Again, if you interpret the phrase “trans men are men” as “trans men are biologically male” then that’s on you.

Do you honestly believe that people who say this are delusional about someone’s sex organs? Do you honestly believe that trans men hallucinate themselves to have a penis? Common sense and even the smallest principle of charity should make it obvious that you’re addressing the most absurd strawman.

I think that if you interpret the phrase “trans men are men” as “trans men are biologically male” then that’s on you. — Michael

No, that is a perfectly legitimate and rational interpretation of the phrase in isolation. It is on the speaker to provide clear phrasing. Do you agree "Trans men are adult human females who take on the gendered role of men" is a much better sentence to clearly communicate the intent of the phrase? Do you think you would get in debate over the phrase itself, or would it then open the conversation to discuss 'trans men' with this clearly understood context between two people?

As philosophers, we must be advocates of clear, unambiguous, and rational phrases and language when discussing ideas. "Trans men are men" alone can be legitimately interpreted with the singular 'men' being either 'sex' or 'gendered'. Based on current culture and English rules and norms, it is more rational for a person reading the phrase without context to interpret it to mean the noun sex referent. Thus it is a poor phrase if a person coming from the still niche gender culture and language wants to communicate the concept, "Trans men are adult human females who take on the gendered role of men" to the general culture for honest and unambiguous discussion.

Again, if you interpret the phrase “trans men are men” as “trans men are biologically male” then that’s on you.

Do you honestly believe that people who say this are delusional about someone’s sex organs? Do you honestly believe that trans men imagine themselves to have a penis? — Michael

There are delusional people who believe this. I've been around online and in trans circles. But what is more relevant is that a person who hears the phrase is most likely to interpret the phrase as claiming they have changed actual sex. That's why its a poor phrase and needs to be clarified. "Common sense" is not an argument because to people who interpret solitary to 'man' to reference sex, that's also "Common sense" to them. Charity is given to people who are seen as rational and honest in debate, and it must be earned through discussion. Many people lie, are delusional, ignorant, uneducated, and attempt to deceive others. Consider that many in the culture think that a trans person is already mentally ill (Not saying they are, it is an observation) why should they think this person isn't claiming to be the other sex?

So I'll ask you very plainly. If its an unclear phrase to most people and is most rationally interpreted alone to reference sex when that is not the intention, why double down on it? Rationally, there should be no issue with saying, "Yeah, I guess it can come across like that. Lets adjust the phrase to be more accurate so the broader culture understands." Just like there should be no essentialist attachment to 'men' to always refer to sex, there should be no essentialist attachment for 'men' to always refer to gender. If the goal is to clearly communicate the reality of the situation, any provably ambiguous language and phrasing should be clarified. So why are you against it? Because unless a good reason is stated, people who advocate for unclear language are using language in a way which conveys they are confused, uneducated, or ignorant at best. At worst, its a person attempting to manipulate language for an outcome that they desire, which is deceptive, malicious, and wrong.

So unless you can explain to me why you're advocating and insisting that a provably ambiguous phrase shouldn't be clarified to remove its ambiguity, I have no recourse but to assume you fit one one of the adjectives above in this debate.

There are delusional people who believe this. — Philosophim

That some people suffer from psychosis does not justify your position. Common sense is sufficient to understand that most people aren’t suffering from hallucinations or delusions. and so the only rational conclusion is either a) other people misunderstand the (singular) meaning of the word “man” or b) the word “man” doesn’t just mean the singular thing you believe it to mean.

There are delusional people who believe this.
— Philosophim

That some people suffer from psychosis does not justify your position. — Michael

And I noted that its not nearly important as the follow up, which is how people are going to interpret the phrase. So a little logical fallacy of avoidance.

Common sense is sufficient to understand — Michael

Are you seriously doubling down that "Common sense" is an argument? That's embarrassing. You're supposed to be versed in philosophy, rational thinking, and good arguments. You just glossed over the point that someone can easily say its "Common sense" that a man refers to sex, like countless people do today. You sound like a fool for doubling down on that.

Finally, you ignored my question. Which means you are against clarifying the language. So maybe you are ignorant despite your 16 thousands posts because you actually think a doubling down on an argument from "Common sense" would make people think, "Oh gee, he's right!" instead of imagining a conservative hick in the woods advocating against gay marriage.

But I'm going to assume you're not. I'm going to assume you're reasonably intelligent, understand common logical fallacies, and can think rationally. So this leaves me to consider that you are being deceptive with language, a malicious action that deserves no place in philosophical discussion. In terms of honest and clear discussion, I am the one holding onto clarity while you are using language for an outcome you desire.

Do you really want to come across as so afraid of clarifying language because you think it will go against an outcome that you want down the road? If the outcome you want down the road is the most rational, then it should be easily defended and argued for with clear language and communication. How are you any different from a Christian who insists on not clarifying their terms? A backwards conservative who ignores points in a discussion to double down on something they simply want? Come on Michael, I know you have a better intellect than that. Address my question. Do not be afraid.

The biology is incidental to the social grouping, not constitutive of it. — Banno

You would not consider that biology is actually far more constituitive to social grouping than you currently believe it is? Incidental sounds weak to me.

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

Do you think men fighting rather than women is a 'gender role' that has nothing to do with biology? It is clearly a biological difference we are talking about here that groups men as fighters and women as non-fighters.

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

A boy is a young male, and a man is a mature male - not based on social constructs.
A trans boy is a trans boy, and a trans man is a trans man - these are social constructs.

I have no huge issue with conceding that a trans man/woman falls into a broader social category of what a man or woman is. Legally there are differences between a woman and a trans woman. If the law is understanding there are underlying biological conditions that group trans women differently to women then it is not really about some linguistic nuance.

Issues may arise if people start saying 'I am a man' instead of saying 'I am a trans man'. In day to day life this has little to no bearing though. No one I know has ever declared their gender to me upon first meeting and I would find it kind of strange if they did.

It’s common sense that there is no widespread mass psychosis about the sex organs of transgender people. This is most obvious given that these people are referred to as “transgender” rather than as “cisgender”. The very words people use proves beyond all reasonable doubt that they are not hallucinating or delusional.

You’re just doubling down on a completely unreasonable accusation, and then shifting the burden of proof.

It’s common sense that there is no widespread mass psychosis about the sex organs of transgender people. — Michael

Wow. Tripling down on using "Common sense" as a viable argument? I don't know what to say anymore that you haven't screamed to everyone reading your post.

Also, where in this discussion did I claim mass psychosis? Where did that even come from? Are you enjoying that straw man you're beating on in the corner to avoid the question I asked?

The very words people use proves beyond all reasonable doubt that they are not hallucinating or delusional. — Michael

This is also incredibly deficient. So anytime anyone says words, that means they are not hallucinating or delusional? Michael. You're caught in something that is stopping you from thinking clearly. Break out of it. Do not become what you know you hate.

You’re just doubling down on a completely unreasonable accusation, and then shifting the burden of proof. — Michael

Hard to make that case when you're ignoring the question I asked and spouting logical fallacies like "Common sense" as a viable argument. Your mind is captured Michael. You're letting emotions block you from thinking clearly. Take some time to quietly think about what has been said so far and come back later. I've been where you are before. Its ok. Remember that we should carefully consider all outcomes. Remember your years of understanding rational thought, fallacies, and taking every emotion that prevents you from doing so, and put them to the side. Right now you're not at your best.

It’s very simple. Nobody who says “trans men are men” believes that biological women who identify as men are biological men. It’s absurd that this needs to be explained to you.

The only coherent objection to the claim “trans men are men” is to argue that they are misunderstanding or misusing the word “men” — that it only means “biological men” — but this objection, although coherent, is demonstrably false.

The English language, like every other natural language, has its ambiguities and homonyms, and it’s incorrect to claim that it doesn’t and pointless to insist that it shouldn’t. If it concerns you that much then go learn Lojban.

Why don't you sleep on it, come back tomorrow and answer my question? You're not in the correct mindset right now to have a coherent discussion with. Have a good day today Michael, I'll look for your answer tomorrow.