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. — frank

Perhaps. Do you suggest that those with body integrity disorder ought be permitted to amputate whatever body part they fell is not their own? IS that feeling enough?

All that I am sugesting is that there is more involved here than it might at first seem. Hence the thread is a puzzle.

SO now, if you can see the issue, can we work towards some sort of coherence?

SO now, if you can see the issue, can we work towards some sort of coherence? — Banno

What do you mean?

Are we getting somewhere? Can you see the puzzle?

You're saying that transgender people suggest there is something it's like to be male or female, and they may be deluded in this. True?

Some folk suggest there is something it's like to be male or female, yet this seems not to be defensible.

So you think people who say that are deluded?

No.

But, for example, some men who suppose themselves to feel like women may be mistaken.

To quote the great Shania Twain:

"Man, I feel like a woman!"

Do you suggest that those with body integrity disorder ought be permitted to amputate whatever body part they fell is not their own? IS that feeling enough?

All that I am sugesting is that there is more involved here than it might at first seem. Hence the thread is a puzzle.

SO now, if you can see the issue, can we work towards some sort of coherence? — Banno

Well I would say that body integrity disorder is a 'what it is like' that we can see in the behaviour, in the expressed preferences. So I suggest that part of 'what it is like to be a man' in a non-pathological way, is to be fundamentally ok with having a penis and facial hair, just as part of being human is to be fundamentally ok with having 2 legs.

That is, preferences are part of identity, not something added on.

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. — Banno

Unsuccessfully only on the terms of universality. In that part of the discussion she posits that it's possible that some people have such and such and some people do not. She goes on to say that this is denied.

I am inclined to say that gender identity is a part of one's interior experience of their own identity. So it's only natural that I wouldn't be able to sense someone else's. I would say someone is in error for claiming to know Rebecca's interior experience -- that she must have a gender identity. And it seems to me an error to demand universal, necessary, and sufficient conditions for making the claim on one's own identity too.

As for how we know if someone else has one, then listening, trust, and sharing within a relationship is all that it takes. And as you say that is all public. So there isn't even a conflict between this notion of what is public and someone knowing their self through what is private, or interior.

I am inclined to say that the interior is not wholly private, in the usual sense of public/private when talking about the beetle in the box. This is why I mentioned things like people bonding over identities, or knowing what someone else feels through words alone -- knowing that someone has experienced what you have. But it is private in the sense that there are not any conditions of evidence outside of taking someone's word on it if you do not have that experience.

Sometimes we just don't have the same experience of the world or our self. That's simple enough, I think.

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. — Banno

I don't think that claiming one has this experience leads to the the implication that they ought to be in a certain role within society. I'd say that this highlights nicely the difference between gender, and identity -- whereas gender is this set of social expectations, and in a classical patriarchal society it goes from biology to mentality to role.

But accepting that others feel a certain way does not mean we need to be committed to the notion that one's sex, gender, or identity should predicate role. In fact, given the divergence between sex, gender, identity, and social ability it seems to me that accepting these things would lead to an easy inference that social role should not be determined by any of these things.

So [when] they say "I feel female", they mean that they prefer to be treated as a woman. Fine. No issue. — Banno

No, the latter is a result of the former. They prefer to be treated as a woman because they feel female. I don't see how you could have misunderstood 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. — Banno

They cannot know what other women feel? Really, Banno? I'm sure they have some idea. Women are not extraterrestrials, for crying out loud.

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. — Banno

It doesn't have to be shared by all women, because it's based on a generalisation, and it has never been otherwise. That's your misunderstanding.

Well I would say that body integrity disorder is a 'what it is like' that we can see in the behaviour, in the expressed preferences. So I suggest that part of 'what it is like to be a man' in a non-pathological way, is to be fundamentally ok with having a penis and facial hair, just as part of being human is to be fundamentally ok with having 2 legs. — unenlightened

There's a difference, of course, between "What it is like to be a man" and "What it feels like to be a man".

And I remain unconvinced that there is a something it feels like to be a man - or a woman, or a bat.

And I remain unconvinced that there is a something it feels like to be a man - or a woman, or a bat. — Banno

Well, at this stage, given that it has been explained to you, that is your problem. It might be puzzling to you, but it isn't so for others.

I am inclined to say that gender identity is a part of one's interior experience of their own identity. — Moliere

That is an odd turn of phrase. I don't sit back and observe myself being male. Yet the notion that I experience being male implies something like that.

I don't experience being a man.

Being a man is not something that happens to me, in the way I experience a film or a pain.

I know when I am feeling pain and when I am not; when I am attending a film and when I am not. But I can have no idea of what it would feel like to not be a man. similarly, I cannot have any idea of what it might feel like to be a woman.

That's a superficial argument, but it goes much deeper than that. Suppose a woman imagines herself with a penis, testicles, extra testosterone and whatever. She claims that she feels like a man... But how could we tell she was right? How could we tell that what she felt was really what it feels like to be a man?

It simply can't be done. There is nothing it feels like to be a man.

One does not experience one's gender. Perhaps one lives it.

They prefer to be treated as a woman because they feel female. — Sapientia

How can you tell that "I feel female" were true?

You have to claim that here is a feeling that is had by all women, and that this is shared by your proponent.

It doesn't have to be shared by all women, because it's based on a generalisation, and it has never been otherwise. That's your misunderstanding. — Sapientia

Except that there are some women who feel male. And some that feel female sometimes, male at other times. So your proponent feels the way women do, except for those who do not feel that way.

Not convinced.

That's a superficial argument, but it goes much deeper than that. Suppose a woman imagines herself with a penis, testicles, extra testosterone and whatever. She claims that she feels like a man... But how could we tell she was right? How could we tell that what she felt was really what it feels like to be a man? — Banno

In the same way as if she were to claim that she feels like a pauper, a queen, or a barbarian. By combining our knowledge and imagination.

How can you tell that "I feel female" were true?

You have to claim that here is a feeling that is had by all women, and that this is shared by your proponent. — Banno

No I don't. Like I said, it's a claim based on a generalisation, based on common or stereotypical characteristics shared by females.

Except that there are some women who feel male. And some that feel female sometimes, male at other times. So your proponent feels the way women do, except for those who do not feel that way. — Banno

Yes.

Not convinced. — Banno

Why not?

If a rich person feels like a pauper, their feelings are out of step with the reality of their wealth. They certainly are not wealthy.

If a commoner feels like a queen their feelings are out of step with the facts. They are a commoner, not a queen.

If a female feels like a man, are they out of step with reality?

Why not? — Sapientia

Because it is a hollow claim.

Yes, given that it's a female that we're talking about.

Because it is a hollow claim. — Banno

That just kicks the can a little further down the road. Why do you think that it's a hollow claim?

There's a difference, of course, between "What it is like to be a man" and "What it feels like to be a man". — Banno

Tell me more. What is the difference?

That just kicks the can a little further down the road. — Sapientia

It's not just me that's kicking the can:

If a rich person feels like a pauper, their feelings are out of step with the reality of their wealth. They certainly are not wealthy.

If a commoner feels like a queen their feelings are out of step with the facts. They are a commoner, not a queen.

If a female feels like a man, are they out of step with reality? — Banno

:brow: But I've answered that. Do you have a response to my answer?

"What it is like to be a man" invites a list of publicly assessable criteria

"What it feels like to be a man" invites introspection.

But you seem to be claiming that introspection can only be done by reference to publicly assessable criteria?

Where?

Can you tell me what it is you feel by introspection, without using publicly assessable criteria?

And if you can't how are your feelings to be made party of the public discourse?

Here. I said yes. If a female feels like a man, then they are out of step with reality in the same sense as the other examples, given that it's a female, and a female is not a man.

Oh, I agree with you, but then your distinction loses its bite.

Let me lay it out a bit. We know that people can feel that their own limb is alien to them. We know that the feeling is real and intense because they sometimes try and destroy the offending limb. We and they can understand that feeling in relation to the same public criteria. And we know that people can have a similar distaste for their own sexual characteristics, in relation to similarly public criteria.

So what's the problem? Such people say, perhaps, "I feel like a woman trapped in a man's body", and you say "you can't possibly know." But this is simply an uncharitable refusal to understand their condition.

So what's the problem? Such people say, perhaps, "I feel like a woman trapped in a man's body", and you say "you can't possibly know." But this is simply an uncharitable refusal to understand their condition. — unenlightened

Yes, I agree. And that - Banno's misunderstanding - is the only problem here, in my assessment.