How do you delete a comment?

How do you delete a comment? — Copernicus

I'm not sure you can. You can edit it though and change what it said.

I accidentally quoted myself and now can't find anything relevant to replace it with.

Secondary sex characteristics absolutely have to with hormones. The longer the body is dominated by T the more it will masculinize and the longer it is dominated by E the more the body will feminize to the point of heterosexual attraction. That is what puberty does to you and why puberty blockers are given to buy time for the teen to make a decision.
The proliferation of this treatment, puberty blockers and so on is why you're discussing it. That is why it is frequently in the news of "irreversible changes". A recent trans story (the Kirk shooter's trans girlfriend) had nothing whatsoever to do with clothing as the person wore hoodies. — Forgottenticket

Blocking hormones erases sexual differences, just as removing societal expectations removes gender differences. When you remove the distinctions you no longer have a spectrum to move along, thereby erasing trans because there are no longer any distinctions to transition between.

So it seems that the ultimate goal here doesn't seem to be conductive to the trans-community. Erasing the distinctions erases the trans-community and diversity and makes us all the same.

Femboys for example don't want to change their sex, but want to have people view them in the visually sexualized way they look at women. For these individuals, I think the definition of transgenderism as intended fits quite well. Its not an entire encapsulation of the opposite sex's gender, but a selective desire to (sexual in this case, but not all cases) get a particular reaction from people that they see society giving the opposite sex. — Philosophim

This seems to square up with what I was saying about the expectations society has of the sexes is a means of attracting the opposite sex. A woman might wear sweat pants and shirt to the supermarket because she has no intention of trying to attract a mate. She is simply there to buy some groceries and not making a statement about her sexual identity, but about her sexual motivations, or lack thereof.

The problem arises when one's sexual preferences are taken advantage of and manipulated because another is trying to identify as the opposite sex but isn't. Is it moral to fool another of your sex in the context of seeking a mate that fits the other's sexual preferences?

She is simply there to buy some groceries and not making a statement about her sexual identity, but about her sexual motivations, or lack thereof. — Harry Hindu

It doesn't always have to be about sexual attraction, but other indicators like wanting to be viewed as 'sweet' and having doors held open for you, etc. A large amount of gendering is about sexuality, but there is plenty of gendering that also has nothing to do with sexuality, and a person can be transgender because they want those non-sexual expectations that come with it.

Is it moral to fool another of your sex in the context of seeking a mate that fits the other's sexual preferences? — Harry Hindu

That's a fairly loaded question. If one is attempting to be perceived as the opposite sex purely for their own purposes, and but does not hide the fact when they would benefit from a sexual interaction, this is not immoral. If they hide the fact for the benefit of a sexual interaction they know an individual would not give to them if the other person was aware of their natal sex, then yes this is deceiving another person into doing something they wouldn't do if they saw the truth of the matter for personal gain. That would be immoral.

"Is" "is" "is". Don't you get tired of that? IMO, that's part what causes confusion about sex/sexuality. I have never needed anyone to tell me what i am. Praise be to the transexuals for annoying people! But do not get all bent out of shape when i misgender by accident.

I am a man, but my avatar is a woman. Does that offend you? Does that make me transexual?

"Is" "is" "is". Don't you get tired of that? — ProtagoranSocratist

This 'is' a statement that the transgender community insists is true, so I think its a viable thing to look at linguistically.

I have never needed anyone to tell me what i am. — ProtagoranSocratist

Technically you had to have people tell you that you're a human being, or at least learn it from somewhere. The OP is pertinent to telling other people who you are.

I am a man, but my avatar is a woman. Does that offend you? Does that make me transexual? — ProtagoranSocratist

The OP does not have any moral judgement on personal identification. It is a critique to note that the statement, "Transgender men are men" is an unclear and poorly phrased sentence if 'men' is intended to represent 'male gender' and not the default of 'male sex'. "Transgender men are men by gender" is the correct way to communicate the idea with clarity.

Technically you had to have people tell you that you're a human being, or at least learn it from somewhere. The OP is pertinent to telling other people who you are. — Philosophim

this is probably the most interesting criticism of my post: but it's still not technically true. Naming and labeling (yes, necessary for human interaction) does not require excessive categorization. Transgender people and their sympathizers are mostly reacting to bullying that relates to not being a "normal person" with their moralizations and positions.

For example, you know your name not because someone said "____is your name", but because you got accustomed to people referring to you that way. I don't need anyone to remind me that "i am man", overtime i just grew comfortable. This is why i'm confused by (yet kinda indifferent) to your main question, even though the topic itself is very interesting. If someone were to tell me that they were a man, yet looked like a woman, or whatever, i wouldn't be like "oh, so i don't believe you. You must must be a man because i say so."

This 'is' a statement that the transgender community insists is true, so I think its a viable thing to look at linguistically. — Philosophim

yeah that's true, i just personally get sick of the "is" and "isn't" dichotomy, and i appreciate your line of questioning for reasons listed above. This is also the case with "society", if you have a penis, you are a boy/man. If you have a vagina, you are a girl/female. Apparently, males/females are supposed to think a certain way and act a certain way. The "gender" question is extremely confusing, and these "roles" you mention largely do not exist.

The OP does not have any moral judgement on personal identification. It is a critique to note that the statement, "Transgender men are men" is an unclear and poorly phrased sentence if 'men' is intended to represent 'male gender' and not the default of 'male sex'. "Transgender men are men by gender" is the correct way to communicate the idea with clarity. — Philosophim

the transgender people seem to just want people to accept their story as true, since we tend to accept a lot of narratives as true. Those statements aren't poorly phrased to me, but i do agree that transgenderism is confusing.

Anything is true if you believe it to be.

Transgender people and their sympathizers are mostly reacting to bullying that relates to not being a "normal person" with their moralizations and positions. — ProtagoranSocratist

Correct. I sympathize with this greatly. Does using poor language structures in phrasing fix this? No.

If someone were to tell me that they were a man, yet looked like a woman, or whatever, i wouldn't be like "oh, so i don't believe you. You must must be a man because i say so." — ProtagoranSocratist

It depends. One of the things that people have to check when conversing with someone else is whether their words are

1. Clear definitions that we both agree on and understand
2. The other person is being honest in what they tell us

Lets say in this case there is a transman who believes they are a man. Further, they believe 'man' unmodified means, 'adult male gender'. There is nothing innately wrong with this if the person they are conversing with also agrees that man unmodified means 'adult male gender'.

However, in the context of the above statement it is more logical and historically accurate for a person to interpret the statement of 'man' alone as referring to 'male sex'. Now if a person is trying to avoid bullying or disrespect, they should avoid poor grammar and unclear communication. These tend to engender disrespect and lower social status as either uneducated or unintelligent.

Thus, the phrase, 'trans men are men' should not be used in broader society. A simple adendum to the statement 'trans men are men as gendered' or some variation that avoids confusion and clearly conveys the intent unambiguously, the phrase wouldn't be as much of an issue. This assumes of course that the issue is grammar and not the intent to use the term 'man's' double meaning to squeeze in the idea that 'a trans man is a man by sex'. Because this is a tactic of dishonest people, which also does not engender good will if that's what one is trying to do.

Apparently, males/females are supposed to think a certain way and act a certain way. The "gender" question is extremely confusing, and these "roles" you mention largely do not exist. — ProtagoranSocratist

One way to make it less confusing is that gender is a group subjective opinion about non-biological behavior in relation to your sex. "Are you man enough?" In this case man refers to gender, or the expectation that as a male you must act in a certain way or be seen as failing in your sex. The expecation of an adult male may very from person to person, group to group, city to city, onto the world. It is a purely subjective opinion that is culturally sanctioned prejudice and sexism among the group.

Some people learn not to let the opinions of other bother them. Some crave the opinions of others, or may even crave the gendered expectation of the other sex. As such, they take on these gendered expectations for themselves in hope of getting this treatment and expectation from other people. Finally some crave to have the actual opposite sex, and use gender as a mask and part to get the culture to view them as the other sex.

the transgender people seem to just want people to accept their story as true, since we tend to accept a lot of narratives as true — ProtagoranSocratist

I have no problem accepting a story as true as long as the two points I flagged above pass. Are they being clear in their communication, and is there evidence to trust they are being honest with us? I would say most good people will accept a person's story if these two things align. If the trans community wishes to be accepted, they would much better be served dropping the poorly worded 'trans men are men' slogan and adjusting it to more clearly communicate to others what they mean.

2. The other person is being honest in what they tell us — Philosophim

unfortunately i have to go, but i do want to respond to this, as it's important: i tend to think of people as manipulative and sinister animals, so just because i don't question someone's statement, it doesn't mean i "believe them". The "is" and "is not" way of looking at things, without further elaboration (like definitions) is pretty empty. I think survival largely depends on what we do or do not say, and pursuing dishonesty puts one in danger, even though lying is not "wrong".

When you mean you didn't take my conclusion in hand, did you not agree with it or was this merely a separate proposal? — Philosophim

Huh. The preceding comments tells me we agree, so let me try to work through how I came to that..

So the clearest and most logical use of the word 'man' in relation to the term trans man, is 'adult human male by sex', not 'by gender'. — Philosophim

I think, more discreetly, what I didn't take in hand here was that there's a logical reason to use the word this way. I think it's absolutely fine for 'man' to refer to gender (recognitiion of clustered behaviours, lets say) where male can be the biological counterpart. For me, this is the clearest and less-easily-fucked-with way of using the terms. I don't have much of a problem with how things shake out,. as long as we're not running into contradictions and redundancies (which conflating the two would do - and I think circumscribing 'man' in that way would, generally, deny a certain level of legitimacy to trans identity (although, I have thoughts there anyway...)).

To clarify, it is not clusters of biological behavior that are gender. So for example, on average men are more aggressive than women. But that's not gender. — Philosophim

Hmm. While i understand the impulse, I don't think this is quite accurate. The fact that men are, on average, more aggressive (using it as a biological term (both 'man' and 'aggressive')) is, as you say, not gender. BUT being more aggressive than the average female is one of the cluster behaviours that tends to be borne by a 'man'. The problem is that half of the ideology behind Gender Theory wants us to both take that on (cool) but also want the concept of 'man' to encompass typical female cluster behaviours. That wont work (though I assume you already see this). So I think the fact that males tend to me aggressive is a different fact from the level of aggressive one identifying as a man might represent.

So a timid man might be insulted by someone claiming, "You're not a 'real man'. In this case man alone does mean gender, not sex, as the person clearly did not change their biology. — Philosophim

I tend to think this is simply a polite way of saying "you have no balls" (the most common, and variant insult men face really - particularly from women). It strikes me a biological insult. Not too important, I wouldn't think.

The case I'm making is that linguistically, the context of 'transman are men' having 'men' mean gender isn't clear or logical. And since a transman is not a male by sex, the statement is false. — Philosophim

For slightly different reasons, I run the same track to the same station. 'transmen are men', to me, simply means the term 'man' encompasses those who identify as such. Given my first little clarification in this response, that should sit relatively comfortably in my framework. I am unsure whether I would argue this if I were given the reigns of policy. But it, socially, seems totally fine to me. I don't see a problem with using 'man' for gender and 'male' for sex with only tenuous link between the two. I posit that Trans community (and TRAs more properly) want to see the link strengthened philosophically to the point of equivalence. That seems totally linguistically and socially untenable to me. I also note that the majority of those making these arguments (the only two examples hereabouts I've seen are Mijin and Banno) tend not to even engage the meat of the matter before simply saying "Well, bigots gonna bigot" type stuff. It makes explanation impossible, and compromise objectionable in some sense.

Yes, again...phrases to 'rebrand' it. — Philosophim

These are key points. I think I view 'being trans' a bit different to you. My experiences with trans people is not that they want anything specific. My take is that (delusion or not) they truly believe that gender is something constructed internally and projected, but not by choice. Lets avoid the 'sexed brain' type arguments, as I do not take those too seriously (as our next little exchange will make clear) but even without that, if the point is that you have some inherent tendencies, and those tendencies are other than your body's sexed tendencies, that there must be a social arena for that to be expressed. I have no problem with this. Gender seems a fine way to go about it. The conflict comes when policy is affected by personal perception (similar with hate crime, digital comms restrictions etc.. "perceived x" is usually the benchmark and that is almost fascist in nature). In this way, I fully, entirely agree with the final little stab. I think that is what's happened. Its a fig leaf.

The point is to elicit an emotional response loyal to the vocabulary and phrasing to control their aims instead of clear and rational language. — Philosophim

I'm unsure whether we're agreeing - I think the point is to ensure there is no credible objection, because its posited as a metaphysical fact. If I say "No one is born in the wrong body" this is somehow scientifically ignorant. Which is, itself, not only ignorant by manipulative (as you say) and pretty dishonest. It is a fact no one is born in the wrong body. There is literally no benchmark that could possibly be used other than "God put you in the right/wrong body" that could get me there. No arguments i've heard are even worth traversing beyond genuinely listening to them and having to think "Good grief, this is a bit of a joke isn't it?".

Modern culture, especially American culture as the forerunner, appears to be obsessed with quantification, normativization, standardization. A person can only be this or that (or the other), and they have to decide right now, and this decision has to stick forever and in all contexts. — baker

Wildly, the fact that the opposite of this is the case is one of the biggest reasons I've bene intent on movinv to the US for some time. As a third party looking in, it seems to me that takes such as this come from being embedded in the extant information ecosystem present in the US (well, present if you've bought in). I could always be wrong, just thought it interesting to note my diametrically opposed view on that lol.

It seems that transgenderism and the increase of people with mental health diagnoses are actually at least in part a consequence of the urge and pressure to stereotype. — baker

Having discussed this with several psychologists (friends, to be fair) the younger generation (honestly, mine included - im 35) enjoy collecting diagnoses. Anything that makes you interesting, quirky, out-of-the-norm etc... is desirable. They are socially pressured into not being normal. This is why there has been (and I am not saying this is wide-spread necessarily, but I've seen this with my eye owns so don't even start..) genuine bigotry against being straight, white, male, cis, conservative etc.. etc.. etc...Anything "predictable" is jettisoned. Ironically, this has caused a couple of cohorts to become completely predictable in their behaviour around these issues. They all expect each other, morally, to not be 'normal'. My time at University as an older student has been really eye-opening crash-course in the inanity of social politics among those below 30. The extreme and utterly perplexing response to "trad wives" has also been indicative. This report is one of many (and there are plenty of formal policy documents in the UK, Aus and NZ at least which support this) which outline how traditional values (basically "normal shit") are forms of radical content which push young people toward the right. This wouldn't be an issue except that it is standard to assume "the right" means bad, boogeyman, bigot, racist horrible deplorable. This is utterly unacceptable in a free society. It is fascism-lite. I know this has been long-winded and tangential - I am sorry for that. It strikes me as important that the social context is on the table too. With all of the above laid out, I think its pretty clear that the encouragement (there is plenty, and some of semi-criminal - Eli Erlick i'm looking at you) of transgender identities is an attempt for people with unstable or at least, socially undesirable traits and identities to pull otehrs into the realm of slight deception they find themselves in to assure social opinion is in their favour. Mill would be rolling.

Fwiw, on some more of Philosophm's comments - I wanted to be a girl most of my life for practical reasons. I now see that I felt oppressed and abused as a male and wanted to escape. I still feel that is what society wants, but I don't care anymore. Men kill themselves at such a high rate that I refuse to allow society to push me into that basket. It hurts too much.

Transgender people and their sympathizers are mostly reacting to bullying that relates to not being a "normal person" with their moralizations and positions.
— ProtagoranSocratist

Correct. I sympathize with this greatly. Does using poor language structures in phrasing fix this? No. — Philosophim

I suggest that this is the basis for the deception. I don't think sympathy is necessarily the best move. It would be far more reasonable and sensible to simply be more demeaning of bullies. Make it easier to call people out, and easier for those 'in charge' to make a move. It shouldn't be possible for a person to make fun of you for being feminine and not being told that's wrong - if they do it again, up the ante. Don't convince someone their body is wrong. That's cruel and absurd.

Now if a person is trying to avoid bullying or disrespect, they should avoid poor grammar and unclear communication. — Philosophim

Yeah, and unfortunately that is not enough sometimes. Sometimes you also need to not look "suspicous" or "sketchy".

I don't get your grammar/phrasing issues as they relate to trans though: to me trans is confusing because i can't relate to "a man being trapped in woman's body" etc., or needing to advertise pronoun preference. I can, however, relate to being deeply uncomfortable with describing myself, and that's as far as i need to go with my empathy in these matters.

Modern culture, especially American culture as the forerunner, appears to be obsessed with quantification, normativization, standardization. A person can only be this or that (or the other), and they have to decide right now, and this decision has to stick forever and in all contexts.
— baker

Wildly, the fact that the opposite of this is the case is one of the biggest reasons I've bene intent on movinv to the US for some time. As a third party looking in, it seems to me that takes such as this come from being embedded in the extant information ecosystem present in the US (well, present if you've bought in). I could always be wrong, just thought it interesting to note my diametrically opposed view on that lol. — AmadeusD

I'm in Europe. Modern culture, and esp. American culture as its forerunner strikes me as extremely puritan and totalitarian. Sure, they encourage diversity -- but only under the condition that the differences are skin deep.

Americans invented the multiple choice test. They invented the extreme quantification and statistics in sports. All those checkboxes on insurance forms. Itemized medical bills. The DSM. Those social games where you're supposed to choose between just two options. Massively drugging little children with Ritalin and such so that they would appear more "normal". Forcing little children into medical chemical and even surgical procedures, so that they could fit neatly into either category "male" or "female". Denoting weight on personal documents. Denoting race on personal documents. Expecting from people to know their "net worth" at all times. Calculating a person's credit score. Measuring a person's attractiveness on a scale of 1 to 10.


What is this, if not evidence of an obsession with quantification, normativization, standardization?

I suggest that this is the basis for the deception. I don't think sympathy is necessarily the best move. It would be far more reasonable and sensible to simply be more demeaning of bullies. Make it easier to call people out, and easier for those 'in charge' to make a move. It shouldn't be possible for a person to make fun of you for being feminine and not being told that's wrong - if they do it again, up the ante. — AmadeusD

How do you up the ante??

Pretty much everywhere, people operate by the principle "Casting the first stone makes you innocent".
How do you propose to defeat that?

It shouldn't be possible for a person to make fun of you for being feminine

Just you look at the sexism: Women are constantly being criticized, and often told they don't look feminine enough. And this is never such a problem as when a man is told that he's not looking masculine enough. Women are expected to hate themselves by default; you can't be a good girl unless you hate yourself. But the same does not go for men.

I think, more discreetly, what I didn't take in hand here was that there's a logical reason to use the word this way. I think it's absolutely fine for 'man' to refer to gender (recognitiion of clustered behaviours, lets say) where male can be the biological counterpart. — AmadeusD

To be clear, I have nothing against man meaning gender or man meaning sex based on context. My argument is that in the context of 'transgender men are men', reading 'men' as 'male gender' in this case is the less clear and logical interpretation of the word.

For one, 'transgender men' has already modified the term 'man' to indicate we're talking about gender. To mention 'man' alone is a pointless tautology if it 'man' means 'male gender' in this case. Add in the sentence, "Cis men are men" and this seems to be an unclear synonym between trans and cis. Trans and cis are supposed to refer to gender, but the only way they make sense here is if they refer to gender in relation to sex. Otherwise why bother saying it?

A more proper phrase would be, "Transgender men are men as gender" or some type of clarification that the 'man' in this case is not the context of 'male sex'. To insist on the previous phrasing is simply poor grammar.

To clarify, it is not clusters of biological behavior that are gender. So for example, on average men are more aggressive than women. But that's not gender.
— Philosophim

Hmm. While i understand the impulse, I don't think this is quite accurate. The fact that men are, on average, more aggressive (using it as a biological term (both 'man' and 'aggressive')) is, as you say, not gender. BUT being more aggressive than the average female is one of the cluster behaviours that tends to be borne by a 'man'. — AmadeusD

If the 'man' in question means, 'adult male sex', I agree. I do not agree that 'man' as indicating gender applies because of the biological reason. To be clear, "expecting" a man to be more aggressive when they are not, and claiming that they need to be more aggressive within the culture as a choice, is a gendered view of 'man'. A man naturally being more aggressive than a woman is a perfectly normal statistical outcome. A man being less aggressive than most woman is also completely normal. The
expectation that a biologically non-aggressive man should be more aggressive in their actions is a gender expectation.

I posit that Trans community (and TRAs more properly) want to see the link strengthened philosophically to the point of equivalence. — AmadeusD

Absolutely. Its like watching a child lie badly and think they've fooled everyone. And watching someone hear correct pronouns and think they've passed as the opposite sex vs the obvious pity or fear of offending that the majority of people fear is embarrassing to watch personally.

I tend to think this is simply a polite way of saying "you have no balls" (the most common, and variant insult men face really - particularly from women). It strikes me a biological insult. — AmadeusD

Its a gendered insult because that person has not risen to the social expectations put upon a person who is male. Only if the person literally lacked balls in a jeering manner would it be a biological insult.

These are key points. I think I view 'being trans' a bit different to you. My experiences with trans people is not that they want anything specific. — AmadeusD

The 'want' that I'm referring to in this instance is a response from other people that treats them as if they are the opposite sex with the gender expectations that come with that. It may be that this want comes form wanting to avoid the expectations of their own sex. If a trans person had no wants, they would have absolutely zero consideration of how other people viewed them. But they do.

I wanted to be a girl most of my life for practical reasons. I now see that I felt oppressed and abused as a male and wanted to escape. I still feel that is what society wants, but I don't care anymore. — AmadeusD

I have a very dear friend who has been in the process of transitioning for the past few years. His reason is primarily sexual. He has had terrible luck with women all of his life and felt there is something wrong with him. He began to become obsessed with lesbian romances and fan fiction, writing porn stories about female characters. It came to the point where he no longer could envision himself as a male with a woman, but only a woman as a woman. Especially before he got on his pre-estrogen medicine which lowers his physical sex drive, he was also fairly sexually inappropriate with it.

We have talked about it but he goes into complete rage denial mode when I point out the obvious sexual reasons he's already confessed to me. His choice of course. He's as the age where he's not likely going to find an attractive woman (he's obssessed with younger women still) much less marry. Considering the loneliness has only been an oppressive despair and oppression for him, this at least gives him a sexual outlet to get past that. And for him, it might be the best call. It was like watching a captive parrot in heat as he would breath in through his mouth and lustfully talk about lesbian relationships.

At least with his sex drive lowered he doesn't have the intense need driving him, now its more the romantic and ideological side. His sex drive is still existent, its just reduced in the intensity that only an agonizingly sexually deprived male can have. I appreciate you sharing your experiences.

It doesn't always have to be about sexual attraction, but other indicators like wanting to be viewed as 'sweet' and having doors held open for you, etc. A large amount of gendering is about sexuality, but there is plenty of gendering that also has nothing to do with sexuality, and a person can be transgender because they want those non-sexual expectations that come with it. — Philosophim

I hold doors open for others, regardless of their sex, to be polite. It has nothing to do with gender. To hold doors open for one sex and not the other is sexist. Would you not hold a door open for an elderly man? Being sweet has nothing to do with gender. Any sex can be sweet, or nice. What you are describing are simply human behaviors, not gendered behaviors, as these are not traits specific to one gender or the other, except if you are sexist.

That's a fairly loaded question. If one is attempting to be perceived as the opposite sex purely for their own purposes, and but does not hide the fact when they would benefit from a sexual interaction, this is not immoral. If they hide the fact for the benefit of a sexual interaction they know an individual would not give to them if the other person was aware of their natal sex, then yes this is deceiving another person into doing something they wouldn't do if they saw the truth of the matter for personal gain. That would be immoral. — Philosophim

The first part makes no sense. The immorality is in fooling another about your sexual identity which does not allow others to realize their own identities as either gay or straight. The intent is irrelevant because anyone with an ounce of brains would know that other people might be fooled by your charade, meaning that you would need be up front about what sex you actually are, so there will always be some intent to fool others in cross-dressing.

Would you not hold a door open for an elderly man? Being sweet has nothing to do with gender. Any sex can be sweet, or nice. What you are describing are simply human behaviors, not gendered behaviors — Harry Hindu

Notice I did not explicitly say "to get people to hold the door for me". If you're being honest when you see a woman vs a man, you do have a different initial impression and treatment of them. Some of this is likely biological, but part of it is also culture. A person who is dressing in a way to emphasize their sex may be desiring these other smaller interactions they see others doing (or they do themselves) like being gentler with their voice, not talking about sports, etc. It is not one specific objective action they desire, but a collective subjective treatment that they see.

The first part makes no sense. The immorality is in fooling another about your sexual identity which does not allow others to realize their own identities as either gay or straight. — Harry Hindu

Again, you're only emphasizing encounters of sexuality, not mere differences of sex expectation. In most general cases non-sexual gender treatment is mostly harmless. As you noted, most gender treatment should be equalized to people as a whole, and not merely given to one sex or the other. That is an ideal, but often not a real. In these cases, if someone mistakes a transgender person for the opposite sex in a quick public encounter, no one is wiser or cares. I do not view this as immoral, as the person may very well feel better and happier presenting as such for themself.

In the case of situations that impact the other person directly, like direct sexual interest, a trans individual should immediately let the other person know that they are in fact trans. To not do so would be sexual abuse.

I'm in Europe. Modern culture, and esp. American culture as its forerunner strikes me as extremely puritan and totalitarian. Sure, they encourage diversity -- but only under the condition that the differences are skin deep. — baker

See, this seems patently unrealistic to me. The entire point of the American project is to promote diversity, you're right, and the intention is that this diversity is genuine - from socialists, through to just-short-of-bigots can get along in one place without shooting each other. Apparently, that is unacceptable to some and in fact, when differences are deeper than skin, it becomes an hilarious caricature of a moral panic. This usually ends in utter destruction (BLM, Jan 6, Charlie Kirk (and surrounding issues since)). I do not think it is "American culture" doing this, but actually the proportion of activists (this, unfortunately, is what is exported via the media generally) who want to dismantle American culture and re-homogenize it under the guise of kindness. Its utterly preposterous and it seems to me an intentional scam to grab power. That said, these are opinions. Take them as such :)

What is this, if not evidence of an obsession with quantification, normativization, standardization? — baker

What's the issue, sorry?

How do you up the ante?? — baker

Enforce a policy which restricts that behaviour. Actually do something about it - exclude, remove, penalize etc... rather than just words. Eventually, it would become a criminal issue ideally (actually, it is. People just refuse to enforce these laws against certain groups for fear of being seen as the exact thing the laws are designed to stop you being).

How do you propose to defeat that? — baker

I'm unsure I understand the question properly. I agree, most people operate on that principle, but i disagree that it is genuine. Anyone who casts the first stone in this sort of context knows they are questionable and is getting out ahead of a fair assessment. I don't see any significant set of people who are doing what you suggest in good faith.

Just you look at the sexism: Women are constantly being criticized, and often told they don't look feminine enough. And this is never such a problem as when a man is told that he's not looking masculine enough. Women are expected to hate themselves by default; you can't be a good girl unless you hate yourself. But the same does not go for men. — baker

This is, to my mind, utterly preposterous to the point that it feels redundant to address it, sorry that this is quite rude. The bolded is just bare-faced falsity that might have been true 40 years ago. Women hating themselves is one of the least helpful aspects of any society we have ever known about. It is ridiculous to suggest that this is encouraged in modern Western society - particularly when women are lauded, praised and lifted up over absolutely everything and anything (unless conservative, in which case fuck you, we will make fun of your appearance and everything we claimed to be principled against). If you mean to suggest this is true in places like Russia, the Middle East and South East Asia, I could agree.

reading 'men' as 'male gender' in this case is the less clear and logical interpretation of the word. — Philosophim

That's definitely the case - and it conflates the two concepts. Untenable. We agree.

A more proper phrase would be, "Transgender men are men as gender" or some type of clarification that the 'man' in this case is not the context of 'male sex' — Philosophim

I don't understand how this is clearer or easier to carry through than my solution. Just don't use man to refer to sex. Simple. No confusion exists in this framework.

If the 'man' in question means, 'adult male sex', I agree. I do not agree that 'man' as indicating gender applies because of the biological reason. — Philosophim

That was quite unclear I'm sorry. I should have simply said 'male' but my point was to sort of the language as it's used. So "a man is generally more aggressive than a woman" could (should IMO) apply to the gender, but on the basis that heightened aggression (in terms of above a mean, or something) is a typically 'male' trait and so goes into the cluster we use to determine 'man'.

Only if the person literally lacked balls in a jeering manner would it be a biological insult. — Philosophim

Well, i disagree. It's just another way of making a biological jab at males for being less than to my mind.

If a trans person had no wants, they would have absolutely zero consideration of how other people viewed them. But they do. — Philosophim

Most do not. I think you are describing TRAs. Most trans people are not demanding anything (except to not be harassed, which is fair). This might just be differing experiences. There's also the argument that those behaving the way you describe are not trans but something like autogynephillic, sexually deviant but high-intelligence etc... that lead them to the same arguments and demands that others sexually objectify them.

Not everyone uses it that way. And since there is in fact no divine dictionary, nothing is set in stone. And so the battle for the meaning of a word is ongoing. — baker

Not everyone uses the word "slay" to mean "impressive" (or whatever it means to youths these days), but that is nonetheless one of its meanings.

If you don't want to use the word "man" to refer to anyone whose gender is male, regardless of sex, then don't. But it's bizarre to suggest that other people are wrong if they do use it that way. It's prominent enough to warrant being considered another meaning.

But it's bizarre to suggest that other people are wrong if they do use it that way. — Michael

Earlier, you talked about being a fool for battling others on how to use words. Then, given your contibutions here, you must be talking about yourself ...

It is a readily observable fact that people fight over what a word means. And despite what might be new trends in lexicography, some people still believe that dictionaries should have a normative function, and that a word shouldn't mean whatever anyone chooses it to mean.

Earlier, you talked about being a fool for battling others on how to use words. Then, given your contibutions here, you must be talking about yourself ... — baker

It's foolish to argue that words should or shouldn't mean something, or to deny the empirical fact that they are used to mean certain things.

some people still believe that dictionaries should have a normative function — baker

Well, they don't. Even the Académie Française, which is putatively the "authority" on the French language, can't do this. Natural languages just aren't the sort of things that can be dictated in this way. You can pretend, or say "well, it's not recognized by such-and-such an organization" but why should anyone care about that? I'm going to continue to slay despite your protestations.

A more proper phrase would be, "Transgender men are men as gender" or some type of clarification that the 'man' in this case is not the context of 'male sex'
— Philosophim

I don't understand how this is clearer or easier to carry through than my solution. Just don't use man to refer to sex. Simple. No confusion exists in this framework. — AmadeusD

The issue is that man is used both to indicate sex and gender depending on context. In this context its more grammatically sensible to read man as referring to sex when its alone and unmodified by the trans adjective. Since this is historically the way man has been read when unmodified, and it makes cis and trans modifiers, and we know the need for transgender people to conflate with sex where possible, we clearly point out the difference and no one should have an issue.

So "a man is generally more aggressive than a woman" could (should IMO) apply to the gender, but on the basis that heightened aggression (in terms of above a mean, or something) is a typically 'male' trait and so goes into the cluster we use to determine 'man'. — AmadeusD

This is still lumping biology in with gender. Gender as clearly defined is purely a social construct, a prejudice or expectation that someone with a particular biology should act a certain way purely based on culture, not biology. Statically expecting a male to be more aggressive than a female because of biology is not gender, that's simply ascertaining a likelihood of secondary sex traits. To be gender, it must not involve biology. For example, there is no biological incentive that a woman wear a dress vs pants. That's purely a social construct. If that social construct expects that only one sex should wear dress or pants, this becomes gender.

Most do not. I think you are describing TRAs. Most trans people are not demanding anything (except to not be harassed, which is fair). — AmadeusD

You may be correct. The circles I have been around and in wish to push trans people into opposite sex spaces and be called particular pronouns. I think the community would have much less push back if they didn't care if they were denied entry into sex divided spaces or minded that people used pronouns as sex referents instead of gender referents.

@Michael

*sigh*

It's foolish to argue that words should or shouldn't mean something, or to deny the empirical fact that they are used to mean certain things. — Michael

No, it is not foolish at all. That's the entire point of English class. Present participles, conjuctive disjunctions (What are you functions?) are all a means to ensure that we have stable rules and approaches to grammar and communication. Because the entire purpose of language is to clearly communicate a concept in a way that can be easily understood by other parties in the language without debate.

And of course people will deny that words mean certain things. If I started calling the Big Bang God and told you, "You believe in God", you would have an issue. It is quite reasonable to debate why we should or should use certain language and meanings for those words. If I said "subjectivity" was actually the same definition as 'objectivity', there would be a lot of people on these forums telling me, "No, you're wrong".

No, it is not foolish at all. That's the entire point of English class. Present participles, conjuctive disjunctions (What are you functions?) are all a means to ensure that we have stable rules and approaches to grammar and communication. Because the entire purpose of language is to clearly communicate a concept in a way that can be easily understood by other parties in the language without debate. — Philosophim

To paraphrase Captain Barbossa, they're more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules. And, once again, natural languages just aren't the perfectly logical, consistent, and unambiguous things you seem to want them to be.

The above paragraph is a prime example. You "shouldn't" start a sentence with a conjunction. Except I do it all the time.

And of course people will deny that words mean certain things. If I started calling the Big Bang God and told you, "You believe in God", you would have an issue. It is quite reasonable to debate why we should or should use certain language and meanings for those words. If I said "subjectivity" was actually the same definition as 'objectivity', there would be a lot of people on these forums telling me, "No, you're wrong". — Philosophim

Get enough people using a word in a different-than-normal way and its meaning changes. That's how languages evolve. Imagine how silly Shakespeare would seem if we brought him back to life and he bitched about us not speaking Ye Olde Englishe properly.

To paraphrase Captain Barbossa, they're more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules. And, once again, natural languages just aren't the perfectly logical, consistent, and unambiguous things you seem to want them to be. — Michael

That's not what I said. I said that the idea that because language can evolve a certain way, doesn't mean it should. If English evolved rapidly into an ambiguous and locally defined set of terms and meanings in each state, we would have a difficult time talking to one another at all. Just because something can occur, doesn't mean its the best outcome for what language's purpose is.

Get enough people using a word in a different-than-normal way and its meaning changes. That's how languages evolve. — Michael

Of course, I never denied this, nor does this address my point. What I'm noting is that there are more beneficial and less beneficial ways for language to evolve. Its a constant balance between clarity of communication, efficiency in effort, and applicability to a wider audience. Thus, it is not foolish to debate whether words should mean something.