"adult human female" — Philosophim

Well, we went over how words usually do not have a single default meaning. In the case of "woman" there's the biological use, of course. There's a social-gender sense. There's the sense of personal identity that includes trans people. There's the various legal definitions. and so on. Polysemous patterns, well-documented in the literature.

It won't do to just assert the hegemony of "adult human female". Affixing "Most rationally read" is a slight of hand evaluation.

"trans" or "cis" woman are adjectives specifically to modify woman to mean, "Gender of a an adult human female". — Philosophim

Adjectives do not always leave the meaning unchanged. Consider "car" and "toy car", or "lion" and "sea lion". With "trans woman", the adjective modifies the gendered sense, not the biological-sex sense. it is now an established compound term for a woman whose gender identity is female and who is socially recognised as a woman, but whose sex assigned at birth was male. What you are suggesting runs against the apparent linguistic facts.

"Trans women are adult human males who take on the gendered role of women". — Philosophim

This works only provided we adopt the stipulation that "woman" means "adult human female"; but since there is accepted usage that does not adopt this stipulation, we are not obligated to adopt it here. It's a choice, not a conclusion.

That is, it appears you assume that woman has one fixed “default” meaning, that of "adult human female". You also assume that adjectives like trans or cis merely attach to that biologically sexed core.
But this is not how English works. "Woman" is polysemous: it has multiple senses. In phrases like “trans woman,” the gendered sense is the operative one. English regularly uses adjectival modification to shift a noun’s meaning.

Importantly, “trans woman” is a standard compound meaning “a woman who is transgender.”

The phrase “trans women are women” uses the gendered sense of “woman,” not the biological-sex sense, and is perfectly coherent in that established usage.

So "Trans women are women" is true.

I think you should do some research into the history of public toilets, and you will find that initially there were public facilities only for men. I don't have the time to tell you more, but you can do the research yourself. — Janus

No need to do research. You didn't counter the point that if it they were only for men, it was only for one sex, not gender.

I think your argument about "deceit" is woefully weak, and you know my position as to whether transwomen should be allowed to use women's facilities. — Janus

Its correct and you were unable to demonstrate why it was wrong. Your position is irrelevant to the discussion. This is not about opinions or emotion. This is about a rational discussion. You once again for the third time ignored a question in this conversation.

Should we continue to separate bathrooms by sex, or now by gender? Why or why not? — Philosophim

I'm assuming you can't agree to the above, but you understand that puts you into a bind. Think about it Janus.

Well, we went over how words usually do not have a single default meaning. In the case of "woman" there's the biological use, of course. There's a social-gender sense. — Banno

Agreed.

There's the sense of personal identity that includes trans people. — Banno

We didn't really go over this. In fact, it hasn't been a part of the conversation at all. How someone identifies themselves is irrelevant. I'm assuming a trans man or woman is observable and identifiable in their gendered actions.

Adjectives do not always leave the meaning unchanged. Consider "car" and "toy car", or "lion" and "sea lion". With "trans woman", the adjective modifies the gendered sense, not the biological-sex sense. — Banno

Adjectives are words that describe or modify words. The trans adjective indicates to the user that woman is meant to be read in the gendered sense, not the biological sense. Woman has been used to describe sex until the concept of modern day gender came along. As "woman as gender" is a new concept that is localized and just now becoming part of the broader language, the adjective clearly differentiates what concept of woman we're talking about.

"The woman went to the park." Very few people would see this by default as 'Adult human male". This can also be seen again by the fact that we need to have both 'cis' and 'trans' to modify the word woman. If woman by default was seen in the culture as 'the gendered actions of an adult human female', 'cis' would be a pointless adjective.

The point Banno, and I think its not uncontroversial to agree with this, is that the general English speaker is going to see the term 'woman' unmodified in a sentence and think, "Adult human female". And as such, my point stands. I don't think you've necessarily disagreed with my logic if 'woman' by default is seen in the larger culture as adult human female. I think what you're advocating for is that this should change. That what you want is the default of woman to represent the gendered actions of an adult human female, instead of the noun. Woman as verb instead of as thing.

If we are to read 'trans men are men" and men is the verb (gender is an action of an individual, not a state), that's not a proper verb tense. A better phrase would be, "Trans men are menning." By default the sentence "trans men are men" most rationally resembles a noun assertion. So once again, to clarify that we are not talking about men in the noun state, but the performative action society expects of adult human males, it once again makes more sense to add to the sentence to avoid the implication of a noun. Trans women are womening, works to keep the phrase tight without allowing any possible conflation or ambiguity to the phrase.

My question for you Banno would be how to make the intent of the phrase, "Trans men are men" more clear in its intent if we intend 'men' in this instance to be the expected actions of an adult human male? Because the point is not to manipulate, fool, coerce, or trick a person into an incorrect concept. Its clarity. Perhaps we can keep do something to the phrase 'trans men are men" for more clarity, but as it stands currently it is impossible to figure out without greater context beyond the phrase itself.

How someone identifies themselves is irrelevant. — Philosophim

Well, not to them.

That's kinda where Witt comes in, in pointing out the place of identity in these proceedings. Her point is that identity is not a private whim but a socially operative category. In societies where gender structures our possibilities, expectations, rights, and obligations, one’s gender identity is not unimportant, but central to functioning as a social agent. In a gender-structured social world, identity is one of the primary determinants of how a person can live, act, and be recognised.

"Woman as gender" has it's origin in the middle of the last century, with such authors as John Money and Catharine MacKinnon. But it's seen clearly in Simone de Beauvoir's "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman". It's not that new. At the very least, I hope we can agree that there is a sense in which "trans women are women" is true.

I don't think you've necessarily disagreed with my logic if 'woman' by default is seen in the larger culture as adult human female. — Philosophim

I am indeed disagreeing with that, in so far as you take it to be fundamental. “Adult human female” is one salient use of woman in many contexts. But I’m rejecting the claim that this use is somehow the foundational, default, or conceptually governing one in English. And this along the lines of the discussion we have had over the last few pages. This is not how language functions. Words don’t come with a single privileged core meaning; they have families of uses, and which one is operative depends on what we’re doing.

My question for you Banno would be how to make the intent of the phrase, "Trans men are men" more clear in its intent if we intend 'men' in this instance to be the expected actions of an adult human male? — Philosophim

Well, what is " the intent of the phrase"? It's whatever you intend to do with that phrase. Yes, you can use it divisively, by insisting that it "means" only "adult human male"; but that's your choice. If you meant that trans men ought be treated as men, the choice is clear here, too.

Perhaps it comes down to why some folk are unwilling to treat trans men as men.

Well, not to them.
— Banno

That's kinda where Witt comes in, in pointing out the place of identity in these proceedings. Her point is that identity is not a private whim but a socially operative category. In societies where gender structures our possibilities, expectations, rights, and obligations, one’s gender identity is not unimportant, but central to functioning as a social agent. In a gender-structured social world, identity is one of the primary determinants of how a person can live, act, and be recognised. — Banno

Ah, we're taking this to a new place! I think its important to point out that there is personal identity, and social identity. it is also important to note that an identity is a claim that can be true or false. For example, I can identify as a waiter, but unless I wait tables, I am not actually a waiter. Further, I can act like the social identity of a waiter, but not personally identify as a waiter (I'm not actually hired, I stole a uniform and served one table).

Gender can be a personal or social identity. "I believe females should wear top hats, but society believes females should not". If I wore a top hat, I would be acting as my personal identity, but against the social identity of the gendered role of a woman. Personal identity is performative, not being. Society is also not obligated to recognize anyone's personal identity. Just because I perform as what I identity as a waiter, does not mean society will agree that is the performance of a waiter.

When talking about 'woman' as a gendered expectation of action, and we want society to agree that our personal gender identity of a woman should be what society believes a gendered woman should be, because society has the final say. They are under no obligation to change for an individual.

This is why I have not considered personal identity important to the conversation. If we are to speak of woman as a gendered action, and woman is a shared word among speakers of the English language, the actions which would entail someone matches that identity would be the social perception of a woman, not the individual opinion.

Now, if you mean that a person 'Chooses to act as society expects a man to act", that is a personal decision to take on the gendered role of a woman. But that does not mean one gets to decide what the gendered role of a man is, act on it, then say they have acted as the male gender the way society views it.

So to this, I agree that a person may act in a way that society agrees a woman should act. So if society states, "Only men wear top hats," and as a woman I choose to wear a top hat, then I have behaved contrary to societies expected gender of myself, and instead acted in cross gender identity. I did not become a man by sex. I simply acted in the way that society wanted to restrict solely to men.

All of this to say that I don't see how its relevant to the discussion beyond this observation. If society believes the gender of a female should be not to wear top hats, but you personally think females should, society has the final say. If you believe you perform as a gendered female, and you wear top hats, society is going to state you are not performing the gender of a female. The only way personal gender matters is if you observe what society states is the gender of X or Y, then you perform X or Y to the exclusion of the other.

"Woman as gender" has it's origin in the middle of the last century, with such authors as John Money and Catharine MacKinnon. But it's seen clearly in Simone de Beauvoir's "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman". It's not that new. At the very least, I hope we can agree that there is a sense in which "trans women are women" is true. — Banno

Again to my point, this entails that woman is performative. Meaning we must clarify in the phrase "trans men are men" that 'Trans men are females acting like men". "trans men are not men by sex, or by being".

I am indeed disagreeing with that, in so far as you take it to be fundamental. “Adult human female” is one salient use of woman in many contexts. But I’m rejecting the claim that this use is somehow the foundational, default, or conceptually governing one in English. — Banno

Ah, this may be a fundamental disagreement then. Woman meant sex for hundreds of years prior to the idea of gender. It is only in the last couple of decades that gender as a separate term has been established in niche areas of study, and only recently become a consideration in broader culture.

We could test this easily. Poll 100 people like so. "Imagine a woman". Wait. Can you describe her? Get the answer. "Did you view them as a male?" The results can give us how society views the term by default. I am supremely confident that most people will say they did not picture a male. Meaning they view woman not as a societal performance, but as the sex of the individual. i think this is such a clear position to take, I do not need to see the experiment in full. Unless clear evidence is given, I'm standing with the point that 'woman' without pointing out a gendered context, is seen as sex by default. On this we will have to agree to disagree if you do not.

This is not how language functions. Words don’t come with a single privileged core meaning; they have families of uses, and which one is operative depends on what we’re doing. — Banno

Correct. My point is that the way English is spoken, the default for woman unmodified entails its a noun sex category, not a gendered action. I don't think I'm disagreeing with your fundamental position here, as perhaps in the future this could change. You could also give an argument that is should change. My point is that as of today, this is the way 'woman' is seen in a sentence without some type of gender indicator involved.

Well, what is " the intent of the phrase"? It's whatever you intend to do with that phrase. — Banno

Right, but that doesn't mean I will have that phrase accepted by other people. Language is intended to be a reasonable means of communication to clearly get a strangers mind to understand a concept we hold in ours. English is a structure that anyone can refer to when attempting to get a base understanding of what another human being is trying to say. If I write down a phrase that follows the rules of English, I can reference the rules to get a base understanding of intent.

If I say, "The cheese is the moon" and intend to communicate "The moon is made of dirt that looks like cheese", my intentions have not lined up with the common definitions and understanding of English. If I had a friend who understood me, this would work. But it would not be accepted in the larger language.

To this, it may be that people in transgender circles desire the phrase "Trans men are men" as a slogan or small group context. If they intend to bring it to broader society, they need buy in. The community asserts that it is so, and if society disagrees with them, they are wrong. But the rules of English and the broader understanding of the terms involved do not make society wrong, they make the phrase unclear and in need of clarification when brought out of local context.

If society rejects it, has has reason to by the sentence structure and the commonly understood terms involved. It is not an insult to the clique. It is simply a note that it needs to be more clear in its claim. So my question to you is this. If it is a less rational phrase to use, unclear and potentially conflationary, what reason is there to double down on it instead of just adding more clarity?

Yes, you can use it divisively, by insisting that it "means" only "adult human male"; but that's your choice. — Banno

How is this divisive? And I'm also not noting that men or woman can only mean nouns, they can mean gendered expectations as well. I'm just noting that it is not very good English in the phrase "Trans men are men" and needs more clarity if it wants society to understand and agree to its intent.

If you meant that trans men ought be treated as men, the choice is clear here, too. — Banno

Again, this is an ambiguous sentence. Do you mean that females who act like the gendered expectations of adult human males should be treated like adult human males? Because the expectations of gendered actions on an individual sex, does not entail that a person treat them like that particular sex. If a woman wears a top hat, there is no logical obligation to treat that adult human female like an adult human male and give them a prostate exam.

Or do you mean they should be treated like adult human females that act like the gendered expectations of adult human males? Because that is the observation of a cross gender individual. "That woman is wearing a top hat, but that's not what we expect adult human females to do."

Perhaps it comes down to why some folk are unwilling to treat trans men as men. — Banno

This is more of the same. What does this mean? It needs to be clearer. What is the link between societies expectations of a sexes actions in public, vs the treatment of a person who goes along with those expectations or defies those expectations?

My apologies if this is a bit long. It is a habit of mine when I'm deeply interested in a topic. Feel free to condense portions of this in response. My intention is not to overwhelm, but be thorough.

Good questions. And thereby hangs many a PhD. — Banno

Yep, but it does not answer the question. Those are ways of defining gender, but non offer a method of proving a persons gender, Do we just except their word for it?

Do we just except their word for it? — Sir2u

Why not? And that's not a rhetorical question, but a request for context and behaviour.

If being a waiter involves the social behaviours around waiting on tables, if the context and behaviour around which someone claims to be a waiter matches their claim, why not accept their claim? So we should ask, why not call them a waiter? What reasons are there for this exception?

And if the context and behaviour around which someone claims to be a woman matches their claim, why not accept their claim? So we should ask, why not call them a woman? What reasons are there for this exception?

You've ased them to prove they are a waiter. But they might equally ask you to prove they are not.

My apologies if this is a bit long. — Philosophim

It is a bit.

Do you think you might reflect for a bit on how Banno might answer your post? What's the most central issue in your post, how do you think I would respond to it?

Those are ways of defining gender, but non offer a method of proving a persons gender, Do we just except their word for it? — Sir2u

If gender is simply the expectation of actions from a particular sex, then someone would act in accordance with the expectations of the other sex while denying their own. How many actions, how long, how accurate, and other questions are difficult to answer. But since gender is simply a societal expectation of action, how you act is how we tell.

If being a waiter involves the social behaviours around waiting on tables, if the context and behaviour around which someone claims to be a waiter matches their claim, why not accept their claim? So we should ask, why not call them a waiter? What reasons are there for this exception? — Banno

Generally this is because we trust that the restaurant would not allow someone who is not hired by them to act as a waiter. In spy movies they often impersonate a waiter. But if actions betray what a waiter normally does, or the restaurant realizes they never hired this person, there is cause for suspicion. But I'm not sure this is what you're intending for your thought experiment so unless this is addressing your point, no need to drill into this.

And if the context and behaviour around which someone claims to be a woman matches their claim, why not accept their claim? So we should ask, why not call them a woman? What reasons are there for this exception? — Banno

If you mean woman as a noun, or sex, and there is no apparent physical or expected sex behaviors that contradict the claim of being a woman, most people would not. In legal cases or places where sex matters, it might rely on the belief that most people will not lie. But if we know that people have a reason to lie, and the identification of sex is important, there may be greater proof required.

Do you think you might reflect for a bit on how Banno might answer your post? — Banno

I did not expect Banno to reply in third person. :D

What's the most central issue in your post, how do you think I would respond to it? — Banno

I address variations of identity, how society treats identity, and a question for you about why you think a societies gender expectations entail that society will treat that individual as anything more than one sex acting in social way contrary to the expectations of their own. I hope that helps focus the ideas as you read. I cannot say how Banno would respond. If I knew, I wouldn't need to ask.

I cannot say how Banno would respond. — Philosophim

Well, he'd probably say that you are again prioritising the physical definition of "woman", and that this goes against the discussion we had concerning how language actually functions. He'd point out again that "A trans woman is a woman" has a sense in which it is quite true.


Oh, and being hired as a waiter is part of the social role of being a waiter, not seperate from it. There is a difference between someone pretending to be a waiter, and not being paid, and an unpaid waiter. The social role can be shown in the practices displayed, not in meeting some specific criteria. So an actor might pretend to be a waiter, mimic the behaviour, but only temporarily and for a purpose external to the role of being a waiter; then they stop and return to being something else.

Well, he'd probably say that you are again prioritising the physical definition of "woman", and that this goes against the discussion we had concerning how language actually functions. He'd point out again that "A trans woman is a woman" has a sense in which it is quite true. — Banno

I feel I covered that well in the longer post. I note that is how English functions today. While am very ok with you summarizing some of the larger points in the post, if the discussion is to continue you'll still want to address it when points were made there.

Oh, and being hired as a waiter is part of the social role of being a waiter, not seperate from it. — Banno

As I mentioned earlier, you had your thought experiment for a very specific thing, and arguing against thought experiments often doesn't let the writer of that thought experiment express their full intent. I don't want to unfairly attack a thought experiment, but would rather address an argument. Feel free to dismiss it unless its useful for my larger post's responses.

Please take your time to digest the larger post. Good conversations cannot be rushed.

I note that is how English functions today. — Philosophim

What do you mean here? Seems that you are simply re-asserting, yet again, the primacy of one meaning for "woman" over the others.

So when you say something like "I have not considered personal identity important to the conversation", I don't see that you are saying any more than "I will only consider the idea of a women as being an adult human female".

Again, that's a stipulation on your part. That's fine, so far as it goes. It provides no reason for the rest of us not to understand "A trans woman is a woman" as being true.

Please take your time to digest the larger post. — Philosophim

I think I have, and covered it.

I note that is how English functions today.
— Philosophim
What do you mean here? Seems that you are simply re-asserting, yet again, the primacy of one meaning for "woman" over the others. — Banno

No, I'm asserting that as language is used today, 'woman' unmodified is interpreted to mean a person's sex, not their gender. And as such the phrase 'trans men are men' would be most rationally interpreted to intend the second 'man' as a noun, when it is really the verb version indicating gender. I feel like I'm repeating myself though at this point, so if you have nothing to add to that point there's really no more I think I can add.

So when you say something like "I have not considered personal identity important to the conversation", I don't see that you are saying any more than "I will only consider the idea of a women as being an adult human female". — Banno

I don't see how you drew that conclusion as I noted that you can modify woman to mean "gendered actions of an adult human female". Thus you can use cis or trans to indicate that it is the verb gendered version of woman, not the noun version.

It provides no reason for the rest of us not to understand "A trans woman is a woman" as being true. — Banno

The point is not to persuade you that what you believe is true is not. The point is to think through the arguments and try to come to a reasonable conclusion. Sometimes that ends up being the viewpoint of the person I talk to when they provide a good logical argument. Sometimes not. I am simply exploring why its most reasonable for English speakers to read "Trans men are men," and see the second unmodified man as describing sex, not gender. At this point in the argument, I see this the most rational viewpoint.

If you want to attempt to persuade me that this is not rational, feel free. At this point I'm not seeing anything new though. I've already addressed what you've stated before, and since I'm not seeing you address those further points that I made, there may not be much else to explore. As I noted in the post, in this we may just have to agree to disagree. Not a slight against you in any way, I've greatly enjoyed our conversation over this as you've brought intelligent and engaging points to the conversation.

Of greater interest to me is the later half of that post where I ask about the idea that someone acting as a gender role of the opposite sex in any way means a person should or should not treat them as the gendered role of that sex. To me, this isn't part of the initial conversation, but maybe that would help me see where you're coming from. I'm a big fan of isolating things down to their basics and introducing complexity once initial steps are done. I think our disagreement here is mostly how society rationally sees the phrase, and whether it needs more detail or not. But we don't disagree about sex and gender on the fundamental level. So if you are interested, we could explore that following section a bit more.

And if not, that is fine. I can easily continue a conversation deeper for months and I recognize that is not normal nor sane to ask of most people. We apparently have reached an end to the initial query, so its all bonus from here on. So if you wish to explore a bit more about your connection with gender to how society should treat people who act in or against their expected gender, that would be great. If not, its been a nice conversation and I've appreciated the discussion.

No, I'm asserting that as language is used today, 'woman' unmodified is interpreted to mean a person's sex, not their gender. — Philosophim

Yes - that's what I said. You are insisting on the one interpretation.

No, I'm asserting that as language is used today, 'woman' unmodified is interpreted to mean a person's sex, not their gender.
— Philosophim

Yes - that's what I said. You are insisting on the one interpretation. — Banno

I am providing rational argument for why it is. I am not denying that it could change. I am not denying that we could popularize the word 'woman' as gender and not sex by default. Again, we're just repeating the same thing at each other Banno. We've both heard each other and if we both have nothing new to add, I think we can agree to disagree at this point.

I am providing rational argument for why it is. — Philosophim

I don't see an argument. I see you asserting it.

Here's the contrary again: there is a reasonable interpretation of "trans women are women" that is true.

It is the interpretation that "woman" is a gender role, adopted, grown in to, and not simply consequent on one's biological sex.

And, in some jurisdictions, this is enough for "a trans woman is a woman" to be taken as legally binding.

And so it goes.

This contradicts your edict.

So here's the thing: the use contradicts your stipulation.

I'll let you have the last word Banno. Thanks again! It really was a good conversation.

Cheers.

I think what the issue may be is stating the intpretation is binary. Clearly not.

What I would contend is that 'woman' is inexably used as a term that presents sexuality in regards to actual sexual acts and reproduction.

To say that the term woman is purely a gendered term is blatantly wrong. To say that the term woman is purely a biological term is blatantly wrong.

It is impossible to follow up on the claim that the term 'woman' is not inexcractibly linked to female and sexual reproduction (both biologically and socially). It is not reasonable to say that 'female' is inextractibly linked to the purely gendered use of 'woman'.

You have to be really careful when reading what I have said above. They are not saying the same thing. Sexual activity (society) with reproduction leads to the existence of the term woman in the first place.

To be sure, the argument here was that there are multiple ways to use "woman", all of them well founded; and that "A trans woman is a woman" is true in several of them. And this is all that is needed to show the issue with the OP.

I have not said that "woman" is purely a gendered term. I have pointed out that that is one way to use it.

It is impossible to follow up on the claim that the term 'woman' is not inexcractibly(sic.) linked to female and sexual reproduction — I like sushi

Post-menopausal women are women. Infertile women are women. A woman does not cease to be a women by having a hysterectomy. Women have chromosomal or gonadal variations. And trans women in many social, legal, and linguistic practices are women. Demonstrably, the term “woman” is coherently used in ways that do not involve reproductive function.

You have to be really careful when reading what I have said above. — I like sushi

Ok. SO I won't hold it against you, yet. But I'm not much impressed.

Etymologically, it's a combination of wif and man, the need for the addition of "man" showing how "man" was neutral - "person". Wif might be from a PIE term for pudenda,(*ghwibh-) hence "pudenda-person", or "*weip", to wrap, a reference to face scarves - "wrapped-person". All a bit uncertain. So it's not clear that it originally has a sexual tone.

Post-menopausal women are women. Infertile women are women. A woman does not cease to be a women by having a hysterectomy. Women have chromosomal or gonadal variations. And trans women in many social, legal, and linguistic practices are women. Demonstrably, the term “woman” is coherently used in ways that do not involve reproductive function. — Banno

I think you missed the point I was making.

Post-menopausal women are women. Infertile women are women. A woman does not cease to be a women(a) by having a hysterectomy. — Banno

Irrelevant to what I was saying. Women give birth to children. If someone loses all their limbs we do not cease calling them human. There are cases where there are circumstances where male chromosome people present physically in many ways as female due to congenital hormonal issues. Socially they are women and treated as women. That simple fact that women give birth to children is not intrinsic to what it means to be a woman. My point was that over all human history (regardless of whether you use the specific term 'woman') people with breasts and people with penises are generally divided socially into reasonably clear cut groups.

To be sure, the argument here was that there are multiple ways to use "woman",[u]all of them well founded[/u]; and that "A trans woman is a woman" is true in several of them. And this is all that is needed to show the issue with the OP. — Banno

Well, not literally. Saying "A trans woman is a woman" is as true as saying something like "Hunting elephants can help prevent their extinction". Both are true. The problem is in both cases they need to be explained beyond ordinary assertion and in very specific circles of understanding. No doubt many would assume that hunting elephants does nothing to prevent their extinction.

Your main concern is the Truth of the statement? Is so it makes better sense to say trans 'women are women, but ...'. Bracketing out the common linguistical ground for how terms are used in colloquial circles does not seem to help highlight the Truth of the statement.

The most common term I can think of in the English langauge that carries with it a tonne of baggage is 'race'. I am in a rush so will just say that 'race' is a term that has straddled scientific and common parse alike. Now we have muddy waters that cause a lot of problems and needless obfuscation. It appears that is precisely where genders studies is going to (already has to some degree) land us.

Etymologically, it's a combination of wif and man, the need for the addition of "man" showing how "man" was neutral - "person". Wif might be from a PIE term for pudenda,(*ghwibh-) hence "pudenda-person", or "*weip", to wrap, a reference to face scarves. All a bit uncertain. So it's not clear that it originally has a sexual tone. — Banno

You will have to explain further why this matters. I was refer to the concept of woman in societies. Not a huge fan of historicism other than as a curiosity. Please explain why you see it as relevant.

Man - adult human male by sex
Woman- adult human female by sex — Philosophim

Yes. Men are men and women are women. Men have penises and testicles (that produce their genetically unique sperm). Men have XY chromosomes. Women have uteruses and ovaries (that produce their genetically unique eggs). Women have XX chromosomes.

Trans men are women, and trans women are men. As radical a drag act as might be performed involving the chopping off and formation of body parts, the sex of a person can not be changed.

Now, who wears oxfords and who wears high heels, who wears a bra and who wears a jock strap is more variable. High heels started out in Louis XIV France as a riding shoe for men -- the high heel made it easier to keep the foot in the stirrup. Men noticed that elevating the heel improved the looks of their calves. When women started wearing high heels, the same beneficial thing happened to their calves. Legs look nice in elevated heels -- without regard to the many disadvantages of walking around on high heels.

Even though men are men and women are women, and transsexuals are merely in drag, I don't see any reason to make life difficulty for them. On the other hand, I don't have to believe everything they say, either.

That simple fact that women give birth to children is not intrinsic to what it means to be a woman. — I like sushi

Yep.

My point was that over all human history (regardless of whether you use the specific term 'woman') people with breasts and people with penises are generally divided socially into reasonably clear cut groups. — I like sushi

Nuh. That's projecting a tidy modern anatomical binary backward over extremely diverse cultures. Social categories weren’t determined by breasts or penises; they were determined by the role-structures of a community. The biology is incidental to the social grouping, not constitutive of it.

Well, not literally. — I like sushi

Yes, literally. If "woman" is seen as a gendered role rather than merely a sex role, the trans women are women.

The discussion over the last few days was to there not being one essential meaning to "woman". On this @Philosophim and I eventually found agreement. Do we go over that again?

The etymology was in response to your "

Sexual activity (society) with reproduction leads to the existence of the term woman in the first place. — I like sushi

You didn't evidence that, so I spent a bit of time checking, and presented the result. Your assertion was not supported.

Interesting comment about historicism. The idea that women are historically bound to certain biological interpretations of that term sounds historicist...?

Men have penises and testicles (that produce their genetically unique sperm). Men have xy chromosomes. Women have uteruses and ovaries (that produce their genetically unique eggs). Women have XX chromosomes. — BC

Well, no, not all of them do.

Can I ask what you make of the post from ? It was the trigger for my involvement in this thread.

Late to this debate, but I take it that despite all the heat of the public debate, this is just an issue in metaphysics. — Clarendon

I don’t think it’s anything so complicated. It’s just people thinking that words have some singular meaning.

The English words “man” and “woman” can refer to (usually) straightforward biological properties but they can also refer to something psychological or cultural or social that is less easy to pigeonhole.

Arguing that trans men aren’t men because they don’t have XY chromosomes is as confused as arguing that chiroptera aren’t bats because they’re not metal clubs.

Well, not literally. Saying "A trans woman is a woman" is as true as saying something like "Hunting elephants can help prevent their extinction". Both are true. The problem is in both cases they need to be explained beyond ordinary assertion and in very specific circles of understanding. No doubt many would assume that hunting elephants does nothing to prevent their extinction. — I like sushi

Correct. My argument was to show that if we are to consider English and the language afforded to us by gender, the phrase "Trans men are men" simply isn't clear enough. The problem is you have to know the meaning of the phrase prior to saying it. Alone, it does not indicate whether 'man' in this case means the reference to sex, or gendered aspect of that sex. That is why the final argument is that the phrase is a poor phrase and needs clarity. "Trans men are females who follow the gender of men" requires no outside knowledge to understand the phrases meaning.

I think you and I largely agree on the overall approach here. I am not asserting there is only one essentialist definition for women. Simply that the phrase "trans women are women" is at best ambiguous, and when read by common culture and by the rules of English, 'women' is going to be interpreted as 'sex', when this is not the intention of the phrase. So it needs to be better.

I think that if you interpret the phrase “trans men are men” as “trans men are biologically male” then that’s on you. Given that the sentence starts with “trans men” it is immediately obvious that they are referring to those who are biologically female, and so the context of the ending phrase “are men” should be self-evident.

Trans men are women, and trans women are men. — BC

To my point here, most people would have no problem understanding that you are used the second women and men here as sex references. Even if this was the only sentence stated, almost everyone would know what you were intending to say. That's the point. Also if I state "Trans men are women who take on the gendered role of men", this is understood easily and requires no more clarity. No one would ask, "Do you mean the unmodified men and women mean gendered expectations of adult males and females?" There's no question the intention.

And yet there is resistance to this. Sometimes even anger. Meaning that often times to Banno's point, trans ideologists want the term 'man' and 'woman' to become gender essentialist instead of the common sex reference. My point is to eliminate any possible conflation or ambiguity when talking about trans men and women so that way we can get past debates of meaning, and instead move onto questions like, "How should we integrate trans individuals in society?" I feel the reason why there is an insistence on keeping it ambiguous is for manipulation. Trans people want access to cross sex spaces. If you clearly point out that a trans individual is not the other sex, then the trans person has to come up with a reason why they should be allowed in cross sex spaces. If you can change the term 'men' to essentially mean gender, then they can point to spaces where 'men' are allowed, and attempt to claim, "men means gendered, I am a gendered male, therefore I belong there".

Of course, it may be that there is a good reason to allow gendered men in men's spaces (when men alone means sex obviously). But that must be tackled and reasoned through without verbal tricks and conflationary logical fallacies. An honest person should have no problem asking for clear phrasing in discussion, and no one should object to the notion that 'trans men are adult human females who take on the gendered role of men' and that "trans men are not adult human males".

I think that if you interpret the phrase “trans men are men” as “trans men are biologically male” then that’s on you. Given that the sentence starts with “trans men” it is immediately obvious that they are referring to those who are biologically female, and so the context of the ending phrase “are men” should be self-evident. — Michael

If you are familiar with gender theory and culture, then you understand the context. But the phrase alone divorced from that culture does not indicate this. If you go out to the wider web or bring up the discussion with people, they will assume you are saying, "Trans men are adult human males". My point is that rationally, this interpretation makes sense. Good phrases and language should not need an isolated cultural reference to be declared as being true in the broader language.

Since the gender debate has been brought to the larger society in the past few years, it should improve its phrasing to more accurately indicate the meaning of the phrase as it is ambiguous on its own. "Thus, "Trans men are adult human females who take on the gendered role of men" is a much better phrasing that allows people to think about the consequences of this thought instead of arguing with someone because they think what's being said is that "Trans men are adult human men".