I am not talking Gender theory, though. I am discussing solutions to the obvious problems it presents. I am not particularly interested in simply bagging on a prima facie absurd ideology. The problem you raise, I have acknowledge. I am trying to get around them so as not to have to kow to obviously incoherent policy thinking. — AmadeusD

My apologies for getting back late to you on this. I am curious about your view points on another thread I started analyzing which trans gender rights claims are human rights. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16233/are-trans-gender-rights-human-rights/p1 then

Biologically, no. They are emasculated men who have injected themselves into their own platonic representation of "Das Weib."

You're missing the point that I made quite clear. If a female can exhibit male-level aggression then why is it called male-level? The level of aggression between a male protecting its territory and a female protecting its young seems about the same level. So what exactly do you mean by "male-level"? Let the mental gymnastics begin! — Harry Hindu

Given your final line, do you expect a good-faith response? Or would it be more reasonable to simply not be a dickhead, and then expect to not have a dickhead respond? Consider that.

it is the level of aggression typical of males on average. This is not rocket science. This is uncontroversial, and well-known in the psychological literature.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031938496800308
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6318556/
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/711705
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-024-06859-9

I cannot conceive of how its upsetting to hear about hte typical differences in aggression between males and females. Where females exhibit heightened levels of aggressive, this is a 'more masculine' trait as compared to being less aggressive which is a seen as feminine, given the difference is typical between the two sexes on average. Conceding, as one must, that this is simply hte result of the research that's been done and not a knock-down, all-time answer to the issue - Its beyond me why this is getting your panties twisted.

This is like saying that someone saying "god does not exist" jettisons the purpose and fundamental ground of a discussion about the relationship between god and nature - a discussion that assumes a premise and you not liking any type of statement that jettisons that assumption. — Harry Hindu

You're going to need to figure out how to work language into making the connection between "God" and "nature" and "sex" and "gender" on the other, workable. This response just tells me you're happy to conflate separate concepts and just keep going as if anyone adequately discussing the issues must be wrong somehow. That seems, sorry to say, childish. Sex and gender are not hte same thing and that is the entire basis for the discussion. IGnoring this explains why you're not making much sense.

Given your final line, do you expect a good-faith response? Or would it be more reasonable to simply not be a dickhead, and then expect to not have a dickhead respond? Consider that. — AmadeusD

You are free to interpret the line how you want and to respond in any tone you wish. All that matters to me is if your response is sensible or not.

it is the level of aggression typical of males on average. This is not rocket science. This is uncontroversial, and well-known in the psychological literature. — AmadeusD

None of your articles use the phrase "levels of aggression", and they all seem to support that aggression is biological, not social - that males are more aggressive because of their levels of testosterone.

If sex and gender were not the same then why do trans seek hormone replacement therapy to exemplify the sex they are trying to identify as?

I cannot conceive of how its upsetting to hear about hte typical differences in aggression between males and females. — AmadeusD

It's not upsetting to hear about the typical differences. What is upsetting is to equate these differences to differences in gender and not sex.

If you want to say sex and gender are different- fine, but then stop conflating sex and gender.

If sex and gender are separate then that means that gender has nothing to do with our physiology or our behaviors dictated by our physiology - like the level of aggression males have vs females. Males can't give birth and females cannot exhibit male-level aggression.

If you want to say sex and gender are different- fine, but then stop conflating sex and gender. — Harry Hindu

I do not respond well to children with fingers in their ears saying "I know you are, but what am i?". So I'll just not.

I do not respond well to children with fingers in their ears saying "I know you are, but what am i?". So I'll just not. — AmadeusD

You must be delusional as I didn't see any children participating in this thread saying such things - just full grown adults that do not value logic and reason.

If sex and gender were not the same then why do trans seek hormone replacement therapy to exemplify the sex they are trying to identify as? — Harry Hindu

Because they are wrong (on my view, obviously but its a pretty widely-held one). It is hard to understand how you could ask this question. It requires a metaphysical leap that is simply not open to us, I think.
Either Gender and Sex are the same - in which case trans people literally do not exist, they are just deluded - or they are not the same - and trans people in fact, exist, and attempt to artificially appear as though they exemplify typical features of the opposite sex. I contend the latter is correct. Given the balance of logical considerations, it seems relatively unassailible that if "trans people" exist as some 'true' category, then it relates to gender (and explicitly, not sex). Are you wanting to say that trans people are born the wrong sex? That seems totally incoherent. In either case, the reason a male who wants to be female takes what's called 'cross-sex hormones' is to make it easier to behave the way they expect women to behave. Its all quite sexist.

This is what makes sense of the fact that trans women tend to be as aggressive as non-trans males(and represent similarly in crime stats (although, trans women are more likely to commit a sex crime than non-trans males). Because its typical of the sex (including the paratheses). They do, though, routinely repress that aggression to appear more feminine. This is pretty clearly an example of behaving in a way typical of the other sex. This is why I have always maintained that gender does not vary independent of sex (i.e genders themselves are obviously derived from clusters of typical behaviours attributed to the two sexes into clusters of "expected" behaviours rather than observed ones - though, as will be clear these rarely come very far apart) but is not sex and only requires sex as a reference point. The fact is sex is an extremely robust metric in humans, so the variance is quite low - despite it being theoretically possible to say "I'm trans" and present/behave 100% typical for your sex it is not possible to take that seriously, unless Gender is meaningless entirely.

What is upsetting is to equate these differences to differences in gender and not sex. — Harry Hindu

It is possible you have either entirely misinterpreted me.

The differences between males and females have to be exemplified in the behaviours of trans individuals to even get on the ladder of being trans. A trans person who literally does nothing to alter their sex-typical behaviour is not trans. Plain and simple. They are not 'on the other side' of anything. Their sex is still their sex, and their presentation is still their presentation. This leads to the problem that there are only really two ways "gender" can go: Either gender refers to sex. In which case , you do not have a choice. You cannot self-identify as a sex, and therefore you cannot identify into a gender either.
The other way it could go is that gender is a social construct. In this case, society tells you your gender. You also do not have a choice here.

The argument which is made to circumvent this is that gender is self-identification. Ok. If that's so, then it is literally invented and not a description of anything but a desire, or thought. That's also fine. In this case, no one is required to participate in your self-image. At all. At any time. You can request, and polite people will acquiesce but no one is required to accept your self image. You can say you're trans all you want, but if every single person who interacts with you clocks a male who is also a man, you have failed and are not trans.

If sex and gender were not the same then why do trans seek hormone replacement therapy to exemplify the sex they are trying to identify as?
— Harry Hindu

Because they are wrong (on my view, obviously but its a pretty widely-held one). It is hard to understand how you could ask this question. — AmadeusD

Are you trans? If not, then are you saying that you know better than the trans person in this instance? And is it that they are just "wrong", or are they "delusional"? What if they aren't identifying as a gender, but as a sex? How would you know? How would they know?

And why would it be hard to understand to ask this question when hormone replacement therapy is called "gender-affirming care"? :roll:

Are you wanting to say that trans people are born the wrong sex? — AmadeusD

No. I'm saying that is what trans-people appear to be saying. I'm asking what it means for a man to claim to be a woman.

the reason a male who wants to be female takes what's called 'cross-sex hormones' is to make it easier to behave the way they expect women to behave. — AmadeusD

Which just means that our behaviors are rooted in biology.

This is why I have always maintained that gender does not vary independent of sex — AmadeusD

Then sex and gender are intertwined.

It is possible you have either entirely misinterpreted me. — AmadeusD

...or that you have misinterpreted trans-gendered people, or that trans-people and their supporters have no idea what they are talking about and aren't really disagreeing with the idea that sex and gender are the same.

You cannot self-identify as a sex, and therefore you cannot identify into a gender either.
The other way it could go is that gender is a social construct. In this case, society tells you your gender. You also do not have a choice here.

The argument which is made to circumvent this is that gender is self-identification. Ok. If that's so, then it is literally invented and not a description of anything but a desire, or thought. That's also fine. In this case, no one is required to participate in your self-image. At all. At any time. You can request, and polite people will acquiesce but no one is required to accept your self image. You can say you're trans all you want, but if every single person who interacts with you clocks a male who is also a man, you have failed and are not trans. — AmadeusD

Is gender a social construct or a self-identification that runs counter to the social expectation? It can't be both because one is the anti-thesis of the other.

If gender were a social construct then why is most of society surprised to see a man in a dress? If gender were a social construct then a man wearing a dress would simply be abiding by the expectation and there would be no push back from the rest of society. But there is and it is because the man is not following the rules - that women wear dresses, not that wearing a dress makes you woman.

If gender is merely a social construct then wouldn't that mean that transgenderism is a social construct? Wearing a dress does not require one to take hormone treatments or have any kind of surgery at all. The only way for a person to determine their gender is to choose one’s gender based on gender stereotypes present throughout a culture. If gender is a social construct, then it describes the expectations and stereotypes historically linked to biological sex — expectations that feminism worked hard to overcome. To say one can “identify” as another gender is to say that those outdated expectations still define what it means to be male or female. In other words, self-identifying as another gender merely re-affirms the very stereotypes that we're supposed to have been rendered obsolete.

Are you trans? If not, then are you saying that you know better than the trans person in this instance? And is it that they are just "wrong", or are they "delusional"? What if they aren't identifying as a gender, but as a sex? How would you know? How would they know? — Harry Hindu

I think probably most telling is the bold. Prefacing by saying it was "on my view". I know plenty of trans people, a couple quite intimately.
Yes, my position is they are wrong. You cannot change sex. They want to exemplify typical phenotypic traits of the opposite sex and there's nothing wrong with doing that, imo, for an adult (we both discuss this elsewhere, and itll come up further down here). But it is factually incorrect that they can change sex, as far as I know and think.

And why would it be hard to understand to ask this question when hormone replacement therapy is called "gender-affirming care"? :roll: — Harry Hindu

That's why its hard to understand. It affirms gender, not sex. Running sex and gender together as one thing doesn't seem a move open to any type of thinker on this topic. If they were the same, we would be saying humans can change sex. Is that what you're saying?

No. I'm saying that is what trans-people appear to be saying. I'm asking what it means for a man to claim to be a woman — Harry Hindu

Ah, well fair enough. I don't think many of them are claiming that, but yes, some do. That's definitely true. There is speak of womb transplants. (I have deliberately put this response here, after my question, because I think they run together - if you don't think trans people are 'born in the wrong body' I suggest you can't claim humans can change sex).

Which just means that our behaviors are rooted in biology. — Harry Hindu

To some degree, yeah definitely. I have no issue with that - i was speaking about this at some length recently. Females and males have average behavioural profiles, and the introduction of cross-sex hormones is to (ostensibly - it doesn't seem to work) engender a change of behaviour in the individual to be closer to the sex they want to be. They cannot be that sex, so the care affirms a "gender", rather than a sex. Does this make sense?

Then sex and gender are intertwined. — Harry Hindu

Conceptually, yes (as described above). But one can, apparently, claim a gender without any notable or visible change in phenotype, behaviour or anything else. I presume based on your responses you do not think that person can be considered trans? I'm unsure, and not trying to corner you - I just see some trip-ups in these sets of claims. For me, too. I don't see that sex and gender need be practically intertwined. But that said, I think "gender" can only go three ways. They are all quite well-defined and I presume you're about to respond to them :P

...or that you have misinterpreted trans-gendered people, or that trans-people and their supporters have no idea what they are talking about and aren't really disagreeing with the idea that sex and gender are the same. — Harry Hindu

yes, that could be true, but I 100% reject that sex and gender are the same, and I stand behind this claim entirely based on my pretty thorough understanding of the concepts and discussions thereof. There is nothing to suggest that a person can change sex, but there is plenty to suggest one can change gender. They are patently, observably, not the same. The majority of trans people acknowledge this (as best I can tell.. don't shoot me for going on that haha). Perhaps five or six years ago there was more of that, but not only is identification as trans nosediving, the overblown claims about it are also dropping away - we have plenty of visible, public trans people agreeing with me (no, that doesn't make me right, but as I see it, the logic does).

Is gender a social construct or a self-identification that runs counter to the social expectation? It can't be both because one is the anti-thesis of the other. — Harry Hindu

Yes, that's what I'm trying to illustrate. It could only be one of the three possibilities:

1. Sex
2. Social construct
3. Personal choice (maybe that's a disrespectful work, but it seems true if we're taking self-ID seriously as a concept.

If gender were a social construct then why is most of society surprised to see a man in a dress? — Harry Hindu

This is exactly what one would expect from a social construct. Society expects X due to its construction, but sees Y and is perturbed (or whatever word.. for me, its more amused or excited (in the general "Hey, that's interesting" sense)).

But there is and it is because the man is not following the rules - that women wear dresses, not that wearing a dress makes you woman. — Harry Hindu

This is getting dangerously close to the point: Wearing a dress doesn't make you a woman. I mean, my position is that a woman is an adult human female and gender is a different use of the word woman, which is never adequately parsed, so perhaps we're both barking at the wrong tree here? But, Ill address for the sake of clarity: If Gender is a social construct, then society tells you your gender. If most people treat you as 'a woman', that's what you are. Doesn't matter what you think or feel. Same for being 'a man'. This accords with (2.) above. For my part, I find this one a good argument to get beyond claims that gender is fully variant and choosable. If its a social construct, you, personally, don't get a say. This means that if you're a man, and society treats you as a man, and you turn up in a dress, you'll turn heads. That fits perfectly with gender-as-social-construct.

If gender is merely a social construct then wouldn't that mean that transgenderism is a social construct? — Harry Hindu

Yes, that would be the case. I think it's the case even with (3.). With that, you are making a personal choice derived from social expectation still. That seems to me a social construct, the same way something like lawyering is considered a 'male' job. There's nothing particularly male about it (as opposed to oil drilling, let's say). The difference between (2.) and (3.) is that you tell society your gender in (3.) but the opposite in (2.).

The only way for a person to determine their gender is to choose one’s gender based on gender stereotypes present throughout a culture. — Harry Hindu

It should be clear that to me, this is (3.) and not a social construct, per se.

If gender is a social construct, then it describes the expectations and stereotypes historically linked to biological sex — expectations that feminism worked hard to overcome. — Harry Hindu

For both (2.) and (3.) this is one of the realizations that prevented me from continuing down the gender theory pathway. It is senseless and counter to progress. It is misogynistic and sexist in ways that somewhat explain why it seems more prevalent among males and children (its something like four times more likely in someone under 18 - but data between sexes it not available, I am speculating with decent data sets).

To say one can “identify” as another gender is to say that those outdated expectations still define what it means to be male or female. In other words, self-identifying as another gender merely re-affirms the very stereotypes that we're supposed to have been rendered obsolete. — Harry Hindu

Hmm, I don't think so - but that's because for me sex and gender come entirely apart at this stage of discussion. I thnk I've adequately defended that position, though. So seems reasonable to say on this that I entirely agree, but those stereotypes are (while derived from biological expectations) no longer reasonable, and so bled into 'gender' expectation like being quieter as a woman, or less defensive.

Tranwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false? — Philosophim

False. They are "transwomen" (typical XY) and "transmen" (typical XX). Period. Usually they suffer from gender dysphoric disorder (GDD). Otoh, men are adult males (typical XY) and women are adult females (typical XX). Ergo: e.g. it's reasonable (i.e. fair) to prohibit "transwomen" (typical XY) from physically competing against women (typical XX) in organized sports.

Addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/336888 (re: the Junk)

:up: Agree, although the British backed away from transitioning teens because they determined that GDD doesn't indicate that a person is trans. It just happens to teens sometimes.

Both of the above: :up:

Transitioning children seems... dubious at best. Abusive at worst.

It was a bad idea.

Transitioning children seems... dubious at best. — AmadeusD

Modern day research demonstrates it seems to be medical malpractice on children. First, the research that showed kids with gender dysphoria were more likely to kill themselves was shown to be false. When comorbidities such as depression and other mental health issues were isolated, it turned out the suicidality rate was equal to the expected rate of those comorbidities. Gender dysphoria itself has no significant suicidality rate.

We've also know for decades, with the last paper published in 2021, that if kids are not actively transitioned from 12 to 18, 50-80% of them do not transition as adults. Other research shows that around 80% of those who do not transition turn out to be gay.

Finally puberty blockers are an off label use of the drug to block puberty for kids with gender dysphoria. The theory was that if their puberty was blocked for a year or two, that it would give the child time to figure out if they really should transition or not. A deep study found out that 99% of kids put on puberty blockers transitioned, basically making it a pathway to transition whereas 50-89% of them would never have transitioned at all.

There is still a powerful faction of transgender activists that are still pushing for puberty blockers and medical transition for minors despite the above research. Reasons I've seen: "If I could have stopped my puberty prior to transition, I would look more like the opposite sex today". "Its just transphobic research. (No counter research, only an opinion)" "Trans is a natural state of being that you have when you are born and can't be changed"

Its very much a "We have to save the children" mentality that seems to stem more about 'saving the ideology' than a fact based approach. I've commented that trans ideology in the activist community is very much a secular religion, and going after kids to secure ideas and 'make trans normal' also seems to be a part of it. I also want to be clear that trans individuals who transitioned purely due to gender dysphoria generally do not seem to be pushing transition for kids. It is those who seem to enjoy transition, 'gender euphorics' who want to push this on kids as a reflection of their own desires. Finally, in case anyone thinks I'm 'transphobic', I supported puberty blockers initially and believed that in rare cases transition for kids might be the best medical practice. As more research has come out and I got to see the community personally, I have naturally changed my position.

A deep study found out that 99% of kids put on puberty blockers transitioned, basically making it a pathway to transition whereas 50-89% of them would never have transitioned at all. — Philosophim

There's something going on there. Why is being put on a puberty blocker such a powerful determinant for transitioning? Is the puberty blocker a casual agent for transitioning? Why? Why not just stop the blockers sometime in the future and be part of the 50-89% that don't transition. Is it a correlation? Are kids who get puberty blockers also the kids that are very serious about transitioning?

I don't know RogueAI. The current approach is to study past data more in depth and put puberty blocker use on hold until more information can be gleaned. I believe there is another study that is being set up in England that will put kids on puberty blockers again to do another live test as well. There's a bit of pushback on that one though as there's still much to study under old data and its arguable that there's not enough need to do another live test with the risks known now.

My understanding of this issue (and this is contentious, so don't take this as my view, its just how I understand the conversation to stand at large) is that puberty blockers are not reversible, so there are plenty of individuals for whom the premise was probably right, but in practice cannot be carried out. So, they reach say 17, realise maybe it wasn't for them, but now they are irreversibly affected by having not gone through puberty, so transition is actually the more "normalising" pathway at that time.

Again, this isn't my view. I have not known any children who have transitioned (or teens, for that matter) whcih I take to be a good thing (largely because this indicates the prevalence of gender dysphoria among children is perhaps lower than posited by activists).

If puberty blockers go on too long, yes you can miss windows of growth that cannot be recovered. Long term use of puberty blockers also are suspected of inhibiting brain development and lowering IQ.

The current argument that makes the most sense to me personally is that you need to go through puberty to really understand what its like to be male or female. Because being male and female is primarily about sex, and puberty is coming to terms with sex.

I haven't read everything you said after your OP. But if it remained as fair and civil. Then I can say I support your view mostly.

The thing is. In this discussion people often become less fair. They make assumptions about such an OP..and as a result they suddenly stop being philosophers. Deeply unfair offcourse. To be unfair and then not engage in proper discussion and project unfairness.

That said. If it is really so that I can be a woman (sex) in a male (sex) body. (I know one could define it as being a different gender role in a different body. But most people wouldn't fully be man or woman then if we strip the need for genitals, and additionally, eventually people often do they to assume they are truly more then just the societal role in a different body, they often tie it to hormones) Then some form of dualism must be true. then that's not so hard really. And how do we track this dualism? If it's a soul
Good luck. If it's property dualism arising from the brain also good luck. That will get messy. Because in the end the premises and logic used to derive one is a woman (sex) in a male (sex body) is likely to be very very problematic.

But what people tend to do is either believe that somehow it's possible or that possibly something is going on that goes beyond bad logic and actually touches on something about the brain that is yet unknown. And that we should have empathy for whatever this something is. Because if we are wrong and deny their claims, that's a moral horror. Whereas if we are right and their claims about being x in a not x body are wrong. Then it also feels bad for them.

The problem though is that there are many other cases where people believe something very strongly and if they are denied assent on their beliefs they can also feel very alone. Some even get institutionalized for other types of beliefs. Maybe they'd also feel better if we played along? I guess the key difference is the other beliefs (non gender or sex related) are usually less trivial more dangerous.

I however don't think that an entire society should lie. It's best we make a a clear difference between my mom who's born with a vagina and can have children and someone born with a penis who can't ever have children , who has to take hormones to bodily become more like a woman (sex). We can call them 'woman' (gender) in most social contexts (for empathy and reason). But we also should refrain from calling them genetic or biological women. (As to not become unfair, unrealistic, nor commit philosophical suicide)

You could tie it to hormonal levels. But most have to take hormones to change. Showing that they weren't already thanks to hormones other then their body. But yes. We can choose to call them whatever they like to be called. It's not a big deal. But let's be fair.

The thing is. In this discussion people often become less fair. They make assumptions about such an OP..and as a result they suddenly stop being philosophers. Deeply unfair offcourse. To be unfair and then not engage in proper discussion and project unfairness. — Jack2848

True, but I understand that. There's a lot of emotion that can be wrapped up in this, and I try to have patience and guide it back to 'just thinking about things'.

Because in the end the premises and logic used to derive one is a woman (sex) in a male (sex body) is likely to be very very problematic. — Jack2848

I agree. For me, terms are for conveying accuracy of intent, not to cater to someone's emotional reaction over those words. So if someone told me, "I'm a doctor" but it was just that they really desired to be a doctor, me replying, "You're not a doctor", is not intended to insult, demean, or make them feel bad. Its just a correction to align with reality. If a person gets upset over an observation of reality that is not intended to demean, insult, or diminish an individual, but is truly intended to describe reality, I don't think anyone is under an obligation to change their terms.

But what people tend to do is either believe that somehow it's possible or that possibly something is going on that goes beyond bad logic and actually touches on something about the brain that is yet unknown. And that we should have empathy for whatever this something is. Because if we are wrong and deny their claims, that's a moral horror. Whereas if we are right and their claims about being x in a not x body are wrong. Then it also feels bad for them. — Jack2848

I suppose this is an issue for me. Someone feeling bad about other people's perception of reality just doesn't seem to be a viable argument of obligation. I want to be clear, I don't mean bullying abuse, or intentional disrespect. Its about feeling bad about reality. That's just life. Reality has its ups and downs, and there are many realities that are uncomfortable that we have to learn to deal with.

To show this is not an armchair claim, I have bad facial scars from years of acne. I have rolling scars not only over my cheeks, but my forehead. I take people's breath away. My initial reactions with most people are wide eyes, a bit of panic, or the inability to look at me at all during the conversation. My face is literally something you would see in a horror movie, maybe worse.

When I was young and immature, I became despondent because I realized how shallow people are and that I would forever be cut off from humanity at a fundamental level. Anyone who tells you looks don't matter is a naive idiot. Fortunately, I might be ugly on the outside, but I've fostered not being ugly on the inside. Not that anyone cares, I do it for myself. I thought about it a while. Do other people owe me special treatment because my face is messed up? No. Do I have the right to be angry at them for it? No.

You see that's MY problem. And that means I have to deal with it. Not others. The guy who's uncomfortable looking at me doesn't have to look at me. The person who has panic is blameless. The person who is uncomfortable is ok. No one has to call me handsome or good looking. No one has to pretend I'm attractive. People can believe they are superior to me. Its all ok. Because its my problem, and I have to deal with it.

Has it been painful over the years? Of course. "Hell" is an apt moniker as I'm shy on top of it. I hate to be noticed by people in general, and it is impossible to blend in. I do not question that there would have been other people in my shoes who would have ended it. So when I hear of the anguish of a trans gender person and talks of suicide, I know. Not in theory, but in life experience.

It does not excuse me to demand other people treat me differently. The solution is not to 'pretend everything is ok and I really don't look that bad'. The solution is to recognize the reality of the situation, and learn to emotionally and rationally come to terms with it. That makes you strong. I could wear a mask, make up, or even visualize myself as having a clear face when I was younger. All of that is delusion that will eventually break down and leave you in a far worse state than if you just accepted it.

I however don't think that an entire society should lie. It's best we make a a clear difference between my mom who's born with a vagina and can have children and someone born with a penis who can't ever have children , who has to take hormones to bodily become more like a woman (sex). — Jack2848

Agreed. I think a nice compromise has been 'trans woman'. Its an indicator that a male is trying to live their life as a woman. It might be painful for a trans person to acknowledge that they can't ever truly be the other sex, but that's just delusion otherwise. To become strong in character one must face the challenges of their life head on, honestly admit what they are, and deal with them understanding what they are doing. Anything else is shameful and makes you a burden to others. Asking others to call you something that you and they know isn't real is you making yourself a burden onto another person. I feel bad for the person taking that burden, but I also feel bad for the person who is so weak in character that they think being a burden is an entitlement on others and not a big deal. It is a big deal for many people.

I want to be clear, I understand both the pain and the desire that many trans people go through. But it doesn't make them special. It doesn't mean society has to treat them with anything more than the legal respect everyone else is entitled to in society. So 'trans woman' works. They aren't women. Trans men aren't men. They and society should acknowledge the reality of the situation, and learn to accept each other best we can despite our differences. That's what wins respect in society.

Part of the problem with discussions on this topic is that anatomy and genetics are objective, while cultural gender roles are subjective. Thus when someone casually asks "is this person a X?", some view the question objectively, that is that there is one, correct objective answer (and thus the question is obvious and any deviation from this interpretation is misguided). Whereas others view the question subjectively and thus objective interpretations are simplistic to the point of simplemindedness. Better definitions of terms are required for different folks to communicate effectively.

People resist clear definitions like the plague, in talks such as this. I think, partially, that's just a childish reaction to the world not being as imagined, but it some sense its legit too. If the words are ambiguous, there's no arbiter for any 'true meaning'.

You're, of course, correct especially among lay persons, but here we should be interested in accurate communication. The operative word being: "should"...

↪AmadeusD You're, of course, correct especially among lay persons, but here we should be interested in accurate communication. The operative word being: "should"... — LuckyR

And that is why this topic exists. I wanted to chat about it with other people with a philosophical viewpoint. If you want the outcomes in life that you think 'should' be, you must 'do' instead of relying on others to do it.

That's fair - but i also think it misses that, assuming 'trans' is a "true identity" in the way claimed by the more committed TRAs, then it is imperative that we accept that reality and adjust our priors so as to make room for its truth. This is what I take seriously first, before coming to any other conclusions about the subject.

That's fair - but i also think it misses that, assuming 'trans' is a "true identity" in the way claimed by the more committed TRAs, then it is imperative that we accept that reality and adjust our priors so as to make room for its truth. — AmadeusD

As this is a philosophy board nothing is assumed to be true. If someone wants to argue what a true identity is, and why trans is one, they are more than welcome to make their case.

It was just a comment on Agency - you can expect the world to conform to your reasonable, justifiable qualms (such as "I'm black, that shouldn't be a barrier to anything whatsoever"). This is contentious; so you're right. I'm just saying that if true, then actually they can expect others to do the work.