This ignores that I said "carve off".

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

I may not have understood your exact meaning then. According to the definitions above, sex and gender are two different identities. One's sex is one's biological embodiment, gender is a cultural expectation of how one of that embodiment should act culturally in relation to their sex. When you mean you didn't take my conclusion in hand, did you not agree with it or was this merely a separate proposal?

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. — AmadeusD

To clarify, it is not clusters of biological behavior that are gender. So for example, on average men are more aggressive than women. But that's not gender. Gender is if society expects men to always be more aggressive than women. So a timid man might be insulted by someone claiming, "You're not a 'real man'. In this case man alone does mean gender, not sex, as the person clearly did not change their biology.

The case I'm making is that linguistically, the context of 'transman are men' having 'men' mean gender isn't clear or logical. And since a transman is not a male by sex, the statement is false.

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. — AmadeusD

Yes, again the grammar is a mess isn't it? If its a cultural expectation that sex A behaves in X way, and sex B behaves in Y way, sex B behaving in X way does not mean that they changed societies gender expectation. You cannot choose 'a gender', you can choose to act with your gender, or against your gender. The reality for the strange grammar is the game of, "I want you to say I'm the opposite sex without you realizing you're saying I'm the opposite sex". Obviously a person can act however they want despite cultural expectations. A 'transgender' person actively chooses to behave in gendered ways of the opposite sex not because they've chosen their gender, but because they want society to see them as the opposite sex. But because its not possible to change your sex, and people were already familiar with transsexualism, they attempted to disguise the term into another set of language phrases to 'rebrand' it.

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. — AmadeusD

This is the power of unclear and manipulative language. You can convince people God exists and they'll live forever in bliss if they do good things, or suffer forever in agony if they do bad things. Oh wait, you only live forever if you believe in God, but, isn't suffering forever also living forever? The point is to elicit an emotional response loyal to the vocabulary and phrasing to control their aims instead of clear and rational language.

This is a pet peeve for me. Though people may use the word "construct" to deny the reality of a thing, that's not the philosophical meaning of the word. — frank

I did not mean to imply that constructs are not real. They are real ideas. God is a real idea. It doesn't mean that 'God' as an identifying and existent entity is real.

In terms of gender, a realist would treat gender as a thing. So your own gender would involve contact with that gender thing. A constructivist would say gender is dynamic (I'm sure Joshs would approve) and made of countless interactions, some of which involves heritage. — frank

I tend to avoid terms like realist and constructivist because according to you, a realist would interpret what a 'realist' is differently than a constructivist would interpret a 'constructivist' as. This adds unnecessary terms and confuses the point I think you're trying to make.

Very simply gender is an expectation of one or more individuals in how a sex should act culturally in relation to the reality of its own sex. It is culturally sanctioned prejudice. "A man must be aggressive. Oh, you think a man can be timid? 'We' do not sanction such behavior." When gender is taken too far, it becomes culturally sanctioned sexism. So gender is very real. But its real in its culturally accepted prejudice about one's sex, not real as in a dictate that one's biology must follow because of the laws of physics.

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. — Philosophim

This completely ignores the fact that society's expectations have changed. Having long hair and wearing earrings is no longer considered feminine, so a man that grows their hair long and wears earrings is no longer transitioning because those traits have now been taken off the table of transgenderism. The members of Motley Crüe were not transitioning to females. They were going against the grain (the social expectation), breaking down the sexist barriers and making a statement that MEN can have long hair, not that they are now women with long hair.

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. — Philosophim

Transgenderism is putting people in boxes based on their biology when those boxes have nothing to do with their biology, just being racist is putting people in boxes based on their skin color when the boxes have nothing to do with their skin color. There is nothing that prevents men from growing long hair or wearing earrings, but there are things that prevent a man from getting pregnant.

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. — baker

This might have once been true, but now anyone can claim (even if you were a man that was just convicted and being sent off to prison and now want to identify as a woman) to be the opposite sex and they get all this special attention and treatment.

All society has to do is abandon these sexist expectations and then transgenderism no longer has a leg to stand on. Transgenderism only exists in societies with sexist expectations.

This completely ignores the fact that society's expectations have changed. Having long hair and wearing earrings is no longer considered feminine, so a man that grows their hair long and wears earrings is no longer transitioning because those traits have now been taken off the table of transgenderism. — Harry Hindu

Correct. While a biological male and female do not change with time and culture, gender does. It is a subjective and flexible expectation that can vary over time, culture, and even individuals.

There is nothing that prevents men from growing long hair or wearing earrings, but there are things that prevent a man from getting pregnant. — Harry Hindu

Of course, because sex, or biology, is how people reproduce. A transgender woman is not a woman by sex, period. Any honest transgender person should have zero problem with this. Anyone who does is using an unclear gender/sex distinction and the equivalence fallacy where it benefits them personally. The people who generally do this are not simply transgender, they are transsexual people. Or people who want to be seen as the opposite sex, and see crossing genders as part of that goal. Does taking on a cross gender imply you are the other sex in any way? Of course not.

The purpose of the term transgender for transsexuals is to hide the term 'transsexual' as that has a largely negative connotation in society. Transgender is seen as more normal, as everyone crosses the gender divide at times, and some people just like to cross a little more right? So much more that they need to try to change their biology and be seen as the other sex.

The logical conclusion for a person who wishes to be 'transgender' is 'be what you want'. As long as you don't think it has anything to do with your actual sex in anyway, its fine. Its not where the issue lies. Its with transsexuals who wish to use and confuse gendered language as a euphamism to hide the fact they want to change their sex. These are the people who insist, "Trans men are men". Non transsexual transgender people generally have no disagreement with the distinction that they are one sex taking on the gender of another. It is those who take on the gender of another, and that is driven by consequence of wanting to be the other sex that wish to insist on you using terms traditionally used for sex for them. The insertion of, 'but gender' is a ploy to get the emotional fulfillment of hearing that word and emotionally equating that with sex. Since they know you won't do that if you see the term as a sex term, they use duplicity and unclear language to make you think its 'gender'. A fantastic example of tricking using another person for one's own emotional self-satisfaction.

This completely ignores the fact that society's expectations have changed. Having long hair and wearing earrings is no longer considered feminine, so a man that grows their hair long and wears earrings is no longer transitioning because those traits have now been taken off the table of transgenderism. The members of Motley Crüe were not transitioning to females. They were going against the grain (the social expectation), breaking down the sexist barriers and making a statement that MEN can have long hair, not that they are now women with long hair. — Harry Hindu

This is only so in a temporally relatively short time-frame. Prior to this, for centuries, both men and women wore long hair, earrings, elaborate clothing, and high heels.

Social norms seem to have a tendency to be extremely short-sighted.

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

Not just sexes, pretty much everything is being stereotyped. Modern culture, especially American culture as the forerunner, appears to be obsessed with quantification, normativization, standardization. A person can only be this or that (or the other), and they have to decide right now, and this decision has to stick forever and in all contexts.

While it's understandable that quantification, normativization, standardization are done for administrative purposes, legal purposes, liability purposes, insurance purposes, they seem to easily lead to absurd consequences because of the simplification they entail and because of the weight they carry.


Just the other day, a male relative of mine commented that he has "legs like a woman". He's very athletic, and some forms of exercise can lead men to have legs that seem more typical for women. But he certainly didn't think, much less have I thought, that this somehow means he's "a woman trapped in a man's body". I think that in a normal culture, it's normal to have such "cross-gendered" observations about oneself and others without this leading to doubts about one's sexual or gender identity.

In contrast, in modern culture obsessed with quantification, normativization, standardization, and with sex/gender issues, such observations are not innocent anymore. On the internet, there are these heartbreaking videos of mothers basically forcing their young sons into thinking they are really girls trapped in male bodies and that a gender-reassignment surgery is in place -- and all this because the boy was a little curios about dolls.

This eagerness to jump to conclusions happens with so many things, whether it's placing children on the "autistic spectrum" or with the "epidemic of ADHD" or transgenderism.


It seems that transgenderism and the increase of people with mental health diagnoses are actually at least in part a consequence of the urge and pressure to stereotype.

It all comes down to whether gender is seen as a biological given or not. What constitutes being a man or woman? In gender rulings, the problem may be that everything is reduced to how a person is assigned to a gender at birth. There is so much which is so complex, involving both biology and psychology. This may be why non-binary identities are being adopted, in order to overcome clear disturbances..

Many people may see this blurring as a problem. However, identity is complex and individuals may identify differently from assigned and biological sex. To try to fit such identities into the binary of gender distinctions may show the limitations of the binary of gender.

Very simply gender is an expectation of one or more individuals in how a sex should act culturally in relation to the reality of its own sex. It is culturally sanctioned prejudice. "A man must be aggressive. Oh, you think a man can be timid? 'We' do not sanction such behavior." When gender is taken too far, it becomes culturally sanctioned sexism. So gender is very real. But its real in its culturally accepted prejudice about one's sex, not real as in a dictate that one's biology must follow because of the laws of physics. — Philosophim

well said

It all comes down to whether gender is seen as a biological given or not. — Jack Cummins

Gender by the modern day definition is not a biological given. It is a set of social expectations how one acts non-biologically in relation to one's biology. For example, if boys were supposed to wear pink and girls were supposed to wear blue. There is nothing biological about that besides a cultural reference to one's sex. So things like 'males are generally more aggressive' is a biological outcome. Its not a cultural expectation. The expectation would be that a man be more aggresive than most woman, a man comes along who in a normal statistically reasonable outcome, is not, and is lambasted for being 'weak'. There is nothing innate in biology that ensure all men are 'strong', so therfore its a cultural expectation, not a biological reality that being born a man makes you strong.

In gender rulings, the problem may be that everything is reduced to how a person is assigned to a gender at birth. — Jack Cummins

No one is officially assigned a gender. Your sex is identified, and the people around you have culturally accepted levels of prejudice in how you should act apart from your biology in relation to your sex.

This may be why non-binary identities are being adopted, in order to overcome clear disturbances.. — Jack Cummins

I'm very open to considering all angles, but I have never heard a single person be able to identify what non-binary means in any coherent way.

However, identity is complex and individuals may identify differently from assigned and biological sex. — Jack Cummins

Its not. It was made complex by transsexuals trying to sneak in a more societally acceptable term they could use to justify what they do. Gender at its clearly defined core, is socially acceptable prejudice and potentially sexism in how a person should behave non-biologically in relation to their biological sex. Gender identity is simply deciding what prejudices and sexist expectations you have for yourself.

:up:

Not just sexes, pretty much everything is being stereotyped. — baker

Modern moral thought seeks to dissolve rigid patterns—arguing that social identities and roles should be fluid, inclusive, and adaptive. But the question arises: if the cosmos thrives on patterned predictability, are we defying natural order when we reject all categorization?

Perhaps political correctness is not a rebellion against truth but against the misuse of truth.
Where the laws of physics are descriptive (they describe how matter behaves), human “laws” and social codes are often prescriptive (they dictate how people should behave).
Confusing these two is the origin of moral error.

Thus, it is not that rigidity is wrong or that fluidity is right—but that cosmic rigidity serves being, while social rigidity often serves power.

If the universe’s consistency ensures existence, and its entropy ensures change, then perhaps human liberty is the social form of cosmic entropy.
Too much rigidity yields tyranny. Too much fluidity yields chaos.
Thus, just as the cosmos balances order and disorder, civilization must balance law and liberty.

Racism and sexism are not “natural laws” but misapplications of pattern recognition.
They emerge when humans mistake statistical or biological tendencies for moral truths.
The difference between physics and prejudice is the difference between observation and judgment.

Alam, T. B. (2025). The Selective Universe: Order, Entropy, and the Philosophical Paradox of Natural Rigidity [Zenodo]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17341242

The purpose of the term transgender for transsexuals is to hide the term 'transsexual' as that has a largely negative connotation in society. Transgender is seen as more normal, as everyone crosses the gender divide at times, and some people just like to cross a little more right? So much more that they need to try to change their biology and be seen as the other sex. — Philosophim

If everyone crosses the gender divide then that means the society is gender neutral and that there is no such thing as gender as everyone in the society wears what they want regardless of their sex, and there are no expectations of society for people to act differently because of their sex. You are conflating transgenderism with gender-neutrality. As I pointed out - transgenderism's existence depends on a society having sexist expectations. If there are no more expectations then there is no gender (based on your own definition of gender as societal expectations of the sexes).

As I pointed out - transgenderism's existence depends on a society having sexist expectations. If there are no more expectations then there is no gender (based on your own definition of gender as societal expectations of the sexes). — Harry Hindu

100% agree. But that is not the society we live in.

If everyone crosses the gender divide then that means the society is gender neutral and that there is no such thing as gender as everyone in the society wears what they want regardless of their sex, and there are no expectations of society for people to act differently because of their sex. — Harry Hindu

Society in general is a combination of individuals who have varying degrees of discomfort with crossing gender divides in public. Small and/or temporary crossings can be disliked or even seen as amusing and not typically the label of 'transgender'. Transgender comes about when a person understands the societal gender for men and women, and decides to actively cross that boundary in hopes of being treated by society as they see them treat the other sex. Its of course an incredibly naive task, and no one is obligated to do so in any way. That is the argument for then wanting to change their sex through hormones and body modification. They want to be treated like the other sex by society, so changing their body will hopefully do so.

Trans exists and is popular because exogenous (bio-identical) hormones exist and you can artificially induce intersex conditions. That is why the discussion exists and trans will continue to exist in the future unless the tech is taken away which is what conservatives are trying to achieve.
If has nothing to do with sexism.
In the future this tech will likely advance further. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g2vyee0zlo

It is a change and popularization of medical tech. This is also why the AI discussion is so prolific because it now exists since the 2020s.
You can use different words to describe trans phenomena, "hrt femboy" (for those of you under 30 will understand) but it won't vanish without the tech being removed.

100% agree. But that is not the society we live in. — Philosophim

It is the society we should be striving for.

As I have said, expectations have changed. Having long hair is no longer considered feminine. We were headed in the right direction until the left saw another group of victims in the trans community to use for their own ends. The left just jumped on the trans bandwagon without fully understanding what was being said, or the ill logic of the arguments being made. It wasn't about logic and reason to them. It was about having another group of victims to use as a weapon against the right.

Society in general is a combination of individuals who have varying degrees of discomfort with crossing gender divides in public. — Philosophim

This leads me to ask, what kind of expectations are we talking about here? Are people jailed for wearing clothing inappropriate to one's sex? If not, is it fair to say that society has no expectations of the sexes? What is an expectation that isn't enforced? Society might not enforce the dress code but there are still people that may judge, but that is on the level of individuals, not society.

This leads me to ask, what kind of expectations are we talking about here? Are people jailed for wearing clothing inappropriate to one's sex? If not, is it fair to say that society has any expectations of the sexes? What is an expectation that isn't enforced? — Harry Hindu

A fantastic question that likely requires its own topic. Why does society enforce prejudice and stereotypes when it comes to sex? I imagine its a combination of many things from sexual dimorphism emphasis, power dynamics, and sexuality. There is a thin wall between biologicaly expectations of a sex vs gender expectations of a sex as well. We are very willing to accept biological expectations, and perhaps its easy to cross over into sociological expectations because of it.

Trans exists and is popular because exogenous (bio-identical) hormones exist and you can artificially induce intersex conditions. That is why the discussion exists and trans will continue to exist in the future unless the tech is taken away which is what conservatives are trying to achieve.
If has nothing to do with sexism. — Forgottenticket

All you are doing is conflating sex with gender, so of course gender as the same thing as sex can't be sexist. It is gender as societal expectations that are sexist.

Trans exists and is popular because exogenous (bio-identical) hormones exist and you can artificially induce intersex conditions. — Forgottenticket

Which means that those hormones have nothing to do with defining one's sex. Humans have other hormones other than testosterone and estrogen and they are not defined as sexual characteristics precisely because both sexes have them in roughly the same levels.

Trans exists and is popular because exogenous (bio-identical) hormones exist and you can artificially induce intersex conditions. — Forgottenticket

To be clear, this is transsexualism. There are the terms transgender and transsexual, and 'trans' shortens to make it unclear which you are referring to. Which of course is the goal of the activist community to make you say, "You're the other other sex" without you realizing you're saying, "You're the other sex".

A fantastic question that likely requires its own topic. Why does society enforce prejudice and stereotypes when it comes to sex? I imagine its a combination of many things from sexual dimorphism emphasis, power dynamics, and sexuality. There is a thin wall between biologicaly expectations of a sex vs gender expectations of a sex as well. We are very willing to accept biological expectations, and perhaps its easy to cross over into sociological expectations because of it. — Philosophim

It becomes easier when the expectation is enforced over generations. Being a woman eventually becomes more than just having certain biological parts, it now entails wearing a dress, makeup, etc. This is where transgenderism makes its mistake - in assuming that society is defining a woman as someone with not just the biological characteristics, but the expectations as well. But society is not saying that (and people that use language in this way are misusing it) wearing a dress makes you a woman. Society is saying because you are a woman, you wear a dress. In a society that expects, and enforces, people to wear clothing, we need a way of distinguishing between males and females for the purpose of mating. Society is not saying that to be a woman you must wear a dress. Transgender people are misinterpreting what society is saying, and trans-people are identifying as an expectation, not as an objective, biological entity.

in assuming that society is defining a woman as someone with not just the biological characteristics, but the expectations as well. But society is not saying that (and people that use language in this way are misusing it) wearing a dress makes you a woman. Society is saying because you are a woman, you wear a dress. — Harry Hindu

Correct. I believe most transsexuals know this. Transgender is a convenient way to justify their need to be seen as the other sex both for themselves, and a tool to attempt to persuade society. It is all about that need, and they are willing to do whatever it takes, even if its dishonest language, to have that need fulfilled. I believe letting this happen is actually harmful to transsexuals. They need to accept the reality they cannot be the other sex as the technology isn't there yet. They need to be ok with everyone not accepting them as the opposite sex, and that they shouldn't be trying to trick or cajole society into this desire. It is at its core, immoral.

In other words, trans people are not identifying as a gender. They are identifying as the opposite sex and the difference is the level of detail one wants to obtain (simply wearing a dress or having surgery). It would seem that the lazy ones (the ones that only cross-dress) are the ones that are reinforcing sexist stereotypes.

Which means that those hormones have nothing to do with defining one's sex. Humans have other hormones other than testosterone and estrogen and they are not defined as sexual characteristics precisely because both sexes have them in roughly the same levels. — Harry Hindu

Secondary sex characteristics absolutely have to with hormones. The longer the body is dominated by T the more it will masculinize and the longer it is dominated by E the more the body will feminize to the point of heterosexual attraction. That is what puberty does to you and why puberty blockers are given to buy time for the teen to make a decision.
The proliferation of this treatment, puberty blockers and so on is why you're discussing it. That is why it is frequently in the news of "irreversible changes". A recent trans story (the Kirk shooter's trans girlfriend) had nothing whatsoever to do with clothing as the person wore hoodies.

If trans was defined as crossdressing this would not be a discussion as the phenomena would not scale as it has.

To be clear, this is transsexualism. There are the terms transgender and transsexual — Philosophim

Give me an example of a trans-celebrity or child of a celebrity who isn't on hrt and is just a crossdresser. Transgender is obviously more scalable than transsexualism which doesn't roll of the tongue at all so that term is used.
See gender affirming surgery replacing sexual reassignment surgery, that is why I disagree.

↪Philosophim In other words, trans people are not identifying as a gender. They are identifying as the opposite sex and the difference is the level of detail one wants to obtain. — Harry Hindu

In my experience actually being in the community (I am not LGBTQ, I just visited to see things for myself) yes. For the one's that transition, that is what they truly want. The language is all to obscure this fact. We are of course getting a more inbetween version which is typically a highly sexualized and cosmetic version of body alteration too.

Femboys for example don't want to change their sex, but want to have people view them in the visually sexualized way they look at women. For these individuals, I think the definition of transgenderism as intended fits quite well. Its not an entire encapsulation of the opposite sex's gender, but a selective desire to (sexual in this case, but not all cases) get a particular reaction from people that they see society giving the opposite sex.

For example, men in Western society are not given the allowed public sexual expression that women are. Sexy or even mildly sexually stimulating clothing and behavior are often encouraged, where as in men it is often discouraged. To escape this, some men want to be seen as women or emulate the way women sexually express because they think they'll get more attention from society in a positive way, and they may not know how to do so within the 'male gender' expectations of the people they are around. For them they are happy being male, they just want the gender acceptance of sexual expression and attention that they see women have.

They want to be treated like the other sex by society, so changing their body will hopefully do so. — Philosophim

But why??
It would be understandable if transgenderism would be primarily the domain of artists, actors, performers, who, simply due to the nature of their work, are trying to be special and provocative somehow. But so many cases of transgenderism are perfectly ordinary people of one sex who medically transform themselves and who then look like perfectly ordinary people of the other sex.
Why would anyone go to such lengths just to be -- ordinary??
Why would anyone go from being an ordinary guy to looking like an ordinary gal?

Secondary sex characteristics absolutely have to with hormones. The longer the body is dominated by T the more it will masculinize and the longer it is dominated by E the more the body will feminize to the point of heterosexual attraction. — Forgottenticket

Incorrect. This can happen, but this is most likely due to attraction that already exists. AGP is an autosexual orientation that can be gratified by men seeing the AGP as female. This is well documented. For a modern summation of this check out Phil Illy's book "Autoheterosexual" online, as well as his interviews with confessed AGPs. I do not judge AGPs, and I advise getting to know about them first.

The other side is that many trans individuals are actually gay or lesbian and use transsexualism as a way to cope with the cognitive dissonance of liking the same sex. Studies on pre-pubescent children who exhibit gender dysphoria are found 70-80% of the time to end up identifying as gay and bisexual by age 18 if not medication or transition measures are given.

That is what puberty does to you and why puberty blockers are given to buy time for the teen to make a decision. — Forgottenticket

No, hormones still don't change your sex. They can change your secondary sex development, which to me is quite frankly disgusting and pedophilic to push on kids. Kids should not be sexualized period, and such decisions should never be pushed on a minor. My apologies for my more emotional response here, I can break down further in a more detailed post about why if you are interested later.

Transgender is obviously more scalable than transsexualism which doesn't roll of the tongue at all so that term is used. — Forgottenticket

No, transsexualism was familiar to people and had a certain emotional connotation to it. The trans activist community has attempted to eliminate the word to 'rebrand' and disguise what they are trying to do, which is change sex. Its thought control by denying an objectively innoffensive word that describes what is happening.

Transgender - someone who wants to take on the gender of the opposite sex.
Transsexual - someone who alters their body in an attempt to change it to be or more resemble the other sex.

See gender affirming surgery replacing sexual reassignment surgery — Forgottenticket

Right, if you study the history this was done to rebrand transsexualism. This was to get sexual identity disorder out of the mental illness category, and allow medical insurance to treat the issue. It does not eliminate the reality that this is transsexualism.

Why would anyone go to such lengths just to be -- ordinary??
Why would anyone go from being an ordinary guy to looking like an ordinary gal? — baker

I believe that is a question for those that have the mental health condition. I'm out of time for now, but off the top of my head:

1. To avoid societal expectations of their sex
2. To be more comfortable with being gay
3. "Grass is greener" mentality
4. Confusion about sex, gender, and stereotypes
5. Actual mental illness
6. Sexual desire.

For them they are happy being male, they just want the gender acceptance of sexual expression and attention that they see women have. — Philosophim

But that's highly biased, based on an idealization of a very particular category of women. Statistically, it seems few women get that kind of sexualized attraction you mention above that these men are seeking.

humans mistake statistical or biological tendencies for moral truths

But that's highly biased, based on an idealization of a very particular category of women. Statistically, it seems few women get that kind of sexualized attraction you mention above that these men are seeking. — baker

I never implied it wasn't highly biased. I'm just noting what is. And many in the femboy community receive plenty of sexual adoration online and in their isolated communities. For them, they get what they want.