Maybe if you'd read the thread properly, you'd see the philosophical element here. The intersection between biology/psychology/society and the primacy of identity over behaviour, preference etc. But if you're not interested, that's OK too.

If this person's existence makes any of you angry, I suggest the problem is with you, not him. — Baden

:up:

Maybe if you'd read the thread properly, you'd see the philosophical element here. The intersection between biology/psychology/society and the primacy of identity over behaviour, preference etc. But if you're not interested, that's OK too. — Baden

I had that response from reading the OP, which was quite on with the lines how typically these debates go.

And sorry if a see this issue more from the sociological / political element than philosophical, but that just happens when one brings societal questions and the society (including social behavior) into question.

Social reality shall do its thing regardless — Baden

True. Richard O'Brien says trans women aren't real women. His cultural standing in the US is such that if he indicates that it's an open question, it's an open question.

If this person's existence makes any of you angry — Baden

It's not him, it's you.

I've been aware of and have been reading about trans issues since the 1970s; I've been friends and associates with trans people; I've provided counseling and support for trans persons. it's not new territory for me. What has changed is the extremity of the rhetoric by and/or about trans people. It has become more extreme, such that people like yourself who are apparently very sensitive to rhetoric can no longer generalize about who gets pregnant and who doesn't.

"Well gee whiz, this trans man who still had her original plumbing got pregnant, so I guess we can't distinguish between 4 trans men and 4 billion alleged women who might get pregnant."

You lost the battle for social reality. — Baden

To the extent that social reality is what Baden happens to think, I suppose so. In the larger picture, the existence of trans people is more or less established. The "pregnant women" paradigm has not been shaken. "Pregnant persons" is not a term describing reality; it is a fantasy of lunatics who have lost their grip on the real world.

Never heard of him and neither has Google apparently. Unless he's that Rocky Horror show actor?

Anyway, the dictionaries and encyclopedias have left poor Richard and his band of merry retrogrades behind.

Never heard of him and neither has Google apparently. Unless he's that Rocky Horror show actor? — Baden

He created the Rocky Horror Picture Show. :meh:

If you think the writers of the latest editions of every modern major dictionary and encyclopedia are lunatics but you're not, look harder in the mirror. Projecting this on me is silly. I don't write that stuff though I'd still make the argument for recognizing trans people regardless. And the use of "pregnant persons" is just a logical conclusion of the recognition that trans men exist. There's nothing extreme about the rhetoric mentioned. That's all in your head.

That doesn't mean extreme positions aren't possible. But you'll need to find an actual one to get annoyed about. I might even agree with you. I won't be raging and gnashing my teeth like you are though as it might put me in danger of becoming a source of amusement rather than edification.

He created the Rocky Horror Picture Show. — Tate

OK.

(I don't think btw that "pregnant women" is offensive because it's exclusive or anything like that. That would be traveling to the other extreme in looking for reasons to be upset imo.)

this person's existence makes any of you angry, I suggest the problem is with you, not him. And you can't stop him existing or being recognized as existing. You lost the battle for social reality. That part is over. — Baden

I'm not going to argue the position I don't hold, but I think the general sentiment of the opposition isn't anger or a desire for physical interference, but it's ridicule and an eye roll.

The response then becomes increased insularity by the respective sides at what is perceived as a world gone mad.

Gender roles are stitched into the fabric of culture and have been identified in our earliest histories. It's realistic to expect the keepers of such ancient flames to categorically resist change. I only say this because I get your post, which is to shock the opposition into change by seeing what little threat is posed. Letting you know you're getting a different reaction than you might imagine, though, which isn't anger and violence but more of an "are you fucking kidding me?"

It's not like I recognized that I am English and live in England and then concluded that I therefore must already be a supporter of the English football team. — Michael

I get your carefully crafted example where you had an internal unexpressed feeling that revealed itself after the fact through behavior, with the behavior being purely epiphenomenonal of the internal state.

My point was that isn't a necessary, and I'm not even sure a common, revelation of such things. I think many people sort out their identities by self-analysis, which includes taking stock in their preferences and behaviors. It's why the road to exiting the closet is often delayed, often the person themselves last to recognize their identity.

To give a pure hypothetical, devoid of any political heat, should my genetic coding reveal I'm a Martian, that revelation would impact my self identity and result in me appreciating why my perspective on life differs from others. That is to say, it is my wearing the MU shirt that changed the mental state, which is bidirectional causation, not epiphenomenal.

think we can expect edge cases that aren't convincing. So far I've only met trans people who were clearly embracing stereotypical traits of the of their new gender. The trans man was growing facial hair. The trans women, which I saw more often, were wearing dresses and carrying purses. — Pie

The issue is complex because it both demands recognition of traditional gender roles and rejects them at the same time. A classic liberal perspective demands egalitarianism, which should result in a denial of gender roles and distinctions. Under an established egalitarian society, we should expect men and women's clothing to move toward androgeny, with equal likelihood of skirts, heels, and makeup for everyone. But to be transsexual,, you must rely upon those distinctions to express your identity, assuming the arcane conservative gender expression.

The point being we seem to have two strains of not entirely consistent progressive liberal thoughts going on here: (1) gender roles and gender expression should not be designated by biological sex, and (2) transsexuals should be able to express themselves by the gender roles traditionally assigned to them by their biological sex.

The point being we seem to have two strains of not entirely consistent progressive liberal thoughts going on here: (1) gender roles and gender expression should not be designated by biological sex, and (2) transsexuals should be able to express themselves by the gender roles traditionally assigned to them by their biological sex. — Hanover

Actually I agree. There's something apparently curiously reactionary in wrapping oneself in the very stereotypes once viewed as oppressive. Progressives tend to tolerate nontraditional expressions of personality as long as they don't harm others, even at the cost of occasional incoherence.

If a biological male embraces typically masculine traits, he might be called toxic, at least by certain progressives. If a trans man does so, he will likely be celebrated for courage, probably by the same progressives. It's a bit like the generalization of drag, but it's important to recognize the earnestness involved.

Sartre and Marx are probably useful here. The self is becoming liquid, a consumer and labor product more and more distant from traditional limitations. What did it mean for us to all have digital avatars representing us, being able to constitute ourselves with self-selected pictures and phrases ? We are and are not what we present. Free artists of ourselves, self-marketing products, we long also to have fate and not just choice, to be something (really a man, really a woman). Your androgynous angels are something like symbols of freedom, while embracing reactionary gender roles is a symbol of fate. (We might emphasize that cis people have been doing it all along and loving it. )

I think the general sentiment of the opposition isn't anger or a desire for physical interference, but it's ridicule and an eye roll. — Hanover

Fair enough, the sentiment depends on cultural context, but the general progression of reaction from most to least negative, I would say, is anger>>ridicule>>acceptance.

We are and are not what we present. Free artists of ourselves, self-marketing products, we long also to have fate and not just choice, to be something (really a man, really a woman). — Pie

Yes, but psychologically a trans person is really their psychological gender and also really their biological sex. But I, for example, can't be a trans woman no matter how artistic I feel about it because I identify as a man and that's not something I believe can be willed in and out of existence on a whim any more than sexual preference can.

A classic liberal perspective demands egalitarianism, which should result in a denial of gender roles and distinctions. Under an established egalitarian society, we should expect men and women's clothing to move toward androgeny, with equal likelihood of skirts, heels, and makeup for everyone — Hanover

Equality of opportunity and equal rights doesn't mean male and female cutlures, or any other cultures, can't and won't persist. That's not to imply there is some objective justification for the differences or that they should be enforced, just that distinct group identities are part of how human societies function. We may see more overlap and/or change in these but not their dissolution.

The point being we seem to have two strains of not entirely consistent progressive liberal thoughts going on here: (1) gender roles and gender expression should not be designated by biological sex, and (2) transsexuals should be able to express themselves by the gender roles traditionally assigned to them by their biological sex. — Hanover

Maybe some progressives suffer from the contradiction of both wanting to abolish gender roles and celebrating their expression in certain instances, but the trans person that asks to be recognized for their psychological gender is no more liberal or conservative than any other person who expects to be recognized for their psychological gender. It's an issue of rights, which can be approached from several distinct political perspectives and/or through a simple acceptance of the psychological fact that gender identity can and does differ from biological sex and that people are more important than the lumps of flesh they inhabit. It's convenient for some, of course, to associate trans rights with political correctness etc but that's a strategy of guilt by association. It's much easier to attack the amorphous bogeyman PC than to attack the facts of how psychological identity functions.

And when archeologists dig up his bones and see the male skeleton, what then?

I could give two straws about any “social reality”. Social reality thought the sun rotated around the earth. If you want to call people with testes “women” then that’s fine by me. But by the same token I’m going to call people with testes “men”.

And when archeologists dig up his bones and see the male skeleton, what then? — NOS4A2

Whose bones? And why is Archie O'Logist after 'em? :chin:

But by the same token I’m going to call people with testes “men”. — NOS4A2

How do you go about the testes checking? And is that legal in your parts? :brow:

The point being we seem to have two strains of not entirely consistent progressive liberal thoughts going on here: (1) gender roles and gender expression should not be designated by biological sex, and (2) transsexuals should be able to express themselves by the gender roles traditionally assigned to them by their biological sex.

There is an effort to distinguish between gender and sex while at the same time equivocating between them. Hence refusing to define “man” or “woman” in biological terms while at the same time trying to appear like a man or woman. On the one hand it’s not so much about biology or sex but on the other we’ll surgically remove and fashion male and female sex organs and make sure you have the appropriate hormones. There is no end to these problems.

The key, I think, is to abandon the word “gender” in such discussions. If we think along the lines of “sex” there is little room to hide behind these equivocations.

The point being we seem to have two strains of not entirely consistent progressive liberal thoughts going on here: (1) gender roles and gender expression should not be designated by biological sex, and (2) transsexuals should be able to express themselves by the gender roles traditionally assigned to them by their biological sex. — Hanover

I struggle to see how it is liberal at all to be espousing shoulds and should nots about something as personal as individual identity.

There is an effort to distinguish between gender and sex while at the same time equivocating between them. — NOS4A2

This is indeed a problem, and I would start to solve this by proposing a system that models how people categorize themselves between man and woman. I have no issue with the two claims Hanover proposes; I think that certain traits are more or less judged by oneself to determine one's own gender identity and are more or less essential to said gender identities. Thus, there is nothing wrong or inconsistent with transgender people embracing traditional gender roles on this view.

So, you and I, at least, mostly agree. I just don't think biology is the only relevant marker that designates man and woman.

I think the existence of transgender people actually validates this view because they have few of the biological markers, yet they identify - as strongly as anyone - as men or women; there must be some elements in there that are identified consistently by many for each of the sexes for such a phenomenon to exist. Unless there is some switch buried in our brains that is arbitrarily flipped one way or the other, but I doubt that.

The key, I think, is to abandon the word “gender” in such discussions. If we think along the lines of “sex” there is little room to hide behind these equivocations. — NOS4A2

But that presupposes that transgender people cannot exist, as you will predictably then claim that what makes a woman or man is their biology. Gender identity has to be divorced from that biology for any of this to make sense in a nontrivial way - transgender people are just mentally ill - as we have no reason to disbelieve that transgender people genuinely are transgender.

The point being we seem to have two strains of not entirely consistent progressive liberal thoughts going on here: (1) gender roles and gender expression should not be designated by biological sex, and (2) transsexuals should be able to express themselves by the gender roles traditionally assigned to them by their biological sex.
— Hanover

I struggle to see how it is liberal at all to be espousing shoulds and should nots about something as personal as individual identity. — Tzeentch

There is authoritarianism on the left, and I could easily see an idiot believing that those two things are incompatible; if there are things that make men and women what they are that aren't tied to biology, (1) and (2) are in accordance.

edit: not calling Hanover an idiot, but rather people who would espouse that (1) and (2) are genuinely at odds, or would encourage a trans person not to fulfill traditional gender rolls

edit: traditional jelly rolls

edit again: I would more closely say that it makes sense that transgender people would express themselves by traditional gender roles some of the time, not that (1) and (2) are in accordance; no one should be told not to do what they want with their life, even disregarding if it makes sense.

The fact that someone identifies as something else is not enough for me to believe that they are indeed that thing. That’s my problem.

There is no doubt that people feel dysphoria with their own bodies and are ill-suited to the expectations society holds towards them. These people exist, and if they need to dress and act like the opposite sex to find comfort, they should be allowed to do so without cruelty and discrimination towards them. I don’t mind playing along, at least in some respects, but at some point a moral line is drawn, for instance when we are treating this mental incongruity with very biological measures, like chemical or surgical castration, the results of which there is no turning back.

I don’t have any answers, but it seems to me a view that affirms biology rather than amputates it leaves room for those to come to terms with themselves as they really are.

The fact that someone identifies as something else is not enough for me to believe that they are indeed that thing. That’s my problem. — NOS4A2

It isn't even remotely believable to you that a biological man could be a woman?

but at some point a moral line is drawn, for instance when we are treating this mental incongruity with very biological measures, like chemical or surgical castration, the results of which there is no turning back. — NOS4A2

I think according to your own view a sex change would just mean that a man becomes a woman or vice versa, and it sounds like you wouldn't accept that as valid.

at some point a moral line is drawn, for instance when we are treating this mental incongruity with very biological measures, like chemical or surgical castration, the results of which there is no turning back. — NOS4A2

But I have every right to have my newborn son mutilated. Or I could get a tattoo of a dick on my face. Both are permanent biological measures.

If you can provide me with some serious science that says that people who take such measures regret it by and large I might agree. You claim to be in favor of freedom; you should be in favor of someone's right to remedy such issues. Children? I don't think so. But adults? Definitely.

I don’t have any answers, but it seems to me a view that affirms biology rather than amputates it leaves room for those to come to terms with themselves as they really are. — NOS4A2

You would block transgender people from getting the treatments many of them want. That's definitely a preventative measure of sorts.

What would you consider to be the defining characteristics of a man? Serious question.

chemical or surgical castration, the results of which there is no turning back. — NOS4A2

Most traits brought on by hormone treatments are reversible btw, even if castration isn't.

It isn't even remotely believable to you that a biological man could be a woman?

No. The distinction exists at the cellular level and begins at such an early stage in development that any change to it is impossible and irreversible.

I think according to your own view a sex change would just mean that a man becomes a woman or vice versa, and it sounds like you wouldn't accept that as valid.

I don’t believe a sex change actually accomplishes any change in sex.

But I have every right to have my newborn son mutilated. Or I could get a tattoo of a dick on my face. Both are permanent biological measures.

If you can provide me with some serious science that says that people who take such measures regret it by and large I might agree. You claim to be in favor of freedom; you should be in favor of someone's right to remedy such issues. Children? I don't think so. But adults? Definitely.

You would block transgender people from getting the treatments many of them want. That's definitely a preventative measure of sorts.

They can do what they want. I would not block transgender people from these treatments.

What would you consider to be the defining characteristics of a man? Serious question.

Y chromosomes, testes, a prostate, a penis, spermatogenesis, and so on.

You've made the same vacuous point in a dozen different ways now. You don't believe in anything beyond biology. Ok. Now go away, please, if you have nothing else to say, so an intelligent conversation can resume without distraction.

...A guy who doesn't believe the mind or society are even real lumbers into a thread about a psychological phenomenon and its place in a social context and starts blabbering on about bones and testes. I've met pot plants with more self awareness.

It makes no sense to refuse a biological perspective in a debate about the divergence between biological sex and perceived gender in transgenderism. It is even spoken about in the first post. At any rate, wherever an identity misidentifies, the biology is paramount. A quick examination of it can confirm what is the case, that is if truth is still a concern.

You have nothing intelligent to say. You simply keep repeating that all that matters is biology. Now that you have stated that yet again, and are clearly incapable of saying anything else, you have no further place in this discussion.

Trans people: Desire (I want to be a man/woman) - Identity (I am a man/woman) confusion.

I want to be good (a man/woman) but that doesn't make me good (a man/woman), oui?

I never once said “all that matters is biology”. You’ve been hostile, snarky, talking about Trump. You’re trying to blame me for your intolerance towards my views and it’s not working very well.

I never once said “all that matters is biology”. — NOS4A2

the biology is paramount. — NOS4A2

The distinction exists at the cellular level and begins at such an early stage in development that any change to it is impossible and irreversible. — NOS4A2

Sounds like the same tired point over and over to me as well. Although it’s true you didn’t say the exact words “all that matters is biology.” Great way to weasel out of the situation. Typical of you.

Anyway— I was fairly neutral about this issue. Now that your position is clear, I know exactly what the right position is: the complete opposite. I thank you for that.