1. That is exactly my point. Your claim is that transgenderism is NOT a result of biological expression of sex difference - how can you be sure?
2. That is precisely because 'sex' is a subjective collective term for many features that typically are bundled together, but not always, so the division will always be arbitrary. If we allow that not only chromosomes matter, but the expression of features, the same person might be considered both a male and a female. A person might have typically male levels of testosterone and a vagina. If we decide 'sex' based on their genitals, they have advantage in sports similar to males. If we decide 'sex' based on the testosterone level, they should use male bathrooms. Or we can accept that 'sex' is not an objective term and do the separations differently.
3. Wanting to wear a dress doesn't make you feminine, but being feminine might make you want to wear a dress. What exactly gives you certainty that the desire to identify with specific sex is not biologically based?

1. That is exactly my point. Your claim is that transgenderism is NOT a result of biological expression of sex difference - how can you be sure? — Jabberwock

Everything is biological. You are your brain, and it is biological. The point I'm making is that if we could actually identify sex differences in the brain, its irrelevant to why we divide the sexes to begin with. We don't divide the sexes by brains, period. If you think we should, then please give a reason why.

That is precisely because 'sex' is a subjective collective term for many features that typically are bundled together, but not always, so the division will always be arbitrary. — Jabberwock

If it was subjective and arbitrary, why do transgender people want to be the other sex so much? If it was subjective and arbitrary, they wouldn't care. It is objective and not arbitrary by this alone.

And again, and if we start repeating ourselves its probably time to agree to disagree, I've noted that exceptions do not change the rules that concern the norms. We make exceptions for those people. I have not seen a compelling reason for a transgender person who is the norm of their sex suddenly being allowed into a place divided by sex because they want to act or dress in a stererotypical belief of how a sex should behave or dress. Feel free to give one, and we can keep discussing this point. But without answering this question, there is no more to explore here.

Finally, the label of sex is settled by science around the world. Give a scientist a genome of any human being and they will identify XY as male and XX as female. This is not subjective.

That is precisely because 'sex' is a subjective collective term for many features that typically are bundled together, but not always — Jabberwock

To this point again, exceptions are not the norm. Exceptions do not change the rules for the norm unless a valid reason is given. An exception to one's chromosomes do not change the objective definition that an XY is a man while an XX is a woman.

Wanting to wear a dress doesn't make you feminine, but being feminine might make you want to wear a dress. — Jabberwock

They're actually the same statement. "Feminine" is a gender term. It implies that being a woman entails certain cultural expressions and behaviors that can be different across cultures. My sister does not wear dresses, does not paint her nails, and dissects dead bodies for a living. These would largely be considered masculine actions in some cultures. Does that mean my sister should suddenly be playing sports on a male team? That people should now call her a man? Of course not.

The second argument I think you need to make is why being masculine or feminine as expressed subjectively by cultures should logically lead to someone being identified as a male or female sex by law. I'm very open to hearing it!

Everything is biological. You are your brain, and it is biological. The point I'm making is that if we could actually identify sex differences in the brain, its irrelevant to why we divide the sexes to begin with. We don't divide the sexes by brains, period. If you think we should, then please give a reason why. — Philosophim

The whole discussion started with my objection to your claim that 'sex' is objective. If your claim now is that 'sex' is 'what we divide by' and we pick and choose the features for the division, then I guess it is a tacit acknowledgment that it is not.

If it was subjective and arbitrary, why do transgender people want to be the other sex so much? If it was subjective and arbitrary, they wouldn't care. It is objective and not arbitrary by this alone. — Philosophim

Because the society strongly acts and sometimes enforces that division. It does not really give you an option not to belong to any group, even though some of your features might not 'belong'.

And again, and if we start repeating ourselves its probably time to agree to disagree, I've noted that exceptions do not change the rules that concern the norms. We make exceptions for those people. I have not seen a compelling reason for a transgender person who is the norm of their sex suddenly being allowed into a place divided by sex because they want to act or dress in a stererotypical belief of how a sex should behave or dress. Feel free to give one, and we can keep discussing this point. But without answering this question, there is no more to explore here. — Philosophim

It seems that you decide that the person is 'the norm of their sex' based on several arbitrarily selected attributes. When I point out that there might be different attributes to be taken into consideration, you just dismiss them, based on 'what society thinks'. Not very objective, I would say.

Finally, the label of sex is settled by science around the world. Give a scientist a genome of any human being and they will identify XY as male and XX as female. This is not subjective. — Philosophim

But that is exactly what I wrote two days ago! If you give a scientist a genome of a human with AIS, they will identify them as a male, period. But your claim was that 'these people fit neither fully into the category of man or woman'. So you obviously reject the very scientific definition you quote.

To this point again, exceptions are not the norm. Exceptions do not change the rules for the norm unless a valid reason is given. An exception to one's chromosomes do not change the objective definition that an XY is a man while an XX is a woman. — Philosophim

You seem to want to use 'norm' and 'objective fact' interchangeably. But that is simply incorrect - if there are exceptions to 'XY is a man', then it is no longer an objective fact.

They're actually the same statement. "Feminine" is a gender term. It implies that being a woman entails certain cultural expressions and behaviors that can be different across cultures. My sister does not wear dresses, does not paint her nails, and dissects dead bodies for a living. These would largely be considered masculine actions in some cultures. Does that mean my sister should suddenly be playing sports on a male team? That people should now call her a man? Of course not.

The second argument I think you need to make is why being masculine or feminine as expressed subjectively by cultures should logically lead to someone being identified as a male or female sex by law. I'm very open to hearing it! — Philosophim

If 'being a woman entails' some behaviors, then they are ulitimately biologically conditioned. But your definition of 'gender' claims they are not. And as I wrote, sex of the brain does not depend on a single or some features - why would it?

As for identification by law, given your own rejection of your own scientific definition, how exactly would you base it?

My entire argument is the entire argument. Please read it. — Philosophim

I did and then you decided this all only applies to the limited context of "places divided by sex". I was trying to clarify your context. You said in public it doesn't matter at all. Seems Ad-hoc.

The whole discussion started with my objection to your claim that 'sex' is objective. If your claim now is that 'sex' is 'what we divide by' and we pick and choose the features for the division, then I guess it is a tacit acknowledgment that it is not. — Jabberwock

I have never said that we pick and choose the features of what counts as male and female. XY and XX for the norm. This is objective and unchanging. What I noted is that there are places we divide by sex and not gender. Point out exactly where I start to say sex itself is subjective and please answer the point I made in the quote.

We don't divide the sexes by brains, period. If you think we should, then please give a reason why. — Philosophim

Try to avoid accusing others of taccit denial of their own claims without very clearly pointing out the exact wording and the logical contradiction. It comes across as dishonest and is often done by those who are no longer able to answer the points of the argument. Combined with the fact you did not answer my request, its looking like you are unable to do so, and are now attacking straw men. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt though! I could be wrong, it just needs to be clearly shown.

If it was subjective and arbitrary, why do transgender people want to be the other sex so much? If it was subjective and arbitrary, they wouldn't care. It is objective and not arbitrary by this alone.
— Philosophim

Because the society strongly acts and sometimes enforces that division. It does not really give you an option not to belong to any group, even though some of your features might not 'belong'. — Jabberwock

Societies expectations of how you should act as a man or woman are subjective and arbitrary. That's gender. Your sex is not subjective or arbitrary. This is why gender should not be considered in sex division. Even if your features do not match someone's gendered opinion of how a man should act, you're still objectively a man.

It seems that you decide that the person is 'the norm of their sex' based on several arbitrarily selected attributes. When I point out that there might be different attributes to be taken into consideration, you just dismiss them, based on 'what society thinks'. Not very objective, I would say. — Jabberwock

No, I've said clearly what the norm of sex is. XX and XY are female and male respectively with expected secondary sex characteristics. That is not arbitrary. If so, show me how please. I have not dismissed your attributes in any way. I have noted them as being either deviations from sexual norms, such as a XXY, or gender which is subjective. Please give a specific example of what I am ignoring or misaligning to the definitions I've given.

If 'being a woman entails' some behaviors, then they are ulitimately biologically conditioned. But your definition of 'gender' claims they are not. And as I wrote, sex of the brain does not depend on a single or some features - why would it? — Jabberwock

And what behaviors biologically entail you to be a woman? Wearing a dress? Beyond the biological differences that the brain would need to interface with to birth or procreate, what is objective behavior that solely belongs to a man or a woman? My point is that being a woman does not entail you to behaving or dressing a particular way. That's society stereotyping, not an objective assessment.

Again, is another question I've asked you here that you have not answered.

I have not seen a compelling reason for a transgender person who is the norm of their sex suddenly being allowed into a place divided by sex because they want to act or dress in a stererotypical belief of how a sex should behave or dress. Feel free to give one, and we can keep discussing this point. — Philosophim

As well, please do not just accuse an argument of contradicting itself or being arbitrary without evidence. Please copy the lines in question you think I contradicted myself at, then point out where the contradiction is. Its easy to get into your own head and definitions and see a contradiction where the OP has not because they are not agreeing to your definitions. Further, if you don't show me directly, I'm going to correctly conclude that you misunderstood, so its important for both of us. Its fine if you don't agree to my definitions, and some of the questions I've asked you are giving you a chance to challenge them, but we need to be on the same page so we're not talking past one another.

My entire argument is the entire argument. Please read it.
— Philosophim

I did and then you decided this all only applies to the limited context of "places divided by sex". I was trying to clarify your context. You said in public it doesn't matter at all. Seems Ad-hoc. — Cheshire

Its not ad-hoc at all. There are places that society divides people by sex. In public we do not divide people by sex, at least in America.

Everything is biological. You are your brain, and it is biological. The point I'm making is that if we could actually identify sex differences in the brain, it’s irrelevant to why we divide the sexes to begin with. We don't divide the sexes by brains, period. If you think we should, then please give a reason why. — Philosophim

What if we divided gender differences in the brain? That is to say, what if we hypothesized that in humans, as in other mammals, there are differences in brain wiring bwrween the sexes that translates into differences between masculine and feminine gender behaviors and perceptual-affective styles? What is a male or female dog or cat. Mor specifically, what causes make and female behavior in animals? For instance, dog breeders and experts can quickly determine the difference between a male and female simply on the basis of their behavior. It seems that make and female dogs have subtly different brain ‘wiring’. I call this perceptual-affective style , because it has to do with a a certain way a dog or cat perceives sensations and affects that is gender related and independent of individual differences in personality. Would you agree that there are such consistent , recognizable behavioral differences between the genders in dogs and cats? Would you then agree that there are also such robust inborn gender differences in behavior between male and female humans?

Would you agree that there are such consistent , recognizable behavioral differences between the genders in dogs and cats? Would you then agree that there are also such robust inborn gender differences in behavior between male and female humans? — Joshs

Would you contend that perhaps a transwoman is someone who has inborn feminine gender behaviors and perceptual affective style and this may lead to identifying as female?

Thank you Josh's fantastic contribution. I'm going to link some research on sex differences and behavior in dogs.

"Ethological studies also underline many behavioral sex differences in other animals [18]. Prominent observations related to reproductive behaviors, such as parental care, mating strategies, and courtship displays, are almost exclusively expressed by only one of the sexes. These traits have been tagged as real “sexual dimorphism” [19] or “qualitative differences” [18]. However, differences in behaviors not exclusive to reproduction are less obvious and may differ in magnitude between the sexes. Odor detection and stress responses, for example, fall in this category and are simply considered “sex differences” [19] or “quantitative differences” [18].

In some cases, both sexes appear to exhibit the same behavior; however, the underlying neural substrate differs between them such that, under particular conditions, one sex might display a different behavior (sex convergence and divergence, [19]). For example, Lighthall et al. [20] reported there were no significant sex differences in a human decision-making task; however, under the influence of a cold pressor stress, men showed a faster reward-related decision-making speed than females, thus indicating a clear sexual divergence in behavior. This effect was attributed to differential brain functions in the dorsal striatum and anterior insula, with an increased activation in men compared to women after the stress event. Finally, there may also be “population differences” in behavior, which indicates that the frequency of display varies between the sexes, although the pattern is consistent [18]. For example, in most social mammals, males tend to disperse more than females [21]."
-Behavioral and Perceptual Differences between Sexes in Dogs: An Overview
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6162565/

To sum up those weighty paragraphs, there are clear differences in behavior between the sexes in regards to sexual behavior, at least in the norm. After all there are gay dogs. But to drill down even further, obviously a female brain would need to handle menstruation, while a male brain would handle the male sex organ for procreation.

But what is important is while there can be a general sense of non-sexual behavior differences between the animals, its less obvious. Thus an agressive dog can be assumed to be male more often than not, but being aggressive does not make a dog male, nor is it limited to only males being aggressive.

This is a similar point in humans. In general, expected behavior in non-sexual interactions from a particular sex is gender. And gender expectations are not objective evaluations of how an actual sex should or must act. I've made the point further up to Jabberwock in a very good discussion that our current division by sex, is due to physical sex differences. To add to this, a consideration is the sexual behaviors between the sexes as well. Male sexual aggression is a strong consideration for why women have women's shelters and separate bathrooms.

What is not considered in these sexual separations are non-sexual actions that someone may assume a sex would have. In other words, gender is not a reason for the separation. Males may be seen as more aggressive, but an aggressive woman is not forced to use a male bathroom because she does not fit her gender role. My point is that even if there are non-sexual brain differences between men and women due to biological sex, it has not been, nor should be, a consideration in situations that are divided by sex.

I have never said that we pick and choose the features of what counts as male and female. XY and XX for the norm. — Philosophim

Let us clear something up first. Most people with AIS have XY chromosomes. If you send their genome to a geneticist, he would tell you they are male, not that they have chromosomes different from men and women. Because according to genetic definitions of sex, they are male. Thus if we accept your objective scientific definition, people of biological male sex can have vaginas and give (surrogate) births.

Do we agree so far?

Let us clear something up first. Most people with AIS have XY chromosomes. If you send their genome to a geneticist, he would tell you they are male, not that they have chromosomes different from men and women. Because according to genetic definitions of sex, they are male. Thus if we accept your objective scientific definition, people of biological male sex can have vaginas and give (surrogate) births.

Do we agree so far? — Jabberwock

First, I again ask you on your next reply to answer my questions to you. Is it fair that I'm the only one being asked questions in a discussion while mine go ignored and unanswered? No. That's not a discussion. What we're trying to do here is have a discussion between two people trying to figure out what makes logical sense in matters of sex and gender. Carving out only what you want to discuss when the other person takes their time to address everything you've asked is not a discussion, its a one sided attack. I don't think you're intentionally doing it as you seem like a bright individual, and I've really enjoyed your points so far. But please, take the time to answer my questions as well if I have spent the time and effort to answer yours.

Those with AIS are not able to birth kids or get other people pregnant. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome/

Regardless, such a person is still a man, but with the caveat that they have a disorder that they are insensitive to androgens. Once puberty hits, the syndrome is first found when secondary sex characteristics begin to happen.

Lets say for fun however that male's could give birth. They would still be males. Male seahorses for example give birth. By sex, they are still males. Once again, having an exception to the norm does not change the norm, nor has your example shown me that sex is not objective.

Alright, with that please answer my previous points and questions before asking more of your own Jabberwock. I look forward to your answers!

Sorry, I did not answer your questions, because I have realized that I might have misunderstood you and we might be talking past each other.

It should be noted 'XY is a male' is a scientific definition of sex, but only one of several, namely genetic (chromosomal) one. There are other, like gonadal sex or phenotypic sex, which take different features into consideration. You seemed to acknowledged that when you wrote about 'sex expressions' (which clearly refer to phenotypic sex, not chromosomal one). Moreover, you wrote that people with AIS are 'neither a man nor a woman' - it seemed you referred to their sex, not gender. Again, writing that makes sense only when referring to their gonadal sex, less so when referring to their phenotypic sex. That is what I was confused about and decided to clarify the issue before we took the discussion further (including answers your questions).

…while there can be a general sense of non-sexual behavior differences between the animals, its less obvious. This is a similar point in humans. In general, expected behavior in non-sexual interactions from a particular sex is gender. And gender expectations are not objective evaluations of how an actual sex should or must act. — Philosophim

I want to make a couple of claims here. The first is that gender expectations must be understood in ways similar to the role that expectations concerning other forms of behavior play in helping us to understand one another better. The argument I’m making is a kind of Kantian one. That is, there are a host of ways of being that appear to be reflected in functional organization patterns in the brain that present as a kind of personality style, or at least an aspect of personality. Many of these we currently label in terms of pathologies, but we seem to be slowly moving away from such medicalizing thanks to political activism. Some examples include schizophrenia, Wilson’s syndrome and autism-aspergers. I want to include human gender behavior.

I view individual gender as a mixture of inborn and cultural features. The inborn features to me are the most fascinating, because they consist of a neural organization that I call a perceptual-affective style.
This style globally , but often subtly, affects behavior including bodily comportment , speech pronunciation , sexual attraction, posture, emotions and many other aspects of our engagement with the world.
What being born with a sharply different gender than one’s same-sex peers can teach one (but it isn’t guaranteed to do so) is that all of us ( not just the ‘non-binary) are behaviorally shaped in this global fashion, all of us have a perceptual-affective gender style unique to us but usually close enough to those of our same-sex peers that it is invisible to us. When it is no longer invisible to us , due to a sharp enough difference in our gendered behavior with respect to our same-sex peers, we are given an opportunity to notice the way that gender sweepingly affects human behavior in general. Of course, one doesnt need to be different in this way in order to come up with such insights, but it certainly helps.

What complicates this picture is that the interplay between culture and inborn dispositions makes it impossible to nail down once and for all the meaning of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’, since these change along with culture.

My second claim has to do with the embodied nature of physical sexual features. Embodied approaches within psychology reveal that such anatomical
manifestations of biological sexual expression such as genitalia can’t be understood in isolation from how they are used, how they are performed and enacted. Combining this with my first claim, one’s psychological gender defines what a person’s genitals ‘are’ by how they are performed (and sensed).

Admittedly this is a subtle argument, and I admit that its value in advocating for political aims for transgenders is somewhat limited. Saying tv at our biological sexual parts are embodied and enacted via gender is quite a distance from talking about capability of pregnancy.

Great post Joshs!

I view individual gender as a mixture of inborn and cultural features. — Joshs

But that is not what gender is. Gender is the expectation that a sex act or express themselves in a particular way. What you are noting is people wanting to act or express themselves a particular way. So if a man is born who wants to wear a dress, then he does. This is not gender. The expectation that a man should NOT wear a dress is gender. The expectation that a woman SHOULD wear a dress is gender. Can a man want to wear a dress and a woman not want to wear one? Of course. That desire does not change their actual sex of being male or female.

When it is no longer invisible to us , due to a sharp enough difference in our gendered behavior with respect to our same-sex peers, we are given an opportunity to notice the way that gender sweepingly affects human behavior in general. — Joshs

Yes, gender is essentially sexism. Men shouldn't cry and women are expected to be emotionally weak and scatterbrained. Does a man crying mean he isn't biologically a man? No. Does an emotionally strong women with a mind as sharp as a tack mean she's biologically a woman? No. Just because societies or individuals expect a sex to act a particular way, does not mean that they are not that sex if they don't. Same as if they act in stereotypical ways to the opposite sex. It does not make them the opposite sex either.

My second claim has to do with the embodied nature of physical sexual features. Embodied approaches within psychology reveal that such anatomical
manifestations of biological sexual expression such as genitalia can’t be understood in isolation from how they are used, how they are performed and enacted. — Joshs

This is not pyschological gender, but sexual orientation. Now people may have a gendered viewt of sexual orientation. "You're a man and you want to sleep with another man? Well you must not be a man then." Of course you're still a man, your biology hasn't changed. You just don't fit into what that particular society stereotypes or wants to force a man to act like.

Saying tv at our biological sexual parts are embodied and enacted via gender is quite a distance from talking about capability of pregnancy. — Joshs

So to clarify here, who you sleep with has nothing to do with your gender, which is simply a stereotype of what society or you believe a sex should act like. Sexual orientation is not gender.

I view individual gender as a mixture of inborn and cultural features.
— Joshs

But that is not what gender is. Gender is the expectation that a sex act or express themselves in a particular way. What you are noting is people wanting to act or express themselves a particular way. So if a man is born who wants to wear a dress, then he does. This is not gender. The expectation that a man should NOT wear a dress is gender. — Philosophim

You and I may very well have different definitions of gender. The notion of gender I want focus on has a number of features. First, it is not about arbitrary choices that a person decides to make. It is about about an inborn perceptual-affective schema of organizing sensory experience. I have in mind in particular the example of a gay man who was born with a ‘ feminine’ perceptual-affective style that they had no control over. This style dictated a large constellation of behavior. features, including a feminine-style of pronunciation, a feminine way of walking a throwing a ball, and a large number of other features that made them
stand out from other biological males.

who you sleep with has nothing to do with your gender, — Philosophim

I would include in this constellation of behaviors sexual attraction to other males. That is to say , it is not simply coincidence that a male born with a feminine perceptual-affective style who displays the constellation of behaviors I mentioned also very likely is attracted to other males. It is the brain-wired style that explains sexual attraction as well as ways of speaking, walking, emoting, etc. This gay man didn’t choose to behave in this way, and didn’t choose being attracted to other males. In fact they loathed themself for behaving in ways that resulted in their being bullied and called ‘sissy’.

It’s ok if you don’t want to call this inborn style of perceptual
organization ‘gender’. I’m more interested in whether you accept that people are born with such global organizing structures that dictate feminine or masculine behavior that form a large constellation of features all belonging to a single causal pattern.

This is why I mentioned schizophrenia and autism previously. These are syndromes that generate a large constellation of behaviors that are all explained on the basis of a single cause, a way in which the brain processes and organizes affective and perceptual input.
My example of the feminine-acting gay man no more chooses to express themselves as a particular gender than the schizophrenic or autistic chooses to display the constellation of behaviors that define their syndrome. The constellation chooses them.

It is about about an inborn perceptual-affective schema of organizing sensory experience. I have in mind in particular the example of a gay man who was born with a ‘ feminine’ perceptual-affective style that they had no control over. — Joshs

The problem is you're first attributing that behavior to what a woman does. And yet many women do not act "feminine". Does this mean they aren't women? Is a woman who acts masculine a man? The point of the dog article was to show that in non-sexual behaviors, it can be difficult to really tell what sex a dog is. Same with humans.

I've known plenty of men who speak "feminine" like, yet are straight. They are men, not women. There are plenty of gay men who do not exhibit "feminine" (or a cultural stereotype of a woman) behavior. This is because there is nothing inherent in being the male that necessitates that you lift weights and strut around in a room. You can have a very pretty, agile and soft spoken male, and they are still men.

It’s ok if you don’t want to call this inborn style of perceptual
organization ‘gender’. I’m more interested in whether you accept that people are born with such global organizing structures that dictate feminine or masculine behavior that form a large constellation of features all belonging to a single causal pattern. — Joshs

No, its not gender. Its just personality differences. The problem is you're assuming your version of "feminine" is some objective measure. But that measure is based on your culture and background, not biological fact.

I'll give you an example. I taught in inner city schools with mostly blacks and latinos. I'm white. Let me preface this by saying I found no difference between races besides over all culture. You have your jocks, your nerds, and everything in an American white school. TV and movies paint a different picture, and its false. Yet I'm sure some people believe that being black entails that you act or dress a particular way. Its just like gender. Its a subjective stereotype.

One thing I did notice was that young black males at one of my schools tended to act more like stereotypical American women. Black girls tended to be more aggressive and get in far more physical fights than black boys. Why? Culture. A surprising amount of young blacks in that area did not have father's in their lives. So the women ended up having to be the bread winner and fight for success. Being demure was not an option. On the flip side, boys patterned their speech and gestures after the main parent who gave them everything in life, their mother.

Now are these young men and women suddenly different sexes because they don't fit into the stereotypical middle or upper class American view of how a man and woman should act? No. The problem is your idea of "feminine" vs "masculine" is cultural. Your gay friend was compelled to act and express themself a particular way, so they should have done so without reprisal. They are a man by sex, no question, that simply acted differently.

I'm not denying that people want to act and dress the way they want to act and dress. My point is that it is irrelevant to what sex you are, and thus irrelevant in cases of sexual separation in society. If a male suddenly starts behaving in a stereotypically feminine way in Texas, they do not suddenly become a woman and have access to female bathrooms or sports.

Trans Man Brutally Assaulted For Using Women’s Restroom at Campground

A transgender man camping in Ohio was arrested for disorderly conduct after he claims he was assaulted by a group of men for using the women's restroom on July 3.

Noah Ruiz, 20, told local Fox affiliate WXIX he was using the women's restroom at the Cross's Campground in Camden at the direction of the camp owner, Rick Cross, when a woman camper became very upset.

"She was like, 'No man should be in this bathroom. Like, if you're a man you need to use a man's bathroom,'" Ruiz told the outlet. "And I was like, 'I'm transgender. Like, I have woman body parts, and I was told to use this bathroom.'"

As he and his girlfriend left the bathroom, Ruiz said he was jumped by three large men who lifted him off the ground and choked him out, all the while using anti-LGBTQ+ slurs and threatening to kill him.

The point of the dog article was to show that in non-sexual behaviors, it can be difficult to really tell what sex a dog is. Same with humans. — Philosophim

In the way I am defining gender in terms of an inborn perceptual-affective style, this pattern is not simply binary (what sex are they), but a spectrum that goes from hyper masculinity to hyper femininity. Any particular individual is situated at some unique point along that spectrum.

In many , but certainly far from all cases, it is not that difficult to tell if someone has a constellation of behaviors that belong to the autism spectrum. But even if we simplify things by assuming a simple masculine-feminine behavioral binary, my claim is that, while it is apparently very difficult for you to really tell whether someone is male or female based on their behavior, my experience is quite different. To put it in more personal terms, I’m a gay male who didnt choose to be that way. Furthermore, from
the time I was little, what gay meant to me was much less who I was attracted than the constellation of behaviors I have been describing , like throwing like a girl. This ‘outed’ me well before I knew what homosexuality was. My brother’s nickname for me was ‘fairy’, and this was before he had a concept of homosexuality.

My sense is that the constellation of behaviors that I insist form a pattern or theme that is generated by an inborn perceptual-affective style on the masculine-feminine spectrum are utterly invisible to you. You end up shattering this patterned constellation and its internal logic into a thousand pieces, and then treat each piece in utter isolation from the pattern they are inseparable from. “This one just happens to want to dress like a girl, that one just happens to choose to throw like a girl, that other one chooses to speak with a lisp, that one needs to walk like a girl.” It’s as if you’re trying to explain the learning of verbal language in Skinnerian terms, whereas I’m saying that there is a spectrum of ‘transformational grammars’ that organize our behavior along masculine-feminine lines.

its not gender. Its just personality differences — Philosophim

I like to use the term personality interchangeably with gender. Masculinity and femininity are like personality traits in the way that they contribute a stable life-long stylistic element to our behavior. But the key here is that we’re not taking about isolated behaviors that form no pattern that overlaps between individuals. Rather, the masculine-feminine spectrum is a gestalt whose constellatory elements, while never identical from one person to the next, exhibit strong overlap that bind communities together as well as potentially alienating them from different gendered ones.

For instance, I’ve spent a lot of time in gay social environments where we had the opportunity to learn about how these constellatory gender patterns overlap and differ among us. If you were to volunteer your view that gender is someone, on a whim, opting to put on a dress, the reaction would likely be a communal sense that you just dont get it. Many of us who were born with the non-binary gender perceptual-affective style that made us feel alienated from our male peers didn’t put two and two together at first, thinking that these behaviors were unique to us as an individual , and didn’t follow any larger internal logic, like a transformational grammar. For many of us, it was a revelation and a profoundly affirming experience to discover not only that there was a common thread tying together all of these behaviors within each of us that made us stand out from other males, but more importantly, there was considerable overlap among each of us in these non-binary ( or I should say inter-binary) gender behaviors. We recognized ourselves in each other.

For many gay men, the humor in the movie La Cage aux Folles comes from this recognition of something we share
that makes us different from our male peers. Yes, there are distinct masculine-feminine differences between the two main characters, the husband and husband. One is capable of acting more ‘butch’ than the other, but the point for many gays who watch the movie is that in spite of these differences the couple (and their servant) still share many non-binary features that bind them together and set them off from straight males. That’s the ‘in’ joke that I don’t think you get.

I’m not sure where you would see the humor in this film , given that for each of the many non-binary features this movie presents (a campy mix of masculine-feminine art, group over-emoting to the surprise of a champagne bottle popping, holding a wine glass with the pinky out, crossing one’s legs like a girl, buttering toast in a dainty way, wearing makeup, not being able to walk like John Wayne), you would shatter the gender pattern into disconnected fragments and then list each behavioral fragment in isolation ( this one just happens to want to butter toast in a dainty way, that one wants to cross their legs like a girl, that other one wants to emotively overreact to the loud popping of a champagne cork).
Perhaps you imagine that someone decided to write a manual of how to behave like an effeminate gay man, and a bunch of people read it and then modeled their behavior after its instructions?

And how on earth would you explain thousand of years of discriminatory behavior towards women on the part of men if not by reference to robust inborn behavioral differences that become culturally stereotyped? You really think that average bodily differences such as size, weight, strength are enough to explain this history? If we took a population of men and were somehow sophisticated enough in our scientific knowledge to differentiate them in all the physical ways that men and women differ, giving half of them uteruses, do you think this would be enough to potentially generate the kinds of discrimination and stereotypes that women have dealt with over the centuries?

A terrible story Michael. But unless it applies somehow to the OP, I don't see the point in putting it here.

In the way I am defining gender in terms of an inborn perceptual-affective style, this pattern is not simply binary (what sex are they), but a spectrum that goes from hyper masculinity to hyper femininity. — Joshs

Then you agree with me. Gender is a social construct. It doesn't have a set objective pattern and can vary wildly between cultures.

... like throwing like a girl...My brother’s nickname for me was ‘fairy’, and this was before he had a concept of homosexuality. — Joshs

Right, so you behaved in ways that are stereotypically associated with women in American culture. What about the straight boys who also throw like girls? Or adult men who do, but don't dare show it to anyone over fear of being mocked? Finally, does being gay mean you have to throw like a girl? Of course not. There are plenty of gay people who don't act stereotypically gay as well.

The question then comes in the form of freedom as well. Many straight men might feel like acting a particular way that others would view as feminine, but refuse to out of fear of judgement. Being gay may help free you from this restriction, because you're already challenging the social structure as it is, and a large part of "male" culture is about fear of being seen as a woman.

But honestly, that last paragraph is just musing and nothing substantial. The point related to the OP is that despite these behavior differences, all are men by sex. Behavior, or expected behavior that does not change you from one sex to the other. You are a gay or a straight man. You could have a gay or straight gender, but again, these are cultural stereotypes and expectations of how gay or straight men should act. As such, gender should not be considered in places in which people are divided by sex.

And how on earth would you explain thousand of years of discriminatory behavior towards women on the part of men if not by reference to robust inborn behavioral differences that become culturally stereotyped? — Joshs

Oh, stereotypes definitely do not form in a vacuum. Lets just look at the thousands of years there wasn't any birth control or modern medicine. Men never had to menstruate or give birth. As such, they had to do the harder physical jobs that took them away from the house. Can you imagine being a judge for a small community when there was likely only one judgeship available, and it was a woman who had to excuse herself every month to avoid bleeding in public? Or being pregnant nine months or more out of the year?

The very real physical differences between the sexes meant certain outcomes for societal organization, and thus expectations, were more likely to happen. Most of the world lived in what we would consider abject poverty today. It was about surviving, and so you did what was best suited for yourself for you and family to survive.

So I'm not saying stereotypes don't exist, or that people don't innately want to dress, do, or act a particular way. But what I'm saying is that none of that does not violate the objectivity of sex, nor should gender override societal divisions by sex, when they are divided by sex and not gender.

Right, so you behaved in ways that are stereotypically associated with women in American culture. What about the straight boys who also throw like girls? Or adult men who do, but don't dare show it to anyone over fear of being mocked? Finally, does being gay mean you have to throw like a girl? Of course not. There are plenty of gay people who don't act stereotypically gay as well. — Philosophim

The concept of an inborn perceptual-affective organizational brain pattern assumes the generation of a wide constellation of behaviors that, as I said, define a community by being present in various proportions in each individual. That means that obviously there are exceptions to every behavior that is included in the constellatory pattern that is gender. For instance, does being schizophrenic mean you have to speak in word salad, or be a catatonic, or have paranoid delusions? Of course not. Does this mean that schizophrenia is purely a social construct, that each behavior associated with it is unique to an individual and there is no common explanatory brain process to tie together the constellation of potential behaviors connected with it, that there is no community of schizophrenics with an overlap of behaviors? Of course not. But this is your claim concerning masculine and feminine behavior. You can’t conceive of any vehicle , any brain process, that could produce a wide range of behaviors that we associate with masculinity or femininity, and tie them together on the basis of a single mechanism.

Let me talk a little more about this perceptual-affective style that is the source of the masculine-feminine spectrum. The terms I will use are sloppy and inexact, but hopefully they will convey the sweeping behavioral power and effect of how our brains are wired for perceptual sensitivity. Perceptual-affective style means the following: when you perceive a stimulus, there are a variety of different ways in which you can process it One’s brain can have a kind of perceptual sensitivity setpoint such that the most intense, actively changing aspects of a flow of stimulation are reinforced. Put differently, one seeks out this intense, rapidly changing rhythm of perceptual flow.

One is attracted to projects that involve lack of interruption and avoid the need for social give and take, because one’s intensity-attuned perceptual system loses patience quickly with having to listen to others. If one’s perceptual set point is at the other end of the spectrum, then the aggressive processing of intensely changing stimuli is not reinforced. On the contrary, one’s perceptual system is inclined toward a gradual processing of unfolding new stimulation. One is more inclined toward social interaction than solitary projects. One is also more prone to depression and fear than anger and hostility. The fact that the setpoint reinforces gradualness of perceptual processing over intensity manifests itself in how a person moves, how they walk, how they position their limbs , how they pronounce words and their inflection and emotional range. It includes how one responds to noise, light, color , touch. Every stereotype of the effeminate gay male has its basis in this setpoint and its effect on perception and action.

This is the basis of masculine ‘aggressiveness’ vs feminine hesitancy. All the exceptions one can point out don’t disprove the rule, which is behind the stereotypical differences between men’s work and women’s work, and why boys today are not thriving in school the way girls are. (It may also explain why there are more male autistic than female).

‘Women’s work’ , such as housework, needlepoint, raising children, jobs involving social and listening skills, focuses on tasks that unfold gradually, with intense and abrupt change minimized. Men’s work focuses on intensely changing activity and solitary competitive projects.
Men’s greater interest in physicalistic , non-romantic porn vs women’s preference for intimate eroticism is another manifestation of the difference in perceptual setpoint.
Attraction to the opposite sex is also connected with the way that masculine and feminine perceptual setpoint result in a complementarity , a yin and yang that completes male and female in a sexual relationship. The male is attracted to all the qualities in the female that are not strongly present in himself: emotive sensitivity and verbal expressivity, physical softness and yieldingness. The woman, for her part , delights in and encourages a certain commanding and decisive style on the part of the male. In this way, each gender role completes the other.

Many gay men have a perceptual setpoint somewhere between the aggressive masculine and the gradual feminine. This means they don’t crave softness and yieldingness from their sexual partner because they already posses these traits themselves. As a result, many gay sexual relationships are based more on a kind of ‘twinning’ than a yin and yang. What attracts each sexually is the mix of masculine and feminine in the other. Many gay men will tell you they are repulsed by the thought of playing the role of decisive commanding male to a soft yielding female.

The very real physical differences between the sexes meant certain outcomes for societal organization, and thus expectations, were more likely to happen — Philosophim

Physical differences between men and women fail utterly and completely as an explanation of a pattern of dominance of men over women repeated around the globe for millennia. It is the difference in perceptual setpoint between the masculine and the feminine brain that explains this behavior.
So what explains feminism and the many changes in the way young women behave today?This is not a matter of doing away with the perceptual setpoint, but of changing the way that cultural behavior expresses this setpoint.
Perceptual setpoint doesn’t dictate whether a person will become involved in extreme sports, risk-taking behavior or fistfights. It only shapes the style in which one particulates in such activities. This means that there are no activities or behaviors that are off-limits to women or men , and the sex-based compartmentalization of social roles that used to be pervasive will become increasingly rare. But the setpoint differences that define masculinity vs feminist will always be present underneath these cultural changes in behavior, even as they manifest themselves in more and more subtle ways.

For instance, does being schizophrenic mean you have to speak in word salad, or be a catatonic, or have paranoid delusions? Of course not. Does this mean that schizophrenia is purely a social construct, that each behavior associated with it is unique to an individual and there is no common explanatory brain process to tie together the constellation of potential behaviors connected with it, that there is no community of schizophrenics with an overlap of behaviors? — Joshs

Your analogy does not match. You can be schizophrenic and you can be gay. These are objective medical identifiers. Now, if I believe that a gay person should act a particular way that has nothing to do with the definition of being gay, that's gender based on my culture. If I believe a schizophrenic should act a different way that has nothing to do with the definition of being shizophrenic, that's comparable to gender.

For example, "If you're gay, you should like Lady Ga Ga." "If you're shizophrenic, you should be violent and dangerous." Someone then comes along to a gay person who does not like Lady Ga Ga and states, "I guess you're not gay." Someone comes along to a shizophrenic person who isn't violent or dangerous and says, "I guess you're not shizophrenic".

This is the exact comparison with sex and gender. To be gay, you must be a male who finds other men sexually attractive. That's it. Whether you like Lady Ga Ga or not is irrelevant. Whether someone believes that to be gay, you must like Lady Ga Ga or not is irrelevant. People's beliefs in how you should act, dress, etc as a gay man do not alter the fact you are a gay man.

Same with sex. It does not matter if you dress or act like someone believes a woman should dress and act. They are still a woman, or not a woman, based on their sex.

What you are advocating for is that someone's stereotypes, be it racism, sexism, classism, etc, should be the sole decider of one's objective identification. That is ludicrous. Its wrong and evil. As a gay person who I'm sure has experienced such discrimination, I'm sure you would agree with me.

Many gay men have a perceptual setpoint somewhere between the aggressive masculine and the gradual feminine. This means they don’t crave softness and yieldingness from their sexual partner because they already posses these traits themselves. As a result, many gay sexual relationships are based more on a kind of ‘twinning’ than a yin and yang. What attracts each sexually is the mix of masculine and feminine in the other. Many gay men will tell you they are repulsed by the thought of playing the role of decisive commanding male to a soft yielding female. — Joshs

Again, this is sexist. Plenty of men do not want to be a decisive commanding male to a soft yielding female. Your attraction or lack of attraction to a woman is based on her sex. I'm straight, and my same sex simply does not turn me on at all. Doesn't matter about the behavior. If you are gay without being bi, behavior isn't going to matter either.

Physical differences between men and women fail utterly and completely as an explanation of a pattern of dominance of men over women repeated around the globe for millennia. It is the difference in perceptual setpoint between the masculine and the feminine brain that explains this behavior. — Joshs

You're going to need to counter my points to demonstrate they "fail utterly and completely". Men in general are overall stronger than women and are not burdoned by the inconvenience of reproduction near to the level of women. Most of the world for most of humanity did not have effective birth control, sterile birthing areas, formula, of modern mentrual management. To just dismiss them without demonstrating why they could not have an impact is wrong.

"Perceptual setpoint" is just a sexist generality as to how a man or woman should act. If you could show that only biological men or only biological women exist certain behaviors, then you could note these are tied directly to sex. The fact that many of your behaviors are widely shared among straight men negates this idea that your thought process is somehow more feminine because of sex differences. Straight and gay men can feel and act in the same way in many ways, but cultural differences often times prevent or encourage certain behaviors within particular societies.

No logically sustainable argument has been made been at this point that gender should override division which has been done by sex. Its been an interesting aside, but I would like to refocus the point back on this topic. Lets take a perfectly normal XY man who wants to dress up like a woman and play sports competitively with them for fame, glory, and money, and give me a valid reason why they should be able to based on acting like what they believe a woman should act like.

if I believe that a gay person should act a particular way that has nothing to do with the definition of being gay, that's gender based on my culture. If I believe a schizophrenic should act a different way that has nothing to do with the definition of being shizophrenic, that's comparable to gender.

This is the exact comparison with sex and gender. To be gay, you must be a male who finds other men sexually attractive. That's it. Whether you like Lady Ga Ga or not is irrelevant. Whether someone believes that to be gay, you must like Lady Ga Ga or not is irrelevant. People's beliefs in how you should act, dress, etc as a gay man do not alter the fact you are a gay man. — Philosophim

When the term ‘gay’ because popular, it was seen by the general public as strictly a description of same-sex attraction and nothing else. When I recognized myself as gay, the term meant much more to me than this. It referred to my gender, not in the way you mean gender as an arbitrary whim or compulsion to exhibit some behavior disconnected from any larger pattern, but gender as a constellation of behaviors caused by an inborn perceptual setpoint. i think the rise of interest in the concept of transgender among the public is making up for the fact that terms like ‘straight’, gay’ , ‘lesbian’ and ‘bi’ that refer exclusively to who one is sexually attracted to are just the tip of the iceberg. As descriptors, they leave out what people are belatedly coming to realize constitute much richer aspects of gendered personality that just the fact of knowing who one chooses to sleep with completely misses , even though it is inextricably linked to these richer aspects of personality.

What you are advocating for is that someone's stereotypes, be it racism, sexism, classism, etc, should be the sole decider of one's objective identification — Philosophim

Let’s talk about stereotypes and sexism. I think you might agree that the concept of a stereotype depends on the association of a particular meaningful content with some aspect of someone’s behavior, and that content is treated in an over generalized way, forcing all sorts of differences into a single category which does not fit them.

Now let’s think about my previous discussion of perceptual setpoint and the terms I used to attempt to describe the patterns of behavior that I suggested are generated by the relative masculinization or feminization of setpoint.
As in the choice of any particular terms, my descriptors could easiliy lend themselves to stereotyping. In fact, I would argue that settling for any specific contentful terms , such as masculine and feminine, guarantee stereotyping.

But the reason that I introduced to you my notion of perceptual setpoint was not at all to assign and lock in place a certain set of concepts , a laundry list of specific behaviors that we must then force all of us into (masculinity means THIS set of traits and femininity mean THAT set of traits).
What I was trying to demonstrate was that gender, like many other personality traits or dispositions, is inborn and, while it evolves in its expression as we mature, has a relative stability over the course of our lives. In addition, while no two people share the same gender, there are close overlaps among elements of the larger community which make it possible for individuals with a particular gender to recognize themselves in a subcommunity and as a result feel a closeness to other members of thar subcommunity on the basis of overlapping gender behavior that they don’t feel with those outside of that subcommunity.

Th concepts that are key here are shared or overlapping patterns of behavior. The concepts that are not useful to me are specifically locked in descriptors of the supposed content associated with terms like masculine and feminine.

Discovering that one is on the autism spectrum can be tremendously empowering in two different ways. First, it ties together a range of behaviors in oneself that makes one different from the norm and unifies them. It thus allows one to understand one’s own self better and is thus liberating. Second, it allows one to discover an autistic community within one can not only feel ‘normal’ , but can politically empower one to question why autistism needs to be pathologized or ‘othered’ by the mainstream. Just as with concepts of masculinity and femininity, the definitions of autistic behavior and causation undergoes change all the times. Each era temporarily locks in its own assumptive vocabulary of autism, what it is, how it functions, what behaviors are associated with it and why. These are unavoidably forms of stereotyping, but each era’s stereotypes make way for the next era’s new
stereotypes.

My point is that one can make a distinction between an inborn, patterned , robust personality style such as autism or gender, and the specific stereotyped vocabulary used to nail down and label its behavioral features. The stereotyping labels are always slowly changing, without disturbing the underlying unified pattern.

So if I am agreeing with you that no stereotyped definitions of such things as masculinity and femininity can justify themselves, what is the value of my position? Simply this: it offers an enrichment of that ways we can understand ourselves as well as others. It can cause us to look for ways that the behavior of individuals and groups form personality patterns that better explain their motivations than isolated whim or compulsion. The goal is not to pigeonhole
others into categories based on already-formed definitions. It is to reveal a richer and more integral purposiveness in oneself and others as one interacts with them. I admire your attempt to protect the world from sexual stereotypes, but I think you’re throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Again, this is sexist. Plenty of men do not want to be a decisive commanding male to a soft yielding female. Your attraction or lack of attraction to a woman is based on her sex. I'm straight, and my same sex simply does not turn me on at all — Philosophim

It ain’t that simple. Why and in what way the opposite turns you on is connected with your personal perceptual setpoint
as well as cultural factors. How you respond to manipulation of the physical and behavioral femininity of your partner on a multitude of dimensions is a direct reflection of that setpoint. If I were to readjust your setpoint, you would be astonished by the thousands of subtle ways in which your comportment toward your world would change.

I would like to refocus the point back on this topic. Lets take a perfectly normal XY man who wants to dress up like a woman and play sports competitively with them for fame, glory, and money, and give me a valid reason why they should be able to based on acting like what they believe a woman should act like. — Philosophim

While I have many issues with the idea of allowing a biologically male body to compete among biological
female bodies, given the fact that you don’t appear to have a concept of psychological gender, I suspect this may limit your engagement on this issue.

When the term ‘gay’ because popular, it was seen by the general public as strictly a description of same-sex attraction and nothing else. When I recognized myself as gay, the term meant much more to me than this. It referred to my gender, not in the way you mean gender as an arbitrary whim or compulsion to exhibit some behavior disconnected from any larger pattern, but gender as a constellation of behaviors caused by an inborn perceptual setpoint. — Joshs

Which is fine. But this agrees with my point. Gender is subjective. Its your personal viewpoint of what it means to be gay. Objectively, all that it means to be gay is that you are sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Anything more varies from person to person.

But the reason that I introduced to you my notion of perceptual setpoint was not at all to assign and lock in place a certain set of concepts , a laundry list of specific behaviors that we must then force all of us into (masculinity means THIS set of traits and femininity mean THAT set of traits).
What I was trying to demonstrate was that gender, like many other personality traits or dispositions, is inborn and, while it evolves in its expression as we mature, has a relative stability over the course of our lives. — Joshs

Or it could be taken that you have set personality points, and you have ascribed those points to the fact you are gay. Which is fine as a personal assessment. But that's all it is, a personal, subjective interpretation. You agree with me a straight man who acts in all the stereotypical gay ways, but ultimately does not find other men attractive, is not objectively gay. That's my point about objective language within society versus gendered language for ourselves or groups that we place ourselves in. When we try to take our personal or particular culture of understanding the world and attempt to tell everyone its now an objective fact, we step on others subjectivity without an established objectivity underlying our insistence.

In addition, while no two people share the same gender, there are close overlaps among elements of the larger community which make it possible for individuals with a particular gender to recognize themselves in a subcommunity and as a result feel a closeness to other members of thar subcommunity on the basis of overlapping gender behavior that they don’t feel with those outside of that subcommunity. — Joshs

My sister does not like dolls. She dissects dead bodies for a living. She does not paint her nails, use make up, or wear dresses. She's very pretty. She is married and a mother of two children.

She has absolutely nothing in common with "feminine" women. She likes other women who are intelligent, hard working, and are interested in the same things she is. My sister if very much a woman, and does not consider at all that her life and what she's interested in makes her any less of a woman.

The reality is we like people who are interested in some common things we are. Then we make the mistake of attributing that to aspects about them that really have nothing to do with it. Perhaps we do it to make identity easier, as its the brains way of lazily organizing things. I'm sure there are plenty of gay people who you have no interest in being with, and have personalities and actions that greatly differ from your own.

Your attraction or lack of attraction to a woman is based on her sex. I'm straight, and my same sex simply does not turn me on at all
— Philosophim

It ain’t that simple. Why and in what way the opposite turns you on is connected with your personal perceptual setpoint as well as cultural factors. — Joshs

So are you attracted to some women? You would objectively be considered bisexual then. Which is fine, sexuality is a spectrum. I'm on the far end of the spectrum as I have never found a member of my same sex sexually attractive. I have friends who are more fluid. The point is that the words gay, lesbian, bit, etc all mean objective things regardless of your subjective viewpoints or culture. We should not let subjective viewpoints or culture dictate objective viewpoints.

While I have many issues with the idea of allowing a biologically male body to compete among biological
female bodies, given the fact that you don’t appear to have a concept of psychological gender, I suspect this may limit your engagement on this issue. — Joshs

To clarify, of course you have a psychological gender. That's what gender is, a subjective viewpoint of how you think a sex should act, feel, etc. But a subjective viewpoint does not override objective definitions that apply universally regardless of your gender.

Good discussion btw! I appreciate your candidness and openness. I do feel we have each expressed our viewpoints at this juncture. So at this point lets see if we can wrap it. Should gender override objective sex division in society? Should a straight man be able to identify as gay even if they could never be attracted to another man? Should a man who wears a dress suddenly be recognized in society as a woman? Should be sister be labeled a man because she doesn't identify with what some people in America think a woman should be like?

The problem word loaded into the question is ‘should’.

The problem word loaded into the question is ‘should’. — I like sushi

That's why its a question. I say no based on the reason's given. What do you say?

My point was you assume it is a yes/no answer? As always ‘it depends,’ and even then it may be revealed that to declare what ‘should’ or ‘should not’ be done is in error in and of itself.

Should we police thoughts and beliefs? Or more to the point CAN we and to what degree? That is what I read in the question of ‘should’.

Just to be clear … I am interested in this from an anthropological and psychological perspective. The question can be asked about whether or not someone may or may not be regarded as a ‘philosopher,’ an ‘artist’ or some other such title/label/whatever.

I have strong opinions about who I would call and artist just like I would about what I would call art. I am quite willing and open to except that other people will undoubtedly use these terms differently to me and that at the end of the day is doesn’t really matter as long as we understand each other enough not to degrade, belittle or abuse one another (with exceptions therein too of course!).

Should I care is someone calls themselves ‘gay’ or ‘Brian’? I have no reason to care therefore the ‘should’ is irrelevant to me. If someone ‘demands’ that I address them as such and such I am far less likely to comply because I have certain ‘anarchistic’ tendencies - it is more about the context than the ‘demand’/‘request’.

Note: I do find it peculiar how some people ‘request’ somethings and then act ‘abused’ when such a ‘request’ is denied. If something is genuinely ‘requested’ it should be done so with the expectation of a refusal (depending on the request and the explanation of the person being asked of).

It depends and there are exceptions. That just about sums up reasonable social interactions I think.

Should gender override objective sex division in society? Should a straight man be able to identify as gay even if they could never be attracted to another man? Should a man who wears a dress suddenly be recognized in society as a woman? Should be sister be labeled a man because she doesn't identify with what some people in America think a woman should be like? — Philosophim

I think we get into the same problems of stereotyping you pointed out in trying to distinguish objective from subjective with regard not only to gender but to the seemingly simple task of defining what it means to be attracted to someone on the basis of their ‘sex’. That’s why the alphabet of lgbqt keeps on growing and changing. We also have to include polyamory , incels and a whole boat of new delineations. According to those who argue that gender is a constellatory pattern or theme rather than independent behaviors, we are not attracted to another merely because of whether they have breasts or a penis, but how they manifest their sexuality via their gender behavior. For instance, I am more attracted to men who are in the middle of the spectrum than either hypermasculine or hyperfeminine acting men. Furthermore, I am not exclusively attracted to men, but the ones I am attracted to are more on the androgynous end of the spectrum. I think our culture is going to move away from using labels like gay and lesbian to refer to allegedly objective features of attraction based solely on anatomy.

Your question about how society should make decisions concerning how and whether to recognize the sexual or gendered categories people are claiming for themselves can be looked at from a pragmatic point of view:
what is the usefulness of doing so? How does society benefit? You might argue that it has been useful to offer legal protections for same-sex relations and partnerships because one is able to define and identify same-sex attraction objectively. We know there are significant segments of our culture who fit into this category, and denying them rights has social consequences. But as I suggested, the lines are being blurred between what is subjective and what is objective in this arena. Many now argue that the concept of psychological gender is no more subjective that what labels like gay and lesbian supposedly refer to.

This much I can tell you. It may not be practical for a community to make political decisions protecting the rights of individuals to behave in ways that that community considers to be the result of private whim or compulsion on the part of the individual, and does appear to belong to a larger pattern, constellation or theme of personality that all of us possess, each in their own way. In other words, if that community defines gender the way you do, as random, subjective whim, then that community cannot justify enacting new and special public protections for something considered to be a private choice like any other, for which the already-in-place protections for freedom of speech are more than adequate.

As with the gay rights movement, such protections will arise first from out of transgender, feminist and related communities themselves. The key terms in your questions have to do with recognizing and identifying. The trans, feminist and postmodern philosophical communities believe strongly that they already know how to recognize and identify something more than just private choice, whim , compulsion in what they call gender. A parent of a young biological girl who wants to dress like a boy, change their name to a boy’s name and ultimately transition surgically will behave differently depending on whether they grasp the concept of gender as inborn personality pattern vs random desire. In the first case, they will know what sorts of questions to ask and what sorts of behavior to look for to get a sense of whether their child is indeed transgender as opposed to just following trends of fashion.

This is why new protections are coming from these communities and the progressive urban environments that are sympathetic to them, and are being fought tooth and nail by conservative communities with no concept of gender outside of random private whim.

I want to make one last point. You have characterized gender as a question of nature vs nurture, and have opted to explain it as a social construct. It may have seemed that my disagreement with you rested on my claim for an inborn gender personality trait. But the essence of my claim rests not on nature vs nurture , objective vs subjective, but on the very attempt to understand gender or sexual into a split between objective and subjective. My argument is constructivist. Objectivity is a subjective and intersubjective construction. Even though my focus on this discussion has been on inborn patterns, my view of gender is actually much closer to the social constructionist approaches to gender of authors like Butler and Foucault than your cultural perspective is. Like me, they view gender in terms of a constellation of shared patterns of behaviors that bind communities. It is no accident that gender studies emerged out of cultural studies, which fed off of the work of French poststructuralists like Foucault and Deleuze.

I think we get into the same problems of stereotyping you pointed out in trying to distinguish objective from subjective with regard not only to gender but to the seemingly simple task of defining what it means to be attracted to someone on the basis of their ‘sex’. — Joshs

So that is a bit of a different subject. The terms at this time note attraction based on biological sex, but one could invent a word that notes attraction based on gender. The problem of course again, is that one's gender definitions are not universal across cultures, but are subjective and cultural themselves. I am not saying you shouldn't invent a language or go by gender in your personal culture. Do what you want. Its when we try to create clear terms that can be objectively identified and assessed across all cultures that we need to be more careful in our terms.

You might argue that it has been useful to offer legal protections for same-sex relations and partnerships because one is able to define and identify same-sex attraction objectively. — Joshs

I'm not arguing that though. I believe you can sexually commit to anyone you want as long as they are not a child, an animal, dead, or severely cognitively impaired. The reasons of course being the inability of the other party to make a clear decision on the matter. Two people who want to hook up and commit for life are all good.

But as I suggested, the lines are being blurred between what is subjective and what is objective in this arena. Many now argue that the concept of psychological gender is no more subjective that what labels like gay and lesbian supposedly refer to. — Joshs

Here we've discussed at length about clear lines and divisions. It doesn't matte what they say, it matters what's been discussed here. I've demonstrated, and you've confirmed, the problem with gender as a subjective, wishy-washy, line blurring definition. Its not that they aren't clear from the one's who invent and use them. When a person has a clear idea of what "feminine" is, they can list off all the features easily. The problem is that we can very easily find another person, ask them what feminine is, and they could easily list off a set of completely different and contrary points.

It may not be practical for a community to make political decisions protecting the rights of individuals to behave in ways that that community considers to be the result of private whim or compulsion on the part of the individual, and does appear to belong to a larger pattern, constellation or theme of personality that all of us possess, each in their own way. — Joshs

The practicality is irrelevant. The rights are already there to do so are they not? Do we not have free speech? Should we not have the right to act, wear, and dress as we wish within the privacy of our homes? I would love to say public places, but abuse, and not of the sexual sort, has long shown there needs to be some regulation to assure public safety and health. I would definitely argue that the limitations on dress and actions should be minimized, and only limited if real public harms can be demonstrated by their allowance.

my view of gender is actually much closer to the social constructionist approaches to gender of authors like Butler and Foucault than your cultural perspective is. Like me, they view gender in terms of a constellation of shared patterns of behaviors that bind communities. — Joshs

Of course, but that's in full agreement with my definition of gender as well. Gender is socially constructed, and gender is often used as a binding or enforcement tool for behaviors that the particular culture desires people to act on. That actually doesn't change the questions I've put forward.

I see you haven't addressed those questions directly, and if I had to guess, it is because you are concerned that this could somehow be used against sexuality itself. I assure you, it does not. Having spoken to several different people within the sexual variance community (I much prefer that term to the alphabet mix), I believe they agree in essence with what I'm stating, but are afraid that they will be seen as hypocritical in someway, or damage their own societal acceptance they have worked so hard to gain.

Such fear is often damaging, because this causes lies, half-truths, and evasive answers. But that is not the intention here. In philosophy we must be willing to examine issues at their core without fear of where people will try to go from there right? But I understand the fear. So don't answer my questions, its fine. I've ascertained enough at this point to hold to my original conclusions.

my view of gender is actually much closer to the social constructionist approaches to gender of authors like Butler and Foucault than your cultural perspective is. Like me, they view gender in terms of a constellation of shared patterns of behaviors that bind communities. — Joshs

Foucault’s approach is quite different from Butler’s. For Foucault, gender is the effect of the ongoing transformations and intensification of supple forms of power. He argues that the nineteen-century “growth of perversions is not a moralizing theme that obsessed the scrupulous minds of the Victorians. It is the real product of the encroachment of a type of power (biopower) on the bodies and their pleasures.” (HS, 1; pg 48) Unlike Butler, Foucault asserts that biopolitical norms do not primarily work to exclude the deviating individuals; instead, they work on accounting for them as such to render them normal or abnormal.

It may not be practical for a community to make political decisions protecting the rights of individuals to behave in ways that that community considers to be the result of private whim or compulsion on the part of the individual, and does appear to belong to a larger pattern, constellation or theme of personality that all of us possess, each in their own way. In other words, if that community defines gender the way you do, as random, subjective whim, then that community cannot justify enacting new and special public protections for something considered to be a private choice like any other, — Joshs

Foucault rejects the essentialist perspective on the source of power as an ultimate instance of rights, identity, intelligibility, or recognition. There is no power- sovereignty, based on a monarch or community’s subjectivity. Biopower does not bear on legal subjects but enacts various strategies embedded within social practices and comprises the entire political technology of life.