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

This is very childish. You actually chose to ignore these comments:

(I) intend to stay out of it — Jamal

I shall leave you to do your thing. — Jamal

I suggest you carry on discussing your OP, because I won't be posting in this discussion again.

I suggest you carry on discussing your OP, because I won't be posting in this discussion again. — Jamal

Fantastic, thank you.

If transwomen are women or transmen are men just because of cultural or habitual identity, does carrying a gun or shooting down schools make a Norwegian an American, or does loving KFC chicken make a caucasian man an African American, regardless of ethnicity or nationality?

Because it's pretty much stereotyping. We're stereotyping sexes here.

If transwomen are women or transmen are men just because of cultural or habitual identity, does carrying a gun or shooting down schools make a Norwegian an American, or does loving KFC chicken make a caucasian man an African American, regardless of ethnicity or nationality? — Copernicus

That's not the argument he was making. He was noting that the term 'man' may rely on biology, but it is not a fixed biological definition like 'spleen' for example. Since a man is 'an adult male', the definition of adult can change based on the culture. He was not arguing against the point I was making that we use man to reference a biological male, or indicating we should change it to mean a gendered one. He really wasn't addressing the OP, just noting that 'male' is a strict biolological referent while 'man' is a definition that can change due to the addition of the socially constructed identity of 'adult'.

That's not the argument he was making. — Philosophim

I didn't counter him. I responded to the fact he presented.

I didn't counter him. I responded to the fact he presented. — Copernicus

Ah fair. My apologies, I'm just trying to clear up the vocabulary. I'll let TClark respond.

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. — frank

I think you're just misreading my comment and not keeping it contextualized. My comment was responsive to yours, which started off with the word "really" as if to imply you were offering a moment of true objectivity. I pointed out your comment included certain assumptions, namely of a third gender, which was specifically the topic of debate.

I offered no opinion on the subject other than to say that you offered an opinion on the subject, which may or may not itself be correct, which means your use of the word "really" did nothing other than to assert you could see it more clearly where others couldn't.

Then you suggested we've banned people for such commentary, resulting in whatever just followed, which really is not helpful, considering it incorrectly asserts inconsistency on the mod team and sends the message to others, to the extent they listen to you, that we will not tolerate any opinion that even subtly questions mainstream liberal progressive views on trassexual speech or categories.

If transwomen are women or transmen are men just because of cultural or habitual identity, does carrying a gun or shooting down schools make a Norwegian an American, or does loving KFC chicken make a caucasian man an African American, regardless of ethnicity or nationality? — Copernicus

Worst. Argument. Ever.

I think you're just misreading my comment and not keeping it contextualized. My comment was responsive to yours, which started off with the word "really" as if to imply you were offering a moment of true objectivity. — Hanover

My point was that meaning is found in use, which is why I told a story about a particular case. I didn't claim to know something about it that isn't known to us all, and I don't even know what a third gender is.

So I see that you do believe a transgender woman is rightly called a woman. Thanks for the clarification.

Then you suggested we've banned people for such commentary, resulting in whatever just followed, which really is not helpful, considering it incorrectly asserts inconsistency on the mod team and sends the message to others, to the extent they listen to you, that we will not tolerate any opinion that even subtly questions mainstream liberal progressive views on trassexual speech or categories. — Hanover

I correctly asserted that in the past a moderator stated that he would ban people for disagreeing that transgender woman is a woman. That's a fact. I misunderstood your comment to be saying that a transgender woman should rightly be called a biological male. My point was that attitudes have changed drastically in a short amount of time.

Does anybody else want to vomit all over frank? This is the day for it.

I correctly asserted that in the past a moderator stated that he would ban people for disagreeing that transgender woman is a woman. That's a fact. — frank

I think in the interests of being on scope with the OP, we shouldn't call out moderators or accuse the site of being overly restrictive in the past without a citation and context. Today I'm able to post a discussion about the question of the phrase 'trans x is x' without any threat of banning or moderation. That's a credit to the site and the people who run it.

Frank, do you have any criticism or addition to the OP's argument? I promise I won't vomit all over you. :)

I don't see why.

This should be fun...

My take is that 'transgender' needs to be read prima facie. transgender. In this way, we simply carve sex off from gender. They are related in many ways (even on relatively flimsy ideological takes) but are clearly, imo different things. Again, even on ideological grounds (one example is the scientifically inaccurate claim that there are some points other than male and female on a sex spectrum for humans that doesn't cause a link between sex and gender to emerge).

Males can never become pregnant. But females can. So if males(sex) can be women(gender), we don't run into a contradiction until we conflate sex and gender. But it would seem to me males cannot be female. So if you hold anything essentially male or female to constitute 'man' or 'woman' then that's an issue for your terminology.

There are other comments to make about merits and the continuing effects of policy, but I think this is a non-problematic way to think of it intellectually. It seems perhaps people such as Jamal are not really in a position to make comments on this subject, if unable to stray into wanton disregard for reason, civility and differing views.

Don't look for an all purpose essence. Look to particular cases of use. I think the imperative to refer to transwomen as women was part of a political cause that gained strength very quickly in the UK and in the US. It's been subsiding, starting in the UK, and now in the US. One factor in the draw down was the information that having gender dysphoria does not mean a person is trans.

My point is that the contexts in which we would say a transwoman is a woman are usually political, and that scene in presently in flux.

Yes, very clear insight there.

Yes, very clear insight there. — AmadeusD

Nice to have you back, dude.

My take is that 'transgender' needs to be read prima facie. transgender. In this way, we simply carve sex off from gender. They are related in many ways (even on relatively flimsy ideological takes) but are clearly, imo different things. — AmadeusD

This is the OP's take as well.

So if you hold anything essentially male or female to constitute 'man' or 'woman' then that's an issue for your terminology. — AmadeusD

Correct and in agreement with the OP if man is taken as pointing out the sex of an individual, not 'man as gender'.

The alternative that the transgender community proposes is that 'trangender men are men' is more tautological in the fact that they say 'man' in this instance refers to 'male gender', not 'male sex'.

The question then is, "If 'man' by default without modificaiton is defined as 'male gender' and not 'male sex' is this a clear linguistic phrase that makes logical sense and that we should switch to?" The answer is no. There are already modifiers to 'man' that switch it from 'sex' to 'gender'. Cis and trans. If 'male' is defaulted to 'male gender', then the terms cis and trans no longer have any meaning.

"Cis men are men and trans men are men" conveys no pertinent or useful information in this case, and trans and cis would effectively be synonyms. Cis and trans only have a differential when referring to gender in relation to the sex of the individual. When saying cis man we have to note the full definition of, "A man by sex who acts as a male by gender"

If male defaults to sex, there is no additional word needed to correctly communicate the phrase 'transgender men are men'. If it defaults to gender however, we need some new word or addendum that indicates we are comparing sex and gender. Since we already have a perfectly good word, "male" that denotes sex, and a man is 'an adult male', we are simply overcomplicating the language.

So the clearest and most logical use of the word 'man' in relation to the term trans man, is 'adult human male by sex', not 'by gender'.

Don't look for an all purpose essence. Look to particular cases of use. — frank

I am looking at is a linguistic argument. Does it make sense to say the phrase, 'trans men are men' and change 'man' in the second reference to indicate gender and not sex? No. I find the phrasing a great philosophical word play to analyze.

I don't see why. — Copernicus

Your argument implies the difference between a Norwegian and an American is biological.

If transwomen are women or transmen are men just because of cultural or habitual identity, does carrying a gun or shooting down schools make a Norwegian an American, or does loving KFC chicken make a caucasian man an African American, regardless of ethnicity or nationality?
— Copernicus

Worst. Argument. Ever. — T Clark

Social realism holds that a social fact (like money) gains its meaning through social acceptance (referred to as "anchoring") and the existence of certain metaphysical facts (referred to as "grounding"). So money has value because it is anchored in laws, rules, beliefs, and other culturally relativistic ways and it is then anchored in an actual thing, like paper and ink.

What this means is that the entirety of that dollar bill's value and meaning is dependant upon social rules and then those rules are designated to an actual thing.

Your question asks "what anchors a man?" by pointing out it can be anything and then you provide absurd suggestions. You are correct in the sense that society could make "man" mean whatever we want, but not correct in the sense that social facts are anchored only in whim and in constant flux to eliminate any stable meaning at all. As with money, it's value and how it works could change, but society has imposed laws, customs, and other mechanisms to stabilize it. Money today can be expected to be money tomorrow, but not be unchanged forever.

But (big but), when it does change it's anchoring, expect massive social fallout during the transition (pun intended).

The debate then becomes what do we ground "manness" to? Do we ground it only upon biological entities of certain makeup, or do we ground it upon certain entities of psychological makeup? That is the debate, but keep in mind that it is your anchoring that determines your grounding, but no one suggests the grounded entity metaphysically changes based upon what it is anchored to it.

Where this differs from a pure social constructivism is that it holds gender real. That is, a man isn't just a social construct or linguistic tool, but a real thing under certain conditions.

It also denies essentialism, that man is a natural fixed entity.

But don't misunderstand any of this to suggest a winner in the transsexual debate because this is purely abstract philosophizing. If you hold that what is a man is socially anchored in the ability to impregnate a woman, having certain legal documents, and having certain genitalia
and you ground those traits to only XY humans, then you have a real man only under those criteria.

By the same token, you have a real female if your anchoring relies only upon psychological belief of the person. However, for that anchoring to count, social acceptance of that anchor must exist (which is absent in your counter examples). But, should being an American one day be socially determined by gun ownership, then that will one day be so.

So, the question becomes whether gender anchoring is changing, and the answer is that it is for some but not others. That is a social battle, with lines on both sides, seen as a matter of civil rights by some (comparing it to a time when all ethnicities weren't thought fully "human") and by others as a clear, obvious historical designation being altered only to satisfy personal psychological issues.

But, to the point of social realism, whatever the anchors and whatever the grounding, the man or woman is a real man or real woman at the conclusion.

But, to the point of social realism, whatever the anchors and whatever the grounding, the man or woman is a real man or real woman at the conclusion. — Hanover

Are you commenting to me or @Copernicus? I said that the difference between male and female is a biological one, but that the difference between man and woman is a social and linguistic one. I can’t tell whether you’re agreeing with that or disagreeing. Whichever, you certainly are taking more words to do it than I did.

no, I used it to denote stereotyping.

I used it to denote stereotyping. — Copernicus

Whom am I stereotyping when I say the distinction between male and female is biological, but the distinction between man and woman is social and linguistic.

That is the debate, but keep in mind that it is your anchoring that determines your grounding, but no one suggests the grounded entity metaphysically changes based upon what it is anchored to it. — Hanover

Correct. To assist for Copernicus, "You can call something whatever you want, it doesn't change the reality of what it is."

If you hold that what is a man is socially anchored in the ability to impregnate a woman, having certain legal documents, and having certain genitalia
and you ground those traits to only XY humans, then you have a real man only under those criteria.

By the same token, you have a real female if your anchoring relies only upon psychological belief of the person. However, for that anchoring to count, social acceptance of that anchor must exist (which is absent in your counter examples). But, should being an American one day be socially determined by gun ownership, then that will one day be so. — Hanover

Great explanation. The goal of the OP here is not to address the social aspect of the man and trans. Its addressing what makes most logical sense if one is to phrase the words into the sentence, "Trans men are men." I'm viewing it as a puzzle of wordplay, and what makes most sense given the phrasing. It is instantly erased if someone states, "Trans men are females who act in as the gender assigned to males", but it is the insistence of the trans activism community in phrasing it exactly as "Trans women are women" that interests me. If we remove any ulterior motive for wanting to do so, I simply find the grammer inadequate and flawed if one insists that 'man' in this situation should only refer to gender.

So, the question becomes whether gender anchoring is changing, and the answer is that it is for some but not others. — Hanover

To clarify on the OP, this is more, "Is it logical for it to change from a grammar and definition standpoint." No, not really. And if it doesn't make any sense to by grammar, then we can assume its intentionally crafted for an emotional outcome. Considering I've been attempting to make the conversation about grammer and everyone makes it about something else, this shows its not really a problem of grammar. Any ideology that insists on poor grammer and ambiguous definitions for its ideology is essentially circumspect. Its very similar to religious arguments about God that use ambiguous terms and phrasing that must be repeated as truth.

That is a social battle, with lines on both sides, seen as a matter of civil rights by some — Hanover

Yes, I might make a topic on this idea later. I've never understood the idea that changing a word to mean gender instead of sex is some type of civil right. I can see debating about letting a trans person into a cross sex space as a right, but definitions of words themselves are not rights nor should enter into moral debates. Words are about conveying ideas accurately and clearly. Anyone who wishes to muddy the waters is trying to lie, obfuscate, and push an outcome a person would not agree to if the idea was clear.

But, to the point of social realism, whatever the anchors and whatever the grounding, the man or woman is a real man or real woman at the conclusion. — Hanover

Correct me if I'm wrong in your intent, but I think you're trying to convey that no matter the label of a man or woman society chooses, your existence doesn't change. There is no 'real man' as a definition apart from social construction, there is only the existence of an individual no matter what society labels them.

Correct me if I'm wrong in your intent, but I think you're trying to convey that no matter the label of a man or woman society chooses, your existence doesn't change. There is no 'real man' as a definition apart from social construction, there is only the existence of an individual no matter what society labels them. — Philosophim

If I'm following, your approach is one of conventionalism, just trying to find the conventional use of the term without regard to the social implications attached because you think those implications ought be irrelevant. That is, there's an obvious difference between cis and trans men, so why blur that distinction with a single term of "man."? The answer you suggest for why people blur that distinction is for improper political purposes to advance an agenda, without regard to just objectively providing conventional use of words. It should just be about grammar you submit.

What I'm getting at is that social rules have ontological impact. Money isn't just paper due to the fact we (society) attribute meaning to it and that meaning attributed to it is real. A dollar bill is intrinsically different than a counterfeit due to what we make it.

The same holds true for all entities in a society. This means that society can (without violating a holy decree) ascribe the necessary requirements to a biological male and a biological female such that both are really, truly both men. That would require a different set of gender rules than what were traditionally used, but if we anchor gender in psychological belief and ground it in people who have that belief, then we have real men and women.

But as I said, I don't suggest society has changed its anchoring to the extent the left thinks it has, nor do I argue there's a particular need for it, nor do I concede there's an altruistic, non-agenda based reason for it, which I do think aligns with your comments. I remain skeptical in that regard because this appears as much a left/right power struggle as much as anything to me, particularly in light of the microscopic sized populations directly impacted.

If also add that if we change our anchoring of gender, we're not required to leave remnants, but the entirety of the entity can be recategorized. This means that just because we once allowed women as once defined to compete athletically with other women, that doesn't mean that social norm must remain immutable. We would simply have sport divided not upon gender, but upon biology, if that distinction is felt by society as needing to be preserved post definitional revolution.

But, to the point, a beaver pelt can be money if anchored by societal rules to make it so, and it literally changes what that beaver pelt is. And a Confederate dollar lost its meaning as currency once the Union prevailed. And from there draws the analogy.

EDIT: I think this tracks Searle's views on social constructs as well as Epstein's (the Ant Trap) more so with its claim of ontological realism arising from social designations. I point this out for those who might have a better understanding of me of that.

Does anybody else want to vomit all over frank? This is the day for it. — frank

I mean you said my comments were ban worthy and when asked why you double downed but didn't clarify, and you wonder why no love? Anyway consider it hugged out, so now I can get back to my carrying on and on about social ontology, which is really all I'm trying to sort out.

Are you commenting to me or Copernicus? I — T Clark

I'm talking to myself. Butt out.

It should just be about grammar you submit. — Hanover

For the purposes of this discussion, yes.

What I'm getting at is that social rules have ontological impact. — Hanover

True, but does that apply to speech? Let me give you another example. There is a religion that is oppressed in society for the longest time. Eventually the society gives freedom of religion. People are now free to believe what they want. The members of this religion begin to ask for more. "You must now claim God is real. This is because despite giving us legal freedom, people don't believe that God is real. This is causing them to still discriminate against us and say we are delusional."

"But lo", some of the members of society say, "We know that God is a construct of the mind, not reality."

"You are merely asserting that God is not real to assert control over us despite us being legally recognized as having the right to worship and declare we believe God is real. Because God is simply the advent of creation, we will simply note that if you believe in the Big Bang, you believe that is "God" We will convert the people emotionally to the word "God" so that way they give us what we want and treat us with respect.".

And so it was decreed in this society that not only could this religion now worship without oppression, the rest of society needed to use their words and phrases to not offend them and make up for all the harm that had been done to them over the years. To utter, "God is not real" would result in banning, job loss, social shaming, and accusations of a person being bigoted. All of this was done in the name of good, of making sure the oppressed minority would finally have the respect and acceptance of its belief not only allowed, but forcefully accepted by everyone else.

If you wish to persuade someone that they should change their view of things, you can either try to manipulate them through language and rationalization, or use rationality. Rationality of course is often times crude, painful, doesn't respect social norms, and might end up in a result that people do not want. But isn't that what the goal of philosophy is? To challenge the church? Our notions of knowledge? To question if a transwoman is a woman?

The same holds true for all entities in a society. This means that society can (without violating a holy decree) ascribe the necessary requirements to a biological male and a biological female such that both are really, truly both men. — Hanover

Of course society can, just like they can get you to say, "If you believe in the big bang, then you believe in God." But is that what society should do? Creating a term of male and female as both 'men' seems to remove specificity and clarity to the language, not add to it. And that is the point of language. Not moral or social change. The point of language is the clear communication of ideas. And to me anyone who interferes with that is attempting to control how other people think. And I think an undebatable civil right is the ability to be able to think and speak as you wish.

We would simply have sport divided not upon gender, but upon biology, — Hanover

By sex. It was never divided by gender. And the transgender community knew this. They wanted to redefine it so they could get in because the real goal was never to recognized as 'the gender' of another sex, but recognized as the other sex itself. When JK Rowling commented that she accepted transgender people but she thought sex separated spaces should remain sex separated, she got the pushback that she did.

Its the game. To get you to say they are the opposite sex without saying they're the opposite sex. This is why there's the need to get people to repeat the mantra, "Trans women are women". They want you to view them as the opposite sex without saying they are. Otherwise they would simply go, "Oh, you're right, I guess a woman is by sex, and we're really one sex just taking on the gender of the opposite sex. We don't mind you pointing out this fact at all." The problem isn't that the word woman means sex. Its that they need you to say it so they can get you to think they are, but they know people will push back if the word woman is explicitly seen as sex. Gender is used for good ol' equivalency fallacy here.

This ignores that I said "carve off".

That tells you I don't take your logical conclusion in hand.

The use of 'gender' has its place and obviously describes something other than Sex. They can be totally divorced and useful, individually, when that's the case.

You raise the very good point that the use of 'man' and 'woman' is then fraught. Fine. It need not be: man and woman are 'adult' genders (akin to boy and girl) and describe cluster types of behaviour. Male and female applies to all, at any stage, and describes something non-behavioural.

The problem I see is that that requires that gender is a social construct. If gender is a social construct, you, personally, cannot choose your gender.

And I think anyone running the line that you can be born in the wrong body may not require to be taken seriously by adults.