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.

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. — Michael

Nice.

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. — I like sushi

Women fight.

I don't understand. We agreed, I'd thought, that there need not be a single fundamental definition for a word, but that we might look to how a word is used in order to make sense of it's meaning. We'd agreed that "woman" might be considered to to mean "female adult human", or it might be "one who adopts a certain social role". In your OP you claimed that "a trans woman is a woman" is false, on the grounds that a trans woman is not an adult human female. But if we understand "woman" as being used as "one who adopts a certain social role", then "A trans woman is a woman" is equivalent to "A trans woman adopts a certain social role" and is true.

So contrary to the OP, there is an interpretation of "a trans woman is a woman" that is true.

Now those here who are maintaining that this is not so are insisting that there is only one legitimate meaning for "woman". As Michael put it, they are insisting that chiroptera aren’t bats because they’re not metal clubs.

Your position appears inconsistent.

I don't understand. We agreed, I'd thought, that there need not be a single fundamental definition for a word, but that we might look to how a word is used in order to make sense of it's meaning. We'd agreed that "woman" might be considered to to mean "female adult human", or it might be "one who adopts a certain social role". — Banno

Correct.

In your OP you claimed that "a trans woman is a woman" is false, on the grounds that a trans woman is not an adult human female. But if we understand "woman" as being used as "one who adopts a certain social role", then "A trans woman is a woman" is equivalent to "A trans woman adopts a certain social role" and is true. — Banno

Also correct.

So contrary to the OP, there is an interpretation of "a trans woman is a woman" that is true. — Banno

Not quite. Yes, there is an interpretation of 'a trans woman is a woman' that is true. What I note in the OP is that while it might be true if one knows the context behind the phrase, for English and general culture, it is most rational to read 'woman' unmodified to refer to 'sex', and not gender. As such, it is a poor phrase to use in the general context of language as the phrase in isolation is most likely to be interpreted incorrectly. As such, the phrase should be more detailed and changed to something like "Trans men are adult human females who follow adult human male gender expectations."

I believe where we agreed to disagree was the general interpretation of the phrase in broad language and culture. I contest that 'woman' or 'man' without adjective modifiers is in most cases seen as 'adult human sex', whereas you don't.

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. — Banno

To be clear, it is not that this cannot change, or that we can't argue it can't change. It is very possible for language norms to change over time, and maybe one day people will think of "A woman in the woods" and will envision an adult human male or female with equal likelihood. But as of today, that is not how most people envision 'woman' without adjectives. It still defaults to "Adult human female", and as such the phrase 'trans women are women' would do better by adding clarity to the phrase to avoid ambiguous intent and incorrect interpretation in the larger culture.

Yes, there is an interpretation of 'a trans woman is a woman' that is true. — Philosophim

Cool. Which was to be shown.

...for English and general culture, it is most rational to read 'woman' unmodified to refer to 'sex', and not gender. — Philosophim

This appears contrary to

We'd agreed that "woman" might be considered to to mean "female adult human", or it might be "one who adopts a certain social role". — Banno

Which you accepted. That is, you are giving an unjustified primacy to one interpretation. "Rational" just names a prejudice here.

...for English and general culture, it is most rational to read 'woman' unmodified to refer to 'sex', and not gender.
— Philosophim
This appears contrary to
We'd agreed that "woman" might be considered to to mean "female adult human", or it might be "one who adopts a certain social role".
— Banno
Which you accepted. That is, you are giving an unjustified primacy to one interpretation. — Banno

It is not contrary to note that while there can be different interpretations based on context, one context is less likely to be interpreted when introduced to another context. "Rational" is not a prejudice, it is a claim of what the English language is like and the way most will interpret a phrase in isolation. Let me give a different example. "The moon is sweet." In general English, this indicates that the moon tastes sweet. But in the context of another conversation with a few teenagers, we might find it is a phrase where 'sweet' means 'awesome', and isn't referring to the taste at all.

If these two teenagers went to people who didn't know this context, and didn't know the teenagers at all, the phrase alone would most likely trigger people to think, "They are saying the moon tastes sweet." Notice how the two contexts can be both true, but when the sentence is taken alone one context is more likely to be interpreted than the other.

And that specific part is what I'm pointing out with 'trans men are men'. Yes, there is a context that this can be true when 'men' unmodified refers to the gender of adult human men. But it is not rationally what someone would hold to be true read alone without further context. As such, while it may be understood in a smaller group of people, most people are going to see the phrase as claiming the second unmodified man or woman as a sex reference. In my time exploring this issue and going to several different groups of people, this has also been my observed outcome. As such, the phrase is poor and causes confusion among the greater culture. It should therefore be clarified to 'Trans men are adult human females that act in gendered terms like an adult human male." If this is what the phrase is intended to mean, then there should be no objection to increased clarity of the phrase so that people outside of the gendered community understand.

...there is a context that this can be true when 'men' unmodified refers to the gender of adult human men. But it is not rationally what someone would hold to be true read alone without further context. — Philosophim

There can be no "what someone would hold to be true read alone without further context". Language is always embedded in life.

You are simply giving primacy to one context - the biological one.

There can be no "what someone would hold to be true read alone without further context". Language is always embedded in life. — Banno

You can when language is stated without context. At that point we default to the general rules of English. Just like most people would do if we saw the sentence, "The moon is sweet" without context.

You are simply giving primacy to one context - the biological one. — Banno

No, I am simply noting that given the English language and broader culture, the phrase "Trans men are men" is going to be seen as claiming that a trans man is the same as 'an adult human female', thus it needs clarity.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Michael. Is there a problem with clarifying the phrase so there is no ambiguity or confusion?

You can when language is stated without context. — Philosophim

There is no language without context.

Is there a problem with clarifying the phrase so there is no ambiguity or confusion? — Philosophim

But this is not what you are doing. You are choosing one sense over the other.

You can when language is stated without context.
— Philosophim
There is no language without context. — Banno

There is language without conveyed personal or social context, and when that happens we default to the context of the language, such as English.

Is there a problem with clarifying the phrase so there is no ambiguity or confusion?
— Philosophim
But this is not what you are doing. You are choosing one sense over the other. — Banno

No, I am observing that one sense is what is rationally interpreted in English and culture as of today. It is not my choice, it is again, an observation.

As such, the phrase should be clarified to not be interpreted incorrectly to the underlying intent of the phrase.

Now, I'll ask again. If you avoid answering this time, I'm going to assume what I assumed about Michael. If the phrase is ambiguous and likely to be misinterpreted, then it is a poor phrase for accurate communication. Whether you understand it is not the point. Its that the phrase can both mean and be interpreted as a claim of sex and not gender. Is there anything rationally wrong with clarifying the phrase to convey its meaning without any ambiguity or misinterpretation? "Trans men are adult human females who act in gendered ways of adult human males?"

There is language without conveyed personal or social context, and when that happens we default to the context of the language, such as English. — Philosophim

This amounts to special pleading - deliberately ignoring those aspects that are unfavourable to your argument.

There is always a personal or social context.

No, I am observing that one sense is what is rationally interpreted in English and culture as of today. — Philosophim

How to make sense of this.

You admit that the gendered version is also "one sense (that) is rationally interpreted in English and culture as of today", yet insist on the primacy of the sexed version.

And yet don't seem to see this as problematic.

The issue can be debated politically and is.

The matter of fact is much harder to settle. Although perhaps too tired a point, the distinction is that between identity and sex.

One is a human-specific creation, the other is a scientific one.

No animal questions its identity, if it even has one (aside from what we attribute to it.)

Sex seems to be closer to a kind of "natural kind" distinction in biology.

The political topic is not interesting to me, the issue of identity is extremely difficult.

This amounts to special pleading - deliberately ignoring those aspects that are unfavourable to your argument. — Banno

This is an assertion, not an argument. I'm seeing no evidence that this is so.

There is always a personal or social context. — Banno

There is always a context, but that context can also be the rules of the language itself. I am not seeing any reason why this isn't true from your assertion.

You admit that the gendered version is also "one sense is what is rationally interpreted in English and culture as of today", yet insist on the primacy of the sexed version. — Banno

Now you're ignoring what I just said. I am not insisting like it is my decision. I am observing it is so by the rules of English and broader culture. We can agree to disagree at this point because this requires proof at this point. I've provided the example of 'A woman in the woods" and you have not provided anything that would dissuade me that by default, people see 'woman' or 'man' unmodified as a reference to physical sex. And that's fine. None of us have the ability to do a statistical analysis and poll people like I've proposed. This is a point in the conversation where proof is needed, but by consequence there is nothing wrong with either of us holding our belief to a statement until such proof is gathered.

So on this, I'm not sure there is anything more to be said. However what did need to be said was the answer to my question. You don't even have to agree on the way most people will interpret the phrase, but it is clear there is more than one way to interpret the phrase, and as such it is ambiguous. One of the essential tenants in philosophy is a disambiguation of terminology to allow clear thinking and rational thought. Anyone who is against getting rid of ambiguity in phrasing is being dishonest and manipulative in a discussion if they are not ignorant or rationally deficient. I do not believe you are ignorant or rationally deficient.

So I can only assume at this point that your attachment to the phrase is not rational, but a need for the ambiguity. By your own approach to language, you cannot rationally claim that it cannot be interpreted in more than one way. There can be no good reason to hold onto and insist on ambiguity in terms when we have the option of clarifying them. If I do not hear an answer to the question in your next post, I will conclude that I will have won the point that it should be clarified because I am upholding proper philosophical discourse and you have not demonstrated that I am not.

It's not an ambiguity. It's Polysemy. It's not that the meaning is unclear, but that there are multiple uses.

And that you are choosing to prioritise one of those uses over others, calling that choice "rational" by way of an excuse, yet without providing any argument or evidence.

It's not an ambiguity. It's Polysemy. It's not that the meaning is unclear, but that there are multiple uses. — Banno

This is word play to avoid answering the question. There can be ambiguity over polysemous words used in a phrase correct? If the term was NOT Polysemous then you would have an argument that it is not ambiguous. All you have done is use a more advanced word when we already agree that the term woman can have multiple meanings based on context. This is not an argument against the phrase being ambiguous, just a fancy word.

As long as you avoid my question Banno, my point stands. There is nothing wrong with clarifying the phrase "Trans men are men" to "Trans men are adult human females who exhibit the gender of adult human males." Unless you are willing to answer the question, I think we've reached the end of that discussion.

here can be ambiguity over polysemous words used in a phrase correct? — Philosophim

The difference between woman and used as a gender term and as a sexed term is not that of ambiguity.

Polysemous does not mean ambiguous.

There is nothing wrong with clarifying the phrase "Trans men are men" to "Trans men are adult human females who exhibit the gender of adult human males." — Philosophim

So long as you acknowledge that you are making a choice in doing so. It is not a correction dictated by the language itself; it is a stipulation about meaning that you are imposing. English already allows “trans men are men” to be understood clearly in the gendered/social sense of “man.” Choosing to redefine it biologically is a deliberate, prescriptive move — not a clarification required by ordinary usage.

Choosing to redefine it biologically is a deliberate, prescriptive move — not a clarification required by ordinary usage. — Banno

No, choosing to note the difference between biology and gender is a clear clarification of the term so that the user resolves the ambiguity between sex and gender intentions in the phrase. I have not seen any argument here that indicates the phrase is not ambiguous, so nothing else to add from me.

I have not seen any argument here that indicates the phrase is not ambiguous — Philosophim

Nor any that it is not a cat.

If you think it ambiguous, set out the ambiguity.

But if instead we can agree that trans men are (often) female adult humans who take on male social and physical characteristics, we might do better.

And that, itself, only as an approximation to the degree to which such terms are flexible.

If you think it ambiguous, set out the ambiguity. — Banno

I have. I'm not going to repeat myself unnecessarily.

But if instead we can agree that trans men are (often) female adult humans who take on male social and physical characteristics, we might do better. — Banno

No, physical characteristics are not involved. That would indicate a trans sexual who is attempting to change their biology, not a trans gender individual. A trans gender individual requires no hormones or bodily alterations. And a trans sexual is not required to be trans gendered. They are two separate terms.

That's why the unambiguous version of the phrase only mentions the actions of a sex taking on the gender of another sex, not the expected sex characteristics of the other sex.

I have. I'm not going to repeat myself unnecessarily. — Philosophim

Ok. Then the point is rendered moot.

No, physical characteristics are not involved. — Philosophim

Of course they are. Beards, tats, body building, breast reduction...

That would indicate a trans sexual who is attempting to change their biology, — Philosophim

You might think of it that way. But eating is changing your biology.

A trans gender individual requires no hormones or bodily alterations. — Philosophim

Being transgender, perhaps, does not require it; but transgender folk do change their "biology" - your word.

They are two separate terms. — Philosophim

Indeed, and these are neither exclusive nor complete.

...the unambiguous version of the phrase... — Philosophim

As I said, if you won't defend that usage, it doesn't do anything.

Back to call-and-answer, so not expecting much now. A pity.