Maybe you should read what I wrote again? Trans women are NOT women. But to use pronouns that correspond to how someone appears is what we do everyday.

To refer to them ‘as a woman’ is to use she/her. That is all. Maybe I am one of the few people here who is not obsessed with identity politics and just sees a human being trying to fit in as best they can.

I recommend travelling to Manila. You will see plenty of transgender women every day in every day jobs with everyone just going on about their business. For some reason there are hang ups about this in western society.

I’m bored talking about this so ignore me if I sound a bit short. I can only say the same thing so many ways.

So then the solution to this would be individual stalls with toilets, sinks, mirrors, etc. But this also has an economic impact as well. — Paulm12

Yep, I think that's the suggested solution but you still have the concern of male sexual predators/ drunk men/men or boys who dare each other to......etc Men (maybe not exclusively men but mostly) who will hang out in the communal area where the 'stalls' are and 'pester'/try to 'chat up' women who transit the same space. So you would probably need CCTV in this communal area or some sort of security.

It has nothing to do with your ‘definition’. No one calls me ‘man’ they refer to me by name or with he/him. If someone prefers to be called he/him and dresses like a man I’m down with that. — I like sushi

But that's the thing though: Why would you be concerned how someone refers to you in the third person? It would be strange to be referring to you in the third person when you are present. Third person pronouns are used when the person is not present. So how is someone that isn't present to the conversation offended if we use pronouns that they can't hear?

If a guy is wearing make up and a dress, and appears to be conveying the general outward aspect of ‘woman’ I would refer to them as she/her because that is CLEARLY what they are conveying. I know they are NOT a WOMAN because I can see they are a TRANS WOMAN but I need not be a dick about it and refer to them as he/him. — I like sushi

It is not clear. A man can wear a dress and still want to be called a man.

And again you engage in these sexist assumptions that what you wear makes you a man or a woman.

I didn’t say you said anything about sacrificing truth, but you are willing to knowingly utter a falsity to preserve someone’s feelings, with little consideration to the feelings of others who identify as the opposite. I just think that behavior is less than ethical, more of a ploy to avoid confrontation than anything else. — NOS4A2

The same people on this forum advocating for politeness are the same ones that repeatedly engage in character assassination and ad hominem arguments when you simply question their assumptions.

It doesn’t matter to me if you feel restricted by my definition, or that you believe my rhetoric can somehow exclude your reflection. These are your personal problems. At any rate, the aspect of my position you seek to draw attention to is pulled from thin air.

The biology, the history, the etymology lead me to one direction. No one has convinced me of another. If excluding my definition, impugning my motives, and torturing the plain meaning of language serves to preserve your penchant for nuanced discussions, have at it, but from this angle I grow closer to concluding that the suppression of an inconvenient truth is the highest duty of your kind of thinking.

This turned boring quickly. Use your own judgment I really don’t care what you think or if you have weird interactions with your friends where you don’t ever use pronouns.

And fuck off.

I've been thinking about the statement "trans women are women," and seem to think whether one agrees or disagrees with this term comes down to how one defines or identifies woman (i.e. how closely is it related to sex at birth). I'm very new to philosophy of language so I'm very curious how these definitions are related to the creation of meaning. — Paulm12

The current LGBTQ . . . .xyz controversies revolve around a problem that scientists & philosophers have not been able to resolve : what makes a man/male or a woman/female? As a corollary, what makes an objectively female body subjectively feel like a man, and vice-versa? So, far we don't find any definitive difference in the brains, apart from volume, which is limited by body/skull size. MRI scans do show some characteristic features of male/female brains, but interpreting those colorful blobs is highly subjective and subject to personal bias*1.

Even more difficult to understand is the psychological experience of discerning a male from a female. In extreme cases -- a voluptuous or muscular body shape -- the superficial difference is pretty obvious. But we sometimes find some physical exemplars, who prefer to have sex with their own gender. That is obviously counter to the reproduction purposes of evolution; hence abnormal. So how can we explain those not-so-rare anomalies? The gender-identification-algorithms in the brain produce automatic sub-conscious physical responses : "is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?"

So, it should be clear that nonbinary people don't deliberately choose their sexual preference. But traditional mores are based on the Norm, and hostile to the Abnormal. Hence, the religio-political civil wars tend to divide those who judge by "face value", versus those who try to read minds. The current "don't say gay" laws are trying to censor "evil beliefs" by making certain behaviors illegal. We went through a similar polarized religio-political struggle back in the 1950's "McCarthy era". Ostensibly law-abiding citizens were challenged in court : " are you now, or have you ever been . . . . X". At the time, aggressively evangelizing Communism was not only economically abhorrent to Capitalists, but also morally loathsome to Christians.

Ironically, the Bible makes no mention of Trans-sexual behavior explicitly, but men & women were traditionally forbidden to wear clothes commonly identified with the opposite sex. Which is why the sight of women wearing pants was offensive to some cultures and not to others. So, I suspect that in modern secular societies gender-roles are more fluid than in the past. And traditional religious & cultural mores are currently on the defensive, but not yet defeated by the forces of "Evil". The bottom line is that your gender is not defined by your personal subjective preferences, but also by cultural objective labels. Meaning is in the mind of the beholder. :cool:


*1. Transgender brains are more like their desired gender from an early age
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

Yes, you do make it all about you.

So if you want somehow useful philosophy, try reading anything from Stoics to Nietzsche. Postmodernists are just a bunch of nutjobs. — stoicHoneyBadger

Nietzsche is generally considered the precursor of postmodern philosophy, the basis of which are: Antichrist (rejection of all attachment to God) and a call for a re-evaluation of all values, a negation of conventional metaphysics, an insistence on perspectivism, a rejection of Enlightenment rationality and the advocation of will to power.

Perhaps you’re more postmodern than you think, or not. :lol:

The usual masculinist folk have gathered around your thread, leading it away from the interesting point, the various attempts to articulate the place of trans folk in feminist discussion, and all the complexity that involves.

The SEP article Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender provides a broad if indecisive account. There's a summary of the rejection of biological determinism, followed by an explanation for the usefulness of differentiating sex and gender, and the resulting difficulties. Is gender a consequence of socialisation, psychology or sexuality? Then there is the question of how one distinguishes each of the two sexes and two genders: Male from female, masculine from feminine, and the reality of these differences.

The fourth section of the article perhaps addresses your OP must directly, with a discussion of what might be used to group women, an extension of the nominalism/realism discussions elsewhere in philosophy.

And the final section discusses non-binary issues.

Let me know what you think.

I’ve recently read Material Girls by Kathleen Stock. Hadn’t previously realized that there could be such a large and complex rift between feminists and trans activists

Nietzsche is generally considered the precursor of postmodern philosophy, the basis of which are: Antichrist (rejection of all attachment to God) and a call for a re-evaluation of all values, a negation of conventional metaphysics, an insistence on perspectivism, a rejection of Enlightenment rationality and the advocation of will to power.

Perhaps you’re more postmodern than you think, or not. :lol: — praxis

You might want to re-read Nietzsche. ;) Postmodernists go like "let's screw over the whole society, so that some hypothetical transvestite doesn't feel excluded", Nietzsche more like "screw the slaves, focus on developing the master morality".

Ahh I see, that was my bad for misunderstanding what you were saying.

Interestingly, this could also bring up a conversation about what the pronouns “him/her” actually mean. Because if one thinks “him” or “her” refer to male or female (or man or woman) this could be seen as an affirmation of one’s claim that trans women are women. Maybe it’s a bit more removed than that though. Still, if someone asked me to refer to them by a specific pronoun I’d do my best to accommodate. But in a philosophical setting, asking someone to agree to the (according to Benno) political statement “trans women are women” would be different.

A parallel would be me saying “Happy Easter” to someone. If someone responded with “I don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead,” I think I’d be taken aback. I wasn’t necessarily asking them to agree with the statement that Jesus rose from the dead (if I was, I’d instead say something to the effect of “He is risen”). I was simply using Easter as a more “secular” (though Christian inspired, like most of Western society) holiday, and trying to be polite. To some people, that’s what Easter represents. To in this case, I think it depends what their definition of Easter is. Perhaps the same could be said about the use of “him”/“her.”

This makes me think that the root of the problem is not about trans. If it were, we would see approximately equal anxiety about either or any direction of transition.

This is a good point, and like Banno I also noticed the asymmetry but I don't think I had followed it to the conclusion that the root of the problem is not about trans, but I agree with you to a large extent now that I think about it. To a large part, I think I was influenced by my campus’s focus on “transphobia,” which unfortunately can be used as a straw man to remove nuance when people are discussing issues like trans participation in sports.

If the issue was truly transphobia, as you mentioned, then I think we’d expect to see equal anxiety. The fact that the focus is mostly on trans women probably comes down to anxiety about male violence and men in “women’s” spaces. This would also explain why some of these people are also against trans men being in “men’s prison” out of fear of sexual violence. In truth, it may be a combination of the two in some circumstances.


Yes, I agree with a lot of what you’re saying here, and I’ve seen some of the research you mention about “brain structure” (although I’ve yet to see anything conclusive and there’s still so much we don’t understand about the brain).

I was under the impression that “sex” (I.e. male vs female) was actually pretty well defined and agreed upon as which gamete an organism produced (and from my limited knowledge, there are no reported cases of humans who produce both sperm and ova, despite there being humans that have testicular and ovarian tissue i.e. true hermaphroditism). However it’s relationship to gender is certainly an interesting and very complicated one.

let's screw over the whole society, so that some hypothetical transvestite doesn't feel excluded — stoicHoneyBadger

A great Überdouche afraid of some trans activists? say it isn’t so.

How do we tell the difference between lesbians and trans men? This is only a hunch but I feel trans men conflate a (sexual) preference for women (lesbianism) with manhood! The same goes for male homosexuals and trans women. Wouldn't you agree?

Sexual preferences don’t necessarily have anything to do with gender dysphoria (or whatever you wish to label it). That said, it could be argued that societal demands play into this a little. Generally speaking many people have an ‘experimentational’ phase, usually when younger I believe? Children certainly mimic and role play as this is a great way to understand others and themselves.

All we can say with any certainty is that there is a significant minority that feel like they were born as the wrong sex and that this is just part of humanity and has been for as long as history has been written.

You will probably find this interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAxDDqi2tBg

It just seemed a viable explanation. From a woman going "I like (other) women" to the same woman thinking "I'm a man!" is a highly plausible scenario in my humble opinion. Likewise for a man who likes (other) men.

don't confuse fear with disguast ;)

I’ve recently read Material Girls by Kathleen Stock. Hadn’t previously realized that there could be such a large and complex rift between feminists and trans activists — praxis

Here's something you won't hear me say very often - I am sympathetic to the feminist position. They've worked hard to improve conditions for women, to improve the definition of women if you will, then along comes this new group and want to muddy the waters. Feminism, while still controversial in many places, is mainstream controversial. To claim that feminists and transgender activists are in the same fight tends to push them out of the mainstream. They lose sympathy for their positions.

There is some interesting confusion about the distinctions between sex and gender, between states of affairs and states of fantasy. In the mouths of trans activists and their fellow travellers the term “gender” always evokes grammatical gender, the last vestiges of old English. It’s all about pronouns and words like “women”. But in the outer display of it all, in the behavior and dress, the mimicry revolves around sex, to the point where one might seek to alter his biology, his mannerisms, his voice, to better resemble that of a female, even removing sex organs, fashioning new ones, and replacing hormones.

But even the most thorough and precise surgeries cannot erase the reality. The reification of “gender” betrays any distinction between itself and “sex”. Better to return to the language, I suppose, where some ground can be gained. It makes sense to me; along with the decline of grammatical gender in the English language, prudes would start using the term “gender” to refer to sex because of the increasing sexual connotations. Then by the disco era, feminism gets a hold of it to include roles and such. Then gender identity enters the scene. Now males can be women, females can be men, erasing any link to the origin and history of these words.

The discussion is so nuanced that it is almost unintelligible.

erasing any link to the origin and history of these words. — NOS4A2

Words are always evolving. Language belongs to the people, not to lexicographers and grammarians.

It's easy to see the distinction between gender and sex - if you look with a charitable heart.

Words are always evolving. Language belongs to the people, not to lexicographers and grammarians.

It's easy to see the distinction between gender and sex - if you look with a charitable heart.

Take the words, for all I care. One can read the distinction between gender and sex until the cows come home, but one cannot really see it outside of that domain of rhetoric, is my point.

This, I guess, isn't related to anything you said; nevertheless, it's in need of some pondering. Why do men have nipples? AND Why do women have clitorises (partly-formed penises they are as per biologists)?

These organs (fully/incompletely developed) are, I believe, strong indications of ambiguity in sex/gender at a very fundamental level, oui? People getting mixed up about their gender shouldn't come as a surprise given the above. I'd say it'd be more astonishing if homosexuals and transexuals didn't exist.

don't confuse fear with disguast — stoicHoneyBadger

Like a hysterical school girl you expressed your fear that trans activists will “screw over the whole society.” The movement does use propaganda and may have some less than desirable consequences, but it won’t unravel the fabric of society as you’ve been lead to believe. Aren’t Überdouche‘s supposed to be leaders and not mindless followers???

I think your fear of traditional gender roles is based in your understanding that you fall way short of them, so you reject them, portraying your own wimpiness as progress, not degeneration which it really is.

Where have I expressed fear of traditional gender roles?

Damned! And I always thought why I have such a small penis! I'm a woman!
And I finally understand my high-pitched voice now!

Damned! And I always thought why I have such a small penis! I'm a woman! — Haglund

:smile:

If there is anyone in fear of it, it was Nietzsche. Good old Fredrick took hide of himself behind his über-moustache.

One can read the distinction between gender and sex until the cows come home, but one cannot really see it outside of that domain of rhetoric, is my point. — NOS4A2

The funny thing is, if a man behaved like a women, for instance, wouldn't you tend to think of them as being feminine rather than masculine, despite what you see on the outside?