if sex is “assigned,” then we’ve officially rendered these words meaningless. — Mikie

According to Google Ngram, "gender assigned at birth" didn't show up in print very often until the mid 1980s. "Sex assigned at birth" didn't appear in print until around 2000. Then the curve was almost straight up for both phrases.

When I first encountered trans people in the 1970s, they presented to other people very much the way gay people did: "I'm different than most people; I've been dealing with this difference for a long time and it's difficult; I want to express the 'real me'".

Gay people and transgendered people both had to 'make it up as we went along'.

30 years later, the situation was considerably different for transgendered people. There were now publications, medical support, groups, and politics. Trans people were more likely to take risks and push boundaries. And, of course, being assigned the wrong gender or sex at birth became a corner stone of a peevish identity -- like OBGYN doctors could tell which gender a baby would be 15 years into the future? Those misleading genitals, though! The doctor saw a penis or vagina and labeled the baby accordingly. Outrageous!!!

Right. And my point was that sexual preference has been treated much more harshly and in a different light than transgender. There is tacit acceptance of transgender actions up to a point. Even a hint of an incorrect sexual preference was often extremely villified. The grander point is they are two separate topics, so lets keep it that way if possible. — Philosophim

But no one thought the people called dykes or fags were homosexuals. My point wasn't that being transgendered was ok and showing it through terms that with those terms. My point was terms were flung at people with hate or more neutral classification. To get called 'fag' generally did not mean someone thought one was gay. It was just like saying weak, not boy enough - and it could be said even if one did not do anything transgender, let alone homosexual. My point was that tom boy was not used in this way. I can't even imagine a child or teenager calling someone a tomboy with hatred. They'd go for other terms.

That is determined by the culture you are in. If you are viewed as transgendered, then you are in that culture. You can try to change their minds, but its ultimately their decision. — Philosophim

I don't see how their belief changes me. Yes, it's their decision, thoughts arose in their minds. Nothing happend to me. I'd accept phrases like 'you will be thought of as _______' 'people will judge you for being what they consider______________' But that I have become transgendered, nah. Does it count if I walk into a bar in a wider culture that would not consider me something but when I walk in there, that subculture will judge me that way. What is the ontology of location? I'm giggle a bit as I write this, but I'm also serious. I don't grant changes in them to be considered a change in me, for example.

You became transgendered in that culture. I think this is the confusion some people have. You do not own gender. — Philosophim

Then I shouldn't get the label, in a context like this. IOW here we are talking abstractly from a metaposition. I understand that if I go to culture X I may be seen as category B. It has nothing to do with me is more or less my point. Also, gender tends to include not just visible/audible behavior but also attitudes and emotions. If they never notice, but I walk around having the attitudes that the other biological sex is supposed to have to the degree I have it, am I transgendered, suddenly because I am there, or not. I, personally, cry more than most women - I'm a guy. But I don't do that on the street. I doubt I would if I was a woman - though that's speculation of course (snorting a bit with laughter again.) But at home, sure. So, at the hotel, in Sicily, sure. Am I transgendered? Or am I not transgendered because they didn't notice and they couldn't see when I walk around or am at the beach that my attitudes and the way I talk to the people I am with are supposedly traditionally female? I'm not hiding, per se. Is it only the act of judgment on their part that makes me suddenly be in a new category? mere presence where the other views hold sway, though clearly not everywhere, even there?

Further I'm not sure there is agreement that others own the judgment:

How does someone know that they are transgender?
People can realize that they're transgender at any age. Some people can trace their awareness back to their earlier memories – they just knew. Others may need more time to realize that they are transgender. Some people may spend years feeling like they don't fit in without really understanding why, or may try to avoid thinking or talking about their gender out of fear, shame, or confusion. Trying to repress or change one’s gender identity doesn’t work; in fact, it can be very painful and damaging to one’s emotional and mental health. As transgender people become more visible in the media and in community life across the country, more transgender people are able to name and understand their own experiences and may feel safer and more comfortable sharing it with others.

For many transgender people, recognizing who they are and deciding to start gender transition can take a lot of reflection. Transgender people risk social stigma, discrimination, and harassment when they tell other people who they really are. Parents, friends, coworkers, classmates, and neighbors may be accepting—but they also might not be, and many transgender people fear that they will not be accepted by their loved ones and others in their life. Despite those risks, being open about one’s gender identity, and living a life that feels truly authentic, can be a life-affirming and even life-saving decision.

Do I become transgender if I get off a bus in the midwest, but stop being transgender when I get back on the bus since the other passengers are, like me travelling through the midwest? I we have a stop in a little town in the Midwest, say a bus trip, and I walk into a diner where everyone has different ideas about gender than the rest of the county, am I transgendered or not during my bus trip breakfast?

How do we know if someone is transgender? Must others in the dominant cultural group openly express the judgment? Do we assume they have it but haven't said it, given what we now about that culture or think we know?

If you understand those expectations, and go against them in public, then you are transgendered in your explicit violation of the cultural norms. — Philosophim

So, if I don't know, then I am not transgendered while I am there? But then I at least partially own my gender. It would be part of my identity.

And the person who goes and knows part or a little of the other culture?

Again, this is all part of a more general issue. I think that when the changes are not in the self, but primarily have to do with beholders' judgments (and even this may not exist in your schema - they may be inured to tourists and their difference and no longer notice it, or just be thinking about other things) then it is better to label the scenario and not me.

If people are judged mentally ill in a certain culture for doing things considered within the range of the normal in my culture, and I go there and do them, I am not mentally ill suddenly. Perhaps I am rude not to respect their traditions, given I know it, but I am not mentally ill suddenly then healthy when I get back on the plane.

It's the use of language here and what it implies ontologically.

Gender owns you because it is an expectation from people other than yourself that they expect you to comply with. — Philosophim

I don't think there is consensus at all about how transgendered is used. But further I'm with the Scotting guy.

So if you're a Scottish man and get told you're "Dressing like a woman," you would claim, "No I'm not! This is a kilt that men wear!" — Philosophim

I'd leave off that last sentence, since I'd know not all men wear kilts. Perhaps, adding, yeah, here. I mean, if I actually got into a conversation with someone. But I guess on some level I grant them no expertise. You and I, having this discussion, are in a metaposition. And it sounds like neither of us cares that much how other people behave in relation to gender. In other countries, whatever my challenging personality traits, they tend to be the less visible ones when I am in public regardless of country - that's me, others have different situations. But my attitude on some level is, no, your not some objective expert on what a man or woman is what gender is and so on. I don't consent to the judgment or because I am here you are now suddenly right about my behavior. I do have a when in Rome attitude about many things. I don't point my feet at people in Thailand or make fun of the King. And there are many even fairly subtle things I adjust to when I even go to someone's home for dinner. But I don't grant the objective expertise that seems implicit, even in their country. I don't want to be rude. I've put on kippah in orthodox schools, taken off shoes in mosques and temples. And all sorts of what I would call polite. But that tends to be specific to entering houses and buildings and that's true in my home countries also. All the darn subcultures - including things like corporate and government agency subcultures - where I do some adjustment, though often because of power or not wanting the hassle of dealing with irritated people. It's not like I'm advocating spitting in the face of local traditions.

But yeah, if someone says to me in my kilt that I am dressing like a woman, I'd probably say, 'Actually no. I'm not. But I know men here don't do this.' Unless I thought a crowd was ready to beat the hell out of me. But I wouldn't grant that the person was correct, except for self-protection and then I'd be lying.

I’m more interested in why this has become such an issue at all. — Mikie

I have a good friend who once said, "The age of the internet got rid of taboos." I like the general sentiment. The motivation behind this is people who are different that want to be accepted into society. Its a re-examination of past prejudices and labels. I think its a fantastic subject to discuss philosophically.

Why I do think its become such an issue is because the definition of transgender vs transexual has been blurred. Its confusing. People don't understand it. Laws are being made to help accept trans people into normative society, but we must still balance accurate language use, as well as the logic of what is acceptance versus imposition.

But no one thought the people called dykes or fags were homosexuals. — Bylaw

I don't know where you got that.

Dyke is a slang term, used as a noun meaning lesbian. It originated as a homophobic slur for masculine, butch, or androgynous girls or women. Pejorative use of the word still exists, but the term dyke has been reappropriated by many lesbians to imply assertiveness and toughness.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyke_(slang)

Faggot, often shortened to fag in American usage, is a term, usually a pejorative, used to refer to gay men.[1][2] In American youth culture around the turn of the 21st century, its meaning extended as a broader reaching insult more related to masculinity and group power structure.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot#:~:text=Faggot%2C%20often%20shortened%20to%20fag,masculinity%20and%20group%20power%20structure.

The root of both words has always been about homosexuality. Yes, that slang further evolved into an insult to people, but that insult has always had the implication of homosexual underneath it.

My point was that tom boy was not used in this way. I can't even imagine a child or teenager calling someone a tomboy with hatred. — Bylaw

Then you weren't around when it was used on the playground. It was very often used as an insult by kids at other kids. But lets not get so bogged down in this that we get away from the original point that transgender is a cultural expectation in how a sex should act.

I don't see how their belief changes me. Yes, it's their decision, thoughts arose in their minds. Nothing happend to me. — Bylaw

I never said it did. My point is you are not a transgendered individual without a culture upon which you can measure it. Let me give you an example. Lets say a few women in your neighborhood start wearing orange shoes. Then you as a man start wearing orange shoes. Is that transgender? No, because no one cares.

Now lets say women start wearing orange shoes, and society for whatever reason starts to say, "Ah, orange shoes are feminine now." If you as a man start to wear orange shoes, you are now transgendered. The act of you 'being' by what you like, how you act, etc., is not inherently gendered or transgendered. Because gender is how others expect a particular sex to act. If no one has an expectation for a sex to act a particular way, then acting that way is not labeled as transgendered. Do you understand? You cannot be transgendered. Only society can make you transgendered.

I don't grant changes in them to be considered a change in me — Bylaw

Correct. And that's the point. You are you. Gender is an expectation of how you should act based on your sex by culture, which is enforced by others. You alone cannot be transgendered. You must have a societies gender expectation to cross.

How does someone know that they are transgender?
People can realize that they're transgender at any age. Some people can trace their awareness back to their earlier memories – they just knew.

Right, but only because society created a gender and their innate selves did not want to go along with that expectation. A boy who likes the color pink is transgender in their color preference in one society, while not transgender in their color preference in another society. What is societally independent is transexualism. The desire to change your body to the other sex is not societally created, and is a personal desire of the self.

For many transgender people, recognizing who they are and deciding to start gender transition can take a lot of reflection. Transgender people risk social stigma, discrimination, and harassment when they tell other people who they really are.

This is why its important to define transgender and transexual clearly. 'Gender transition' is nonsense. You cannot change your gender, as society is the one who creates your gender. You can defy your gender that culture ascribes to you, but you cannot transition. I can be a man who acts like a woman in all respects, but people still expect that as a man, I act a particular way, or gender. Transition can only be applied to transexuals. That is the act of body alteration to emulate the other sex in an attempt to appease personal desires, or attempt to be perceived as the other sex by society.

Do I become transgender if I get off a bus in the midwest, but stop being transgender when I get back on the bus since the other passengers are, like me travelling through the midwest? — Bylaw

Within the different cultures, yes.

How do we know if someone is transgender? Must others in the dominant cultural group openly express the judgment? — Bylaw

Yes.

If you understand those expectations, and go against them in public, then you are transgendered in your explicit violation of the cultural norms.
— Philosophim
So, if I don't know, then I am not transgendered while I am there? But then I at least partially own my gender. It would be part of my identity. — Bylaw

If you never knew that you were acting transgendered, then you would not know you were transgendered in that culture. If someone tells you that your actions are 'crossing gender lines or not meeting expectations', and you still act that way, then you know you are transgendered in that cultural expectation.

But then I at least partially own my gender. — Bylaw

This may be semantics, but I don't think you own gender. You decide whether to meet or defy a culture's gender expectations. That does not change other's cultural expectations. You can own crossing gender. You can even say as a man, "I act like society expects a woman to act." But you don't own the female gender. You are crossing into the female gender of that society. You don't get to dictate or own what that gender is.

If people are judged mentally ill in a certain culture for doing things considered within the range of the normal in my culture, and I go there and do them, I am not mentally ill suddenly. — Bylaw

You are mentally ill in that culture, yes. This is why medical diagnosis attempts to cross culture and rely on science careful research and thinking.

Perhaps I am rude not to respect their traditions, given I know it, but I am not mentally ill suddenly then healthy when I get back on the plane. — Bylaw

Because mental illness in this case is not defined by you, but the culture you visited.

I don't think there is consensus at all about how transgendered is used. — Bylaw

Then that is a problem with the word. Words that convey ideas need to be as clear and unambiguous as possible, especially in major discussions about laws and life. And that's what we're doing here. Clarifying the word to the point where it can be used across cultures and allows consistent and rational communication without contradictions or bleeding unnecessarily into other terms.

But yeah, if someone says to me in my kilt that I am dressing like a woman, I'd probably say, 'Actually no. I'm not. But I know men here don't do this.' Unless I thought a crowd was ready to beat the hell out of me. But I wouldn't grant that the person was correct, except for self-protection and then I'd be lying. — Bylaw

Right, you would be implying that "Men in my culture wear kilts." Not that, "I decided alone that men wear kilts." Gender is cultural, and the culture does not care about whether we think its correct or not. We can try to persuade someone that its ok for a sex to act a particular way, but ultimately they have to agree with us. We can also decide which culture we belong to, or the gender definitions that we accept as defined, then decide to obey or cross. But we don't get to decide how gender is decided in any particular culture alone.

This ties in very closely with other traditions you mentioned. There is no objective reason or declaration from God that I wear a particular head piece or bow at prayer. Its culture. Culture can include gender, and it cannot. If I defied bowing at a particular point in prayer despite people telling me I should because in my religion I shouldn't, I would be transculture. (We normally say crossculture). Gender is just another aspect of culture, and follows the same norms just with expectations about how sexes should act instead of situations where sex is not important.

It's so peculiar to permit forms of perceived abnormality to such an irrational degree. Where does this naïve compassion/entertainment end and a repression of a natural shaming mentality begin? — substantivalism

While I take it you're probably joking for effect, I actually take this to be a real, evolutionary and highly effective tool in the human tool box. Artificial shame (or, arbitrary consequence) is the issue. It's pretty much unavoidable if you allow the former it's full extent in a modern society. Such is life. I enjoy a bit of motivational shame (and no, that's not an innuendo lol).

And, of course, being assigned the wrong gender or sex at birth became a corner stone of a peevish identity -- like OBGYN doctors could tell which gender a baby would be 15 years into the future? Those misleading genitals, though! The doctor saw a penis or vagina and labeled the baby accordingly. Outrageous!!! — BC

As with the previous quote from substantivalism, It's hard to tell how much of this is satire.

There was a system of enslavement of junior boys by senior boys as part of the traditional system of boys schools in Britain of the Empire, institutionalised to teach the future administrators of said Empire how to rule. The juniors would be assigned to a senior and required to "fag" for him, which amounted to being his personal servant. "Fagging" was usual until after WW2 and gradually fell out of favour thereafter as the Empire was dissolved. Temporary homosexuality was also rife, of course as it is in prisons, but whether that connection comes from that usage or not I do not know.

Otherwise, a faggot of wood is a measure of small firewood sticks; or in another possibly connected usage, a meatball made with various kinds of offal, perhaps a better candidate for an insulting reuse. Available at your grocers:

https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/282049626

While I take it you're probably joking for effect, — AmadeusD

I've had my fair share of posts a while back on these gender issues which in hindsight only appeared out of a pathetic defensive need. I had, at that time, recently come to find a person close to me is transgender of a certain sort at a certain stage in the process. As of late, after taking a break, I've come to grips more with the perceived looming threat that questioning this "narrative" comes with.

Beyond the obvious objectivity of biological features or the subjectivity of other human elements there were. . . moral questions I still grapple with. Both in terms of moral oughts and emotional oughts or states of mind that I should take on this.

Artificial shame (or, arbitrary consequence) is the issue. It's pretty much unavoidable if you allow the former it's full extent in a modern society. Such is life. I enjoy a bit of motivational shame (and no, that's not an innuendo lol). — AmadeusD

It's one of emotional oughts and your perception, apathetic/saving face/guilty/judgemental, of others that I find concerning/intriguing. Not so much because of political narratives which dissuade it but because how I feel about someone may be in sharp contrast to how I feel I should be by philosophical introspection. Even if I never mention that to their face.

Philosophy leaves no stone unturned no matter how socially or personally destructive said "truth" might be.

I've had my fair share of posts a while back on these gender issues which in hindsight only appeared out of a pathetic defensive need. I had, at that time, recently come to find a person close to me is transgender of a certain sort at a certain stage in the process. As of late, after taking a break, I've come to grips more with the perceived looming threat that questioning this "narrative" comes with. — substantivalism

I understand a close friend of mine is thinking about transitioning. We've had conversations like this, though they were difficult at the time. Its at emotional times like these that I feel we should ask ourselves to be more objective.

Emotional appeals are often irrational and not fully voiced. Its a simple example, but when someone complains about a movie. "I didn't like the movie, it sucks." "Why?" I don't know, but the director should be fired and never make a movie again." While this interchange is inconsequential between friends, if the person has the power to actually fire the director and ensure they never make a movie again, we need to ask if the action taken from the initial emotion is rational.

To me, the transgender/transexual community is finding its footing in its desire to be accepted by society, as well as accept itself. As such it is at an extremely immature stage of rational thinking, and is mostly in a reactive and nascent stage of thought. If it remains this way, it will fail. People do not tolerate such things for long. It needs rational discourse. It needs to refine its language and be more clear in its desires and intents. It needs better arguments. If not, I feel it will cause damage both inside and outside of its community and find itself in a worse position than it started with.

To me, the transgender/transexual community is finding its footing in its desire to be accepted by society, as well as accept itself. As such it is at an extremely immature stage of rational thinking, and is mostly in a reactive and nascent stage of thought. If it remains this way, it will fail. People do not tolerate such things for long. It needs rational discourse. It needs to refine its language and be more clear in its desires and intents. It needs better arguments. If not, I feel it will cause damage both inside and outside of its community and find itself in a worse position than it started with. — Philosophim

What do you imagine to be the ideal endpoint of rational self-definition within the trans community? In the best of all
possible worlds, how do you see people taking about and performing gender in 50 years? How do you prefer to think about your own gender?

What do you imagine to be the ideal endpoint of rational self-definition within the trans community? In the best of all
possible worlds, how do you see people taking about and performing gender in 50 years? How do you prefer to think about your own gender? — Joshs

Good question. In the best of all possible worlds:

1. All emotive language is relegated to local social groups. Transgender/sexual language is detailed, precise, and clear in the language cross culturally.
2. Universal acceptance of one's personal expressions and worked out compromises within how that should be expressed within the larger culture.

As for me personally? I don't think of myself in terms of gender. I'm the sex that I am. That's it. I understand there are certain societal expectations of me because of that sex, but I don't find them any more inconvenient or important then any other expectation about me like my looks, my height, my job, or my living space. Ideally, I think that's where we should all be. I don't want to be disrespected for attributes about myself, but I definitely don't think I'm special or should have these things called out either. I'm not, "A short person". I'm just me.

Ideally, I hope people in the trans community gets to the point one day where they realize "They're just people", another part of the human race that is completely unremarkable for being who they are. I feel we're reaching that point with people being 'gay'. Instead of anyone caring if you're gay or not, people treat you based on who you are as a person with your day to day actions. Are you fun to talk with? Are you a good person? Do you lift the world up or bring it down? These are the things that are important. Less of a 'community' and more of a 'part of the human race' mentality.

As for me personally? I don't think of myself in terms of gender. I'm the sex that I am. That's it. — Philosophim

I wasn’t talking about sex. I had in mind memories of growing up feeling different and alienated from most of my male classmates, as well as my father, brothers and cousins, on the basis of behaviors and comportments that I believe I was born with, that I didn’t fully understand or know how to articulate. And not overcoming this outsider status until I found a gay community within which I could see myself as normal. I saw many aspects of myself in members of this community. There was the joy of mutual recognition, the relief that behaviors and dispositions that I thought were utterly unique to me were shared by many others in that community. The experiences of those on the Asperger’s/Autism spectrum who found their way to a community of shared disposition remind me of my own experience.

It sounds like you have never had to think about yourself in terms of gender because your gender behavior never stood out from your peers. I notice you haven’t said anything about the studies associating gender with functional brain organization, like that mentioned earlier in this thread by @wonder1:

A recent paper suggests that it is deeper than culture:

Deep learning models reveal replicable, generalizable, and behaviorally relevant sex differences in human functional brain organization

Significance
Sex is an important biological factor that influences human behavior, impacting brain function and the manifestation of psychiatric and neurological disorders. However, previous research on how brain organization differs between males and females has been inconclusive. Leveraging recent advances in artificial intelligence and large multicohort fMRI (functional MRI) datasets, we identify highly replicable, generalizable, and behaviorally relevant sex differences in human functional brain organization localized to the default mode network, striatum, and limbic network. Our findings advance the understanding of sex-related differences in brain function and behavior. More generally, our approach provides AI–based tools for probing robust, generalizable, and interpretable neurobiological measures of sex differences in psychiatric and neurological disorders.

I had in mind memories of growing up feeling different and alienated from most of my male classmates, as well as my father, brothers and cousins, on the basis of behaviors and comportments that I believe I was born with, that I didn’t fully understand or know how to articulate. — Joshs

Sure, I felt the same way. The difference I think between you and I is that I don't feel the need to be accepted by those who don't. I do just enough to not get in trouble, but violate every expectations if I believe its wrong. I do not care if I never find another person like me in the universe. I do not like adoration. I do not want to be viewed as special. I want to mostly be left alone and not criticized for doing the things I like to do in life. I want to be able to chat with other people and it not have ego or fear involved, just an exchange of ideas.

It sounds like you have never had to think about yourself in terms of gender because your gender behavior never stood out from your peers — Joshs

No, I often behave in ways that do not fit the expectations of other people. My differences are not important enough to warrant more than social isolation and rejection however. Those that reject me based on these differences are not worth my time or care. In cases where expression of this difference was dangerous, I learned to play along until I could get away. Those that accept me for who I am are worth my time and care. I have never chased or worried about those that have rejected me for my choices, except for when I was young and first learning to date. Even in that area I eventually learned that shaping myself for what I perceived others expectations to be was a fools errand.

I notice you haven’t said anything about the studies associating gender with functional brain organization, like that mentioned earlier in this thread by wonder1: — Joshs

You missed this then. I noted that yes, behavior differences can be driven by sex, but the only way they are provably so is if they are only found in that sex. If behaviors are found cross sex, then they are obviously not restricted to sex alone.

we identify highly replicable, generalizable, and behaviorally relevant sex differences in human functional brain organization localized to the default mode network

Notice the word 'generalizable'. That means in the median or majority of cases. This does not mean all cases. Meaning a female who is more aggressive than general does not fit the general curve of expectations from being female. It does not mean they are male.

This can be taken in other aspects besides behavior. Height, weight, musculature, intelligence. There is a generalization between all people, and sometimes within sex. But variations from the general do not change your sex. A 5 foot 4 male is not female, despite that fitting the average female height in America. And if you're a man that wants to be intimate with another man? You're still just as much of a man as someone who wants to be intimate with a woman.

how I feel about someone may be in sharp contrast to how I feel I should be by philosophical introspection. Even if I never mention that to their face. — substantivalism

Very interesting. Appreciate both parts of the wider response here.

While this interchange is inconsequential between friends, if the person has the power to actually fire the director and ensure they never make a movie again, we need to ask if the action taken from the initial emotion is rational. — Philosophim

Yes. I think swapping out a few terms, this is generalizable (it looks like perhaps that was covered further down the thread...).

I had in mind memories of growing up feeling different and alienated from most of my male classmates, as well as my father, brothers and cousins, on the basis of behaviors and comportments that I believe I was born with, that I didn’t fully understand or know how to articulate. And not overcoming this outsider status until I found a gay community within which I could see myself as normal. — Joshs

With the utmost respect, thsi seems a peculiarity of certain personalities. It is not at all obvious to me that your scenario is even a rational response to 'being different'. I was, and still am, a very, very odd person, from most people's perspective sexually, hobbies, mentation, habits etc.. and this from being very, very young and open about myself because I chose not to care what others did. My 'outsider status' never arose, because it didn't occur to me as helpful. I do not think your inability to overcome yours says much more than that you perhaps were naturally predisposed to reject things you didn't relate to.

I want to be clear: i am not trying to trivialise your experience. It's yours. I have nothing to say about it. I'm offering mine, and I am pointing out that people do things differently and react differently. There is no reason to think someone who doesn't feel victimized as you hasn't been through the same things. I think that's a serious mistake, and one which runs rampant through this type of discourse (one of hte main reasons Twitter is such a fucking cess pit... No matter what you say, someone can read your mind!).

You missed this then. I noted that yes, behavior differences can be driven by sex, but the only way they are provably so is if they are only found in that sex. If behaviors are found cross sex, then they are obviously not restricted to sex alone. — Philosophim

This might be a premature conclusion. IN a world where there are female and male brains, easily identifiable and uncontroversial - aberrations in development could feasibly lead to an otherwise fully male person attaining some behaviour due to their brain structure, only found in 'female brains'.
Would we be happy, then, to note that this is a medical malfunction? Or are we going to still pretend there's a spectrum? Note the premise.

IN a world where there are female and male brains, easily identifiable and uncontroversial - aberrations in development could feasibly lead to an otherwise fully male person attaining some behaviour due to their brain structure, only found in 'female brains'. — AmadeusD

Of course. If the only way a male could have a certain behavior that is exclusive to females is if they had some type of exclusive biological aspect that matched a female brain. And by this, it would have to be a demonstrated defect, incredibly rare and not a variation of brain composition. It would be like a male having a vagina or a female having a penis.

It would be like a male having a vagina or a female having a penis. — Philosophim

:smirk: Nice

IN a world where there are female and male brains, easily identifiable and uncontroversial - aberrations in development could feasibly lead to an otherwise fully male person attaining some behaviour due to their brain structure, only found in 'female brains' — AmadeusD

I was, and still am, a very, very odd person, from most people's perspective sexually, hobbies, mentation, habits etc.. and this from being very, very young and open about myself because I chose not to care what others did. My 'outsider status' never arose, because it didn't occur to me as helpful. I do not think your inability to overcome yours says much more than that you perhaps were naturally predisposed to reject things you didn't relate to. — AmadeusD

I don’t want to give the impression that my childhood was some sort of nightmare. It was pretty typical, and I know everyone in their own way feels like a freak in some respect when they’re growing up. It doesnt take much;. a weird name, a big nose, geeky clothes will do it. And the value of finding a community of people with common experiences or behaviors is much more than just therapeutic. It’s a crucial way to learn about yourself, to define who you are and who you want to be, not by conforming to the group but by comparing experiences so that you can define yourself uniquely. Can one thrive without benefitting from this engagement? Of course, but one has a big advantage if one has the opportunity to learn from the interaction with those like oneself in some respect. I’m a no -conventional person by nature, and have always gone my own idiosyncratic way. Plugging into groups on the basis of shared perspectives was a valuable part of the foundation for

Think about non neuro-typical communities. Imagine how connecting with such a group can help a non neuro-typical individual discover their strengths and build their confidence.

It was pretty typical, and I know everyone in their own way feels like a freak in some respect when they’re growing up. It doesnt take much;. a weird name, a big nose, geeky clothes will do it. — Joshs

Hmm. That's the thing - I don't think everyone does. I didn't, despite, objectively, being rather different and bullied for it. I didn't feel at all less, or more, than anyone else. Maybe I'm the unique one here, though. It may be apples/oranges and I have a 'curse of knowledge' type thing going on.

Plugging into groups on the basis of shared perspectives was a valuable part of the foundation for — Joshs

"...for that" or some similar reference, I assume?
Fair enough. As i say, not trivialising - but to reverse the mode of the above response, I think this may be uniquely you. Most aren't strong enough in their personality to allow for this actualisation while under the influence of an in-group (particularly one that feels somehow victimized).

It’s a crucial way to learn about yourself, to define who you are and who you want to be, not by conforming to the group but by comparing experiences so that you can define yourself uniquely. — Joshs

This hits me, intuitively, and having watched the world turn, as incorrect - or at the very least, intensely sanguine and not really how it happens. Groups of affinity aren't designed to foster difference (nor do they incidentally do so). This context is actually an apt one - trans individuals who do not tout the same concepts and ideas we're, perhaps wrongly, discussing, are ostracized as not the 'right kind of trans' (as it is with blacks, Jews, feminists etc....). Affinity groups seem to reinforce irrational self-image.

Think about non neuro-typical communities. Imagine how connecting with such a group can help a non neuro-typical individual discover their strengths and build their confidence. — Joshs

Being non-neuro-typical, I think about this alot. I just can't get over to the part of the thought that says its important to do so. As somewhere above, maybe that part is just me - but I just don't understand it.

As i say, not trivialising - but to reverse the mode of the above response, I think this may be uniquely you. Most aren't strong enough in their personality to allow for this actualisation while under the influence of an in-group (particularly one that feels somehow victimized). — AmadeusD

That sure sounds like trivializing folk psychology to me.

Groups of affinity aren't designed to foster difference (nor do they incidentally do so). This context is actually an apt one - trans individuals who do not tout the same concepts and ideas we're, perhaps wrongly, discussing, are ostracized as not the 'right kind of trans' (as it is with blacks, Jews, feminists etc....). Affinity groups seem to reinforce irrational self-image. — AmadeusD

Let’s say you want to excel at something and soar beyond all your competitors. How do you do this? Well, first you have to have to find people to compete against that are the closer to your level of performance as possible. You cant up the level of your tennis game against a backboard; you need a community of players to push you further. Isnt this true in any creative endeavor? Don’t we need to hone ours skills in a creative social environment consisting of those who can bring out the best in us? One of the things I loved most about the gay community I interacted with was that they were more colorful, free and creative than the bland hetero environment I was used to. They encouraged my individuality, not my conformity. Their ‘gayness’ was more of an open tent, a welcoming attitude toward all kinds of alternative ways of being, than a ghettoized clique.

The reason I love living in a big city is that the diversity stimulates my non-conformity more than if I lived in a cave in the middle of nowhere or a small town. How can it be that being surrounded by 3 million people fosters eccenticity and non-conformity better than living an isolated existence? My neighborhood has a sense of community that is built on celebration of diversity. Just because people gather in a group based on shared interests doesn’t mean that they are there to form a hive mind. The opposite may be the case. This is also true of romantic love. The relationship may be stifling and confining for one or both participants, or it could be a union that frees each person to be themselves more authentically than if they were alone.

That sure sounds like trivializing folk psychology to me. — wonderer1

It's neither. I am speaking from my perspective - someone elses is functionally, and obviously trivial in that respect - But i was at pains to point out that I am constrasting experiences, and not putting one above the other.

On the characterization, I'd just point you to any special interest group. Eating its tail. Always. Psychology is a folk practice, so ...idc. LOL

Let’s say you want to excel at something and soar beyond all your competitors. How do you do this? Well, first you have to have to find people to compete against that are the closer to your level of performance as possible. — Joshs

This seems very much not what we're talking about. But, i'm with you thus far..

You cant up the level of your tennis game against a backboard; you need a community of players to push you further. — Joshs

Agreed (I read this in Eugene Levy's voice lol).

They encouraged my individuality, not my conformity. Their ‘gayness’ was more of an open tent, a welcoming attitude toward all kinds of alternative ways of being, than a ghettoized clique. — Joshs

I am glad to hear this was your experience. Hmm - (as above response to wonderer1, this next part is giving contrast - not an argument)I've been in several, disparate 'gay' and 'queer' communities. I fucking hate them. I detest everything I went through trying to be friends with those people. Any opinion that didn't align with the group was grounds for not just ostracization but attempts to belittle me in my work life, family life and other social endeavours. It was harrowing, and disgusting (in two specific examples, anyhow). One of my children was put through essentially a Struggle Session in an attempt to have them tell their school that i was an unfit parent. And this is a common experience. (i note, entirely for thoroughness, that some of my points above might logically lead to my saying that your enjoyment was in fact a result of your conformity(in the sense of alignment - not like they forced you or anything) to the in-group's value system - which is great - find your tribe.. But it unfortunately supports my point, if that were the case - I don't assume either way).

It is this pitfall I guess that I am talking about. It is common, and seems to exist in all avenues of special interest (political factions, sexuality, table top games, BDSM... anything). Your experience also - I'm just talking about the other side of that coin that I have experienced as a contrast, to support the potential problematic nature of retreating into special interest groups. It has only ever brought me pain and suffering.

Just because people gather in a group based on shared interests doesn’t mean that they are there to form a hive mind. The opposite may be the case. — Joshs

Agreed - it's very rarely the intent - Though i think this is a bit naive. Special interest groups ipso facto are trying to create groups of closely-aligned members. Very hard to do so if, for instance, your conception of being Gay/Bi/Whatever doesn't include a civil rights aspect (mine doesn't, really) - or, a great eg here would be Gay communities that do not accept trans men (or the converse, in contrast to it's opposite).
Underline: Totally, and that's the strength or success of diversity, on my view. But if you're part of that hivemind, you wouldn't see it as a problem. Which is, as above, fine. that's your tribe! Dive right in. My point is, had you differed sufficiently from the values of the group, the fact that you wanted a welcoming Gay community would fall by the wayside and your opinions become grounds for rejection. That's the difficult part... Imagine yourself in that predicament, being rejected from a community with your exact interests in their purported aims.

Perhaps someday? — wonderer1

Perhaps. But psychology is largely bollocks to me, so who knows.

...idc. — AmadeusD

Perhaps someday?

And if you're a man that wants to be intimate with another man? You're still just as much of a man as someone who wants to be intimate with a woman. — Philosophim

In the Hebrew Bible, they use a few different terms for "man" or "male." The word zachar means male. The word gever means man - it's root g-v-r, ties back to "strength" or "to prevail."

So a adult man is a zachar but not necessarily a gever. And I think this distinction reverberates in society today. Masculinity is achieved, not automatically granted to all males regardless of condition or behavior. So for this reason I think it's wrong to call transwomen "men." They are not. They occupy a unique third space.

So for this reason I think it's wrong to call transwomen "men." They are not. They occupy a unique third space. — BitconnectCarlos

Interesting. I disagree but find this really interesting.
What is your response to a trans man who is telling you 'well, this is my identity. I am a man, that's how I see myself and what I am emulating. Poo poo to you" ?

Like you mentioned earlier, there's a difference between how you treat the individual in the moment versus our philosophical ruminations about a certain topic. I will respect someone's gender pronouns ~99% of the time if dealing with an actual individual. Philosophically, whether a trans man could fit the bill of being a gever is an interesting question.

Ah, i see Ok. Fair enough, thank you.

So a male might be a zachar but not a gever. And I think this distinction reverberates in society today. Masculinity is achieved, not automatically granted to all males regardless of condition or behavior. — BitconnectCarlos

Right, that's gender. Its the same as saying a woman who's aggressive and mean isn't a real woman. When society expects men or women to act a certain way, it still doesn't change their sex.

So for this reason I think it's wrong to call transwomen "men." They are not. They occupy a unique third space. — BitconnectCarlos

If you mean transwoman as in 'transexual', yes. If you mean transwoman as transgendered man, no. A transgendered person is defying the expectations of their sex. A transwoman is defying their very sex, attempting to be another sex as well as practice the gender of that sex.

Are they women though? No. You can never change your sex. Can you emulate and try to get other people to see you as the other sex? Sure. So we do have a third category, transwoman/man when one sex decides to consistently present as the other sex. A man or woman who passes off emulating the other sex well will likely be called that emulated sex in public. But when it comes down to situations that are based on biological sex, a transwoman is not a woman and a transman is not a man. A transman should still go see a gynecologist while a transwoman should not.

I've been in several, disparate 'gay' and 'queer' communities. I fucking hate them. I detest everything I went through trying to be friends with those people. Any opinion that didn't align with the group was grounds for not just ostracization but attempts to belittle me in my work life, family life and other social endeavours. It was harrowing, and disgusting (in two specific examples, anyhow). One of my children was put through essentially a Struggle Session in an attempt to have them tell their school that i was an unfit parent. And this is a common experience. — AmadeusD

Was the group’s push for you to conform an example of ‘hive-mind’? Let’s start with the motivation behind trying to force or convince someone to conform to one’s own ways of thinking. I suggest this is the structure of anger and blame , which underlie most concepts of justice. If you meet someone and share with them your views of gender or gayness or whatever, and they are outraged and disappointed by your thinking, they have convinced themselves that you are willfully disregarding their needs or suffering. The anger they feel impels them to try and get you to ‘mend your ways’ , to ‘get with the program’, to think more ‘ethically’ or righteously. Because they believe that your beliefs are irrational, arbitrary, or selfish, they justify their judgmental attitude toward you. They basically have thought themselves into a corner. If they are unable to see the world through your eyes, you become a danger to them.

What’s true of an individual can be true of a whole community united around shared values. I dont believe in the concept of hive-mind, brain-washing or mindless conformity. People don’t blindly introject ideas from others. The interpretive nature of cognition makes this impossible. We can only assimilate ideas from others that make sense to us in relation to the way we construe the world, and everyone’s construction system is unique to them to some extent. If a group all seems to believe the same things and share the same values, it is not because they are being blindly led by the hive-mind, but because they have gravitated to that group based on the fact that they have, as individuals, already arrived at that way of thinking. I have never met any group that thinks in lock-step, regardless of how much the leadership tries to define and enforce a party line.

Once you dig beneath the surface , you’ll find all sorts of splits in ideology among members of the same group. My impression is that you have strong convictions and values yourself, and that there are issues where you blame others for their moral failings as seen from your perspective. You wouldn’t be a part of the legal profession unless you believed in a concept of justice that is able to determine guilt and innocence. So you yourself belong to a community with that shared value, and when you declare someone guilty of something, you are imposing those community values on that person. So what makes you different from that gay community who tried to impose their values on you?

You emphasize your individuality and your not fitting into any group. But all the views you have expressed on this forum fit into a familiar slot in terms of a philosophical and cultural background they draw from. So as much as you may want to think of yourself as an outsider and non-conformist, your ways of thinking express a cultural
worldview shared by many others, a worldview that finds ways to impose itself on others, or at least uses itself as a standard on the basis of which to judge others.

Was the group’s push for you to conform an example of ‘hive-mind’? — Joshs

It certainly appeared to be. My unwillingness to acquiesce to what I saw as genuinely horrible in-group policies (one particularly pernicious example in this (very gay) space was the insistence that it's a worthwhile endeavour to try to 'turn' straight guys) resulted in everything, and including physical (albeit, inadequate) persuasion, shall be say.

They basically have thought themselves into a corner. If they are unable to see the world through your eyes, you become a danger to them. — Joshs

(imagine i quoted that whole passage) That is pretty much precisely my feeling, but with a little added socialisation problem. Its a self-reinforcing group attribute to be this way. The opinion of hte group keeps your bound to this mode of thinking.

I dont believe in the concept of hive-mind, brain-washing or mindless conformity. People don’t blindly introject ideas from others. — Joshs

While I would reduce the effectiveness of this to a low proportion of the relevant occasions, I have seen this happen in real-time, so i can't agree entirely.

it is not because they are being blindly led by the hive-mind — Joshs

At a point, I think it is not reasonable to think otherwise, myself. That 100 people who are geographically-bound, and are all gay (i.e less than 5% of people to begin with) all thinking and feeling the same way is just 'the natural course' is bizarre and unsupportable to my mind.

they have gravitated to that group based on the fact that they have, as individuals, already arrived at that way of thinking. — Joshs

I reject this. Most people find groups because they don't know what to think. And this i see daily across society, at every level. I see this happening in real-time constantly. Some proportion of people in this situation likely do what you've desribed, and become the thought leaders of the group, or create their own, as the case may be. Most do not have teh mental strength and primacy of individuation to be this kind of robust personality among many similar (on my view).

Once you dig beneath the surface , you’ll find all sorts of splits in ideology among members of the same group. — Joshs

Generally, these are minimal and lead to schisms or outright rejections of certain members. The snake always eats its tail. So, while I agree, this actually goes to my point, I think. It is not true that groups of special interest affinity include those of differing political bents. There are no groups within the gay community in which Douglas Murray and Queer Eye are considered on teh same level.

y impression is that you have strong convictions and values yourself, and that there are issues where you blame others for their moral failings as seen from your perspective. — Joshs

This does not strike me as at all how i approach these matters. I judge behaviour. I don't give a piss what your morals are - morals are useless for me to assess you. Your actions will tell me what I need to know, in light of my own morals. And in that way, there is no 'blame'. I blame people for being assholes. Nothing so high-falutin' as a moral disagreement.

You wouldn’t be a part of the legal profession unless you believed in a concept of justice that is able to determine guilt and innocence. — Joshs

False - there is no necessity to believe in guilt and 'justice' as they are to be part of the legal profession. I know several local scholars (Ti Lamusse is one example) who got into the law literally to tear it apart. He has failed. But nevertheless.
As it transpires, my wanting to be part of this profession is actually to be entirely sui generis. I would rather not work for a firm, but I have to for at least another six years (though, by that point I hope to be teaching). I don't align myself with any community. I'm unsure where you inferring all this from. Law is not a group of affinity. It is exactly the opposite. We are adversarial and accept every strain of thought, as long as you're not losing your firm money. Simply doing a job doesn't apportion any group membership, other than optically from you, the viewer.

So what makes you different from that gay community who tried to impose their values on you? — Joshs

While you're being extremely thoughtful and respectful, this question strikes me as an absolute nonsense. There is nothing to defend - there is no similarity.

as a standard on the basis of which to judge others. — Joshs

Yes. And there is no issue, or relationship to the group-think, tyranny of opinion we're trying to discuss. Unsure where you were going there... seemed to change subject half-way through to moral disagreements per se.

I understand a close friend of mine is thinking about transitioning. We've had conversations like this, though they were difficult at the time. Its at emotional times like these that I feel we should ask ourselves to be more objective. — Philosophim

Such explicitly emotional times have passed and I have come to a homeostasis both in living with them as well as on such a personal level. However, curiosity of a worrisome manner tugs at me occasionally. Nothing that would circumvent an internal or an outward sense of respectability that I feel I should intuitively possess on such matters.

Emotional appeals are often irrational and not fully voiced. Its a simple example, but when someone complains about a movie. "I didn't like the movie, it sucks." "Why?" I don't know, but the director should be fired and never make a movie again." While this interchange is inconsequential between friends, if the person has the power to actually fire the director and ensure they never make a movie again, we need to ask if the action taken from the initial emotion is rational. — Philosophim

Obviously, though, emotions can be justified or we can even see certain emotional states as something one ought to possess in certain circumstances?

I'm curious then. In being so morally objective is something lost if we were to remove our emotional connection/impetus/drive for such a conclusion in the first place? Perhaps emotions are neither sufficient nor necessary for moral practice including the prescription of moral judgements but they clearly dictate the strength of such judgements. This may lead to a perceived weakness/strength of a moral sort for certain individuals. Is such a 'strength' redundant and perhaps altogether without purpose?

To me, the transgender/transexual community is finding its footing in its desire to be accepted by society, as well as accept itself. As such it is at an extremely immature stage of rational thinking, and is mostly in a reactive and nascent stage of thought. If it remains this way, it will fail. People do not tolerate such things for long. It needs rational discourse. It needs to refine its language and be more clear in its desires and intents. It needs better arguments. If not, I feel it will cause damage both inside and outside of its community and find itself in a worse position than it started with. — Philosophim

There is whiplash at the moment from both degenerative relativists and authoritarian moral absolutists to a point that layman have to distinguish themselves from two greater evils first before they can speak.

Very interesting. Appreciate both parts of the wider response here. — AmadeusD

In such discussions as this, is external hypocrisy seen as a requirement to better mend our society? Or is political/social/moral honesty no matter its implications, whether intended or not, preferred?

Is neutral compromise all that we can fight for here or are there moral mountain peaks to climb ourselves to instead? Leaving some to reap the benefits while others fall onto lesser moral rocks below.

I really don't think this issue involves morality. That is one of the chief problems I have with almost every activist I've ever encountered in any medium. Morality, usually, doesn't matter to solving the problem of reducing numbers of victims of whatever it is..