To my observations, the gender experiment has largely failed. People are angry."

That must be an internet echo chamber thing or a national thing. Most people I know are fine with it. They move on
— Jack2848

"Most people you know" is not a metric of judging people.

People are angry is universal claim. Technically i need only pick one person to prove it wrong. That would be me. But giving the claim some charity. I will take it to assume that most people in the world are angry that if they see a transitioned trans woman that if they meet them they would have to say "she" during conversation if they are near.

Well I can't speak for the world. But I can speak for every single company I have worked for so far. Most people wouldn't be angry. Additionally most people on the tv networks aren't angry. In fact. Most people that are annoyed , not angry with it. Would for far right. In my country. Yet only about 20% voted for the far right here. So again most people aren't annoyed enough let alone angry that they would vote for them.

I would bet you thousands of euros and we go on the streets to ask people. If you see a transwoman. Would you be angry that there's a social not official expectation that you call them she while they are around? And I would take your money.

I am trying to communicate the idea that we should not be making special demands of society for individuals or pockets of cultures

I would say the opposite. We should help the less fortunate.
We should make roads more accessible and safe for blind people. We should make sure that disabled people have a large enough closed toilet. And if a person has gone through surgery to have a vagina. And they belief they have a soul or some brain composition that is female. Then I think we should take the option that takes less energy, we should choose joy and kindness over hatred or annoyance, inclusion over exclusion, creates more happiness and respect. And say "she" around them.

Correct. But it has always been in reference to the fact one is a man by sex. "You are not acting to the standards that I or this group personally expect a person of your sex to act." And what is that? Prejudice and sexism.

Exactly. As you know. I'm conceptually clear on the difference between sex and gender and biological and other social contexts and potentially different definitions per context.

So yes they are refering to the cultural expectations they had for a sex. And I can imagine lesbian women getting annoyed. After hearing ''you're not a woman. You're a man''.

On tomboys and the separation from genitalia

Well given that a lesbian woman isn't a man. Sex wise. And given they (ordinary people) would be using on their own initiative and accord what we now call gender to identify them as man qua gender. Then they might have decided reasonably so that. ''if woman qua gender is not what I am. And I am also not a man qua gender (cultural wise or whatever) (the lesbian woman might disagree that she is a man qua gender). They might then conclude that they are neither. Or thus non binary. A -non binary qua gender- lesbian -woman qua sex-.

And some or many lesbian women were called ''tomboy''. Meaning the gender they (ordinary people) used. Was already separated from genitalia. (Not to say they didn't realize that the tomboy had a vagina to be clear). But clearly calling a person born with a natural vagina a tomBOY. Is ascribing a gender based on cultural expectations separated from the genitalia the person actually owns.

But given this fact. That it is ordinary People that invented or at least significantly used such genitalia separated definitions. It is then only reasonable that annoyed or analytic lesbian or ordinary people detected this pattern. And formalized it as we do all the time.

It would then be even more horribly unfair. If the same people that would use or create such terms such as tomboy for woman qua sex. Would then claim that it is unfair to define gender mostly in cultural aspects and separate from genitalia.

So I ask myself what's a good ethical metric. For me that's "everyone maximum wellbeing".
Which doesn't mean just happiness. It means potential for education, healthcare, truth and so on. — Jack2848

Not a bad metric.

Whereas a person's gender or sex is essential to one's identity.(Qualitatively). — Jack2848

I argue that gender is social stereotypes about he sexes. I do not believe that social stereotypes are should be essential to anyone's identity.

However. If a person truly believes they are a woman. And the cashier calls them a man even though they dress as a woman and have undergone surgery. Then although it looks irrational from the outside. From the inside it's not unreasonable that they ask to be called the sex or gender they believe to be or how they express. — Jack2848

I agree that it is not unreasonable to ask. It is unreasonable to expect that they oblige such a request. It is not a duty or moral obligation that people agree with your own internal view of yourself when it contrasts with what they observe.

On energy

The energy is easy. It takes less energy to say. Hi woman to someone wearing female clothes and who looks enough like one. — Jack2848

For you. If someone is asking that you refer them as a particular pronoun, then that is because you do not see them as you wish they did. Meaning you do not appear as that particular sex in their eyes, and you are asking them to lie. Its different if you are a particular sex and someone mistakes that. Then you're correcting a person to be aligned with the truth of the situation. If it would be a lie to ask someone to call me doctor when I am not, and that's just a job title, I don't see why its any less of an issue to ask someone to refer to me as the opposite sex that I am. I see gender as sexism and stereotypes, and I am not sexist nor agree to stereotype people.

Lying to people is hard. Asking you to ignore your eyes and ears and call someone something they are not is hard. Especially with those of a moral character who value honesty. It may be easy for you. But it is not for many people. Notice how I recognize it it easy for you. You should recognize and accept those who say it is not easy for them. No, they are not far right. They are not immoral. They are not bigoted. They are uncomfortable lying to people and being told its the right thing to do.

If tomorrow you fully believed that you were a woman. For years you are depressed. You make a vagina where your penis is. You dress like a woman and you take hormones and so on. And you fully belief that your brain or soul or whatever is a woman. — Jack2848

Your brain/soul is not a woman. Your body is. This is the confusion. How you feel about your body does not change its reality. It doesn't matter whether I feel like my face is scarred or not. It is. That is my body. Do you see why I disagree with your view here?

Then given that you would be asking to be called what you are rather than what you aren't when people mistakenly call you what you aren't in your reconstruction of the world. — Jack2848

We are not talking about letting people call you what they think you are. We are talking about people calling you what they know you aren't. If it doesn't matter that they call you something incorrect, there's no need to correct it. If of course someone interacted you in a way assuming you are a particular sex and it was important they be correct in that instance, you should correct them.

People are angry is universal claim. Technically i need only pick one person to prove it wrong. That would be me. But giving the claim some charity. I will take it to assume that most people in the world are angry that if they see a transitioned trans woman that if they meet them they would have to say "she" during conversation if they are near. — Jack2848

You are correct that is is a universal claim that I did not mean to apply as "all people". There are enough people angry about it in the world to be an issue. I won't even claim 'most' as I have no evidence of that. To be clear, they're not angry at being asked and being allowed of their own accord to call them he or she. They are angry at the demand. They are angry at the implication that transition makes you the other sex, and that there is some innate right to cross sex spaces. Anger alone of course is not a justification of that anger, but it is there enough to be a concern.

Additionally most people on the tv networks aren't angry. In fact. Most people that are annoyed , not angry with it. Would for far right. In my country. Yet only about 20% voted for the far right here. So again most people aren't annoyed enough let alone angry that they would vote for them. — Jack2848

I want to be clear I do not view this as a political issue. I have listened to people on the 'the left' also not like that this is an expressed social obligation. This is an intellectual and societal issue. Politics cause us to ignore this aspect and quickly make it a tribal issue. We should avoid that.

I would bet you thousands of euros and we go on the streets to ask people. If you see a transwoman. Would you be angry that there's a social not official expectation that you call them she while they are around? And I would take your money. — Jack2848

You mean i would take YOUR money. :) I don't think there's anything to debate on here. This is either true, or false, and I don't think either of us have the evidence for it. So lets not focus on people's anger, but the social obligation issue I've mentioned.

I am trying to communicate the idea that we should not be making special demands of society for individuals or pockets of cultures

I would say the opposite. We should help the less fortunate. — Jack2848

In polite culture, you are not obligated to help the less fortunate. No one has to donate to the homeless person on the street. What you should not do, is place undue burdens on the less fortunate. You don't yell or mock a homeless person who smells because they don't have access to a shower. It is nice to help the less fortunate, but it is not an obligation.

From my viewpoint, I do not consider transitioned or trans gender people less fortunate. Everyone has problems, that is theirs. We live in a modern society with good medical care, and they are largely able to get that care. They can still work, own a home, pay taxes, and go into public like everyone else. I owe them no more time or energy then I do any other person walking around. Should I place undue burdens on them because they're trans? Make fun of them, mock them, or any other horrible thing? Absolutely not. THAT is societies obligation. But I have no duty to lie to them, tell them something that isn't true, or treat them in any way differently than anyone else.

To be clear, I had an eye appointment one time and found the person taking it was a trans woman. It was very obvious this was a man, so how did I react? I didn't care. I spoke about the day, asked how things were going, dumb dad jokes, the works. They never asked me to call them a particular pronoun, and I treated them like I would anyone else. That's how a good society works. We all live and work together despite our differences without special treatment.

And if a person has gone through surgery to have a vagina. And they belief they have a soul or some brain composition that is female. Then I think we should take the option that takes less energy, creates more happiness and respect. And say "she" around them. — Jack2848

Absolutely not. A person can do whatever they want to themselves. I am under no obligation to agree with it. Someone can do facial surgery to look like Napoleon and earnestly tell me they are Napoleon. I am only under an obligation not to give them an undue burden over it, not to call or treat them like Napoleon. You are elevating a person's subjective view point as an obligation for other people to agree with. You can call them Napoleon if you think that is not. I am not denying you the right to call a person by their preferred pronouns. That is your choice. But it is a choice, not an obligation. And I am just as free and not morally obliged to agree with a person's subjective view of themself.

So yes they are regering to the cultural expectations they had for a sex. And I can imagine lesbian women getting annoyed. After hearing ''you're not a woman. You're a man''. — Jack2848

Correct. Lesbians and many men do not act in accordance with social stereotypes around their sex. That's the way it should be. No one is obligated to follow subjective social stereotypes. No one is obligated to agree with a person's subjective viewpoint.

It would then be even more horribly unfair. If the same people that would use or create such terms such as tomboy for woman qua sex. Would then claim that it is unfair to define gender mostly in cultural aspects and separate from genitalia. — Jack2848

No, it is unfair that people used gender to tell women they aren't women. And its equally unfair to use gender to tell other people that as a woman, you aren't actually a woman. Gender is prejudice and sexism, and about control. I am advocating freedom from sexism and social control based on subjective non-biological expectations of someone's sex.

I think I followed you well, but please correct me if I did not.

I think it is interesting to see some confusion here in what is being said and what is meant:

PhilosophyTube

I think it is interesting to see some confusion here in what is being said and what is meant: — I like sushi

Sure, pretty common with this topic. Why the link to a video about not having children though?

Why the link to a video about not having children — Philosophim

Having children is in the basic animal design -- one doesn't need a manual. Raising children, on the other hand, is just very very complicated, maybe? I mean, you suddenly have an infant, and you're committed to about 18 to 22 years of careful oversight. By the time you have figured out how to properly raise a child, you have spent at least 5 to 10 years making major mistakes and the kid is doomed to a lifetime of self-help books and weird support groups.

Hey -- I'm 79 and still working out neurotic work-arounds.

I think it is interesting to see some confusion here in what is being said and what is meant: — I like sushi

I think the issue is fairly simple but the waters are muddied by people wishing to be kind and accommodating wishes that then compromise and impact on others.
The main issue is the bastardisation and manipulation of the concept of gender. The contortion of the terms woman and man.

So are transwomen women? Are transwomen men? No. The terms man and woman indicate a person's age and sex, not gender. Are transwomen men who act with a female gender? Yes. Are transmen women who act with a male gender? Yes. — Philosophim

But "woman" is a polysemous term; one established meaning is biological, and another established meaning is gender-social. Contrary to the OP, in the gender-social sense, “trans women are women” is true. Insisting on only the biological sense is a misunderstanding of how language works, not a logical or empirical requirement.

Contrary to the OP, in the gender-social sense, “trans women are women” is true. Insisting on only the biological sense is a misunderstanding of how language works, not a logical or empirical requirement. — Banno

Is this kind of like how "sick" "means" "impressive" and "hot" "means" "attractive" and/or "stolen", etc.? :chin:

But "woman" is a polysemous term; one established meaning is biological, and another established meaning is gender-social. — Banno

Yes, it can have more than one meaning based on context which we've established already.

Contrary to the OP, in the gender-social sense, “trans women are women” is true. Insisting on only the biological sense is a misunderstanding of how language works, not a logical or empirical requirement. — Banno

You are ignoring the entire discussion we had earlier and not acknowledging that I'm claiming the context of 'woman/man' unmodified is most rationally interpreted to mean 'sex of the person', not 'gender of the person.' That's what the 'trans' and 'cis' modifiers are for.

Is this kind of like how "sick" "means" "impressive" and "hot" "means" "attractive" and/or "stolen", etc.? :chin: — Outlander

Very similar, yes.

Is this kind of like how "sick" "means" "impressive" and "hot" "means" "attractive" and/or "stolen", etc.? — Outlander

What do you think?

I'm claiming the context of 'woman/man' unmodified is most rationally interpreted to mean 'sex of the person', not 'gender of the person.' That's what the 'trans' and 'cis' modifiers are for. — Philosophim

Not at all. We went through this. There is no "context of 'woman/man' unmodified", no "true" meaning for such terms, beyond your preference for choose a "true" meaning in order to justify your claims concerning trans folk.

Not at all. We went through this. There is no "context of 'woman/man' unmodified", no "true" meaning for such terms, beyond your preference for choose a "true" meaning in order to justify your claims concerning trans folk. — Banno

Again Banno, your entire dismissal of my points, either by pretending they didn't exist or ignoring them so you can spout an ideology is not what I'm interested in debating. But if you do come back later and imply a misspresentation of my stance, I will correct it for others to read. You know I never stated an essential meaning for woman, only rational arguments based on the rules of the English language, its history, and culture. And you also know my conclusion was that the phrase is ambiguous to most people, and thus should be clarified to more clearly impart its meaning.

Again, I'm no longer discussing with you on this issue, we already did that. I will not attempt to misrepresent your stance to my advantage long after our discussion, I ask you to return the same courtesy.

You know I never stated an essential meaning for woman — Philosophim

you did say:

I'm claiming the context of 'woman/man' unmodified is most rationally interpreted to mean 'sex of the person' — Philosophim

And that's specifically what I addressed. Again,

Insisting on only the biological sense is a misunderstanding of how language works, not a logical or empirical requirement. — Banno

...my conclusion was that the phrase is ambiguous — Philosophim

And I pointed out that it is polysemous rather than ambiguous. You conflate the two.

And I pointed out that it is polysemous rather than ambiguous. You conflate the two. — Banno

Banno, are you bored? I don't know how you can keep posting this and think this is a good argument.

Polysemous means, "A term which has multiple meanings". That's it. The 'phrase' is not a 'term'. What is often contained in an ambiguous phrase? A term with multiple meanings. And in that case, if the meaning cannot be clearly gleaned from the phrase without outside context, it is by definition an ambiguous phrase.

You keep conflating 'term' with 'phrase'. I do not.

Banno, are you bored? — Philosophim

Not really. Although this topic is not of any particular interest to me, beyond the misuse of philosphy of language I've been pointing out.

A word is ambiguous when it has two or more possible meanings, and it is unclear which meaning is intended in a given context.

A word is polysemous when it has multiple related meanings that are all legitimate and established, and the word’s meaning shifts depending on context.

It's not that hard.

Woman is polysemous, not ambiguous.

And, in the gender-social sense, “trans women are women” is true.

A word is ambiguous when it has two or more possible meanings, and it is unclear which meaning is intended in a given context.

A word is polysemous when it has multiple related meanings that are all legitimate and established, and the word’s meaning shifts depending on context. — Banno

Basically what I said.

Woman is polysemous, not ambiguous. — Banno

Ok, I JUST told you I said the term was polysemous, while the phrase was ambiguous. You keep implying I've done otherwise because you're being dishonest. Banno, if you have to be dishonest to win an argument, you're not doing a good job.

And, in the gender-social sense, “trans women are women” is true. — Banno

If the context outside of the sentence itself is known. I'll post this again:

A term with multiple meanings. And in that case, if the meaning cannot be clearly gleaned from the phrase without outside context, it is by definition an ambiguous phrase. — Philosophim

There is no context within the sentence itself Banno. If I took the phrase and brought it to people without context, many people would rightly and logically assume due to the rules of English and normal culture that the second woman indicated 'adult human female'. That's what I've been noting all of this time. You should know that and be acknowledging that if you want to be an honest and good faith person in this discussion.

You're not adding anything new to this discussion, and you're actively ignoring or misrepresenting my position again. You're not being a good or noble person Banno, you're just being a troll at this point.

Ok, I JUST told you I said the term was polysemous, while the phrase was ambiguous. — Philosophim

You can't maintain that while simultaneously maintaining that the One True Meaning is the biological one.

All that stuff about phrases and words is a bit of a furphy. Words and sentences are never without context.

The context of "are transwomen women?" in your OP is just the OP - after all, the purpose of a good OP is to set up a context.

Yours seems a pretty desperate account. The phrase “trans women are women” is meaningful and true in its social-gender sense; claims of ambiguity or fixed biological meaning ignore polysemy and the unavoidable role of context. Your attempt to maintain polysemy while privileging a single biological sense is logically inconsistent.

Here, it's only Sky News, and maybe some of it's audience, who are angry. Otherwise the somewhat archaic notion of "a fair go" prevails, and folk just move on.

Yours seems a pretty desperate account. — Banno

I'm not the one who keeps coming back every couple of days misrepresenting my point because they're more concerned with their outcome being seen than mine. I wouldn't mind if you decided to add something new, but its the same rehash and ignorant statements about my part of the discussion.

Your attempt to maintain polysemy while privileging a single biological sense is logically inconsistent. — Banno

"Priviliging?" Well this is new. Where have I ever advocated privilege? Mind clarifying what you mean by that considering its an argument I've never made?

Where have I ever advocated privilege? — Philosophim

Exactly here:

I'm claiming the context of 'woman/man' unmodified is most rationally interpreted to mean 'sex of the person' — Philosophim

You try to privilege one interpretation over all others.

Where have I ever advocated privilege?
— Philosophim

Exactly here:

I'm claiming the context of 'woman/man' unmodified is most rationally interpreted to mean 'sex of the person' — Banno

Privilege meaning: a right, exemption, or immunity granted as a particular benefit, advantage, or favor
OR
a right or benefit given to some people but not others
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privilege

Where in any of the sentence you quoted is there any implication of privilege?

Are you intent on playing Dictionaries for the remainder of this discussion?

...advantage... — Philosophim

...as, for example, you give the advantage to 'sex of the person' over 'gender of a person' when you say

I'm claiming the context of 'woman/man' unmodified is most rationally interpreted to mean 'sex of the person' — Philosophim

Philosophim Are you intent on playing Dictionaries for the remainder of this discussion? — Banno

I actually laughed at this one Banno. Yes, I am practicing in the fallacious art of "Posting the definition of terms so we both understand and can reference the meaning." :D

...advantage...
— Philosophim
...as, for example, you give the advantage to 'sex of the person' over 'gender of a person' when you say
I'm claiming the context of 'woman/man' unmodified is most rationally interpreted to mean 'sex of the person' — Banno

Quote the whole meaning Banno, not one word. Where is the mention of rights, exemptions, or immunity implied? While yes, gender vs sex have different rights, exemptions and immunity compared to each other, no where am I claiming if that is so or what they are in that sentence. Clarifying the difference between sex and gender also has nothing to do with privileges. But there is one point, and that is often ambiguous phrases intended to conflate two different terms with one another often want the rights, exemptions and immunity of the other for the term when the term itself cannot argue they deserve those things on their own. But you're not attempting to conflate right? And I'm sure not. So I fail to see where that sentence implies privilege at all.

You privilege one meaning over others.

If you are not doing that, then you cannot maintain that "trans women are women" is false.

Pretty simple stuff.

You privilege one meaning over others.

If you are not doing that, then you cannot maintain that "trans women are women" is false. — Banno

And again you ignore the part about 'privilege' including rights. My point stands.

Pretty simple stuff. — Banno

What remains is that the response I've given undermines the OP, so that you now feel the need to change the topic to some feeble argument about the essence of "privilege".

So, again,

You privilege one meaning over others.

If you are not doing that, then you cannot maintain that "trans women are women" is false. — Banno

Sorry Banno. Once you abandon answering the counter point, the counter point stands. And if you're not going to acknowledge that counter point after I pointed it out once already, then you are no longer a person worth discussing with, again. Answer the point and we can continue. Otherwise the point goes to me.

The "counterpoint"?

You mean your attempted restrictive use of "privilege"? It's an obvious dead cat:

Look Over There!! — Philosophim

Get back on the topic.

You privilege one meaning over others.

If you are not doing that, then you cannot maintain that "trans women are women" is false. — Banno