At the folk-biological level, yes. At the molecular biological level? No. Not even close. We're all so very different, and don't know enough about our biology to even begin to parse something as complicated as a gender identity or a gender role. — Moliere

I didn't say gender identity comes down to molecular biology. Bodily functions do.

We refer to genetics, to body functions, or even just descriptions of the body. — Moliere

They all line up pretty rigidly. You can use "XX" to describe typical female anatomy and physiology. You'll be talking about the same thing a Neanderthal would recognize as female.

We don't mean that though. We mean "Woman" and "Man". We're not referencing studies about hormone concentration effects on bone density. To be a man is not to have the right chromosomes. In fact, many people who have the right chromosomes are often denigrated as not being real men. Masculinity refers to the penis, but the performance is in defeating someone else -- or at least trying and accepting the outcome if you lose. Like a man — Moliere

We have gender roles and we have biology. The two are distinct. That's the whole point of philosophy of gender.

I'd submit that gender dysphoria is exactly the opposite of the way you characterize it here. The person believes their appearance is not who they are and they try to alter their appearance to match their internal view of who they are. — Hanover

I'm not disagreeing with this. I'm saying that the act of transformation is critical in people being who they need to be. At least that's what trans people have told me over the years. My point is that to call this a choice is not useful, it minimizes trans identity.

If you want to say the act is the transsexualism, then we can wipe out a good amount of transsexualism with some makeup remover. — Hanover

The identity completes the process of becoming who you are.

We have gender roles and we have biology. The two are distinct — frank

Yup.

And what I'm claiming is that we don't use biology to police gendered spaces. We use gender. So putting "XX" or "XY" on the doors won't address anything at all, since the topic is social rather than biological. It's the biological definition being strictly applied which is novel. Historically speaking "Woman" and "Man" have social, rather than biological, meanings.

Yes. It's an unfortunate fact that few transwomen go undetected. It's usually pretty obvious.

This speaks to something I'm worried about.

The pressure on trans people is to "pass" -- they can be themselves as long as cis people can't tell and treat them the same. With further pressures on gendered spaces from political reactionaries the desire to to be "pure", the desire to transition *rightly* is intensified.

And, truth be told, we don't know if "few" trans women go undetected. That's the dream -- to be undetected, and finally be treated as one is.

Has anyone, with two X chromosomes and no Y, spoken up in this thread?

I haven't seen that, but I'm not doubting what you say. It's always been true that gays and lesbians have to be psychologically robust to navigate the world. With trans, I'd say it's more so. I would tell any trans person living in America to learn self defense techniques, avoid going anywhere alone where you could be jumped, and always stay on the lookout for weirdos. Sad, but true. It's a tough world.

This is an important question perhaps only in sports. Otherwise the discourse reeks to a media frenzy, politics and at worst transphobia.

Testosterone is performance enhancing for female athletes. And of course that male athletes are stronger, quicker than female athletes. And notice other subtle things what the records show: look at how many World records are from the 1980's. With men, there's one. With women, there's four. In the 1980s growth hormones and and anabolic steroids, which mimic testosterone, were widely used and only later more tighter control were brought in.

Current womens world records in track & field:

100 10.49 Florence Griffith Joyner (US) Indianapolis, Indiana 7/16/88
200 21.34 Florence Griffith Joyner (US) Seoul, South Korea 9/29/88
300+ 34.41 Shaunae Miller-Uibo (Bahamas) Ostrava, Czech Republic 6/20/19
400 47.60 Marita Koch (East Germany) Canberra, Australia 10/06/85
600+ 1:21.77 Caster Semenya (South Africa) Berlin, Germany 8/27/17
800 1:53.28 Jarmila Kratochvílová (Czechoslovakia) Munich, Germany 7/26/83
1000 2:28.98 Svetlana Masterkova (Russia) Brussels, Belgium 8/23/96
1500 3:50.07 Genzebe Dibaba (Ethiopia) Fontvieille, Monaco 7/17/15
3:49.11p Faith Kipyegon (Kenya) Florence, Italy 6/02/23
Mile 4:12.33 Sifan Hassan (Netherlands) Fontvieille, Monaco 7/12/19
2000 5:21.56 Francine Niyonsaba (Burundi) Zagreb, Croatia 9/14/21
Steeple 8:44.32 Beatrice Chepkoech (Kenya) Fontvieille, Monaco 7/20/18
3000 8:06.11 Junxia Wang (China) Beijing, China 9/13/93

Current mens world records in track & field:

100 9.58 Usain Bolt (Jamaica) Berlin, Germany 8/16/09
150+ 14.35 Usain Bolt (Jamaica) Manchester, England 5/17/09
200 19.19 Usain Bolt (Jamaica) Berlin, Germany 8/20/09
300+ 30.81 Wayde van Niekerk (South Africa) Ostrava, Czechia 6/28/17
400 43.03 Wayde van Niekerk (South Africa) Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 8/14/16
600+ 1:12.81 Johnny Gray (US) Santa Monica, California 5/24/86
800 1:40.91 David Rudisha (Kenya) London, England 8/09/12
1000 2:11.96 Noah Ngeny (Kenya) Rieti, Italy 9/05/99
1500 3:26.00 Hicham El Guerrouj (Morocco) Rome, Italy 7/14/98
Mile 3:43.13 Hicham El Guerrouj (Morocco) Rome, Italy 7/07/99
2000 4:44.79 Hicham El Guerrouj (Morocco) Berlin, Germany 9/07/99
Steeple 7:53.63 Saïf Shaheen (Qatar) Brussels, Belgium 9/03/04
7:52.11p Lamecha Girma (Ethiopia) Paris, France 6/09/23
2000 Steeple+ 5:10.86 Mahiedine Mekhissi (France) Reims, France 6/30/10
3000 7:20.67 Daniel Komen (Kenya) Rieti, Italy 9/01/96

You'll have to do a genetic sequencing.

Which should at least hint at showing how the biological isn't what we mean, but only refer to.

That’s what I’m struggling with. My conscience won’t let me abandon the truth of the matter, nor will it let me abandon compassion and manners. I believe abandoning one or the other is fracturing the issue and leading to the division, on what in my mind should be a matter of health.

It seems to me that if it is a matter of health we should be focusing on the dysmorphia, the question of why one cannot identify with his own body, those strong desires and incongruities which directly causes most of the suffering. That in my mind is the humane approach, while it is not clear that satisfying these desires is, especially when we risk violating the rights of the other sex.

My point is this: providing gender neutral accommodations--toilets, locker rooms, and so on is not a trivial expense, and the number of beneficiaries doesn't justify the required spending, especially when we have not met all the very definite needs of 60 million disabled Americans. — BC

Accessible toilets are gender neutral.

So here's your answer: make accessible, gender neutral toilets a norm.

It's ridiculous to frame this discussion as a fight between trans and disabled folk.

It's the biological definition being strictly applied which is novel. — Moliere

That's just not true. What's recent is the general acceptance of socially recognized female traits to biological males in Western society. That's what this change is about.

Some of those distinctions are arguably worth preserving, like perhaps the locker room or sports teams examples. — Hanover

Your OP was not in jest? This ridiculous thread got to five pages overnight. You must be so proud.

Here's a read for all of you. It won't be that easy for those with little background in philosophical thinking, as it covers ground from Aristotle and Kant through analytic treatments of reference and necessity and natural kinds and Kripke and Rorty and Heidegger before pulling the issues together using the later Wittgenstein. At the very least, this article summarises the real philosophical issues that sit behind the trivial, pop-culture posts that make the bulk of this pathetic thread.

There's even a paragraph for you, @Hanover, explaining who your simplistic xx and xy "solution" ignores.

Trans folk are challenging us to reappraise our assumptions. This is not about chromosomes or genitalia or societal expectations so much as it is about urinals and stalls and keeping people safe.

Read this: Are Sex and Gender Natural Kinds? A Wittgensteinian Investigation

Cheers to , , and those others who show compassion for trans folk.

Yes. It's an unfortunate fact that few transwomen go undetected. It's usually pretty obvious. — frank

Removing commentary from your post, I'd replace "unfortunate" with "evolutionary."

That's just not true. What's recent is the general acceptance of socially recognized female traits to biological males in Western society. That's what this change is about. — Hanover

"biological males" -- that's not a biological term at all. In general we call males those who provide gametes to eggs, but there's nothing about Western society in that. Seahorses, for instance, on the biological level, function on both sides of what we call male and female.

What I'd say is recent is that people who thought biology mattered have found out that it doesn't.

It's ridiculous to frame this discussion as a fight between trans and disabled folk. — Banno

The reason for mentioning disability is that I am aware of the substantial cost for building out additional bathrooms that weren't in the original floor plan. If a building has a bathroom that can be neutered (changing the signage) that's not a cost issue. If building out is required, then cost is an issue,

There's even a paragraph for you, Hanover, explaining who your simplistic xx and xy "solution" ignores. — Banno

It ignores no one. I've not suggested transsexuals are not full fledged women. I've only pointed out that the term "woman" is used differently in different contexts, which is screamingly obvious. I also don't believe anyone can dictate the proper usage of the term, as if to suggest an XX person cannot be referred to as a woman in polite company if they gender identify as a man.

To neutralize the language, I'll call female gender identifying XYs "A," male gender identifying XYs "B," female gender identifying XXs "C," and female gender identifying XXs "D."

As aren't Bs aren't Cs aren't Ds.

We have historically treated Bs and Ds distinctly. It's not shocking that we treat As and Cs distinctly as well. It's also not correct to say A = C simply because they share one trait and not another. The same holds true for trying to say A=B or C=D simply because they share one trait.

My position is not binary.

Sometimes it matters what your sex is and sometimes not. That shouldn't be controversial.

What I'd say is recent is that people who thought biology mattered have found out that it doesn't. — Moliere

It matters sometimes, not others. Is that not obvious?

I'm just demurring at posing a juxtaposition between trans folk and those with disabilities. We should look for mutual support rather than antagonism... basic intersectionality. And it looks as if there is a mutually agreeable solution - more accessible gender neutral toilets.

That's obvious, yes.

I'm only objecting to the use of biology as an obvious thing -- it's not as obvious as we thought, in my opinion at least. The relationship between biological description and man/woman designations is not so easy as I once thought.

This is not about chromosomes or genitalia or societal expectations; but it is about urinals and stalls and keeping people safe. — Banno

It's about all sorts of things, which include comfort levels of women and men, sports programs, and treatment of children. You may have concluded what you think the solution is, but it is about all those things and it is for that reason it is hotly debated.

It is not, as you would frame it, about sympathetic, kiind hearted, forward thinking intellectual folks and prejudiced, hateful, backwoods rednecks. In fact, half the battle is just responding to the ad homs and the refusals to accept I have no problem with people transitioning and doing as they wish. This isn't a moral issue for me at all, and I'm fully supportive of safety and protecting everyone, especially our most vulnerable. I don't throw those words out there just to say the right thing. I sincerely believe it. Justice is blind.

None of this requires me to turn off my brain and declare something is something that it is not though.

The relationship between biological description and man/woman designations is not so easy as I once thought — Moliere

Yes, I very much agree with you here. As I've framed it, I don't deny female gender identifying XYs are women. It's not as simple as it would have been framed 20 years ago.

But, where I push back is in deleting prior designations when they continue to have application in particular contexts.

I probably shouldn't address this as it serves to continue the superficial narrative, but...

It ignores no one. — Hanover

It ignores Aneuploidy; but that's not so important. The problem is in part the insistence on "As aren't Bs aren't Cs aren't Ds", the failure to account for real discrepancies in how we categorise stuff, on understanding necessity and kinds and how sometimes it's a family resemblance. But mostly, it's about misunderstanding what is at issue.

Again, the difference between a men's and a women's lavatory is the urinal. The issue in your OP should be the built environment, not your unenforcible solution to a nonexistent problem.

the failure to account for real discrepancies in how we categorise stuff, on understanding necessity and kinds and how sometimes it's a family resemblance. — Banno

I don't think it misses that point at all. The issue I've described doesn't attempt to hammer a preferred definition onto a word. We have a real world equivocation problem here, with different communities using the same designator for different referents. The battle is over who gets the word and all privileges attached to it.

My point is that just because you get the word doesn't mean you get the privileges attached to it unless there is a reason for it. Like in sport's, for example.

Has anyone, with two X chromosomes and no Y, spoken up in this thread? — wonderer1

I doubt it - though I didn't read most of the pages.
What is a woman?
According to the evidence here presented, it's someone who can be discussed, argued-over, judged, categorized and decided-about in her presence, as if she were inanimate.

That's was kind of my impression as well.

According to the evidence here presented, it's someone who can be discussed, argued-over, judged, categorized and decided-about in her presence, as if she were inanimate. — Vera Mont

Well it's philosophy, isn't it? Abstraction, argumentation and judgment is what we do here to everything... :razz:

Well it's philosophy, isn't it? — Tom Storm

It's about toilets!

Anyway, How is this a philosophical question, and how can it have a philosophical answer ?
What is a man, a woman, a person, a camera, a tv? Define them how you want, posit ideal forms of each in hyperspace or whatever, the items with conscious intelligence will insist on their own identity and the inanimate ones don't care.

Carry on as if we were not here.

What is rigid about it? Asking for evidence of a threat? Defining transphobia the way I have? You're putting forward a list of criticisms without specifying what you're talking about or engaging substantively. I am able to defend my position, so if you could please quote where my reasoning is faulty in your view, — Baden

The post below describes the difference between your position and mine. As I've said in several posts, forcing acceptance of transgender people's demands down the throats of the other 99.5% of us is not an effective way of keeping trans people safe.

The focus of this debate should be how to protect trans people from discrimination, bigotry, and violence concerning their use of bathrooms and definitely not on falsely stigmatising one of our most vulnerable minority groups as a "danger" or "threat".
— Baden

No. The focus of the debate should be on figuring out how to help transgender men and women become valued members of our communities without having to pretend they're something they're not. — T Clark

I think your post is a good summary of the issue. I'm not someone who cares much about sports, but I do care about fairness. From what I've read, biological males who compete as women in mixed martial arts consistently beat the crap out of biological females, sometimes causing serious injury. That's not fair. — T Clark

How do you define "fair" in a competitive sport? Is it a matter of following the rules? How do we know if the rules are "fair"? Consider @Mark S 's thread on the science of morality. There, morality is defined by cooperation. But competition is directly opposed to cooperation. So we have a big problem right off the bat. Competitive sport is fundamentally immoral according to the science of morality. How do you propose that we can make "fairness" a principle in any competitive sport, which by its very nature is immoral. Fairness would have no real bearing in an immoral activity.

Of course, the solution here is to realize the benefits of competition in general, and to see that morality is not restricted to cooperation, because this would exclude the the good of competition. So when we proceed to look at competition as a good, we need to put that into context, what is it good for. If it was only good for entertainment, this would provide the guidelines needed. However, competition is good in many ways, primarily in the sense that it builds strength in character. And, we see it in the market place, in the office, and in many other places where it often is good. Therefore I ask you, if it is morally correct, for men and women to compete against each other for the same career positions, how could it be moral incorrect (unfair) for men and women to compete against each other in competitive sports?