It's clarity, directness and ability to be weilded for policy purposes means that "man" and "woman" should be distinct from the more nuanced, and possibly undefinable concepts of gender in each case - which can be captured by "transman" or "transwoman" without ambiguity - the "trans" gives you the data you need to categorize accurately without passing any moral judgement. — AmadeusD

This begs the questions of policy. Should a "transman" use the men's or women's toilets? Should a transwoman play women's sports? It also ignores pronouns. Does a transwoman use "she" and "her"? (I admit that we need a singular neuter pronoun. It grates on my nerves to use "they" or "them" -- but the only alternative is to recast the sentence. That's fine when writing, but awkward in speech.)

Of course your suggestion is more accurate and less ambiguous. But what's so bad about ambiguity? Also, those (nobody here I'm sure) who are prejudiced against trans individuals will be enabled to discriminate more easily.

Yeah definitely, those are the 'up in the air' concepts.

I think, personally, that clarity is best for communication. My support for that is the universal, time-tested theory that less-clear communication almost always results in worse goal-oriented results than clear, unambiguous language.

I agree about they/them although in practice I find it fine enough to use in the small number of cases its asked of me.

No, I am not begging the question. The assertion of a definition, and a reason why it is that definition is not a conclusion within the premises. — Philosophim

Nonsense. The definition is changing, or has changed. Why else would it be commonplace for people to list their "pronouns". The use of "she" and "her" to refer to transwomen is accepted and normal (although not, perhaps, in MAGA circles). To refer to a trans individual by his or her birth name or birth pronouns is commonly considered rude. Manners (and the definitions of words) are culturally constituted. "Biology" plays little role in how words are defined.

So that premise, at least, is dubious.

The point is most people don't do this. Most people probably don't quite understand the concept. You're right, that there is an attempt to change the meanings of those words, but equally there is resistance so I think its totally reasonable to look at the last, say 500 years, and say "well, until about 1990 this was how it was so let's start there and discuss the journey to where we are, picking up on mistakes along hte way).

No, I am not begging the question. The assertion of a definition, and a reason why it is that definition is not a conclusion within the premises.
— Philosophim

Nonsense. The definition is changing, or has changed. — Ecurb

The claim it is the default definition is a given. Go to anyone you know and say, "A woman was walking in the woods." Wait a second. Then ask them, "Did you imagine an adult human male or an adult human female?" Of course we all know the answer is, "Adult human female". That is because man and woman by default do not refer to a role, but a sex.

The claim it is the default definition is a given. Go to anyone you know and say, "A woman was walking in the woods." Wait a second. Then ask them, "Did you imagine an adult human male or an adult human female?" Of course we all know the answer is, "Adult human female". That is because man and woman by default do not refer to a role, but a sex. — Philosophim

If the same person saw a person with long hair, breasts, wearing a dress walking in the woods, he or she might say, "I saw a woman walking in the woods." Or if he saw such a person entering a men's toilet, he might say, "Huh? Why is a woman entering a men's toilet?"

This is obvious. Of course there is some ambiguity. The question is how to deal with it. I suggest dealing with it with kindness, empathy and good manners. You suggest (incorrectly) that would be a lie.
Since definitions change, it would not be a lie.

I've answered your point about it not being the default definition. We can keep talking about that, but this OP and Jamal's focus is on definitions and proper English usage. There is zero emotional considerations here. This is not about politeness, social standings, or how we ought to treat trans individuals. This is about language.

This is about language. — Philosophim

And I gave you an example where almost all native English speakers would say, "I saw a woman walking in the woods."

Are you going to insist on asking, "How do you know? Just because she looks like a woman, acts like a woman and presents as a woman, you might be lying, because HE might have been born male."

If the same person saw a person with long hair, breasts, wearing a dress walking in the woods, he or she might say, "I saw a woman walking in the woods." Or if he saw such a person entering a men's toilet, he might say, "Huh? Why is a woman entering a men's toilet?" — Ecurb

I think this is a little tortured: Humans are, apparently, more than 99% accurate at determining sex from facial features alone. It is an extremely rare and aberrant situation that someone see's a 'woman' in your description and doesn't think 'male' even if their social tickertape says 'woman'. It takes effort.

And I gave you an example where almost all native English speakers would say, "I saw a woman walking in the woods." — Ecurb

Correct. What you didn't imply in any way is that most people would think that 'woman' in this instance was referring to a role and not a sex. Let Jamal answer Ecurb, I'm sure he'll present a good response. If you spy something he missed feel free to point it out then.

There is zero emotional considerations here. This is not about politeness, social standings, or how we ought to treat trans individuals. This is about language. — Philosophim

This is disingenuous.

How the language is used will decide if it is a weapon or not used against transgender persons.

This is disingenuous.

How the language is used will decide if it is a weapon or not used against transgender persons. — Questioner

That's ridiculous. Effective language is used to describe reality.

Let me give you an example of why effective language is more important than getting something you want. Global warming. I've heard on the right quite often that global warming isn't real. They don't have very good arguments against it, but dig further and you realize what they're really doing. They don't want to sacrifice or increase taxes, so they deny the reality of global warming. Isn't that stupid? Should you reject reality because you have an alternative goal and think the only way to achieve it is to deny reality?

What conservatives should do is simply evaluate global warming independent of politics first. Then there can be a discussion. A conservative could then say, "Yes, global warming is real, but are your solutions effective? No, we have solutions we think will be more effective."

So I ask you to ask yourself the same question. Are you arguing against clear language to get something beyond that language that you want? Or are you ok with agreeing to basic language, then deciding with that language how to get what you want? If the phrase 'Trans men are men" isn't proper language, shouldn't it be clarified? Once its clarified, you both have an area of agreement on a basic premise, then you can argue what trans men should be able to do in society.

than getting something you want. — Philosophim

Let's first focus on this - reducing the need for authenticity to a "want." You seem to imply that transgender persons are somehow selfish should their claim to their true identity be their goal. Do you apply this judgement only to transgender persons, or to all persons?

Global warming. — Philosophim

Invalidating and erasing a scientific theory is not the same as invalidating and erasing a state of being.

Although, ignorance applies in both cases.

Are you arguing against clear language to get something beyond that language that you want? Or a — Philosophim

If the phrase 'Trans men are men" isn't proper language, shouldn't it be clarified? Once its clarified, you both have an area of agreement on a basic premise, then you can argue what trans men should be able to do in society. — Philosophim

Trans men are men. Trans women are women.

"What they should be able to do in society?" - I believe you are talking about using public rest rooms and playing in sports. Well, I have to tell you, only the people who pretend to be the gender that they are not are the danger in rest rooms, and barring trans persons from the rest rooms will not solve that problem. They are not the problem.

In sports - a transgender woman would still have the strength of a man, so should not be allowed to enter as a woman in sports. But - I will mention - - trans people make up less than less than 0.002% (10/500,000) of US college athletes, and even fewer of recent Olympians (0.001%) identify as trans.

A total red herring.

Here's the thing - the current war against transgender persons in the US is not about using the language properly, it is a campaign based on disgust - and disgust should never be the basis for policy.

You made no comment about Bree Fram, that I introduced to you?

Effective language is used to describe reality. — Philosophim

Conceptions of reality change. Language changes with it.

Conceptions of reality change. Language changes with it. — frank

Sure. That doesn't invalidate the OP.

Sure. That doesn't invalidate the OP. — Philosophim

Cool. So if people change the way they talk about gender, you'll change your views.

than getting something you want.
— Philosophim

Let's first focus on this - reducing the need for authenticity to a "want." — Questioner

Let me stop you there. This is not an OP that decides anything about trans gender desires, politics, etc. This is a language argument. This is not, "What are we politically going to do about global warming." This is, "Is global warming real?"

So stay on topic with the OP please. Where is it wrong?

Sure. That doesn't invalidate the OP.
— Philosophim

Cool. So if people change the way they talk about gender, you'll change your views. — frank

That's worded quite strangely. If it the prevailing definition of the term 'woman' became social role instead of sex, then the OP's conclusion would change. It has not as of this time.

This is a language argument. — Philosophim

I was arguing your use of the word "want"

This is a language argument.
— Philosophim

I was arguing your use of the word "want" — Questioner

And I'm noting this is not an argument about 'want', but what 'is'.

That's worded quite strangely. If it the prevailing definition of the term 'woman' became social role instead of sex role, then the OP's conclusion would change. It has not as of this time. — Philosophim

Ok. But when you go to the hospital, someone is going to fill in a blank beside the words: Gender Preference. So you're cool with that because every hospital in America is presently doing it.

You just sort of go with the flow. I can't say I'm overly proud of you for that, but I recognize your stance.

Ok. But when you go to the hospital, someone is going to fill in a blank beside the words: Gender Preference. So you're cool with that because every hospital in America is presently doing that. — frank

Yes, but they aren't saying "Sex preference". I'm not sure what the point was here Frank. That's not intended to sound sarcastic, I'm just not sure what you meant here.

You just sort of go with the flow. I can't say I'm overly proud of you for that, but I recognize your stance. — frank

This is a non-political discussion. This is about language. Politics are about getting what you want no matter what gets in your way. Philosophy is an attempt to analyze language and ideas to conclude what is most logical.

Yes, but they aren't saying "Sex preference". I'm not sure what the point was here Frank. That's not intended to sound sarcastic, I'm just not sure what you meant here. — Philosophim

They were born with a certain sex. That's true. They tell you what their gender is.

Yes, but they aren't saying "Sex preference". I'm not sure what the point was here Frank. That's not intended to sound sarcastic, I'm just not sure what you meant here.
— Philosophim

They were born with a certain sex. That's true. They tell you what their gender is. — frank

I still don't get how that applies to the OP Frank.

I still don't get how that applies to the OP Frank. — Philosophim

It doesn't appear the OP is saying anything that isn't trivially true.

I still don't get how that applies to the OP Frank.
— Philosophim

It doesn't appear the OP is saying anything that isn't trivially true. — frank

I didn't think so either, but apparently its not so trivial based on the discussion generated. Appreciate the input.

I didn't think so either, but apparently its not so trivial based on the discussion generated — Philosophim

I think they probably thought you were saying something a little more substantial.

Appreciate the input. — Philosophim

:up:

I'm seeing some posts online about Foucalt being a really hardcore pedophile. That true?

Trans men are men. Trans women are women. — Questioner

What is a woman?