What is this question doing on a philosophy platform? It warrants a biological truth, not argumentative conclusions. — Copernicus

Because those questions have subjective answers and argumentative grounds. Biological issues are subject to experimental and empirical truths. — Copernicus

This is clearly incorrect. The difference between male and female is a biological issue. The difference between man and woman is a social and linguistic one. This is evidenced by the fact that the definitions of man and woman have changed over the years. When I was young, you had to be 21 years old to be considered a man or a woman. That has been redefined so that 18-year-olds are now seen as such.

The difference between man and woman is a social and linguistic one. This is evidenced by the fact that the definitions of man and woman have changed over the years. When I was young, you had to be 21 years old to be considered a man or a woman. That has been redefined so that 18-year-olds are now seen as such — T Clark

Yet what has stayed consistent is a reference to sex and age. What we consider the age range for an adult has changed, but not that we ever considered a man as 'a female'. If I read about men and women from 100 years ago, do you think, "They mean men by gender, it could just as easily be a female or male"? Of course not. The common understanding has been that 'men' are adult males.

And thus in regards to trans men, the trans modifies the discussion to mean "the gender of male", but does not claim the sex is male. Thus "trans men are men' is not true if man is being used as an indicator of sex. In the case of trans men are men in regards to gender, theres still the issue that if man is meant to be gendered, there's no way to differentiate between "Cis men are men". The only way to have a meaningful differentiation of the phrase is if 'man' by default refers to 'an adult human male' or by sex.

Yet what has stayed consistent is a reference to sex and age. What we consider the age range for an adult has changed, but not that we ever considered a man as 'a female'. — Philosophim

I wasn’t addressing the question of whether a trans man should be considered a man or a trans woman should be considered a woman. My comment only addressed the fact that the answers to the question are not primarily biological, but are rather social and linguistic.

I wasn’t addressing the question of whether a trans man should be considered a man or a trans woman should be considered a woman. My comment only addressed the fact that the answers to the question are not primarily biological, but are rather social and linguistic. — T Clark

Ah, in that context I agree 100%.

First we need to define man and woman. — Philosophim

1) A man is a male person because they had an xy chromosome, testicles, a penis, and a prostate gland at birth. His mature reproductive sex role is to eject sperm during sexual intercourse.

2) A woman is a female person born with an xx chromosome, ovaries, a uterus, a vagina, fallopian tubes, a cervix, etc. Her reproductive role is to produce an egg for fertilization by sperm after sexual intercourse, and harbor the developing fetus for 9 months.

3) Men and women both have sex roles which can function separately from their reproductive roles, so that they can engage in sexual activities for the purpose of pleasure. Men and women can engage in solitary sexual stimulation for the purpose of pleasure, and they can engage in non-reproductive sexual activity with same-sex partners.

# 1 and # 2 provide the minimal definition of male and female. Humans share this definition with the at least all vertebrates, but with many invertebrates as well. Plants also have sexual characteristics.

Men are males and women are females. I hope no one heard it here first. Men and women have biologically driven sex roles, and socially / culturally driven gender roles, which are considerably more plastic than their actual sex roles. However, a female heavy equipment driver and a male nurse are not less woman and man because their occupation crosses gender roles. A woman can be the breadwinner in a family and a man can be the nurturing parent and home maker, again without violating the standard sex role. That said, a very large share of the world's population follows gender roles typical for men and women in their society.

For the vast majority of the world's population, genitals and genders match. Sometimes individuals opt to perform the opposite sex's gender role as "drag" theater. Drag acts may be remarkably entertaining and convincing, but at the end of the show, the man in a dress or the woman in a cowboy's outfit return to whatever their "day-time" gender role is.

So, Philosophim, is this the sort of content you were looking for?

Granted, some people think "man" and "woman" refer to stereotypical roles normally performed by one or the other gender. In their view, something is wrong with both the female truck driver and the male nurse. In Archie Bunker terms, the woman is a dyke and the man is a pansy. Still, it probably IS the case, that the woman driving the semi may be a little different; like maybe more mechanically oriented than the typical woman. And it may be that the male nurse is a more capable nurturer than many males, as well as having the technical skill to perform in a hospital setting.

However much some people may be confused by men and women working in the opposite gender's field, my guess is that their actual sex role performance is completely conventional.

1) A man is a male person because they had an xy chromosome, testicles, a penis, and a prostate gland at birth. His mature reproductive sex role is to eject sperm during sexual intercourse.

2) A woman is a female person born with an xx chromosome, ovaries, a uterus, a vagina, fallopian tubes, a cervix, etc. Her reproductive role is to produce an egg for fertilization by sperm after sexual intercourse, and harbor the developing fetus for 9 months. — BC

Sometimes people who become trans go off to another city and start over where they can be taken as their new gender. Still, sooner or later, they have to reveal to prospective partners that they're trans, and it's not a small bump in the relationship road.

So when we say that a transwoman is a woman, there's information we're leaving out. Really, a transwoman is a transwoman.

So, Philosophim, is this the sort of content you were looking for? — BC

Not quite. A little too in depth for what was needed here I believe. I'm just approaching the phrasing and noting that if we define sex and gender seperately, it still doesn't make sense to say a 'transman is a man' as defining man as 'male gender' doesn't even lead to a useful sentence. This seems to be a much more in depth criticism of sex, gender, and transgender than I am intending here.

A little too in depth for what was needed here I believe. — Philosophim

To hell with it, then.

And what we actually do is use the word "man" to refer also to transmen. — Michael

Not everyone uses it that way. And since there is in fact no divine dictionary, nothing is set in stone. And so the battle for the meaning of a word is ongoing.

And it's not about how many people use a word to mean something in particular; it's about how powerful those who use it in that way are.

Correct, gender is a culturally subjective expectation of the behavior that a person should do in regards to their sex. This differentiates from objective behavior in regards to one sex such as bodily functions. The subjective notion may be within an individual, a small group, a city, a country, or world context if possible.

For example, wearing a skirt in America is expected to be worn by females, not males. If a male wears a skirt, they are acting in a transgendered way. They understand the culture views this as clothing that is expected to be worn only by females, and as a man they actively choose to wear a skirt despite knowing this.

Contrast this with Scottland where men are expected to wear kilts, which is basically a skirt. Wearing one fits the cultural expectation of a man, and if a woman actively wore a kilt prior to the 1800's where it was only men, this would be seen as trasngendered within Scottland. — Philosophim

A man wearing a skirt does not mean they are being transgendered. It means that wearing a skirt is now gender-neutral.

Just as in the 80s with all the hair bands, MEN sported long hair, make-up and earrings. No one called them transgendered. They did not identify as transgendered. Sure much of society made a stink about it but eventually the EXPECTATIONS changed to where having long hair, wearing make-up and earrings is not longer a part of gender (no longer considered feminine).

Gender neutral means that we stop having these expectations of the sexes as opposed to transgenderism that amplifies the expectations to the point of being sexist.

And what we actually do is use the word "man" to refer also to transmen. — Michael

Well, that's the debate. 'We" don't use it consistently. Some don't call transmen "men," but some do. We speak different languages in that regard. Then the question becomes who's right, which changes the debate into one of prescriptive and not descriptive language, moving from allowing varying usages to requiring certain usages.

Should someone call a trasman a woman or a transman, the objection isn't simply one of misuse (like if I called a spider an insect and not an arachnid), but it's one of ethical impropriety.

Really, a transwoman is a transwoman. — frank

To be fully objective, it's a biological man who identifies and presents as a biologucal woman. Your definition suggests a third gender. Mine is silent to that because that is disputed.

A man wearing a skirt does not mean they are being transgendered. It means that wearing a skirt is now gender-neutral. — Harry Hindu

A clarification. Crossing the gender line is a transgendered act. This is independent of one's own viewpoint. If one purposefully commits a transgendered act, knows and accepts that the action belongs to the gender of the opposite sex, they are purposefully being transgendered. If a person commits a transgendered act, but doesn't accept that the action belongs to a gender, then they are being gender neutral.

Gender neutral means that we stop having these expectations of the sexes as opposed to transgenderism that amplifies the expectations to the point of being sexist. — Harry Hindu

Gender is a fine line between expectations and sexism. Gender is mostly in the realm of pre-judgement, or prejudice. Healthy gender is typically a one step away from biological differences. Unhealthy gender is farther away from biological differences and is used for control. This is what we would call sexism.

And it's not about how many people use a word to mean something in particular; it's about how powerful those who use it in that way are. — baker

That is one aspect for sure. But another aspect is the usefulness, reasonableness, and ease of use of the term. If it is reasonable, useful, and easy to change the term's meaning, people will. My point in the OP is that the term man meaning 'adult male' not only is historically the correct use, it is reasonable, useful, and easy to use. Whereas it may be that in certain contexts man can mean, 'male gender', in the general phrase of 'transgender men are men', the context of 'male gender' for man leads to unclear, illogical, and hard to use language.

Should someone call a trasman a woman or a transman, the objection isn't simply one of misuse (like if I called a spider an insect and not an arachnid), but it's one of ethical impropriety. — Hanover

The OP is not an argument of ethical impropriety as I note in my reply here to Baker. Its simply poor grammer, does not convey a clear idea, and is ultimately inferior to using man as 'adult male' for the reasons I've cited in the OP.

To be fully objective, it's a biological man who identifies and presents as a biologucal woman. Your definition suggests a third gender. — Hanover

I believe his definition implied a tautology. "A trans man is an adult female that purposefully acts in the gendered way society expects of an adult male.' = itself

It means that wearing a skirt is now gender-neutral. — Harry Hindu

Only if one is in some position of power or a member of an elite. Like there are photos on the internet of some fancy banker who is evidently a man and goes to work in a skirt and high heels; or some male members of the elite who wear high-end fashion skirts.

But if an ordinary man were to wear an ordinary skirt, it would be just foolish, inappropriate, certainly not gender-neutral.

Things that are okay for the upper class are not automatically okay for everyone.

To be fully objective, it's a biological man who identifies and presents as a biologucal woman. Your definition suggests a third gender. Mine is silent to that because that is disputed. — Hanover

Heh, we used to have a moderator who warned he would ban anyone who said what you just said, as if that was hate speech or something. I guess times have changed.

we used to have a moderator who warned he would ban anyone who said what you just said — frank

I don't think so.

I don't think so. — Jamal

Actually, yes.

So I actually have to ask you to point me to where it was said, or to explain what was said? Because I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

So I actually have to ask you to point me to where it was said, or to explain what was said? Because I'm pretty sure you're wrong. — Jamal

You really want me to look it up?

It's not outrageous to ask someone on a philosophy forum to back up an eccentric and implausible statement.

It's not outrageous to ask someone on a philosophy forum to back up an eccentric and implausible statement. — Jamal

Did you know we had a longstanding member who became trans and subsequently committed suicide?

Is it any wonder people are flocking to LLMs for good conversation?

The fact that you don't know that a moderator threatened to ban anyone who denied that transwomen are women just shows you weren't paying attention. I always figured the sentiment was coming from a need to defend the person who died.

My God frank, you are mightily obnoxious today. I am very well aware of the opinions of the moderator in question. But Hanover didn't deny that transwomen are women, not did his statement imply it.

In any case, saying so on its own isn't grounds for a ban, but it can be a red flag, i.e., it might be an indication of bigotry so would warrant a closer look.

But Hanover didn't deny that transwomen are women, not did his statement imply it. — Jamal

He most certainly did.

The fact that you don't know that moderator threatened to ban anyone who denied that transwomen and women just shows you weren't paying attention. — frank

Lets be polite please. Also lets stay on topic with the language argument of the OP please.

My God frank, you are mightily obnoxious today. — Jamal

Jamal, you are adding personal attacks and not encouraging people to remain on topic despite being an administrator. This topic obviously is highly emotional for you. If you cannot control that, please refrain from posting in the topic.

I'll post in this topic as much as I want. That said, since it became clear yesterday (or whenever it was) that you were, in an arrogant and ridiculous manner, refusing to think through or face up to some important challenges to your obviously fallacious OP, I have avoided the discussion and intend to stay out of it. My discussion with @frank was off-topic, and just a short diversion. I shall leave you to do your thing.

That said, since it became clear yesterday (or whenever it was) that you were, in an arrogant and ridiculous manner, refusing to think through or face up to some important challenges to your obviously fallacious OP, I have avoided the discussion and intend to stay out of it. — Jamal

I'll post in this topic as much as I want. — Jamal

No actually. I'm going to reach out to some other moderators and request that you not.

That is a really stupid post. — Jamal

Remember this one sentence post you did yesterday? If anyone on this forum posted such a troll response and I forwarded it up to a moderator, they would be warned. You are an administrator and you need to act as the example that other posters are supposed to follow. You are the one who first introduced insults and personal attacks against posters in this topic, namely me. It is your responsibility to be BETTER than a troll, and you lapsed in judgement here.

I'm in a leadership position in my job. If I had someone call me out for breaking my own rules, I would apologize and tell them I wouldn't do it again. Not tell them, "I do what I want" right? Lets see if you have what it takes in your next post. Show the forum what kind of person you are.