As explained by WHO, "gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time." — Michael

Thar's a definition I think works very well, but that all sounds behavioural to me. Sure, they''ll be psychological consequences, even causes (of the behaviours), but I struggle to see how one might come to use a word to describe one's psychological state (absent of behavioural cues) without engaging in one's own private language.

Shyness is a psychological state explained with reference to external behaviour.

Shyness is a psychological state explained with reference to external behaviour. — Michael

Absolutely. It the the implication of either/or that I was interested in. Both, I have no difficulty with.

If to be male is to have genotype XY and to be female is to have genotype XX and if there are people who have neither genotype XY or genotype XX (and there are: see XYY syndrome and Triple X syndrome as examples) then either these people have no sex or there are more than two sexes. — Michael

By that analogy, if there are persons born without 1 or both legs, then one would say humans are not bipedal. Humans are sometimes born with abnormalities ranging from mild to severe.

I knew a person back in the 1970s who had a chromosomal abnormality who went by the name 'Neither She He'. Neither She He was very short, bald (not by choice), and had some other anomalies in proportion, short legs, for instance. I don't remember what choice of clothing Neither She He made. I came across NSH at gay male community gatherings concerning violence and two murders in a cruise park.

So yes, I know there are people who are on the furthest end of the distribution of characteristics, or maybe they aren't even on it. They are exceptions which don't overturn the principle of 2 sexes--the way 1 arm or 1 leg -- or neither of both -- do not annul the principle of bipedalism.

or turn myself into a pickle, I'd still identify as a man despite not having XY sex chromosomes. — Michael

I shall think of you the next time I bite into a pickle.

By that analogy, if there are persons born without 1 or both legs, then one would say humans are not bipedal. Humans are sometimes born with abnormalities ranging from mild to severe. — Bitter Crank

Humans aren't defined as having two legs, and so that's a false analogy. You claimed to define one's sex as being one's genotype, and so "male" means "human with an XY genotype" and "female" means "human with an XX genotype". It would then follow that anyone who isn't a human with an XX genotype or an XY genotype is neither male nor female. So what sex is someone with XYY syndrome or Triple X syndrome, and why that?

But if you want to carry on with your analogy, presumably you accept that someone with one leg is still human, and so even though it is correct to say that humans, generally speaking, have two legs, it is a fact that there are humans who don't have two legs, and so even if it is correct to say that men, generally speaking, have an XY genotype, it can be a fact that there are men who don't have an XY genotype.

Or do you want to say that people with only one leg aren't real humans?

Humans aren't defined as having two legs, and so that's a false analogy. — Michael

The species Homo sapiens is bipedal; that's not the only defining characteristic, bipedalism is one of many defining characteristics. Species have distinct characteristics, whether they be Scutigera coleoptrata or Pongo abelii. That's how we tell them apart. Defects don't define species, but they don't negate species membership either.

[PANGLOSS]
Pray classify
Pigeons and camels

[MAXIMILLIAN]
Pigeons can fly!

[PAQUETTE]
Camels are mammals!

et cetera, proving that this is the best of all possible worlds...

The species Homo sapiens is bipedal; that's not the only defining characteristic, bipedalism is one of many defining characteristics. Species have distinct characteristics, whether they be Scutigera coleoptrata or Pongo abelii. That's how we tell them apart. Defects don't define species, but they don't negate species membership either. — Bitter Crank

All you're saying is that humans tend to have two legs, which I don't dispute. But it is a fact that there are humans who don't have two legs. So if this is to be an analogy to sex then all you're saying is that humans tend to be of two sexes, determined by two genotypes, but it is a fact that there are humans who don't have either of these two genotypes and so presumably aren't of either of these sexes (or who do have one of these genotypes but aren't of the usually corresponding sex).

Is a person who was born with female phenotype, called “it’s a girl!”, raised as a girl, identifies as a girl, engages in all of the girl gender roles and presentations, grows womanly features at puberty and identifies as a woman and keeps engaging in woman gender roles and presentations, dates men, marries one, tried to have a baby, can't, and looking into the problem discovers that she has XY chromosomes and total androgen insensitivity syndrome... actually a man?

Jean Stapleton: “And you knew who you were then,”

Carrol O’Conner: “Goyles were goyles and men were men...”

Oh how I miss the good old days!

Ask her, or him or something else -- whatever gender the person claims. It's not my place to decide that for that individual. I readily acknowledge that people may have anomalies which make them outliers as far as "normal for the species" is defined. It's up to them to cope with their anomalies as best they can,

What I don't have to do, and don't want to do, is elevate an anomaly to some sort of 'rare norm'. I was born with visual anomalies which have been difficult to deal with. I'd prefer to have normal vision, but I don't. Tough luck. I cope as well as I can. Your example may wish to be unambiguously male or female, but is not -- tough luck. I wish the person well. But a rare sex-chromosome anomaly doesn't add up to any sort of third sex.

Being a man or a woman is understood by many to be psychological/behavioural, not genetic. If I were to somehow have my mind transplanted into someone else's body, die and become a ghost, or turn myself into a pickle, I'd still identify as a man despite not having XY sex chromosomes. — Michael

That's a mighty big IF.

Anyway, the reason you'd still identify as a man is because your memories are of being a man, and that you were born male. But if you could have your mind transplanted into a woman's body, then your memories of being a man would eventually become less prevalent because they are no longer useful in your present form.

And my question was, "what is it that transpeople are claiming?" Are you saying that their minds were secretly transplanted at birth?

As explained by WHO, "gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time." — Michael

In other words, gender refers to the characteristics of the sexes. The characteristics (gender) are socially constructed, not the sexes. The characteristics include the norms, behaviors and roles associated with the sexes as well as the relationship between the sexes. As a social construct, the characteristics vary from society to society and can change over time.

It seems to me that the sexes, which are not socially constructed, play a pivotal role in determining gender. Not only that, but there are behaviors and norms that are specific to the sexes, so can't be socially constructed. Sexual selection plays a key role in the evolution of a species - the peacock being a great example.

One could say that the characteristic expectations that groups have of the sexes IS sexual selection.

@McMootch

This doesn't seem too complicated to me. In general, English pronouns refer to perceived gender. One's views on the relationship between sex and gender don't change the rules of pronoun usage, they just change how gender is perceived by the user of said pronouns.

Ships etc. are an interesting exception to this rule-- they remind me of the gendered pronouns of other languages that have objects as their referents.

@Rosie I think you're right that perception is a necessary component of gendered pronoun usage given that speakers aren't omniscient, but how do we know it is perceived gender (ie not sex) as opposed to perceived sex? What is a good test to distinguish between these two interpretations?

The thought experiment @Judaka proposes wherein we easily say "he" to refer to a male imaginary character like an anthropomorphized cloud without sex is a good one. The claim is that we cannot be referring to sex if the referent lacks sex. But one problem I see is if we take "it" to refer specifically to non-human referents, "it" wouldn't have been an ideal candidate to refer to the imaginary cloud. English lacks a pronoun referring specifically to animate sexless referents.

There is the possibility however that had English a gender which marked non-human, animate things, and if there existed a pronoun in that gender, that this pronoun would be used to refer to the cloud or whatever. I believe some languages distinguish these features by gendered nouns, so it would be interesting to look at fables or modern children's stories to help answer this question. I'm not totally sure the precise candidate pronoun that would fit best if pronouns necessarily marked sex does indeed exist in some language. If it doesn't, that might itself argue in favor of pronouns referring to the gender concept.

Section 2.1 in this paper for example touches on this a bit, I haven't read the whole paper yet but I think looking at languages that make some of these distinctions English is missing would shed light on this question.

I'm not totally sure that the thought experiment covers the possibility that when we use "he" to refer to the male cloud, we are just picking the best word we have based on some notion of semantic similarity. Does that require a concept of gender role or identity? If people use "she" to refer to a boat, I think they are assigning some female characteristics to the boat, via metaphor, where "female" could just as easily refer to sex as to a notion of gender which is based on but different from sex.

What do you think @Judaka?

There is the possibility however that had English a gender which marked non-human, animate things, and if there existed a pronoun in that gender, that this pronoun would be used to refer to the cloud or whatever. — Taylor

And some languages don't even have gendered pronouns, as though we just said "it" about everyone and everything. My opinion on this matter is that gender is an intellectual, cultural and linguistic concept, the rules for gender in English and probably most languages are pretty crap. The "correct" pronoun use is determined by the rules of the language, which, may or may not even be consistent. We don't need to look for truth in their use because their use is not based on any truth, it is based on rules, which can be confusing, misleading and unsatisfactory.

Does that require a concept of gender role or identity? — Taylor

Gender does give us (or asserts) important information, it is not a meaningless category. If in my story, my cloud was a "he" then ascribing my cloud with a traditionally feminine perspective, with feminine attire and feminine attributes, that may be quite confusing for my audience.

If I had my two clouds, bob and jane, acting like a couple, then we would expect the "bob" or "male" cloud to fulfil the role of the husband and jane, the wife. It might be quite bizarre or confusing for some if I had bob act like a traditional wife and jane act like a traditional husband. If I called both my clouds "it" or a new non-human gendered pronoun then perhaps the context that I'm trying to evoke thoughts about wouldn't come across as well. I guess it depends on the context.

I think in English that "it" comes across differently than "he" or she", if one calls their boat an "it" then their boat comes across a thing, if one calls their boat a "she", it gives the boat some personality. "It (the boat) takes me from place to place vs "she takes me from place to place", it gives the boat a sense of agency. The boat almost seems to be choosing to take her captain from place to place. That's my view, I don't know if a different English pro-noun like the ones from your link, carry that same kind of feel or not.

Anyway, English dictates the rules and the rules are confusing. They could be different and that'd be fine, maybe preferable. I follow the rules because we need rules, not because I agree with them or think they're good.