the other eggs and the capacity to grow a baby inside themselves. (We all once lived inside our mothers) This is the sex binary and how we identify males and females. It is not capable being a spectrum.
An inverted penis is not analogous to a vagina or a functional part of a reproductive system. A phalloplasty or metoidioplasty are useless for reproduction and not anything like a functioning penis.

It is a bizarre maybe utopian fantasy that you can gradually change someone into the opposite sex. It seems the ultimate goal is to have some kind of machine where someone can enter and change sex instantaneously if they have the desire to live as the opposite sex and change back if they get tired of doing so.
But pandering to the different stages of this ideal, compromises peoples bodies and women's rights among other things. Sex stereotypes are attached to biological sex. It seems strange to be aspire to be treated like a biological woman whilst never having the biological reality that lead to said stereotypes.

On top of this there is not a unified trans ideology and a complete lack of coherent definition of gender and distinction between it and sex so that some people take on the moniker of woman with no intention of trying to biologically transition but seeing sex/gender id as apparently purely mental.

There are plenty resources on the Internet. Feel free to educate yourself.

Still overly concerned as to the contents of other folk's underwear, I see.

Odd.

Still overly concerned as to the contents of other folk's underwear, I see.

Odd. — Banno

It is odd. I'm not sure that is where the sexual identity for me lays. I do believe it is more in the mind than the contents of folk's underwear. But that is just my perspective.

For me sexuality and its identity is on a continuum and throughout our lives we move from our starting point. Sometimes life and circumstances move us a little more in one direction from where we started, and life happens again, and we might move the other way.

When I was exploring the idea of being with a woman, it was called just that, exploration.
I didn't consider myself a homosexual, or a heterosexual with homosexual tendencies.
For the duration of that time in my life I never wondered if I was a lesbian, I toyed with the label of being bi-sexual and landed on bi-curious. I only defined it as such, so when I was talking with people, they could kind of grasp what emotions I was encountering and where I felt most comfortable.

I am sure there is another term for it now, but I am not familiar with it yet. Maybe someone who is more knowledgeable about the current definition can tell me.