Hermaphroditism wherein the lifeform reproduces with another such that both impregnate each other and become impregnated by the other does not occur in humans—but is quite natural in relation to Nature at large — javra

The Cleveland Clinic is a medical center for humans, not other species, so we are talking about humans.

So, about 1/3 of all non-insect animal species are hermaphroditic. That’s more normal for Nature than is being a red-haired human (less than 2% of humanity at large is. And please, please, let’s not start on the human-relative abnormal condition of red-haired-ness). — javra

Your argument can be used to assert that sexual reproduction is more natural than asexual reproduction or hermaphroditism. It is no wonder that the trait of hermaphroditism did not evolve past fish or worms. This is because sexual reproduction Increases genetic variation, promotes adaptation, reduces disease risk and leads to speciation. Mammals are generally unable to reproduce asexually because they rely on a process called genomic imprinting, where certain genes are only activated depending on whether they come from the mother or father.

Far more interesting and telling is the proportion of intersexed humans in humanity at large — javra

Which just shows the small percentage of intersex people compared to women or men, and your own argument "That’s more normal for Nature than..." would mean that women and men are more normal for Nature than intersexed people. This is not being denied. I agree with that assertion.

Nature, ergo the natural, is all about diversity — javra

Exactly - and that is what sexual reproduction amplifies. Intersex people are lucky to be able to pass their genes to the next generation as most cases their sexual organs do not function properly because they are not fully fledged organs. What you're saying is that abnormalities like schizophrenia, being born with a tail, being born with half a brain, are simply diverse ways the human genome expresses itself. Is that your point?

You're making completely hypocritical arguments though: you condemn me for not reading every single thing you posted in the thread (lazily calling that "cherrypicking"). If you forgot what you posted...

It is those that insist on controlling other's speech that are the ones that lack a sense of being open-minded. It doesn't mean you can't call yourself a woman - only that you cannot make me call you a woman. — Harry Hindu

Oh, poor you: some want to control your speech, but you can't even get me to read all your posts! I understand you must feel so inadequate, and it's my fault. Maybe you should talk to a therapist about it and take some pills. You seem confused.

So, about 1/3 of all non-insect animal species are hermaphroditic. That’s more normal for Nature than is being a red-haired human (less than 2% of humanity at large is. And please, please, let’s not start on the human-relative abnormal condition of red-haired-ness). — javra

Your argument can be used to assert that sexual reproduction is more natural than asexual reproduction or hermaphroditism. — Harry Hindu

Um ....

“normality” has absolutely nothing to do with “natural”. Otherwise, stuff like red-haired people would then, rationalistically and all, be unnatural abominations of nature. — javra

Is that your point? — Harry Hindu

I could only explain to those with better reading comprehension. Sorry, just not interested.

Yes, indeed the issue here is that "not normal" does not mean pathological, but unfortunately, emotive and hostile reactions to abnormality...even when it's pretty benign and non-threatening...is a pretty normal phenomenon for humans. Those doctors mutilated the clitori of those intersex people just because marking "male" or "female" on a form is really THAT important to them. I don't really agree with the assertion that it's genocide, especially since killing was not really part of the mindset, just people being very rigid, fragile, and afraid.

Let's do it by example and start with an easy one. What makes water water to you? — Bob Ross

I don't understand the question. Water just is water. Nothing makes it water to me. Do you mean how do I tell something is water and not white spirit, pure alcohol, or hydrochloric acid? Or how do I tell it is water and not the spirit of forgiveness or a brick?

Apparently, the Inuit make bricks from water, and make houses from the bricks and live in them. I put tiny water bricks in my gin and tonic sometimes.

What are these ties then? How do they work? If there’s no real essence to, e.g., a woman in virtue of which she is a woman; then how is she even said to be of the female sex? Likewise, even if she is granted as of the female sex without a real essence nor exhibiting the essential properties of a female, how is gender related to sex in your view? — Bob Ross

"Sex" is a differentiation within a species. "Gender" is a differentiation between cultures. The relationship between "gender" and "sex" is fully one of cultural habit.

The relations that arise are due to habituation in thinking and learning to live within a social world. They are subject to change with time, place, and even individual relationships. Even "sex" isn't exactly "biological" but more cultural in that we tend to think sexes are di-morphic when really it's just a spread between markers, an extension of the reproductive system outside of a single organism reproducing itself and a manner for a species to exchange and mix-up genotypes. How it happens varies wildly throughout nature -- consider the Sea Horse's birth patterns.

They do deny doing ethics insofar as they don’t believe they are making normative statements by evaluating and conveying the health concerns or issues with someone. Of course, they have a ‘code of conduct’ ethically that they are taught for dealing with patients.

No doctor says: “Moliere, unfortunately, you have cancer; and you are morally obligated to get treatment”. No, they “Moliere, unfortunately, you have cancer. I want to outline your options so you can make your own informed decision of what you should do.” — Bob Ross

Why isn't the latter "doing ethics"? How is that a denial? Must ethics be the sort of thing a person, upon knowing, now knows what's good for others?

I'd say that's upside down.

You are presupposing that happiness is about hedonism (which I understand you are a hedonist, so it makes sense) which is a prominent liberal view. Like I said, the fundamental disagreement between conservatives and liberals lies in the totality distinct usages of the concepts of happiness, harm, goodness, and freedom.

Happiness is not about this superficial hedonic pleasure; it’s eudaimonic. — Bob Ross

I choose happiness because Epicurus is a eudaimonic hedonist and so it dodges all the things that you discuss in dismissing the "liberal view" -- i.e. goes against your initial argument that there are only two possibilities when discussing gender.

Epicureanism basically side-steps all the accusations against liberalism you've conjured as your other that props up your position.

Christianity isn’t going anywhere in the West: it is essential and integral to the very Western values we espouse; and there’s way too many members in powerful positions and institutions to get rid of them.

If I am being honest, society would collapse if we followed hedonism. — Bob Ross

You'll notice a theme in my responses here -- that would be so much the worse for the society resisting what's good, from my perspective. I'd celebrate letting go of Christian guilt in favor of hedonic calm because then people would be living in accord with their nature.

The symmetry breaker is that the vagina is designed for it and so it is not contrary to its natural ends; whereas, the anus is not designed for it and it actively inhibits it from realizing its ends. One is with and one is contrary to the natural ends of the body part. — Bob Ross

This is what @unenlightened has been driving at -- how do we designate one form of damage "natural" and the other "unnatural" other than to say this is what the speaker prefers?

Does the nature of things spring forth so obviously that there simply is no reason why the vagina can be damaged but the ass cannot?

This isn’t relevant though to the OP even if I grant it. The OP isn’t facially discussing ethics: it is discussing what you would call ‘descriptive claims’.

If Hume’s Guillotine applies, then all ethics goes out the window. At best, you end up with a view like Bannos that is a hollow-out version of moral cognitivism or you end up with a version of moral intuitionism (like Michael Huemer’s); or, worse, you end up being a moral anti-realist. Just a companions in guilt response here. — Bob Ross

I want to highlight here how you're doing it again: You're setting up the bad consequence in order to preserve your generally reasonable position. When some criticism is pointed out that seems to be your go-to: To either point out how the other possibility is worse, or to note that the criticism is "too analytic" and if they adopted the mixing of norms/facts like Aristotle then they'd come to see the light.

Here, on TPF, people have read these guys, though. The defense you're offering is one of plausibility in the face of a possible bad conclusion.

But if there is a third possibility then we can criticize away without fear of this unwanted conclusion.

or it does not, in which case while you want to discuss human ontology ethics happens to apply since ontology and normativity aren't separated without an is/ought distinction of some kind.

Ethics ultimately applies, but it isn’t immanently relevant to the discussion about ontology. In principle, someone could agree with my formulation of gender and sex and reject moral naturalism. This is a false dilemma.

If we're discussing descriptive claims alone then how does your account square away with the evidence in the Kinsey Report? Does it go through and label "Well, that act is unnatural"; in which case, what's the use of it? To make people part of said community to feel guilty enough to stay in line?

This is what unenlightened has been driving at -- how do we designate one form of damage "natural" and the other "unnatural" other than to say this is what the speaker prefers? — Moliere

The engineer's attitude to sex is that holes are designed to be filled by shafts with matching threads. You are one of God's bolts and you have to find the right hole to screw yourself into. A rather robotic attitude to creation. Like those specialist insects with a proboscis designed to fit a particular species of flower. Though in this case, only the flower is having sex and being deflowered, the insect is just dining. "One insect's meat is another flower's orgasmic procreation." Who knew that honey was the ejaculate of interspecies sex?

Who knew that honey was the ejaculate of interspecies sex? — unenlightened

The perverted plants knew, all along -- having sex thru other species all under our noses (and with others' noses and knowses).

What are your thoughts on the contents of the OP itself? — Bob Ross

I think it is confused. While I haven't read all the replies, I haven't seen anyone cleanly pinpoint where it goes wrong (imo).

Here you say that gender is the "symbolic upshot" of sex:

The very social norms, roles, identities, and expressions involved in gender that are studied in gender studies are historically the symbolic upshot of sex: they are not divorced from each other. E.g., the mars symbol represents maleness, flowers in one's hair is representational of femininity, etc.). — Bob Ross

Yet elsewhere you claim that sex and gender are the same. Here you relate sex and gender to properties of a triangle:

Gender and sex are not really distinct, but are virtually (conceptually) distinct; analogous to how the trilaterality and triangularity are virtually but not really distinct in a triangle. — Bob Ross

It seems you don't have a good understanding of what a symbol is.

Triangles, trilaterality, and triangularity are related by strict entailment. One logically entails the other two.

This is not how symbols work. Symbol and symbolized are connected, but the connection is social. Outside of the social linkage, they are radically divorced. Beyond a connection which lives in minds, they are ontologically distinct.

"Dog" is connected to furry dogs, but only by linguistic coding. Outside this convention, you will never discover furry dogs in the glyphs, nor the glyphs in the goodboys. It is this ability of minds to symbolically connect any two arbitrary things that enables language.

Similarly, outside of social coding, you will never discover blue in a boy, nor femaleness in pink. These are all connected, but only symbolically. Outside this mental fiat, they are radically distinct. (In fact, this coding was reversed not even a century ago. Pink was seen as manly, virile and active, while blue was cool and passive, fundamentally female.)

Your argument relies on a confusion of the nature of symbolic relationships. Only by mistaking symbolic relationships as ontological, "essential" in your terms, can trans people be seen to be betraying their "essences". If this "betrayal" is fundamentally social, the argument falls flat.

...you still have not defined what you mean by sex and gender. — Bob Ross

You haven't, and perhaps can't, recognise the uses to which those terms are put, because it undermines your whole philosophy. Here it is again: "Sex" and "gender" can be used to differentiate between those characteristics that are biological and those that are social. You deny this, but unfortunately for you it is an obvious truth.

What you think of as a "gotcha" moment is actually your own undoing.

The way forward is extremely, painfully easy: recognise the distinction.

So is "sex" the biological nature of a being; and 'gender' is the social cues, expectations, roles, and expressions under your view?

If so, then is gender a purely social construct for you?

Here you say that gender is the "symbolic upshot" of sex:

No, the OP defines gender as:

Sex is 'a distinct type of substance which serves a specific role in the procreation of the species'; and gender is 'sex' in this sense the expression of that sex through behavior. — Bob Ross

Yet elsewhere you claim that sex and gender are the same

That’s because I changed the semantics in the OP, which I openly stated, to help try and further the discussion with people who were getting confused with the terms. I even kept the old text in strikeout and the new text in bold.

Here you relate sex and gender to properties of a triangle:

That’s correct; but as an analogy. There is a difference, in Thomistic scholastics, between a virtual and real distinction/property.

Triangles, trilaterality, and triangularity are related by strict entailment. One logically entails the other two.

Trilaterality and triangularity do not entail each other: an entailment is when a formula cannot fail to be true given the truth of another formula. Trilaterality and triangularity are properties: not formulas in a formal system of logic.

Maybe you are saying that “Trilaterality<x> <=> Triangularity<x>”; but this doesn’t follow innately from either property. You could say that they both follow from actual necessity; but not logical necessity.

This is not how symbols work

Gender isn’t symbolic in either schema I gave. There are symbolic and gravitational expressions of gender; but gender is the natural tendencies which are necessitated from the given sex.

Similarly, outside of social coding, you will never discover blue in a boy, nor femaleness in pink.

Blueness, whether it is a symbolic or gravitational expression of gender, is not a part of gender itself—this is the crucial mistake of modern gender theory. Gender is the natural tendencies of sex and sex is the procreative nature of the substance; e.g., masculinity is the gender and maleness is the sex.

Gender is not a social construct: the symbolic expressions would be. Gravitational expressions would not be.

But what makes it water? Why is it water as opposed to acid?

Forgive my confusion then. How do you reconcile all that with this from the op:

A gravitational gender expression of gender is any expression that a healthy member of that gendersex would gravitate towards (e.g., males gravitating towards being providers and protectors); and a symbolic gender expression of gender is any expression which represents some idea legitimately connected to the gendersex-at-hand (e.g., the mars symbol representing maleness). Both types of gender expression are grounded ontologically in the sex (gender) ,inseparably therefrom, inscribed in the nature (essence) of the given substance; and, consequently, express something objective (stance-independent). — Bob Ross

"Sex" is a differentiation within a species. "Gender" is a differentiation between cultures. The relationship between "gender" and "sex" is fully one of cultural habit.

Ok, so, then, you are viewing gender as a social construct—correct?

To compare, I would say sex is a procreative nature of a substance; and gender is the natural tendencies of that sex. Hence, e.g., masculinity is a gender and maleness is a sex. If this account is true, then gender nor sex is socially constructed. Our symbolism, societal knowledge, and expectations of gender would be social constructs.

 Even "sex" isn't exactly "biological" but more cultural in that we tend to think sexes are di-morphic when really it's just a spread between markers, an extension of the reproductive system outside of a single organism reproducing itself and a manner for a species to exchange and mix-up genotypes

Yes, I could see that would be the case since you are not an essentialist.

Why isn't the latter "doing ethics"? 

They aren’t telling you what you ought to do; so they are not imposing ethical commitments on you. Of course, as I noted before, they are operating under a code of ethic. I am talking about how they don’t impose an ethic on the patient as it relates to their health.

 How is that a denial?

They don’t believe that the way a, e.g., hand is supposed to work medically has any relevance directly or immanently to ethics. They see it as them simply ‘giving the amoral facts’. This is in alignment with and directly caused by Hume’s Guillotine.

 Must ethics be the sort of thing a person, upon knowing, now knows what's good for others?

I didn’t follow this question. If someone knows about what one ought to do, then it applies to everyone; if they know what so-and-so should do, then it applies to so-and-so.

I choose happiness because Epicurus is a eudaimonic hedonist and so it dodges all the things that you discuss in dismissing the "liberal view"
…
because then people would be living in accord with their nature. 

How is it eudaimonic when eudaimonia is achieved by properly fulfilling one’s nature—not chasing pleasure or avoiding pain?

Likewise, how can your view be eudaimonic when you deny the existence of natures and eudaimonia is relative to the nature of humans?

Epicureanism basically side-steps all the accusations against liberalism you've conjured as your other that props up your position.

Can you elaborate on this? I’d be interested to hear how.

You'll notice a theme in my responses here -- that would be so much the worse for the society resisting what's good, from my perspective. I'd celebrate letting go of Christian guilt in favor of hedonic calm

Of course, if you believe that Christianity is holding incorrect ethical views (viz., what is contrary to what is good), then you should reject it. I just don’t see hedonism as plausible: Aristo-thomism is Aristotelian but with the theological goods.

Are you equating Epicurianism with boiler plate Aristotelianism?

 how do we designate one form of damage "natural" and the other "unnatural" other than to say this is what the speaker prefers?
….
I'd celebrate letting go of Christian guilt in favor of hedonic calm because then people would be living in accord with their nature.

I am not following. You make claims that imply nature is real; and then turn around and deny it. I don’t know what to make of this.

Does the nature of things spring forth so obviously that there simply is no reason why the vagina can be damaged but the ass cannot?

A body part doesn’t have a nature: it is a material part of a substance with a nature. A human has one nature: either maleness or femaleness. This nature is instantiated in one underlying reality that exist by itself (viz., a substance) which is provided that nature (essence) by its form and it, as such, is one complete instantiation of that type of substance (viz., one suppositum). The form has the full essence; and the matter receives that essence. The human body is the matter as actualized by the human form; and the body parts are parts of that body.

A finger, hence, does not have a nature: a human has a nature which is in its form, and its body has parts which are developed by that form. The finger is something developed by that form.

The finger has a natural end insofar, although it doesn’t have a nature proper, it is a part of the teleology as imposed by the human form (which is the human soul). The fingers are for grabbing, touching, poking, etc.

The anus is obviously for holding in poop and excreting poop: any doctor will tell you that. That’s obvious biology at this point. Now whether or not it is immoral to abuse the anus is a separate question.

I want to highlight here how you're doing it again: You're setting up the bad consequence in order to preserve your generally reasonable position. When some criticism is pointed out that seems to be your go-to: To either point out how the other possibility is worse, or to note that the criticism is "too analytic" and if they adopted the mixing of norms/facts like Aristotle then they'd come to see the light.

The claim wasn’t relevant though. I can play the Hume game and say that the OP is making purely descriptive claims about sex and gender; and then you will need to discuss why you agree or disagree with my account of sex and gender without invoking morality. This would only be an invalid move if the OP was making ethical claims; which it isn’t immanently.

The defense you're offering is one of plausibility in the face of a possible bad conclusion.

No, I was just noting the issues with Hume’s Guillotine since it seems critical to your metaethical commitments. Eventually, if you want to discuss ethics, we are going to have to discuss it.

If we're discussing descriptive claims alone then how does your account square away with the evidence in the Kinsey Report?

I don’t understand what objection you are making with the Kinsey report: can you elaborate? To me, it’s just a report that people feel happy, when they don’t believe it is immoral to, having all sorts of sex.

To me, I am saying ethically it is wrong to, e.g., sodomize; and you are rejoining “but people report having fun doing it”. That doesn’t have direct relevance without connecting it to some ethical claim. Are you saying because they find it pleasurable it must be morally permissible? If your view is eudaimonic, then that can’t be the case.

The gravitational gender expression is tied to sex because it is the upshot of how that kind of being tends to behave (e.g., men being more interested in things; women more in people) and is not, therefore, a social construct.

The symbolic gender expression is a sign that signifies something about gender (e.g., the mars symbol representing maleness) and this is a social construct. This is still, however, the upshot of sex insofar as a valid symbol will represent something that is really about gender (viz., really about the natural tendencies and traits of a given sex).

Consequently:

Both types of gender expression are grounded ontologically in the sex (gender) ,inseparably therefrom, inscribed in the nature (essence) of the given substance; and, consequently, express something objective (stance-independent).

...purely... — Bob Ross

Were'd that come from?

How do you distinguish a "gravitational expression of gender" from a "personality type expressing gender":

Personality types can be, though, an expression of gender; such as men gravitating towards jobs dealing with things (e.g., engineering, architecture, etc.) whereas women gravitate towards jobs dealing with people (e.g., nursing, daycaring, etc.). — Bob Ross

Or, are "personality types expressing gender" a subset of "gravitational expressions of gender"?

, I am saying ethically it is wrong to, e.g., sodomize; and you are rejoining “but people report having fun doing it” — Bob Ross

You seem to be importing a notion of morality people do not use. Since Divine decree won't cut it here you are relying on purported self harm. But if that were enough to substantiate immorality then eating desserts and mountain biking would also need to be condemned. We don't generally consider minor harms associated with voluntary activities to indicate immorality, be they elevated cholesterol, sprains and breaks, or anal tears.

This "immorality as self harm" reminds me of drug prohibition. Here too draconian punishments for even simple possession are justified in terms of self harm. Even though, little effort is taken to substantiate these harms, or compare them to the harms of legal drugs. And even though in almost every case the harms of the prohibition itself vastly outweigh any harm of the drug. Here too, "self harm" feels like a pretext to legitimatize the desire to punish the behavior on political/personal/religious grounds.