No, physical characteristics are not involved.
— Philosophim
Of course they are. Beards, tats, body building, breast reduction... — Banno

No, this entire conversation has been referring to trans gender individuals. Whether they are also trans sexual or not is irrelevant to the discussion up until now.

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

No, that is not my word. That is a trans sexual. There is no requirement that changing your biology means you are a trans gender individual.

They are two separate terms.
— Philosophim
Indeed, and these are neither exclusive nor complete. — Banno

They have been exclusive in the context of this entire conversation. I understand that transgender can be short hand for 'trans gender or trans sexual' in other contexts, but I clearly defined trans gender to not involve trans sexuals to keep the conversation focused. If you want to address trans sexuals, this is separate from the conversation we've had so far.

I have. I'm not going to repeat myself unnecessarily.
— Philosophim
Ok. Then the point is rendered moot. — Banno

If you mean your point that "I have not pointed out the ambiguity involved" has been rendered moot, yes.

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

Banno, I've been polite and respectful with you. Don't ruin that with a snide remark please.

There is no requirement that changing your biology means you are a trans gender individual. — Philosophim

Sure. But transgender people do change their biology. All transsexual people are transgender. Not all transgender people are transsexual. Transgender includes transsexuality.
So, no to

They have been exclusive in the context of this entire conversation. — Philosophim

If there is an ambiguity, set it out. Polysemous does not mean ambiguous.

Sure. But transgender people do change their biology. All transsexual people are transgender. Not all transgender people are transsexual. Transgender includes transsexuality. — Banno

Factually incorrect as defined here. You can be a trans sexual and decide to follow the gender of your natal sex. You can be be a trans gender and decide not to change any aspect of your biology. This describes real individuals and is not simply theory.

If there is an ambiguity, set it out. Polysemous does not mean ambiguous. — Banno

Banno, go re-read as I noted, its already been said several times. I also never equated polysemous with ambiguous, please read my point again.

You can be a trans sexual and decide to follow the gender of your natal sex. — Philosophim

Ok, point taken.

But it remains that a transgender person may change their physiology.

Banno, go re-read as I noted, its already been said several times. I also never equated polysemous with ambiguous, please read my point again. — Philosophim

At the very least, provide a link.

Ok, point taken.

But it remains that a transgender person may change their physiology. — Banno

Of course. But once they are a trans gender person who is also now a trans sexual. I just want to be clear the conversation has at no point involved trans sexuals or their particular considerations.

Banno, go re-read as I noted, its already been said several times. I also never equated polysemous with ambiguous, please read my point again.
— Philosophim
At the very least, provide a link. — Banno

No. There are some things so obvious in the conversation that its not worth me addressing. Your inability to address what is obvious was already indicated to me as a way to avoid answering 'the question'. Indicate to me that you are genuine in your point by actually addressing the ambiguity claims that I made and I will take it more seriously.

I just want to be clear the conversation has at no point involved trans sexuals or their particular considerations. — Philosophim

Why not? Seems odd to exclude them. But whatever.

No. — Philosophim

Churlish. Ok.


So maybe back to this:

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. — Philosophim

I take it that we've shown some difficulties with this paragraph:

So are transwomen women? Are transwomen men? No. The terms man and woman indicate a person's age and sex, not gender. Are transwomen men who act with a female gender? Yes. Are transmen women who act with a male gender? Yes. — Philosophim

That it's overly simplistic, if nothing else.

That might be an end, then.

You know what I am saying. You are just playing an evasion game now.

You said women don't fight. That's not so.

Here it is:

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

That appears to say that there are biological reasons that women do not fight. But women do fight. If I've misunderstood, let me know how.

What do you think I was saying here? Use your head. Be charitable in how you interpret what is being argued.

This is not a guessing game. I imagine both yourself and the vast majority of people reading what I wrote within the context I wrote it understand perfectly well what I am getting at.

What do you think I was saying here? — I like sushi

I think you were saying what I said before:

That appears to say that there are biological reasons that women do not fight. — Banno

:brow:

I fed your whole comment in to ChatGPT, and asked it what the paragraph in question said.

When we observe that historically men have been the ones who fight (in war, combat, etc.) rather than women, this is not merely a social or gender role but is rooted in biological differences between males and females. Therefore, biological sex is constitutive—not incidental—to at least some social groupings and social roles (such as “fighters”). — ChatGPT

So. If that was not what you were saying, I'm at a loss.

I just want to be clear the conversation has at no point involved trans sexuals or their particular considerations.
— Philosophim
Why not? Seems odd to exclude them. But whatever. — Banno

The reason is what we can consider in law. I do not think there is a single viable reason to allow a trans gender person in cross sex spaces. There are viable considerations in allowing trans sexuals in cross sex spaces.

That might be an end, then. — Banno

I think so. Its been good to explore.

I do not think there is a single viable reason to allow a trans gender person in cross sex spaces. — Philosophim

If you insist that only sex counts, then of course only reasons grounded in sex will seem “viable.” But that is a choice of rule—part of how you are choosing to play the language-game.

Cheers.

I am saying that due to biological traits people are neccesarily ordered into social categories. Males fight because they are stronger, and thus a social group that defines this activity is created. Likewise, females are the ones who give birth, and thus a social group that defines this actviity is created.

This also ties into my question:

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. — I like sushi

If you believe what you said then clearly this is one major difference in how we are looking at this. Fair enough.

Ok, so if "incidental" is too weak, I'd say "constitutive" is too strong.

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

Your choice of words. I was just rehashing what you said. I originally said:

Socially they are women and treated as women. The* (amened) 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. — I like sushi

Hopefully you now understand what I mean above. That biology does play a key role into how we socially divide people, because biological traits effect our roles in society. The role of giving birth is not one open to men. This is actually a rather significant part of how groups of people live together and various traditions arise due to this.

If you think the concept of 'woman' is more a social construct than something that exists more due to biological traits then we could probably go back and forth several times on this matter.

If you insist that only sex counts, then of course only reasons grounded in sex will seem “viable.” But that is a choice of rule—part of how you are choosing to play the language-game. — Banno

No, I think that's just logic. If spaces are divided by sex, then only sex should be considered for those spaces. Language games are attempts to use language to confuse concepts. The 'game' is manipulation of the language for an end. I'm genuinely not trying to manipulate for an end, but trying to establish clear concepts to reason through issues relating to sex and gender clearly.

@Philosophim

When I posted my contribution on page 2, the exchange between us got heated and I stepped back. But since you seem to me now to be motivated by some idea of philosophical clarity and rigour rather than by prejudice, I think it's worth my explaining more carefully what I meant, because it's directly relevant to how the discussion is unfolding now.

This was my earlier post:

Obviously if "man" is only about sex, trans men are not men. But this "if" is what is being debated, so you're just begging the question.

The debate has been going on for years, and you have made no attempt to research it or address the arguments that defend the notion that trans women are women etc., i.e., the arguments that try to show that the terms "man" and "woman" are more complex than your snappy definition allows.

See for example the idea that "man" and "woman" are cluster concepts:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/ — Jamal

There are two points here. I’ll start with the first: the accusation that your argument begs the question. Your OP seems reducible to this syllogism:

1. A man is an adult human male.
2. A trans man is not an adult human male.
3. Therefore a trans man is not a man.

(The same pattern for “woman”; and “male” understood biologically.)

In isolation, this does not technically beg the question, because the conclusion isn't present in the premises. But it does beg the question in the context of the debate, because the very meaning of "man" and "woman" is exactly what is disputed—and you stipulate one of the contested meanings as a premise.

And in your concluding paragraph you say this:

So are transwomen women? Are transwomen men? No. The terms man and woman indicate a person's age and sex, not gender. — Philosophim

So your OP effectively does this:

1. Assume the contested definition.
2. Derive a conclusion that follows only under that definition.
3. Present the conclusion as if it supports the definition.

This is classic begging the question.

But you deny it:

I'm not begging the question at all. Clearly defining terms then thinking if claims using those terms lead to logical outcomes is a normal discussion. You are very free to define 'man' in another way, you'll just need to argue why it is and if that definition makes sense in normal language use. If you want to argue a specific counter to the point I've made, feel free. — Philosophim

But in the OP (and in many of your later posts) you avoid doing precisely this. You insist on one definition but don’t properly engage with the arguments that challenge it. And that brings me to the second point.

As @Michael and @Banno have been getting at, there are serious philosophical arguments—cluster-concept analyses, social-kind analyses, externalist semantic approaches, etc.—that claim "man" and "woman" do not have the fixed boundaries your definition tries to impose. Pointing this out is not an ad hominem, contrary to what you said here:

Now this is a proper logical fallacy called Ad Hominem. You're attacking assumptions and qualifications about my character instead of addressing the points. — Philosophim

I wasn’t attacking your character. I was criticising your assumptions—specifically that you presuppose a contested definition and ignore the relevant existing counterarguments. That is a critique of reasoning, not of person.

This is where the two points connect. Saying "you haven't addressed X" is not personal; it is a point about dialectical completeness. My claim is that your argument stipulates the very definition of "man" and "woman" that's being disputed, and therefore does not engage with those philosophical analyses which define those terms differently.

That your syllogism is valid is trivial. The entire debate is about one of the premises. Everyone already agrees that if "man" is necessarily biologically male, then trans men are not men. To repeat, the dispute is over the "if".

NOTE: I haven't closely followed the discussion so if you have developed your argument to support the definition, I'd like to see it. But Banno seems to be mounting a strong challenge.

Language games are attempts to use language to confuse concepts. — Philosophim

I'm just going to butt in here to point out that the term has a technical sense, to be found in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations:

2. A is building with building stones: there are blocks, pillars, slabs and beams. B has to pass him the stones and to do so in the order in which A needs them. For this purpose they make use of a language consisting of the words “block”, “pillar”, “slab”, “beam”. A calls them out; B brings the stone which he has learnt to bring at such-and-such a call. --- Conceive of this as a complete primitive language. — PI

7. We can also think of the whole process of using words in (2) as one of those games by means of which children learn their native language. I will call these games “language-games” and will sometimes speak of a primitive language as a language-game. And the processes of naming the stones and of repeating words after someone might also be called language-games. Think of certain uses that are made of words in games like ring-a-ring-a-roses. I shall also call the whole, consisting of language and the activities into which it is woven, a “language-game”. — PI

EDIT: But note that these comments are not the last word on language games in PI. The point of quoting Wittgenstein is to show that the term has a philosophical meaning that is nothing to do with "confusing concepts".

No, I think that's just logic. If spaces are divided by sex, then only sex should be considered for those spaces. — Philosophim

Yes. There are degrees where spaces are open to trans women that are open to women. There are contexts where trans women are not allowed in spaces (as in competitive physical sports) women occupy.

I think it is pretty ordinary to allow someone who looks and acts like a woman into a woman's space, just so long as they are not gaining an unfair advantage (hence how sports are beginning to handle this issue).

As with every area that involves personal freedoms there are bad actors and good actors. I do think this topic has kind of started to level off now, but maybe not. It would be nice to see people not acting on blind prejudices and just discussing in a reasonable manner. It can be hard sometimes though if the topic concerns yourself personally and there is an emotionally charged vibe in the room.

But since you seem to me now to be motivated by some idea of philosophical clarity and rigour rather than by prejudice, I think it's worth my explaining more carefully what I meant, because it's directly relevant to how the discussion is unfolding now. — Jamal

I was never motivated by prejudice, and I resent the assumption without clear reason. The accusation that I was motivated by prejudice is begging the question. Do you understand when you open with a line like that, that it poisons everything you're going to say afterwards? You should always assume that someone is trying to be philosophical first, and only after a discussion is properly engaged should you piece together that the person is prejudiced.

1. A man is an adult human male.
2. A trans man is not an adult human male.
3. Therefore a trans man is not a man.

(The same pattern for “woman”; and “male” understood biologically.)

In isolation, this does not technically beg the question, because the conclusion isn't present in the premises. — Jamal

Correct. Which means it doesn't beg the question.

But it does beg the question in the context of the debate, because the very meaning of "man" and "woman" is exactly what is disputed—and you stipulate one of the contested meanings as a premise. — Jamal

How so?

But sometimes people want to claim that man and woman are 'roles'. What's a role? A gendered label. Most of the world does not view man and woman by gender, but by sex, so the default goes to sex. However, we can modify the term to indicate 'male by gender' or 'female by gender'. — Philosophim

That's both a premise and a reason why the premise was chosen. Now you could easily come back with, "I don't think that because the majority of people think man/woman are references to sex, that this is a reason it should be defined this way." Or you could say, "I don't think the majority of the world defines man/woman as sex referents." But begging the question? If I had stated, "man means sex reference" and did not back that statement, or double down if people asked me to prove why and I provided no reason, that would be begging the question. That is not what happened.

You insist on one definition but don’t properly engage with the arguments that challenge it. — Jamal

Where? Anytime anyone has brought forward the idea that man and woman can also be defined in terms of gender, I've agreed. This discussion has evolved over 2 months and as long as people have engaged honestly, I have engaged back honestly adjusting, clarifying, and agreeing to other points. You're making accusations again without any backing.

As Michael and @Banno have been getting at, there are serious philosophical arguments—cluster-concept analyses, social-kind analyses, externalist semantic approaches, etc.—that claim "man" and "woman" do not have the fixed boundaries your definition tries to impose — Jamal

They made good points and I agreed that there can be other definitions for man/woman. As you just noted, this was in the OP. And to my mind, neither of them were able to indicate that man/woman without adjectives are normally and most rationally seen as defining a gendered meaning over sex. If you've been following along like you seem to have, that should be clear.

Pointing this out is not an ad hominem, contrary to what you said here:

Now this is a proper logical fallacy called Ad Hominem. You're attacking assumptions and qualifications about my character instead of addressing the points.
— Philosophim — Jamal

You're going to reference posts that weren't your own and way after you posted to try to absolve yourself of your Ad Hominim attack against me? Lets go back to the full original context of that:

The debate has been going on for years, and you have made no attempt to research it or address the arguments that defend the notion that trans women are women etc
— Jamal

Now this is a proper logical fallacy called Ad Hominem. — Philosophim

I helped put that little bit in bold which is the Ad Hominem. You have no idea what I've researched and haven't. You directed an accusation of ignorance against me that you couldn't back instead of the position I was maintaining. Of course I didn't have a problem with you noting the debate has been going on for years. I had an issue with your assumption that I had not done research, and that just made ME incapable of addressing the argument. You could have stated, "This is part of the debate that counters your point." "I'll cite X which shows why you're wrong." Not, "You're ignorant and obviously wrong because I'm going to assume you haven't read things I know about but won't actually say."

That your syllogism is valid is trivial. The entire debate is about one of the premises. Everyone already agrees that if "man" is necessarily biologically male, then trans men are not men. To repeat, the dispute is over the "if". — Jamal

And "if" you actually proposed an argument of alternatives instead of trying to excuse your earlier logical fallacies, we might have had a good debate. You might have even changed my mind. I would much rather know that I am wrong then run around actually being wrong while thinking I'm holding what is right. Good philosophical debate is not inherently antagonistic but should be a partnership of thought between two people trying to determine an outcome. You got in the way of that Jamal.

NOTE: I haven't closely followed the discussion so if you have developed your argument to support the definition, I'd like to see it. But Banno seems to be mounting a strong challenge. — Jamal

So you have been following the discussion closely enough to attempt to make claims about what Banno is saying, you seem ignorant to what I've been saying, but you think Banno is a strong challenge? I think the timing of you coming into the thread after two months is a bit suspicious. I think you or someone messaged you because they realized Banno was NOT making a strong challenge at the end when he refused to answer a question of mine. Why else wait until now Jamal? This is also not a slight on Banno. He engaged fairly, made many good points, and I have a ton of respect for him from this thread.

Language games are attempts to use language to confuse concepts.
— Philosophim

I'm just going to butt in here to point out that the term has a technical sense, to be found in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations — Jamal

I'm sure Banno is perfectly capable of referencing that if that was his intention. From my point in the context of the discussion, I did not feel that Wittenstein's term was what was implied. Its odd that out of that entire discussion you pulled one line that really wasn't key to the core argument. Was this another attempt to make me look ignorant to persuade people I'm not worth listening to? Didn't really work Jamal.

I would invite you to engage the topic in good faith, but do you have the mindset and discipline to do so? Since this is the second time you've attempted to double down on accusations of my character, and you tried to defend against a two month old accusation of Ad Hominem without referencing the full context, I don't know. A proper reset from you would be nice Jamal. Otherwise I don't think there's much to speak further on.

I should have known better.

As with every area that involves personal freedoms there are bad actors and good actors. I do think this topic has kind of started to level off now, but maybe not. It would be nice to see people acting on blind prejudices and just discussing in a reasonable manner. It can be hard sometimes though if the topic concerns yourself personally and there is an emotionally charged vibe in the room. — I like sushi

I think its about leveled off too. Part of the reason I made the post is to get a good conversation started. The topic was forbidden and taboo for a long time, and people were mostly afraid of thinking about it. Those are the things we need to think about the hardest. When someone tries to silence you, you need to speak up even more. As for the 'where should trans gender people be allowed topic', I feel that's a good follow up to the this thread, but probably not a great topic in the thread itself.

I should have known better. — Jamal

Nice to see we can agree on something. Have a good day Jamal, its not personal on my part.

Meaning all you have in response to an honest and friendly critique is rhetoric, so it isn't worth pursuing in the philosophical spirit in which I intervened on both occasions (page 2 and today). Each time, you respond not with argument but effectively by sticking your fingers in your ears and attempting to disguise it with bluster. I admit it’s particularly galling this time around because I was very deliberately friendly, attempting to re-open the exchange in good faith.

It seems to me that you agree with me: that the OP does not in any way support your definition, since it stipulates it. Where is the argument for the definition of “man” and “woman” which the OP depends on? I have seen you appealing to common sense and repeatedly saying that it’s the most rational definition and so on, but that’s about it. Or am I wrong?

Meaning all you have in response to an honest and friendly critique is rhetoric, so it isn't worth pursuing in the philosophical spirit in which I intervened on both occasions (page 2 and today). — Jamal

I recall I clearly pointed out how you are NOT being friendly or honest in your critique. I have yet to see you even attempt to tackle that, look inward a bit, or even an apology or an attempt to start over. Nice try.

Each time, you respond not with argument but effectively by sticking your fingers in your ears and attempting to disguise it with bluster. — Jamal

No I think the citation of original context and points backed with reasons are an effective argument, because you come back with bluster instead of addressing them.

I admit it’s particularly galling this time around because I was very deliberately friendly, attempting to re-open the exchange in good faith. — Jamal

By starting it off saying my original post was prejudiced without explaining why? Good faith wouldn't have been trying to defend yourself two months after the fact and complimenting another poster I've been discussing with as "Having a strong argument" without any reason why. Please.

Or am I wrong? — Jamal

Yes Jamal. You're wrong. You were wrong on your first logical fallacy post, wrong on the second double down post, and are wrong in trying to save face instead of moving on. I really have nothing else to say to you as you have done nothing to prove to me you have any intention of an honest debate.

I have only engaged here because I can well imagine a whole bag of tirades on the horizon when it comes to altering humans (CRISPR, AI and Robotics).

The old idea of Theseus' Ship comes to mind in regard to how difficult it may be to define what a human is in legal terms.

Yeah. Nothing in that post deserved a reply. I was going to leave it.

I recall I clearly pointed out how you are NOT being friendly or honest in your critique. I have yet to see you even attempt to tackle that, look inward a bit, or even an apology or an attempt to start over. Nice try. — Philosophim

I don't think there is anything in this post—the post with which I today re-entered the discussion—which is unfriendly or dishonest. Can you point it out?

Is it because I said "the exchange between us got heated," rather than directly apologizing for calling your post stupid? I thought it was better not to bring it up, in my effort to start again. It seemed accurate at the time, because your post dismissed my critique without taking it seriously, and refused the chance to learn. I count this as classic stupidity. However, I did not say that you were stupid. Even geniuses have stupid moments sometimes.

Prejudice seemed like a good explanation for this behaviour, so maybe that's what I believed about your motivation. But as I said, I re-opened the exchange today because on the basis of other posts of yours which I've read in the interim, I've grown to believe that I was wrong about that. I was open about this; it's pretty bad form to again complain about the very thing I am attempting to reverse (my hasty and disgusted withdrawal from the discussion).

By starting it off saying my original post was prejudiced without explaining why? Good faith wouldn't have been trying to defend yourself two months after the fact and complimenting another poster I've been discussing with as "Having a strong argument" without any reason why. Please. — Philosophim

I specifically said that I no longer believe you were motivated by prejudice. May I humbly request that you read my posts more carefully?

Yes Jamal. You're wrong. You were wrong on your first logical fallacy post, wrong on the second double down post, and are wrong in trying to save face instead of moving on. I really have nothing else to say to you as you have done nothing to prove to me you have any intention of an honest debate. — Philosophim

Let's start again. I apologize for calling your post stupid. I should not have done it, because it was not conducive to reasoned discussion.

But you have not addressed my criticisms:

our OP seems reducible to this syllogism:

1. A man is an adult human male.
2. A trans man is not an adult human male.
3. Therefore a trans man is not a man.

(The same pattern for “woman”; and “male” understood biologically.)

In isolation, this does not technically beg the question, because the conclusion isn't present in the premises. But it does beg the question in the context of the debate, because the very meaning of "man" and "woman" is exactly what is disputed—and you stipulate one of the contested meanings as a premise.

And in your concluding paragraph you say this:

"So are transwomen women? Are transwomen men? No. The terms man and woman indicate a person's age and sex, not gender." — Philosophim

So your OP effectively does this:

1. Assume the contested definition.
2. Derive a conclusion that follows only under that definition.
3. Present the conclusion as if it supports the definition.

This is classic begging the question. — Jamal

And I also showed that I was not committing an ad hominem fallacy:

I wasn’t attacking your character. I was criticising your assumptions—specifically that you presuppose a contested definition and ignore the relevant existing counterarguments. That is a critique of reasoning, not of person.

This is where the two points connect. Saying "you haven't addressed X" is not personal; it is a point about dialectical completeness. My claim is that your argument stipulates the very definition of "man" and "woman" that's being disputed, and therefore does not engage with those philosophical analyses which define those terms differently. — Jamal

Can you respond to this? Can you show in what way I was doing an ad hominem? You argue that this is the crucial ad hominem:

The debate has been going on for years, and you have made no attempt to research it or address the arguments that defend the notion that trans women are women etc — Jamal

But this is to accuse you of ignoring the relevant arguments in what is a debate which is not restricted to this thread or TPF, i.e., it is one that has been going on for years and has been addressed by philosophers. If you fail to address the debate, and instead assume precisely what is at issue, I think it's philosophically legitimate to point it out.

Please break down how my accusation is ad hominem.

But if you want, we can draw a line under all that, because there is too much baggage in it and the result will be more petty bickering and grandstanding. Instead, I can just ask you: do you agree that the OP assumes a definition which is the centrally contested definition in the debate over whether trans men are men etc? And how do you propose to support this definition? Since you did not support it in the OP, it's fair to ask you to face up to the relevant criticisms of your definition.

Crucially, I do not actually need to argue for my own understanding of "man" and "woman" to show that your reasoning is at fault, although it's fair that you ask me to make such an argument.

I'm sure Banno is perfectly capable of referencing that if that was his intention. From my point in the context of the discussion, I did not feel that Wittenstein's term was what was implied. Its odd that out of that entire discussion you pulled one line that really wasn't key to the core argument. Was this another attempt to make me look ignorant to persuade people I'm not worth listening to? Didn't really work Jamal. — Philosophim

No, I'm not trying to score points, just helping out by correcting your faulty interpretation, since I know @Banno better than you. There is never a time when he says "language game" and does not mean it in the Wittgensteinian sense.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there is never a time when any seasoned philosophical thinker, in the Western tradition, uses the term "language game" and does not mean it in the Wittgensteinian sense.

Seems like as good a time as any to reset the topic. :smile:

That is, so people can understand what the OP and the most recent poster they engaged with productively failed to instill in one another. Certainly this happened as both are intelligent people who fail to see eye to eye.

But first, this concerns me (not to say it's not accurate, hence the concern):

A few definitions first:

Sex - A species expressed reproductive role.
Gender - A cultural expectation of non-biological behavior in regards to an individual's sex — Philosophim

Commoners (those not raised with morals, intellectual rigor, and standards) consider their degeneracy "normal" male behavior. It's not. It's bestial degeneracy. An unfortunate symptom of moral rot ie. normalization of that which should be despised. That means comparing the two classes of males under this dynamic is going to give a false distinction of what "cultural expectation of [...] behavior" actually means.

I'll give you an example, a real world anecdote from my youth: I once had the displeasure of obtaining schooling in the city. Let's just say they couldn't even legally call it a school; it was an "educational center." They had more security guards than cafeteria staff. 'Nuff said. So. I'm sitting there eating lunch at a table with about half a dozen other boys. Somehow (or perhaps, as expected), the topic of masturbation comes up, to which I of course stay out of. The person closest to me blurts out some vulgar speech about female genitalia, to which I glance over to him with a scornful look of disapproval. Now, instead of apologizing or excusing himself for profane talk at a time and place of eating like a civilized child, he instead responds "Oh, sorry, I didn't know you were a girl!" As if I was somehow the one out of line as far as social etiquette. I didn't realize until several years later that, technically, being in a den of those raised with all the morals and standards of a small rodent, I was in fact the one out of line, or, "acting contrary to how the average male of our age (sadly) does."

My point is, just because a given society or even world has a "social expectation" of something (in this case, per my story, being vulgar or edgy, or perhaps in another time, accepting and supportive of slavery), doesn't mean it should be treated as if it has the same class of relevance as "sex", something that is rooted in the absolute.

Anyway, just wanted to express that. Moving on. Regardless, the current impasse seems to be an issue of the fact that different people can have different "grasps" of definitions, some looser and some stricter than others. This is a one-dimensional problem. Not that exciting, per se.

From my understanding, everyone in this thread who has participated thus far can agree on the following statement: "A transgender 'man' is an individual born as a female who either chooses to identify as the opposite gender or has obtained medical surgery to function as one in some degree." (And the opposite for the opposite sex, respectively).

So, that's not the issue. The issue is that words evolve over time and some people accept a looser definition of "man" and "woman" to include that of, again this, what I find absurd, idea of "gender" (not that I find the concept of gender absurd, but what it has been turned into to normalize behavior no person of any sex or society should tolerate, let alone normalize).

This (that is to say the current impasse) seems to be more of a social issue involving words and meaning of words. Not exactly a deep pool of philosophy, IMO. Unless I missed something? :chin: