Let’s put the question that is asked towards the end of the talk:

Can one be wrong about ones gender identity? — Banno

Can one be wrong about one's pain? I think it is an unhelpful suggestion to make to one who is suffering phantom limb pain.

Can one be wrong about one's body-identity? Well you might want to argue that people like this are 'wrong', you might want to argue that anorexics are likewise 'wrong', but it's beside the point, unless you can put them right in a way that makes them feel right and not wrong. It's the 'wrong' question.

IF you are looking for an absolute test, such as:

The essential test of homosexuality is found in a specific brain structure. A male human is homosexual if the hypervent and the deciduous sulking of the postfrontal pretext communicate via a nerve bundle measuring at least 80 µm tracked through the angular gyroscopium.

you will be disappointed because no such absolute tests exists, and is unlikely to exist any time in the near future.

The reason for the absence of an absolute test is not that all the king's horses, all the king's social workers, Tim Wood, and Humpty Dumpty himself could not figure out whether Humpty Dumpty was gay (before his unfortunate fall). The reason is that there is a severe insufficiency of information about how genetics, prenatal development, brain structure, and experience combine to constitute intellect, personality, and behavior. We do not know why some people are musical prodigies and other people are tone deaf; why some people build commercial empires and others panhandle; why some people become champion bicyclists and other people prefer to do gastrointestinal surgery. We do not know the why and wherefore of a multitude of human characteristics.

The difficult identity question is not WHETHER someone is homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual; the difficult question is HOW the identity of gay, bi, straight, or trans came to be.

This isn't right. There are simple answers one can give to the question – it sucks, it feels great, it's fun, it has its ups and downs, etc.

The principle appealed to here, that one can't know what it's like to be oneself without being something else, I see no reason to believe. — Snakes Alive

I knew he was a sensible fellow.

Recognising that there is not a something-that-it-is-like-to-feel-male, not a something-that-it-is-like-to-feel-female, deflates this expectation, exposing it as a now-defunct social norm. — Banno

It's not defunct, it's just less taken for granted now than in previous eras. The characteristics, associations, understandings, of what it is like to feel male or female haven't just vanished into thin air.

They could tell you, you could notice their reactions to things, etc. — Snakes Alive

Exactly. Like I said in my reply to the opening post on page one: through observation, interaction, our ability to relate and to imagine, and suchlike.

The essential test of homosexuality is found in a specific brain structure. A male human is homosexual if the hypervent and the deciduous sulking of the postfrontal pretext communicate via a nerve bundle measuring at least 80 µm tracked through the angular gyroscopium.

you will be disappointed because no such absolute tests exists, and is unlikely to exist any time in the near future. — Bitter Crank

It appears you believe there does exist some "absolute," but that it's not at the moment accessible. I suspect that by the time you get to that level, you've left our topic behind, like the physicist who claims the table is really profoundly a vacuum. It may well be at his level. But that is simply not the level at which tables exist - and they do exist.

Who can foretell the future? But my money is on no test at all because not possible, and not meaningful even if possible.

I was looking up explanations of "Cis" and ran into the same thoughts. Someone can preach that we should use cis to define that we identify as the gender/sex labeled at birth, but also that gender is non binary?

Is part of your challenge the fact that homosexuals may be "invisible" when they display no characteristics of being gay? A gay farmer milking cows, a gay railroad mechanic working on a diesel engine, a gay surgeon removing a tumor, a gay homeless person begging... may all display zero features of gayness while they are doing their job. That doesn't mean they are not gay at the time; it means they are fulfilling a typical occupation role and that is all they are doing at that time.

It appears you believe there does exist some "absolute," — tim wood

No. Self ID-ing; consistent report on phantasy; visible arousal; performance, and social -- that's enough. Your social workers probably can't tell whether somebody is an auto mechanic either, even though they can take a Chevy engine apart, fix it, and put it back together--and enjoy every minute of it.

I was looking up explanations of "Cis" and ran into the same thoughts. — Patrick McCandless

The same thoughts as what?

Fuck the prefix "cis". Cis boom bah humbug!

Would there not be some common outward manifestations of the "inner' experience of identifying oneself with some particular notion of gender identity?

Is part of your challenge the fact that homosexuals may be "invisible" when they display no characteristics of being gay? — Bitter Crank

Not at all. What I'm on about is that there are people who will not shrink from calling X a Y when they can give account neither of X nor Y, nor sometimes either. Having worked in a place where people traded in this imprecision and applied ignorance, I find I do not have lot of tolerance for it. The practical side is a whole other animal. Guy gets beat up "because he's gay." Whether he is gay at that moment is not the concern of the caregivers.

It would appear the case that the problem is almost entirely attached to people who do not like homosexuals and seek to attack, punish, injure, and/or disadvantage them. People who hate homosexuals can also be difficult to define and understand.

George Weinberg coined the term, and "homophobia" made its print debut in the May 23, 1969 edition of the distinguished straight porn newspaper, Screw. Screw may not have been as scholarly as the Journal of Psychoanalysis, but was certainly read as avidly. Google Ngram shows that the word "homophobia" was, as neologisms go, a hit.

Weinberg defined homophobia as "the fear that other people would think one was gay", and was based on a strong aversion to homosexuality. This is a more straightforward (so to speak) meaning than the more rococo, pseudo-Freudian type of misinterpretation that "homophobia is a fear that a man might himself be homosexual--apparently without knowing it", and the cause of outward directed hostility".



I believe that people are entitled to hate whatever it is they can't stand, be that strong perfume that smells like insecticide, homosexuals, or fascists. Their right to hate homosexuals, however, doesn't entitle them to close the 2 inch gap between their fist and my nose.

I think the likelihood of homophobia (per Weinberg's meaning) has little likelihood of disappearing. Indeed, I rather expect a resurgence of both homophobia and a withdrawal of some legislation that was intended to protect gay people. A more conservative Supreme court might rule against gay marriage. It isn't just Trump. Look at Roe vs. Wade. When R vs W was handed down in 1973, I thought that would be the end of the matter. But no, the anti-abortion groups persisted in a very long campaign to seriously undermine, if not gut, the principles in the ruling. They have been successful in many states.

If various civil rights rulings and legislation have not been repealed, it is also the case that not much has changed for many minority communities. (It hasn't changed a lot for many poorer black gay men; for middle class gay men -- white or black -- conditions have changed a lot.) Urban gays have always been less oppressed than small-town and rural gays, because the social structures of large cities are just not as close as they are in small towns.

There is nothing guaranteed about social progress. It can always move retrograde, and has on many occasions. And sometimes, it should be noted, the causes of regression are located within the minority community.

there are people who will not shrink from calling X a Y when they can give account neither of X nor Y, — tim wood

Well, sure enough. That is so. It's part of the larger problem of stupid people.

Whether he is gay at that moment is not the concern of the caregivers. — tim wood

I cease to be gay the moment it becomes inconvenient, then I immediately switch back to being gay afterwards. And by "gay", I mean "homosexual", by which I mean "dolphin". So I tend to be gay in the sea, but not on land. So right now, I'm not gay, but next week when I visit the seaside, I'll probably be gay for a while.

The point is that being a man or a woman is not a mental state-of-affairs. It is a physical and behavioral state-of-affairs. This is why raising your child to behave as the opposite sex creates a dichotomy between their phyisical state and their behavior. They want act like the opposite sex, its not that they actually are a mental version of the opposite sex.

We can come to know another through a relationship, through sharing. We do so by listening, which can only happen if we trust them. — Moliere

All of which are public,

Her target is a form of argument that sets as its basis a private claim of gender identity.

That's why it seems to me that her aim is mainly political. — Moliere

If you like.

Her target is a form of argument that sets as its basis a private claim of gender identity. — Banno

What's wrong with that?

the radical feminist distinction between sex and gender points out that the physical facts determine sex, whereas the social performance, expectations, rules, and roles create gender. So the physical facts and differences between men and women don't have a bearing on gender. — Moliere

There's a long part of the discussion that looks for a coherent definition of gender; specifically on that does not include the term "gender" in the definition. Unsuccessfully.

There is no problem with someone who says that despite their sex, they would much rather be treated as if they had different genitals. They have a preference for the social role that is usually given to the opposite sex. Neither I nor Rebecca, I think, would have an issue here.

The issue is with folk who say their gender is determined by private introspection. As if we each had a gender in a box, and only we could see what was in the box... er, so to speak.

In the end I think the argument leads us to deny that genitals have a wider role in determining one's social position. Claiming that one has an inherent female or inherent male gender is in that sense anti-feminist. One's genitalia have made a difference to one's role in society. They ought not. Nor should a private sensation of gender preference.

It drops out of public consideration, as beetles in boxes.

Whatever the PLA does, it doesn't rule out introspection. Why would you think it does?

I didn't.

Good. So a male announces that he feels female.

Where is the problem?

How does he know what it is like to feel female?

I could offer speculations about what he means and how it might work, but that would be ignoring an important point:

Failing to understand X does not rule out X.

Sure. Go ahead and elucidate. What are we to understand by "I feel like a woman", spoken by a man? Perhaps, what would make it true? What does it feel like to be a woman?

Femininity and masculinity are aspects of the human psyche. All men have the potential to feel their feminine side. It's common for men to learn to suppress feminine expression. Women are also expected to suppress a masculine demeanor.

For some reason some people struggle with that suppression and they may express it by saying "I feel female."

Per historians, Native Americans allowed people to transfer to the opposite gender. The crossing was permanent and such people were considered holy.

For some reason some people struggle with that suppression and they may express it by saying "I feel female." — frank

So what they say "I feel female", they mean that they prefer to be treated as a woman. Fine. No issue.

But, as is pointed out in the source text, some folk take it to mean more than that.

If they mean that they have a feeling that they share with all other women, then there is a problem, because they cannot know what other women feel.

But further, it is questionable that there is a feeling that is shared by all women, a something it feels like to be a woman. Rebecca denies that she has such a sensation. I deny that I have a feeling of being male.

I don't have a feeling of being male either. When I discovered that I started asking people if they had such a feeling. Some said yes and some said no. I have no reason to doubt either answer.

It seems unreasonable to me that a person would go through gender transition without being motivated by feelings as opposed to some abstract desire to be treated a certain way.

Can one know what it is like to be a man? Or what it is like to be a woman? How, if one can have no more than one's own experiences? — Banno

Well, as a man don't my experiences include that of being a man? It's something I am, it affects various things in my life in various ways that I am cognizant of or even ways I don't know of or at least don't bother acnowledging. Vague, but it doesn't seem especially difficult to warrant giving a bunch examples unless asked.

So if one is a male, but feels like a woman, I suppose that would include experiences one might include under being a woman (however this is to be; gender of roles, particular secondary sexual characteristics that are atypical for males, what have you).