According to you, so far, the trans community and its supporters are free to advocate for their particular language uses. But other people are not supposed to advocate for their own particular language uses — baker

I'm saying that words can have more than one meaning, and that one of the meanings of the word "man" is "someone whose gender is male".

I'm not sure what you mean by "advocating" for a particular language use. If you don't want to use the word "man" to mean "someone whose gender is male" or the word "slay" to mean "impressive", then don't. But to argue that these words don't also mean these things is factually incorrect. Such usages are sufficiently widespread that they count as alternative meanings and not (intentional or unintentional) misuses, e.g. using the word "cat" to mean "dog".

That's not what I said. I said that the idea that because language can evolve a certain way, doesn't mean it should. If English evolved rapidly into an ambiguous and locally defined set of terms and meanings in each state, we would have a difficult time talking to one another at all. Just because something can occur, doesn't mean its the best outcome for what language's purpose is.

...

Of course, I never denied this, nor does this address my point. What I'm noting is that there are more beneficial and less beneficial ways for language to evolve. Its a constant balance between clarity of communication, efficiency in effort, and applicability to a wider audience. Thus, it is not foolish to debate whether words should mean something. — Philosophim

What you literally said, and what I am replying to, was "the terms man and woman indicate a person's age and sex, not gender" and this is factually incorrect. The terms are sometimes used to indicate a person's sex and sometimes used to indicate a person's gender.

Whether or not you think they should be used this way, and whether or not I think the word "slay" should be used to mean "impressive", is irrelevant to the factual matter of how English-speaking people actually use these words.

So it's not wrong when other people use the word, "God" in a way that implies that it is male living in another dimension that wants you to do its bidding and exists? Mass delusions exist which can make many people say the same wrong things.

Me saying someone is wrong is not what makes them wrong. It is the distinction between the words they use and the reality of the situation that makes them wrong. Me saying they are wrong is just representative of that truth, but is not what makes it true. — Harry Hindu

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Someone is wrong if they claim that God exists but they're not wrong if they claim that the word "God" means "creator deity" (or whatever).

And I don't understand how this relates to the topic under discussion. Are you saying that English-speaking people don't use the word "man" to refer to those whose gender is male (regardless of sex) or are you saying that people whose gender is male (regardless of sex) don't exist?

Someone is wrong if they claim that God exists but they're not wrong if they claim that the word "God" means "creator deity" (or whatever). — Michael

Are they wrong if they say "God" is the universe? Isn't that the point - that anyone can use the word the way they want, but does it make them correct in any instance of their use of the word? IS God the universe? "God" is a nebulous term, unlike "man" or "woman". They have a scientific basis, and any cultural expectations that exist are just that - expectations of the culture as a whole, not an individual's personal feelings. You're trying make these terms as meaningless as the word, "god" in that it means whatever anyone wants it to mean. Communication only works when we agree on the terms being used. So if you want to use words in a certain way it would only be in your own private language, or a small group that thinks the same way you do.

And I don't understand how this relates to the topic under discussion. Are you saying that English-speaking people don't use the word "man" to refer to those whose gender is male (regardless of sex) or are you saying that people whose gender is male (regardless of sex) don't exist? — Michael

Male is a sex. Man is a specific sex of a specific species. We use those terms to refer to one's biology, not how they dress. If one does refer to a female as a male then they are either confused by the way they are dressing, because in a society where it is illegal to be naked in public we have established expectations of the sexes to tell the different for finding mates, or a someone who has simply jumped on the trans-gendered bandwagon without thoroughly reflecting on it.

in order to talk about the world at all, I need to do some reifying — frank

That’s the whole ball game.

In order to speak at all, we need to objectify, to fix, something external to us both.

Is it gender or sex that can be fixed? Or both? Or neither (and to conclude neither, we must fix something else from which to measure the fluidity of these.)

The question of gender is a new flavor of “what is justice” or “what is good?” Or what is a banana?

What is it, about which you speak?

"the terms man and woman indicate a person's age and sex, not gender" and this is factually incorrect. The terms are sometimes used to indicate a person's age and sex and sometimes used to indicate a person's gender. — Michael

And I have never denied that. The argument has been noting that the issue is that the phrase 'trans men are men' implies 'man as sex' and is both grammatically incorrect and less logical to have the unmodified man be read 'as gender'. If you would like to give a reason why you think it should be read 'as gender' I welcome that discussion.

Whether or not you think they should be used this way, and whether or not I think the word "slay" should be used to mean "impressive", is irrelevant to the factual matter of how English-speaking people actually use these words. — Michael

You are referencing slang which is terminology restricted to a context or group of people. Slang is not the general usage or meaning of the word. If I start using the term 'pizza' for apples as a formal word, this does not suddenly make my use of the term pizza correct in the English language.

Again, an assertion that 'some people (at least one) use it this way' is not an argument that it should be used that way if the intent is clear and unambiguous language that fits within what people generally would expect within the language structures.

And I have never denied that. The argument has been noting that the issue is that the phrase 'trans men are men' implies 'man as sex' and is both grammatically incorrect and less logical to have the unmodified man be read 'as gender'. If you would like to give a reason why you think it should be read 'as gender' I welcome that discussion. — Philosophim

The confusion stems from what the expectation of society is. The expectation is not that people that dress a certain way makes them men or women. This isn't even an expectation. It is a definition.

The expectation is that they are already men and women and we expect them to dress in a certain way to be able to tell the difference since their body is now covered. This is why there is a surprise when a man finds out his date is a man when they expected a woman.

If gender was actually the "expectation" (actually definition) that what you wear makes you a man or woman then there would be no surprises.

If gender was actually the "expectation" (actually definition) that what you wear makes you a man or woman then there would be no surprises. — Harry Hindu

Right. Gender comes from and is defined by sex. Sex does not come from nor is defined by gender.

Long time no see, Philosophim! I hope you are doing well.

Gender - A cultural expectation of non-biological behavior in regards to an individual's sex

I know you are stipulating this definition for the sake of the OP, but it is worth mentioning that this precludes the main usage of the word throughout history. Gender has always been the upshot of biology (nature). With gender theory, we see a new development of trying to cleanly separate the two so that people that claim to be a woman or man without committing themselves to the absurdity of claiming to be biologically one when they are not.

If by ‘woman’ and ‘man’ you are referring to merely a set of social cues and behaviors that at person gives off that are typically associated with the given sex (of man or woman), then why semantically refer to these ‘genders’ as men and women? It seems like a blatant equivocation that muddies the waters—don’t you think?

I mean, if it really is the case that being a ‘man by gender’ is completely separable from being a ‘man by sex’ and this is a new distinction one is making (that has very little historical precedent), then why not call it ‘being a loto’ or some other word that isn’t deeply entrenched in biology?

I think that is what the ‘is a transwoman a woman’ political debate comes down to: conservatives do not want to reuse the biologically entrenched words to refer to something totally different, whereas liberals want to use it so they can piggy-back off of the various ways we deal with sex in terms of gender instead (like bathroom assignments).

Long time no see, Philosophim! I hope you are doing well. — Bob Ross

You as well Bob! I hope life has been treating you well.

I know you are stipulating this definition for the sake of the OP, but it is worth mentioning that this precludes the main usage of the word throughout history. Gender has always been the upshot of biology (nature). With gender theory, we see a new development of trying to cleanly separate the two so that people that claim to be a woman or man without committing themselves to the absurdity of claiming to be biologically one when they are not. — Bob Ross

True. But having been in the community for a while and seeing their desire to cleave it, I'm willing to do so and see if certain things they say make any sense even after this is given. I have no issue with new terms or approaches, but are the statements involved in these approaches valid?

If by ‘woman’ and ‘man’ you are referring to merely a set of social cues and behaviors that at person gives off that are typically associated with the given sex (of man or woman), then why semantically refer to these ‘genders’ as men and women? It seems like a blatant equivocation that muddies the waters—don’t you think? — Bob Ross

100% Part of the approach here is to demonstrate the poor grammar involved in this attempt. If someone actually felt that gender was completely divorced from sex, I would likely see an argument somewhere saying, "You're right, we need to be more specific," or trying to justify the grammer. The only reply I've seen so far is, "Well people talk this way now, and we shouldn't debate what words should mean."

I mean, if it really is the case that being a ‘man by gender’ is completely separable from being a ‘man by sex’ and this is a new distinction one is making (that has very little historical precedent), then why not call it ‘being a loto’ or some other word that isn’t deeply entrenched in biology? — Bob Ross

Agreed.

I think that is what the ‘is a transwoman a woman’ political debate comes down to: conservatives do not want to reuse the biologically entrenched words to refer to something totally different, whereas liberals want to use it so they can piggy-back off of the various ways we deal with sex in terms of gender instead (like bathroom assignments). — Bob Ross

Sounds fair to me, though I would be willing to listen to anyone who has a different opinion.

 I have no issue with new terms or approaches, but are the statements involved in these approaches valid?

I don’t think it succeeds, because they don’t really divorce male and female as sex from as gender. They still refer to, e.g., female qua gender as what socially we expect normally out of female qua sex; so they are still viewing it through the prism of “what should we expect this being of this nature to behave and represent?”.

Let’s say it is purely social though and that what we expect a sex to behave like is purely based off of unrelated factors to their nature. Then the view does succeed in divorcing them, but now it falls into superficiality. If gender is just some particular trope of expression that any person could decide to exhibit, then it is just a personal personality that someone is deciding to become; and then this would be utterly meaningless for important aspects of how we treat people of different natures. For example, is it meaningful to divy up bathrooms based off of purely subjective personality types? Not at all. We separate the bathrooms based off of natures to properly respect their dignities. Divvying up the bathrooms on personalities would be like having a chess player fanatic bathroom only, a gamers only bathroom, the ping-pong addicts bathroom; etc. This isn’t a meaningful differentiator for driver licenses, prisons, bathrooms, etc.

This is why, going back to my point about the political tension, the important aspect of gender theory is not itself but, rather, what it is being developed for: it is being used to peddle treating people in the sense of gender as if it is in the sense of sex. Neo-liberals want to be able to present themselves as if they are the opposite sex so that they now get treated as if they are one; and they came up with gender theory to try and justify it. The common view on gender theory isn’t merely that “gender” is analogous to social personality types and expressions: it’s the attempt of subverting normal gender (sex) roles for personality traits and social expressions. E.g., I am now a woman because I present myself as one, so now you should treat me as if I really am a woman (in terms of how we would treat one that is biologically a woman); and is the real meat of the disagreement.

If a person could truly change sexes, then this wouldn’t be a political issue; but it not is the case that they can’t but also for conservatives it doesn’t help that they normally hold that the soul has a gender (sex) which cannot be changed without killing the person.

100% Part of the approach here is to demonstrate the poor grammar involved in this attempt. If someone actually felt that gender was completely divorced from sex, I would likely see an argument somewhere saying, "You're right, we need to be more specific," or trying to justify the grammer. The only reply I've seen so far is, "Well people talk this way now, and we shouldn't debate what words should mean."

Fair enough. If I were playing devil’s advocate, I would say that gender is purely social; and sex is biological. How we decided to treat people based off of sex is truly social. So if you are treating a biological woman in X manner it would not be related to the woman’s biology or nature; if that is true, then if someone who isn’t a biological woman presents the same social cues that you use to determine how to treat a biological woman, then you would rationally need to treat the non-biological woman the same way.

Let’s say it is purely social though and that what we expect a sex to behave like is purely based off of unrelated factors to their nature. Then the view does succeed in divorcing them, but now it falls into superficiality. — Bob Ross

Agreed. I view gender as socially enforced/acceptable prejudice and sexism.

This is why, going back to my point about the political tension, the important aspect of gender theory is not itself but, rather, what it is being developed for: it is being used to peddle treating people in the sense of gender as if it is in the sense of sex. — Bob Ross

Agreed. I mentioned to another poster here that the game is to get you to say a trans person is the other sex without having you think you're saying a trans person is the other sex. I find it beautifully twisted and deceptive.

And that was part of the experiment. Unveil the deception a bit. Force someone to come to the table and talk about it as if we took the distinction seriously and see if they agreed. So far, no one really has. Just a few individuals fooled into thinking it is virtuous to get people to play the game. I may post another thread later about whether transgender rights are really rights. A little tied up this week though and I would like some more time to address it properly.

This is still lumping biology in with gender. — Philosophim

It is explicitly not running them together. It is explicitly saying that biological tendencies are required for a 'socially constructed' gender to obtain. Otherwise, there is no such boundary line under which 'a gender' could be captured. Yes, sex and gender are different, but 'gender' is closely tied to sexual expression (i.e sexed behaviours and tendencies). You cannot tease these two apart and get anything coherent under the term 'gender'. This is why I am quite sure your use of these words is no better than current uses. They are conflatory (and, though neither of us puts much in this, also essentially means we cannot refer to trans people in a way they are comfortable with. My solution allows both: trans women are women, but female is the category any institution should be bent to care about). I am sorry if it was unclear enough to have this be missed.

Statically expecting a male to be more aggressive — Philosophim

Hm... I'm not suggesting that this is gender. I was quite purposefully separating this type of indicator from the tenuous claim that behaving that way makes you a man. It can be one of the clustered behaviours (which are biologically derived) that constitutes 'a man' without any direct recourse to biology. It is gender. Because a female who shows male-level aggression isn't trans. But a trans-man probably wants to include that in their behaviour to fit the construct's criteria.

That said, if you do not openly expect a transman to be more aggressive than a non-trans female, I can't quite see what 'construct' we are suppose to be thinking of here. Genders are constructed from biological expectations that are applied to the categories not represented by those biological expectations. A female presenting typically male behaviours could conceivable transition 'properly'. A female who is exceptionally feminine in behaviour will never been taken even vaguely seriously in their transition other htan by sycophants and TRAs.

For example, there is no biological incentive that a woman wear a dress vs pants. That's purely a social construct. If that social construct expects that only one sex should wear dress or pants, this becomes gender. — Philosophim

This also applies, as noted above, to biologically typical behaviours between sexes. If the only criteria for the construct are made-up nonsense then there is no basis for even discussing 'transition'.

You may be correct. The circles I have been around and in wish to push trans people into opposite sex spaces and be called particular pronouns. I think the community would have much less push back if they didn't care if they were denied entry into sex divided spaces or minded that people used pronouns as sex referents instead of gender referents. — Philosophim

Definitely agree and there are plenty of well-known trans people who do not think that way. Brandi Nitti, Blaire White, Debbie Hayton, Buck Angel etc..

Being sweet has nothing to do with gender. — Harry Hindu

Uh, im going to have cry fowl on this: when i was a teenager, i liked girls...so sometimes i would say stuff like "sweetheart" to them with sexual overtones. I realized later i sounded like "a creep", but the point is, my kinda grubby/masculine appearance is what made it look malicous. It doesn't carry the same overtones when a 40 yo woman says that to people affectionately, regardless of their sexual feelings.

The coding with is subtle in modern times, and is far from universal, but it does exist. Trans seems to be about personal preferences...

It is explicitly not running them together. It is explicitly saying that biological tendencies are required for a 'socially constructed' gender to obtain. Otherwise, there is no such boundary line under which 'a gender' could be captured. — AmadeusD

According to many on the gender side of the discussion, it is correct that there is no boundary line under which gender can be captured. Keep going with them and they'll start to say how even 'sex' doesn't have any boundaries either. Because the entire point is to get you to see them as the other sex without you realizing you're saying that.

Yes, sex and gender are different, but 'gender' is closely tied to sexual expression (i.e sexed behaviours and tendencies). You cannot tease these two apart and get anything coherent under the term 'gender'. — AmadeusD

Correct. Gender is incoherent when you break it down into the meaning they want you to. It truly boils down to culturally enforced stereotypes and sexism.

They are conflatory (and, though neither of us puts much in this, also essentially means we cannot refer to trans people in a way they are comfortable with. My solution allows both: trans women are women, but female is the category any institution should be bent to care about). I am sorry if it was unclear enough to have this be missed. — AmadeusD

No apology needed. One of the main issues with gender ideology is its incoherent and unclear vocabulary. This is intentional, as it is meant to be conflationary. I did give plenty of people a chance to clear up any ambiguity who tend to support the ideology, and almost without fail they double down on it or reject clear distinctions. That's because its not about clear vocabulary or distinctions. Its a tool to rationalize, not a tool of rationality.

I disagree with your solution, though understand its good intention, because it only serves to allow this conflationary communication to continue. The only reason trans individuals want the phrase 'trans men are men' is because they really want to hear the idea that now they're actually the other sex. That's it. They don't want to clarify it to clearly mean gender. Its a deception that asks a person to have poor grammer, poor thinking, and is used by them to argue why they deserve to be in opposite sex spaces. Imo, its not only poor grammer, its a lie with wiggle room.

That said, if you do not openly expect a transman to be more aggressive than a non-trans female, I can't quite see what 'construct' we are suppose to be thinking of here. Genders are constructed from biological expectations that are applied to the categories not represented by those biological expectations. — AmadeusD

And this is where the confusion lies. According to gender theory, gender is not constructed from biological expectations. It is purely cultural expectations. So prejudice, stereotypes, and sexism not based on biology, but culture alone. Think of someone wearing a suit. You make cultural expectations of that person because of that suit by observation alone. You think, "A person in a suit would never jump." The person jumps. They have defied your 'suit expectation'. That's gender in gender theory. It is a suit that you put on and take off like any other clothing. And you expect that when you are wearing that clothing, that other people will treat you as you personally feel someone should be treated while wearing that clothing.

Yes, gender when fully defined and understood is essentially the way a child views the world.

That said, if you do not openly expect a transman to be more aggressive than a non-trans female, I can't quite see what 'construct' we are suppose to be thinking of here. — AmadeusD

Just a suit. Are they wearing male clothing and slouching like men should in public? That's a man.

A female who is exceptionally feminine in behaviour will never been taken even vaguely seriously in their transition other htan by sycophants and TRAs. — AmadeusD

It doesn't matter. She's just a feminine behaving man because she's wearing male clothing. Don't be a bigot. ;)

If the only criteria for the construct are made-up nonsense then there is no basis for even discussing 'transition'. — AmadeusD

Correct! Because gender was simply a rationalizing tool to justify transsexualism. Transitioning your body to align with your 'gender identity' was always word salad gibberish to avoid the word 'transsexual'. Its a repackaging of transsexualism to be a more hip, modern, and virtue signaling identity so that way we can get you to agree with us having those surgeries funded by the medical community and hope we won't be seen as strange anymore.

Definitely agree and there are plenty of well-known trans people who do not think that way. Brandi Nitti, Blaire White, Debbie Hayton, Buck Angel etc.. — AmadeusD

Correct. They're speaking to the truth of transsexualism as the mental health issue that it is. They don't want special treatment, they just want to be a part of society without bothering other people. I have massive respect for these individuals and hope that the loud trans activists who want special treatment don't ruin the peace and accepted place in society that many honest transsexual already have.

Uh, im going to have cry fowl on this: when i was a teenager, i liked girls...so sometimes i would say stuff like "sweetheart" to them with sexual overtones. I realized later i sounded like "a creep", but the point is, my kinda grubby/masculine appearance is what made it look malicous. It doesn't carry the same overtones when a 40 yo woman says that to people affectionately, regardless of their sexual feelings.

The coding with is subtle in modern times, and is far from universal, but it does exist. Trans seems to be about personal preferences... — ProtagoranSocratist

Sure, there are still sexist people in today's society, just as there are still racist people in today's society, but that does not mean sexism and racism are universal or systemic.

Don't we actually have laws to not discriminate, as in treating people differently because of their sex? Then what is gender as an expectation of the sexes, if not discrimination?

Some girls like to be called sweetheart. Some don't. My wife sometimes wears my lounge pants and my t-shirt to relax around the house. She is not making a statement about sex or gender. She is merely trying to be comfortable. So yes, it isn't universal now, even though it used to be, and what will happen is that we become separated as different groups use the terms how they want and stop communicating with anyone else that sees them differently. What would be the point when we would just end up talking past each other anyway?

Then what is gender as an expectation of the sexes, if not discrimination? — Harry Hindu

According to the definition of gender, that's all it really is. Its simply culturally accepted prejudice and/or sexism.

She is not making a statement about sex or gender. She is merely trying to be comfortable. So yes, it isn't universal now, even though it used to be, and what will happen is that we become separated as different groups use the terms how they want and stop communicating with anyone else that sees them differently. — Harry Hindu

Also correct. Because the point is to use the term 'gender' as a rationalization and rebranding of transsexualism. Its the reuse of common language to conflate and confuse people into thinking that gender bending, which is normal, can justify a transsexual as also normal who should be allowed into cross sex spaces in society.

Its quite brilliant really. They piggy-backed off of the good will shown to gays (which they deserve both morally and rationally), and appealed to people's good nature in an attempt to get people to see them as normal too. The difference is that the transsexuals behind all of this used deception because they believed honesty wouldn't get them what they wanted. Cross sex space access. Its been the entire focal point of the trans activist community.

Looking at the history, the denial of access to cross sex spaces is where the anger, revolt, and cancelling of people always pivots around. Look at JK Rowling. She wrote an immensely supportive letter to the trans community, but drew a line in the sand that being a transsexual doesn't give you a right to be in cross sex spaces. Pronouns are used by people to describe the sex of an individual, and the trans activist community insisted it be 'gender'. Of course they know that pronouns refer to sex for people. Its all a plan to get you to say it to convince you that 'they are the other sex' without you realizing you agreed to it. Because once you realize that's what they want, the only logical conclusion is to say, "But you aren't actually the other sex, you don't belong in cross sex spaces."

To me, the transgender issue is a fascinating use of words and terms to manipulate a population. It mirrors a secular religion in many ways, as well as a political entity. Philosophers should be pouring over these definitions and reasons to really see what works here, but they successfully cowed people to not think about it because they first painted it as a moral issue that should not be questioned or debated. It is a secular religion, and even many atheists fell to its message. History will likely look back and say, "How could people be so stupid back then?" like we always see in history when people fall for objectively stupid ideologies and outlooks. But we aren't stupid. Its just a reminder that you always have to be diligent with word use and rational thought despite the pressures not to. Especially for social conformity and cultural claims of virtue, the temptation and pressure to conform and not think about it is powerful.

Because a female who shows male-level aggression isn't trans. But a trans-man probably wants to include that in their behaviour to fit the construct's criteria. — AmadeusD

A female that shows "male-level" aggression is non-sensical. The simple fact that a female is exhibiting the aggression is evidence that aggression is not a male thing. It is a human thing to show aggression. It is human behavior that is on a spectrum. If both sexes can exhibit the behavior then the behavior is not a criteria of one sex/gender or the other.

Transgenderism is like religion in many ways: It's a mass delusion and it makes people talk in non-sensical ways as they abandon all reason and logic in their discourse.

Don't we actually have laws to not discriminate, as in treating people differently because of their sex? Then what is gender as an expectation of the sexes, if not discrimination? — Harry Hindu

that's an excellent point that gender itself is a form of sexism: however, the laws to discriminate only apply to jobs and services, and the discrimination has to be openly spoke. Any employer can refuse to hire a pregnant woman ("she may not be as useful as someone who isn't expecting"), but the employer can't tell them it has anything to do with them being a woman.

Transgenderism is like religion in many ways: It's a mass delusion and it makes people talk in non-sensical ways as they abandon all reason and logic in their discourse. — Harry Hindu

this very well may be the case, yet as you were basically arguing in the quote of yours i just used, the more normal ways of looking at gender are also religious mass delusions. For example, women have always been prized by their societies for their effeminate looks, yet now adays the beauty standard is so high for some people that it basically alienates everyone (women and men included). I think our extreme attachment to youthful looks and beauty also has negative side effects like encouraging pedophilia, which people are ironically too childish to talk openly about....

Also, outside of school age I've found the expectations people have about me "being a man" are pretty much trivial and non-existent. However, there's that domineering attitude that men are supposed to be regularly having sex with women and that masturbating is the sign of "a loser". Luckily I don't have to talk to make friends with guys like that anymore. "Toxic masculinity" is one of those things where men tend to weave their own webs of destruction through more brutal attitudes about themselves and others, and it has a lot in common with the extreme attachment towards youthfulness and effeminate beauty.

Because the entire point is to get you to see them as the other sex without you realizing you're saying that. — Philosophim

I have differing views here.. but I see the issue you're raising.

Gender is incoherent when you break it down into the meaning they want you to. It truly boils down to culturally enforced stereotypes and sexism. — Philosophim

I don't think you've understood what I've said here: It is that this isn't hte case and there is a totally reasonable use for the distinction, albeit derivable from sexed expectations.

I disagree with your solution, though understand its good intention, because it only serves to allow this conflationary communication to continue — Philosophim

Once against, it explicitly reserves the two words for independent use. There is no conflation, and it clearly demarcates when one is talking about sex or gender. There is no conflation. It is not confused. It just may be not hte preferred option.

They don't want to clarify it to clearly mean gender. — Philosophim

They might not. That's a non-issue for this part of the discussion though.

According to gender theory, — Philosophim

I am not talking Gender theory, though. I am discussing solutions to the obvious problems it presents. I am not particularly interested in simply bagging on a prima facie absurd ideology. The problem you raise, I have acknowledge. I am trying to get around them so as not to have to kow to obviously incoherent policy thinking.

Just a suit. Are they wearing male clothing and slouching like men should in public? That's a man. — Philosophim

This is not my circus. I'm going ot have to ignore this type of stuff going on.. I'm not arguing about those issues. I get the distinct feeling you're not looking for solutions or coming-to-terms at all?

A female that shows"male-level" aggression is non-sensical. The simple fact that a female is exhibiting the aggression is evidence that aggression is not a male thing. — Harry Hindu

This is patently disingenuous. I said the italicised. Not the bolded(well, the inverse as makes sense given you're replying to me). They are extremely different things to claim. Females sometimes exhibit typically male levels of aggression. This is not controversial, nonsensical or any other bollocks you want to throw out. It's a psychological/sociological fact that is well-understood by behaviourists, sociologists and anthropologists. I have no further to talk about here.

If both sexes can exhibit the behavior then the behavior is not a criteria of one sex/gender or the other. — Harry Hindu

You just conflated sex and gender, entirely jettisoning the purpose and fundamental ground of the discussion. That explains a lot.

Transgenderism is like religion in many ways: It's a mass delusion and it makes people talk in non-sensical ways as they abandon all reason and logic in their discourse. — Harry Hindu

It seems perhaps you are not giving as much of the good old faith as you'd like.

Agreed. I view gender as socially enforced/acceptable prejudice and sexism.

To a certain extent I could see that when it comes to the more loosely associated aspects of gender to sex (like hair style); but a lot of it seems to be legitimate to me (such as feminine vs. masculine traits and behaviors).

In post-modern society we are very inclined to treat people as if by being a person they are the exact same as every other person; but a “person” is an abstraction: not a kind of substance. Having personhood is an aspect of certain natures—not a nature itself. Although men and women have the same moral worth, they are not equal in nature. They have different roles (teleological) in the human species: they are the yin and yang that solidify the survival and harmony of the species. To discriminate based off of sex just means to differentiate—to treat differently—based off of sex; and this is not per se wrong. You get a woman flowers when you wouldn’t have if they were a man; you draft men and not women for wars; etc.

I mentioned to another poster here that the game is to get you to say a trans person is the other sex without having you think you're saying a trans person is the other sex

Exactly! Or it is a convoluted game of noting the superficial point that there are an indefinite amount of personalities that someone would express.

Also, outside of school age I've found the expectations people have about me "being a man" are pretty much trivial and non-existent. However, there's that domineering attitude that men are supposed to be regularly having sex with women and that masturbating is the sign of "a loser". Luckily I don't have to talk to make friends with guys like that anymore. "Toxic masculinity" is one of those things where men tend to weave their own webs of destruction through more brutal attitudes about themselves and others, and it has a lot in common with the extreme attachment towards youthfulness and effeminate beauty. — ProtagoranSocratist

It sounds to me that this is an example of there being no general, overarching expectation of the sexes in our society as a whole and that it is only among smaller groups, such as your friends or local municipality or state, where these types of expectations exist and change from one group to another. Hence gender is not a social construct on the scale of society as a whole, but among certain groups that might have been raised a certain way, which in a free society can differ from one person to the next and from one region of society to the next. So, in western societies, one's gender is determined by the small group you are in, not in society as a whole, and your gender only changes when you transition from one group or region to another where there are different expectations (like moving from New York to Texas).

This is patently disingenuous. I said the italicised. Not the bolded(well, the inverse as makes sense given you're replying to me). They are extremely different things to claim. Females sometimes exhibit typically male levels of aggression. This is not controversial, nonsensical or any other bollocks you want to throw out. It's a psychological/sociological fact that is well-understood by behaviourists, sociologists and anthropologists. I have no further to talk about here. — AmadeusD

You're missing the point that I made quite clear. If a female can exhibit male-level aggression then why is it called male-level? The level of aggression between a male protecting its territory and a female protecting its young seems about the same level. So what exactly do you mean by "male-level"? Let the mental gymnastics begin!

You just conflated sex and gender, entirely jettisoning the purpose and fundamental ground of the discussion. That explains a lot. — AmadeusD

This is like saying that someone saying "god does not exist" jettisons the purpose and fundamental ground of a discussion about the relationship between god and nature - a discussion that assumes a premise and you not liking any type of statement that jettisons that assumption.

Hence gender is not a social construct on the scale of society as a whole — Harry Hindu

To me this is correct, even though the political left usually refuses to see things this way as it would unravel their worldview. The midwest is different from more metropolitan areas of the U.S., yet even with those areas, there are still major differences of opinion. It is a large scale construct, but not in interpretation.

For example, when i said "guys like that", i wasn't referring to the masturbation thing, but a trend within my party going social environments to rate people on how much they get layed. Sometimes i would have to talk to people like that through association. The shame over masturbating is only something me and one of my later friends noticed about the internet masculinity preachers, but i coupled them just because the mindsets are very similar...you see "getting layed" as some sort of spiritual status that's a sign of how important you are.

You're essentially arguing that both sides of the political spectrum like to force the same gender stereotypes on the rest of us, but for different reasons (which I agree). Identity politics is all about putting people in boxes in which they might not necessarily fit because human nature and behavior are varied. Both parties engaged in identity politics.

The fact that there are people that do not fit neatly into our conceptual boxes is evidence that those conceptual boxes don't actually exist. In other words, the transgendered notion of man and woman do not exist because much of western society no longer has those expectations, so there is nothing to transition between - which is why they are now making it about sex because sexual identities, compared to gendered ones, are real.

and for my ethics, i just have to accept transgendered people the way they are, with their gender essentialism, until they fail to respect my preferences. We live in very confusing times.

See, this seems patently unrealistic to me. The entire point of the American project is to promote diversity, you're right, and the intention is that this diversity is genuine — AmadeusD

Aren't you a daisy! The foundation of American culture isn't some profound humanist insight that "all men are created equal" or some such. It's just pragmatism: declare all the various factions to be equal under the law, so that they won't have legal grounds to fight for supremacy to the point of destruction (and so there will be no collateral damage from those fights that someone else would need to clean up).

What is this, if not evidence of an obsession with quantification, normativization, standardization?
— baker
What's the issue, sorry?

Then read again.

Enforce a policy which restricts that behaviour. Actually do something about it - exclude, remove, penalize etc... rather than just words. Eventually, it would become a criminal issue ideally (actually, it is. People just refuse to enforce these laws against certain groups for fear of being seen as the exact thing the laws are designed to stop you being).

So you didn't up the ante and you don't have an effective policy. Hm.

I'm unsure I understand the question properly. I agree, most people operate on that principle, but i disagree that it is genuine. Anyone who casts the first stone in this sort of context knows they are questionable and is getting out ahead of a fair assessment. I don't see any significant set of people who are doing what you suggest in good faith.

So what? It obviously works, even if it's done in bad faith.

This is, to my mind, utterly preposterous to the point that it feels redundant to address it, sorry that this is quite rude. The bolded is just bare-faced falsity that might have been true 40 years ago. Women hating themselves is one of the least helpful aspects of any society we have ever known about. It is ridiculous to suggest that this is encouraged in modern Western society

Well, a double daisy you are!

and for my ethics, i just have accept transgendered people the way they are, with their gender essentialism, until they fail to respect my preferences. We live in very confusing times. — ProtagoranSocratist

It's not confusing times - just some confused people. Logic and reason is what clears the confusion. It's just that some people do not value logic and reason, or are inconsistent in their application.

Logic and reason is what clears the confusion. — Harry Hindu

That, and overtime applying the logic and reason to understanding politics/power was helpful to me personally, but that also gives you a sense that "we live in confusing times", with the fragmented and separated nature of human activities.

It sounds to me that this is an example of there being no general, overarching expectation of the sexes in our society as a whole and that it is only among smaller groups — Harry Hindu

I think that's right. There are local expectations which are essentially one of the organizing traits of a society. I don't personally see a problem with that, except that people tend be indoctrinated where those expectations are particularly strong. That can be a serious problem.

Aren't you a daisy! The foundation of American culture isn't some profound humanist insight that "all men are created equal" or some such. It's just pragmatism: declare all the various factions to be equal under the law, so that they won't have legal grounds to fight for supremacy to the point of destruction (and so there will be no collateral damage from those fights that someone else would need to clean up). — baker

I'm not quite sure what's going on here. Yes. That is a fundamental 'American' objective. All humans being created equal isn't profound, but its extremely important to enshrine for a wide-reaching society. I can't quite tell - this sounds like an objection? Is it?

Then read again. — baker

I have. I don't see an issue. It seems that you have a problem with those aspects of a society. I do not see why (that's not to say applications, and ways of going about it for <400m people is probably not going well...)

So you didn't up the ante and you don't have an effective policy. Hm. — baker

I can't understand how you could say this. I literally explained how to up the ante (with examples of such) and this is an effective policy. It is hte strongest, most effective social policy ever used by any group ever - and it is ubiquitous. This goes to my reply to Harry - those local expectations are enforced by this social "ante-upping" until you get public beheadings. It seems like you might genuinely be trolling here?

So what? It obviously works, even if it's done in bad faith. — baker

This doesn't butter any bread. I still can't understand what you were asking. Doing things in bad faith doesn't work.

Mindy Kaling is a source of utter drivel. That quote is patently false and I have no reason to take it seriously. I live with women. I hear their experienced. I watch media. I watch (in an observer type of way) social media. Women are encouraged at every stage of life to the detriment of men and boys. This has been fairly well established in the last 10 years. Women (females) are predisposed to anxiety.

To be honest, I'm not going to debate that issue with someone posting memes to support it. I will stick with the experiences of women I know, conveniently reflected in the statistics relevant to the questions.

Calling me a daisy just makes it seem like you have nothing..