Yep.

More than a few blokes are pissed at the absence of sanitary disposal containers in male toilets.

Segregating toilets on the basis of gender is an odd fetish.

Yeah, probably just one kind of public toilet for all sans urinal and with sanitary pad disposal would do the trick. Everyone would then have cubicles for privacy as is the case in women's toilets.

Do you want me to delete it? — frank

I don't. It's relevant. And it's now a part of the discussion.

And it humanises the too-cerebral discourse here to have a transgender person visible.

Here's another video to consider, from the most famous children's program Dow Nunder.



Is there a problem? If so, where is that problem located - with the performance, or with the audience?

:wink: BUT WE CAN"T DO THAT...!!! :lol:

Gods no! That would be too sensible....

It is not prejudiced to note that a trans gendered man is an adult human female.
— Philosophim
I'd not be so quick to affirm this. As we agreed, I think, applying "adult human female" is to an end, and not immutable. — Banno

But it is a complete concept. I'm also not seeing that as a counter to my point that noting that concept is not prejudiced. Can you explain how with would be prejudgment apart from application? If a group of people agree that woman means, "Adult human female", and that is the only way they apply it, how is that prejudiced?

Taking it as immutable seems reassuring to those of a conservative leaning, but it leads to its own set of issues. — Banno

What does reassurance have anything to do with this? It is not a conservative or liberal concept. Its merely a concept. It is as simple as me stating, "An example of a capital letter a is "A"." It is not exclusionary to another font type of A, but it is accurate within the context of this font type.

All of which brings with it issues around who and what gets to decide how we use the language hereabouts.

The philosophical point is that, as we have seen, appeals to essentialism fail. — Banno

Sure. You should read my knowledge context paper by the way Banno. Don't be dissuaded by the simple start, its intended to appeal to people regardless of their philosophical background. I would be interested in your view on it.

I am not pointing to essentialism, but rationalism. And what is most rational? Non-contradictory outcomes in reality. There is no contradiction in using the term woman to mean 'the gendered actions of an adult human female", nor any contradiction in the concept of woman as "adult human female" when we adjust for context. The contradiction comes in when one context attempts to express its superiority within the other's context. For example, claiming that because we have a sex context for woman, this invalidates a gendered concept of woman and vice versa.

My point is that once you clearly define the terms, "Trans men are men" is not enough to define the proper context within the broader language. The only context which makes rational sense is if the phrase means, "Trans men are adult human females that act in the gendered way of a man".

I understand the flexibility of language well, but that doesn't mean we can't come to correct and incorrect applications of concepts when addressing each other. Since language's shared rational goal is to communicate ideas clearly to another person, language that is unclear, conflationary in intent, or confusing should be criticized and readjusted. Arguably, its a key tenant of philosophy itself.

And so we might go back to the common courtesy of addressing someone in the way in which they prefer to be addressed. — Banno

I don't see why it is common courtesy. If someone claims God is real, is it common courtesy for me to agree with them? Is it wrong and rude of me to disagree with them? Should I choose what I perceive to be the less rational idea simply because someone will be upset that I don't choose it? I'm not sure how your argument so far leads to the above conclusion.

Dividing people on the basis of gender was convenient, but is no longer a simple task. — Banno

We divided people on the basis of sex. The push was to allow someone's gender to override the division of sex. Meaning that a man or a woman who is not on hormones nor had any surgery, should be able to access sex divided spaces due to an internal feeling that they act in a gendered way associated with the other sex.

A hermaphrodite would not be male or female, but contain the gametes of both.
— Philosophim

Notice that you could equally well say that a hermaphrodite would be both male and female. — Banno

Right, if we change the context of male and female once again. We do a lot of shorthand in language, but we should take care not to lose accuracy in intent. The rational full expression would be, "A hermaphrodite has both male and female gametes". But they aren't actually a male and female within the context we have been using thus far. They just share the reproductive parts. A key to rational discussion is to put a 'lock' on the context of terms and explicitly note when the context changes. Otherwise we commit the fallacy of elevating the term over the concept that we're actually discussing.

We might say they are male and female, or neither male nor female. There is no fact of the matter; there is a choice in how we talk about these real, actual people. — Banno

Right, and it is about clear and rational concepts which can be communicated in a useful language. There are very real outcomes of a body being male or female. If we are to accurately capture the biology behind it, we need objective concepts. That's sex. Gender is the concept of a sociological opinion of how a sex should act in a group. This is a clearly defined term which can be used rationally as well. The 'matter of fact' is the accuracy to reality. We didn't have to use the terms "2+2=4" to capture the reality behind it, but those terms accurately capture the reality behind it to great success.

Yes, "Words are the capturing of concepts, and concepts can vary between individuals", but what a community choose to say tells us about that community. Will we be inclusive or exclusive? Will we "other" some people in an arbitrary way? — Banno

I feel like a step was missed here and you've lost me. How are these clear terms that describe rational concepts 'othering'? These are not arbitrary terms. No where in the definitions themselves is there any concept of status, rights, or arbitrary exclusions.

Why do you need to put your gender on your driver's licence? — Banno

It is your sex, not your gender. Gender as the modern day concept came later. And I want to be clear that gender is 'locked' to the sociological expectations we put on a sex's actions in public, not a synonym for sex.

We could also ask the same about eye color and height. The reason is statistic data collection and identification, especially before pictures. If I had my ID stolen for example and my name was "Jesse", it could be used by either a male or female.

To keep the scope of the discussion from exploding at this time, can we for now simply assume that society has identified people's sex as important in certain areas of legal life? This will allow us to first discuss gender in regards to sex, and if you think it should be more important than sex. If we can conclude there first, we can then go back to ask whether society should divide by sex at all. Do you find it fair to table that aspect for now?

Why do we divide runners based on their genitals? — Banno

Let us instead note that we do. Now lets add, "If we divide based on sex, should we ignore that and divide by gender instead?" I'll let you answer that first.

For me, the term "incomplete" is borrowed from logic. The categories do not exhaust all possibilities. Just as in formal logic a system can be incomplete if there are true statements it cannot express, our categories do not cover every possible biological or social configuration. This is why intersex humans, hermaphroditic organisms, and potentially novel or future ways of being can exist without breaking the logic of our classifications. — Banno

I'll let my earlier points stand with one addition. This also does not deny that these terms and future ways CAN break and/or contradict the logic of our classifications.

That we are having this discussion shows that the usage of the terms at issue is not settled. — Banno

I feel we are in agreement that the contextual meaning of male as sex and male as gender are not in debate. I feel the debate has evolved into the question of whether we should elevate gender division over sex division.

This does not belong on these forums.
— Philosophim

Do you want me to delete it? — frank

No, I want you to do better. You're a long term forum goer and I expect a post that addresses the logic of the OP and discussion, not an emotional appeal that does not address the topic.

↪Philosophim They say they "feel 100% like a transgender woman".

Can you argue that they are wrong here? Can you show that they are mistaken? — Banno

No, nor am I. That's not what the topic is about. So far I have not included in any of the discussion that sex or gender has anything to do with feelings. Sex is an objective existence, gender is a subjective view of societal expectations for one sex and your actions as a trans gendered person are to act in the expectations of the opposite sex while rejecting your own.

That's why its off topic. I don't see the relevance. Feel free to point out how it fits in the current discussion.

And it humanises the too-cerebral discourse here to have a transgender person visible. — Banno

Not at all. If we were debating whether a person feels trans or not, then yes. That's not the topic. Their feelings are irrelevant to the context of the OP.

Also give me a moment to respond, you spammed like 3 posts. :D

A long response. thanks for giving my posts such enthusiastic consideration - it pleases me.

But I might not respond point by point, if you don't mind. Our chat has been quite civil, but I suspect a call-and-answer reply might be a bit too confrontational. Instead I might let the ideas here settle a bit.

Also give me a moment to respond, you spammed like 3 posts. :D — Philosophim

Yep.

It might be better to go back to the core of the thread. I'll leave that for you.

Female toilets provide facilities for taking care of tampons and sanitary pads and male toilets have urinals because men can piss conveniently standing up. Those facts have nothing to do with the issue. — Janus

I said, "Bathrooms are divided by sex" You said, "How do you know that?" That is my answer. That is a direct answer to your question unlike your avoidance of mine.

So you are saying it is ok for someone to deceive another person, and as long as they are not caught, the deception is ok?
— Philosophim

It's a trivial point since no one really knows in public toilets (except at the urinal if you're a "peeker") what another's sex is. — Janus

Then your answer is, "Yes, its ok to deceive another person as long as they are not caught". I find this immoral. If a person dressed as a girl scout asked for a donation to the girl scouts, and I never found out my money went to them instead of the girl scouts, is that ok?" If not, what's the difference? Why is it ok to deceive in this instance, but not in others?

Since you seem to be avoiding my other questions and points after them being pointed out again, the default is that you are avoiding them. And if you are avoiding them after a gentle reminder (accident's happen after all), that is the same as conceding them. I'll list what you've conceded and you have one last chance to counter them if you wish.

"Your sex is not your own business in many areas of life, and some of these places are separated by sex"
You have note answered "Should gender override sex in the law?" Since my point is "Yes" and you have not countered it, then be default you are implicitly saying "No".

Further, trans gender demands do not require a male or female to have transitioned in any way to override the sex difference. — Philosophim

I noted that one does not have to disguise their sex if gender overrides sex separation. I have noted gender does not override sex separation, you have not countered that, so whether one is recognized or not, you have not given an argument why gender should be more important legally than sex in sex separated spaces.

Also you haven't said where it is written that the division of toilets is one of sex rather than gender. — Janus

I have never said where it is written. Gender as a sociological concept was created long after bathrooms were separated by sex. The evidence of sex separation has been given two times now. Both the provided mechanisms of the facilities, and the fact that 'gender' was not a concept when separated bathrooms were invented. Since it is also not written that bathrooms were separated by gender, for one major fact that the concept of gender did not exist prior to this separation, what argument are you giving that it was separate by gender?

A long response. thanks for giving my pots such enthusiastic consideration - it pleases me. — Banno

Of course! It was a good couple of posts and worth response.

Our chat has been quite civil, but I suspect a call-and-answer reply might be a bit too confrontational. — Banno

Please do not fear from my end. I only get confrontational if someone else does first. Feel free at any time to simply say, "I feel we've heard from each other on the issue, we can agree to disagree." As long as it does not become personal my way and a good faith effort in respect is made, I'll discuss as deep as you want it to go. Take your time on a response as well, I do not take it as any admittance or weakness of an argument from your part.

You have omitted one important element for your argument. How do you know that public toilets are separated according to sex, rather than according to gender? If in the past sex and gender were equivalent, that is no longer the case―so it now becomes a matter of interpretation.

As to your 'deception' argument―if it is not possible to know what sex others in the public toilet are, in the absence of asking there is no deception.

You will need to provide actual arguments and evidence to support them―simply repeating the same assertions will not do.

As to the origin of the term 'gender' I searched and found this from the Online Etymology Dictionary at the top of the page:

Historical Context
The term "gender" has its roots in the Latin word "genus," meaning "kind" or "sort," and was historically used to categorize individuals based on biological distinctions, primarily male and female. This usage dates back to around the 1300s, where it was synonymous with sex, referring to the reproductive functions of individuals.

don't. It's relevant. And it's now a part of the discussion. — Banno

:up:

No, I want you to do better. You're a long term forum goer and I expect a post that addresses the logic of the OP and discussion, not an emotional appeal that does not address the topic. — Philosophim

I think the answer to the OP has been made. Language use is determined by a community. Look at how people use the words.

The trans woman in the video says "Cis women know things I will never know."

I learn from this to refer to people who were female at birth "cis women ."

So it looks like we have different types of women, trans and cis.

:smile:

You have omitted one important element for your argument. How do you know that public toilets are separated according to sex, rather than according to gender? If in the past sex and gender were equivalent, that is no longer the case―so it now becomes a matter of interpretation. — Janus

Janus, if you're unable to come to an argument in good faith, just thank the person for the conversation, agree to disagree, and move on. Your second line admits the answer I gave you for your first line.

As to your 'deception' argument―if it is not possible to know what sex others in the public toilet are, in the absence of asking there is no deception. — Janus

No, if toilets are divided by sex, you disguise yourself as the other sex and enter anyway, that is defacto deception. Your entire argument is, "But they can get away with it." That doesn't invalidate the fact that its separated by sex, and you're not supposed to be in there if you aren't that sex. We can debate whether it should be separated by sex, whether sex separation is enforceable, or a whole host of other issues from here, but if you are not going to concede that hiding what you are to enter somewhere you're not supposed to be is not deception, then you're not discussing in good faith and have nothing substantial to add to the discussion.

Come on Janus, I like you and have been patient. Be honest and good faith or just leave.

Your second line admits the answer I gave you for your first line. — Philosophim

If gender and sex were equivalent in the past then the separation could be said to be for either. You chose to say it was for sex, because that supports your argument. Someone else can say it was for gender, and since the two concepts are now disentangled your argument, on that interpretation, fails.

I don't know why you are talking about "good faith"―do you take disagreement as a sign of bad faith?

No, if toilets are divided by sex, you disguise yourself as the other sex and enter anyway, that is defacto deception. — Philosophim

Even if that were so, which I think is questionable, since a person's sex is no one else's business, your argument fails since it can now be said that the division is gender, and not sex, based.

I think the answer to the OP has been made. Language use is determined by a community. Look at how people use the words. — frank

That is not addressing the OP. I'm guessing you didn't actually read it. Quote or point out what you're addressing instead of a straw man please.

The trans woman in the video says "Cis women know things I will never know." — frank

And how does this address the OP? You're off in somewhere else land.

I learn from this to refer to people who were female at birth "cis women ." — frank

Great. What does cis woman mean? Why do we add cis to women? Did you think that I didn't know what that means, or say it doesn't exist? Where does that matter in the OP? Where does it matter in the topic?

So it looks like we have different types of women, trans and cis. — frank

If you are referring to the adjectives that change the context of woman to mean, "The gendered expectations that society places on an adult human female", then yes. You have not added or detracted from the OP in any way. You basically said, "2 is a number" then gave me a smiley face like a child who first learned how to count. No duh boy, this is an adult conversation.

Not reading and addressing the OP is amateur hour Frank. You have over 18 thousand posts. If you want to act like it, read the actual post and address it. You know, basics?

Your second line admits the answer I gave you for your first line.
— Philosophim

If gender and sex were equivalent in the past then the separation could be said to be for either. — Janus

Thank you for being genuine in the conversation. So yes, the original separation of bathrooms was by sex. So now we can go to what I think your real question is. Should we continue to separate bathrooms by sex, or now by gender? Why or why not?

I don't know why you are talking about "good faith"―do you take disagreement as a sign of bad faith? — Janus

Not at all. Can you admit you might have been a bit evasive of some of my points and tried skipping past them? That's my frustration. I'm trying to engage with you honestly and I feel like you're not trying to discuss with me, but against me. Discuss with me as I am you Janus, and I have no issue with disagreements.

Even if that were so, which I think is questionable, since a person's sex is no one else's business, your argument fails since it can now be said that the division is gender, and not sex, based. — Janus

No, it is so. An intent to disguise oneself in a way that makes people think you are something you are not is deception. You may agree its a reasonable thing to deceive in this case. You may say you think its ok to deceive. What you cannot do if you are being reasonable and honest with me in the discussion, is deny that it is not an intent to deceive someone else.

And finally, you are still dodging the larger point. I said it doesn't matter that you look like the opposite sex. If gender is more important than sex, and we are to divide bathrooms by gender and not sex, then you can be a 6 foot tall hairy neanderthal looking man with fully intact genetils and higher than average testosterone. It doesn't matter, because a person's internal gender has nothing to do with their sex. Meaning if gender is more important than sex for separation, then this man can walk into female spaces without any issue.

You keep harping on the deception part when deception is practically a non-issue for the discussion. I'm putting forth the idea that if we do separate by gender, you don't need to deceive. Is this what we want? Should it be that we separate spaces by gender instead of sex, and can you please give me a reason why?

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

I think the answer to the OP has been made. Language use is determined by a community. Look at how people use the words. — frank

Yep. Usage isn't fixed, it's chosen. And we perhaps ought seek consistency. So if "woman" is used to pick out someone who adopts the relevant social conventions, then a trans woman is a woman. And this even if we also choose to maintain that they are male.

What I'm not sure of, is whether this was actually @Philosophim's view as well, if somewhat ill-parsed.

While I have not ready every single post in the thread, I have followed the main posters comments.
I have a question, for anyone that cares to answer.
If there is an accepted difference between sex and gender, how do we prove them?
Sex seems to be pretty obvious, just look between their legs!
But how can gender, in the sense that it is being used here, be proven?

Good questions. And thereby hangs many a PhD.
So:

Sally Haslanger argues for a way to define the concept woman that is politically useful, serving as a tool in feminist fights against sexism, and that shows woman to be a social (not a biological) notion. More specifically, Haslanger argues that gender is a matter of occupying either a subordinate or a privileged social position...

But according to Stone this is not only undesirable – one should be able to challenge subordination without having to challenge one’s status as a woman. It is also false: “because norms of femininity can be and constantly are being revised, women can be women without thereby being subordinate” — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/#NewGenRea

And so it goes. Charlotte Witt is also interesting here, taking an Aristotelian Essentialist view, but one at odds perhaps with the more conservative views expressed hereabouts. For Wit, we each have one social essence that structures our possibilities for social functioning. This is not a biological essence, not an eternal metaphysical form, but a social essence that determines how one enters and is positioned within institutions, roles, and norms. Very different to the conservative authoritarian pronouncements concerning Aristotle that dominate the limited conversations here. Witt breaks the She the false equation “Aristotelian = Essentialist = Conservative = Biological Sex = Immutable Categories.”

Witt is a classicist and philosopher.