The main criticism I can see being directed at you here is that you are veering away from the usual academic usage of the term 'gender'?

That is main thing I can see.

In day to day speech people say 'woman' and refer to 'females' the vast majority of the time. I have come across scientists in the past who attacked people for even suggesting there were different 'races' because they could not think of anything else other than the biological definition of 'race' (where clearly they are correct). This is what I think may have happened in this thread. If not that I am not really sure what is going on :D

to normalize behavior no person of any sex or society should tolerate, let alone normalize — Outlander

What behaviour are you referring to here?

What behaviour are you referring to here? — Jamal

Anything that shouldn't be normalized. In a society that tolerates and encourages slavery, for example, it might be "normal gender behavior" for males to engage and casually talk about such acts in a mocking, friendly way. That would mean, at least to me, the idea of "gender" being just a word to describe "what other people of your sex expect from you" doesn't seem to be exactly a well of depth worth discussing. It's just a benchmark or expectation of a given society. Relevant only to that society as long as that particular society exists. I just don't see how that's particularly fruitful as far as philosophical debate goes. Perhaps it's just over my head. :confused:

The reason I posted was to try and understand the impasse between OP and @Banno. Both smart people, so, it just makes me wonder exactly what the other person isn't "buying" or otherwise not seeing eye to eye is. I haven't read every single post from the beginning, so I merely offered my preliminarily assessment: "Some people have looser definitions of a word than others, so perhaps that's what the current impasse is rooted in." Just wanted to get OP's opinion on my opinion, I suppose. :smile:

For the sake of advancing the discussion and ensuring no one party is hung up on something trivial, of course.

The reason I posted was to try and understand the impasse between OP and @Banno. — Outlander

:up:

Otherwise, I still have no idea what you meant by "behavior no person of any sex or society should tolerate."

For what it's worth, the OP's substantive claim is this:

Most of the world does not view man and woman by gender, but by sex, so the default goes to sex. — Philosophim

Most of those who disagree with the OP therefore disagree with this claim or with its significance.

Most of those who disagree with the OP therefore disagree with this claim or with its significance. — Jamal

So are you saying that most people around the world when someone says woman they do not imagine a female? This is clearly bogus.

I do imagine you mean that most academics around the world would disagree. Which is likely correct and definately correct in related fields of interest.

The way I put it was inadequate. What I should have said is that those who disagree with the OP find that statement, or more specifically its role in @Philosophim's argument, to be problematic.

EDIT: It's what is implied by "the default goes to sex" that's the problem, namely that we can be satisfied with the definition of "man" and "woman" as relating solely to biology.

to normalize behavior no person of any sex or society should tolerate, let alone normalize — Outlander


What behaviour are you referring to here? — Jamal

Otherwise, I still have no idea what you meant by "behavior no person of any sex or society should tolerate." — Jamal

It's not really relevant in comparison to the discussion.

Other than it's an attempted (and in some societies, successful) moral hijacking of social norms and words that describe social norms to include things behaviors and attitudes that were once shamed and ridiculed. For example, when someone is hesitant to do something for clearly logical reasons, one might choose to belittle him and question his "manhood" so as to ironically make him do things at the behest of another person, which actually makes him like a "woman" according to historic and many modern standards. It's the jarring disconnect that people don't realize how responding to comments of the sort in fact make them less than men but like children following the behests of others.

It's social engineering. Effectively making any person do things they otherwise wouldn't do, generally immoral, dangerous, or destructive things by suggesting if they don't they're not "normal" or "not a man" or "not a woman" or whatever it is they're supposed to "be like" per social opinion. Peer pressure. Fall of the monarchy. Rise of the darkness that is unrefined human nature.

Specifically, I'm referring to how drastic and pronounced it's become to normalize behavior that was historically shamed and punished by simple phrases such as "be a man", thus showing how far the moral rot of many modern societies has advanced. It's a passing social commentary on the state of morality, more so than anything else. But never you mind. It's being handled.

For what it's worth, the OP's substantive claim is this:

Most of the world does not view man and woman by gender, but by sex, so the default goes to sex. — Philosophim


Most of those who disagree with the OP therefore disagree with this claim or with its significance. — Jamal

Ah, yes. Back on track. This stands to reason since, per definition of the OP, "gender" is a reference to cultural norms. How many cultures are there on Earth? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Millions, perhaps, counting sub-cultures and small civilizations, perhaps unheard of? Sure. So, one may argue it would simply be—not just difficult or inaccurate—but impossible to account for something that varies from social sphere to social sphere ("social expectation of behavior" ie. gender, if you define it as such) in favor of something absolute and constant (sex).

That much is understandable. Isn't it? :chin:

Edit: Your money is pounds. My money is dollars. I wouldn't go around to another person in another country talking about "dollars", especially if I know their money is or might be different. I would say what is constant and universal: "money." So, yes, sometimes more broader, universal terms are to be favored over what one is comfortable with and that is generally accurate (to one's particular understanding).

Your circumlocutions are making me nauseous, Outlander. :wink:

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. — Philosophim

The sentence "trans men are men" isn't ambiguous, just as the sentences "bats are flying mammals" and "bats are used in baseball" are not ambiguous. Anyone who isn't being intentionally dense can figure out the most plausible meaning of a homonym by just considering the sentence as a whole.

It is a very obvious strawman to interpret "trans men are men" to mean "biological women who identify as men are biological men", just as it is a very obvious strawman to interpret "bats are flying mammals" to mean "metal clubs are flying mammals".

The sentence "trans men are men" isn't ambiguous, just as the sentences "bats are flying mammals" and "bats are used in baseball" are not ambiguous. — Michael

Out of context, those sentences have no particular meaning.

it is a very obvious strawman to interpret "bats are flying mammals" to mean "metal clubs are flying mammals". — Michael

Of course, "obvious" means easily or rather, expected to be perceived. Perception is a phenomenon of experience meets knowledge. We assume the average person in one's given society is supposed to know a certain word has multiple meanings. That's rational. But not guaranteed.

A person who lives in a territory where bats don't exist yet has experience with baseball as a recreational past-time sport might very well know one definition and not the other. Again, we rely on our own experience as if every person on Earth is supposed to, and those who don't, seemingly don't count. That's neither fair nor rational.

Yes, some people aren't fluent in English or might not understand the distinction between sex and gender, but Philosophim isn't one of those people. He is arguing that the sentence "trans men are men" is ambiguous, showing that he clearly understands that the word "men" is a homonym and yet seems incapable or unwilling to use the rest of the sentence to sensibly resolve the appropriate meaning of the word as he would do with the sentence "bats are flying mammals".

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. — Outlander

Yes. Gender is subjective to the person and the culture. If a group of individuals believe "Woman shouldn't work and be in the kitchen," that's gender. Elevating the subjectivity of gender over the objectivity of sex, at least in law, is going to run into many problems.

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? — Outlander

Correct. Mine is an observation that the majority of society and the current default rules of the English language lead 'man or woman' unaltered by adjectives to be interpreted as a sex reference, not a gender reference. This is a philosophical study, because we can analyze how current society views terms, then argue, "But should they?" The primary issue that people have with the OP is that they believe the gendered view of the term in the phrase is clearly and unambiguously seen as a gender reference. My experience and analysis show otherwise.

My conclusion over the course of the conversation is that because the term is ambiguous when read without context, as well as not the normal interpretation of the word in such a phrase, that it makes more sense to clarify the term to clearly indicate what it means. The people arguing against me do not want to clarify the phrase to clearly explain what it means. The weak argument given is that it is "Not ambiguous" despite the fact that the phrase clearly is. Otherwise we wouldn't be having these debates over its meaning.

The reluctance to explain the phrase more fully does not seem rational, but emotional. They're afraid I think of mentioning biology at all, likely because they think this will lead to bigotry or some other silliness. What they don't realize is bigotry thrives on deceptive terms, and that honest philosophical discourse requires clear and unambiguous language for clear thought. Unfortunately there still seems to be a lot of fear and anger around really digging into the topic. My hope is that helps fix that a bit.

↪Philosophim The main criticism I can see being directed at you here is that you are veering away from the usual academic usage of the term 'gender'? — I like sushi

I don't think so. I am of course separating trans gender from trans sexual when this is often blended together in general culture. I find the terms different enough to warrant separation in the discussion. This is mainly because there are real people who are trans gender, but not trans sexual. And there are real trans sexual people who are not trans gender. So its important not to conflate the two as they are actually different.

I have come across scientists in the past who attacked people for even suggesting there were different 'races' because they could not think of anything else other than the biological definition of 'race' (where clearly they are correct). This is what I think may have happened in this thread. — I like sushi

Pretty much. I think people have argued correctly that man and woman can be read in a gendered way, but they have not given a good argument in that it should be read that way 50/50 or better than a referent to sex, nor given any good reason why the phrase is not a poor phrase that leads to ambiguity, confusion, and for some reason doesn't need to be clarified.

Yes, great addition.

It's social engineering. Effectively making any person do things they otherwise wouldn't do, generally immoral, dangerous, or destructive things by suggesting if they don't they're not "normal" or "not a man" or "not a woman" or whatever it is they're supposed to "be like" per social opinion. — Outlander

I think an evaluation of gender is probably a good topic for another thread. But to comment, yes gender is a social prejudice on sexes to control their behavior. Is that good or bad? I think there can be a good debate here to see. My feeling is that its not always bad and that there are probably some good reasons for it. I think the bad reasons are obvious, but I don't want that to color gender entirely black.

Ah, yes. Back on track. This stands to reason since, per definition of the OP, "gender" is a reference to cultural norms. How many cultures are there on Earth? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Millions, perhaps, counting sub-cultures and small civilizations, perhaps unheard of? Sure. So, one may argue it would simply be—not just difficult or inaccurate—but impossible to account for something that varies from social sphere to social sphere ("social expectation of behavior" ie. gender, if you define it as such) in favor of something absolute and constant (sex).

That much is understandable. Isn't it? :chin: — Outlander

This doesn't quite work out because when we're saying 'woman' means 'gender of adult human females', we're not saying what that specific gender is. As long as its only referencing the concept of gender itself, it should be universal to all cultures.

The sentence "trans men are men" isn't ambiguous, just as the sentences "bats are flying mammals" and "bats are used in baseball" are not ambiguous. — Michael

Hello again Michael. The above is a statement, but I'm not seeing any reason that backs this statement. Please refer to the reason's I gave you earlier explaining why it is ambiguous, and present reasons why you think this is wrong.

Anyone who isn't being intentionally dense can figure out the particular meaning of a homonym by just considering the sentence as a whole. — Michael

Incorrect. This is begging the question. Again, this needs to be fleshed out more and address the points I made to you earlier.

So it is a very obvious strawman to interpret "trans men are men" as "biological women who identify as men are biological men". — Michael

It is not at all. Go out to reddit, youtube, and check. Many, MANY people are assuming that 'men' in isolation is referring to sex. Calling them idiots is not an argument. My point is that the phrase conflicts too much with the normal use of the English language, and that it rationally defaults to mean 'sex reference' without the introduction of context. Thus why it is ambiguous. Because you have to have special outside knowledge to understand the phrase as it is, in addition to the reuse of a term which is the basis of gender instead of gender itself.

But, I notice you didn't answer my question again. You see I understand that you're trying to pull the above to avoid clarifying the phrase. That's your real motivation. So I'm going to ask this: "If it is the case that it is ambiguous and difficult for society to understand based on current culture and language, is there a problem with clarifying the phrase to be "Trans men are adult human females who act in the gendered ways of adult human males?" Since you seem so resistant to it, I would rather you just answer why you are instead of avoid it again. We're here to talk about difficult concepts, not avoid them.

Oh, and I guess I should address your analogy too. Its not quite on par.

Female can mean sex, or the gender of that sex
"Bats are female"
"Trans bats are female"

That's a proper analogy. The phrases alone do not indicate what female means clearly.

Many, MANY people are assuming that 'men' in isolation is referring to sex. Calling them idiots is not an argument. — Philosophim

It's not idiotic to believe that the word "men" only means "biological men". But if a very large number of people say things like "trans men are men" then there are two possible responses:

1. People who say "trans men are men" are suffering from a psychosis and believe that biological women who identify as men are biological men.
2. People who say "trans men are men" mean something else by "are men".

It's idiotic to assert or believe (1).

It's idiotic to assert or believe (1). — Michael

Michael if your best counter argument is calling people idiots and you still won't answer, "The question", there's really nothing you're contributing to the discussion anymore.

The critique of the OP I offered was neatly summed up by @Jamal.

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. — Jamal

The OP preferenced one definition amongst many. Over a series of posts we saw that this was problematic, that language is better understood in terms of use than in terms of essential, stipulated and preferred definitions. @Philosophim agreed with all of this.

Then, when the conclusion was reached that there are ways of understanding "Trans women are women" that are true, @Philosophim slipped back to insisting that there is a preferred definition of "woman", maintaining that the word is ambiguous rather than polysemous while refusing to justify that claim.

That's a pattern that has been seen many times here - were a careful philosophical analysis is rejected because it doesn't fit a particular prejudice. It's a refusal to follow the argument where it leads, and accept the outcome. Sad, but ubiquitous.

Then, when the conclusion was reached that there are ways of understanding "Trans women are women" that are true, Philosophim slipped back to insisting that there is a preferred definition of "woman", maintaining that the word is ambiguous rather than polysemous while refusing to justify that claim. — Banno

A. I never 'slipped' back into anything. That was the statement from the OP on. I just gave more reasons why it was rational for people to assume that 'woman/man' is read as a sex reference, both from a stand point of English, and the ambiguity of the statement itself. I did not see you counter this point effectively at all Banno.

B. I said the phrase was ambiguous, and that your point that the term was polysemous (has multiple meanings) was not a counter that the phrase was not ambiguous. Did you think using a fancy word made the argument any less ineffective than it was? Isn't one of the key possibilities of an ambiguous phrase is that it can have 'multiple meanings"? I'm not sure why you thought this was a good argument.

C. You not only did not address my points about it being ambiguous in regards to English phrasing and culture, you also refused to answer a very simple question: "What's wrong with changing the phrase to be more clear?" You and I both know why. "Trans men are adult human females that take on the gender of adult human males." has no ambiguity, is perfectly clear, and no rational argument against it. You didn't answer, because you knew the only reason you could be against it is that you wanted to avoid the clear distinction between sex and gender.

That's a pattern that has been seen many times here - were a careful philosophical analysis is rejected because it doesn't fit a particular prejudice. It's a refusal to follow the argument where it leads, and accept the outcome. Sad, but ubiquitous. — Banno

You're talking to yourself in the mirror here Banno. I never disrespected you in the discussion despite our different conclusions in the end. But there is a fairly iron rule in debate. The first to insult instead of carefully lay out their argument is the one who lost the debate. Its because you have nothing at that point to counter the other person.

I'm sorry, but you failed to make that case that the phrase, "Trans men are men" was not ambiguous in English, or that woman/man unmodified were more likely to be read as referring to gender than sex. You gave up, which is why I won that point. I'm pretty sure that's why Jamal showed up. Because we can't possibly come to a conclusion that a slogan that is purposefully phrased to be conflationary with sex, have its intentions clearly spelled out. It must be that anyone who criticizes the phrase "Trans men are men" in any way can't demonstrate it rationally. If they did, that would destroy the poor idea that this phrase holds any special meaning or needs to be upheld in any way in the broader culture. Or maybe there's another reason. I wouldn't know because you didn't answer.

A.

I never 'slipped' back into anything. — Philosophim

See , were I show you agreeing with the line of discussion then insisting on the primacy of one definition.

B. You seemed to think polysemous meant ambiguous. It doesn't. It remains for you to show the ambiguity of "woman" and it's relevance.

C. I am not able to address your "points about it being ambiguous in regards to English phrasing and culture" until you present them. You change the phrasing not to be more clear, but in an ad hoc avoidance of its falsification. "Trans men are adult human females that take on the gender of adult human males" is also, in context, true, falsifying your original claim. It also in turn presumes that there is a single identifiable gender role adopted by adult human males.

There's a rhetorical strategy here, repeated several times, of insisting that folk who critique you are being disrespectful. It failed when used towards @Jamal and it fails here.

@Philosophim, put briefly, you have agreed that the OP is flawed, that there are indeed ways in which "A trans woman is a woman" is true, but insisted that one definition has primacy, because it is more "rational", without having given an adequate explanation of what that rationality amounts to.

A.
I never 'slipped' back into anything.
— Philosophim
See ↪here, were I show you agreeing with the line of discussion then insisting on the primacy of one definition. — Banno

See in the OP

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

More details and arguments were added to explain why the default would be most rationally read "man/woman" unmodified as referencing sex. I never revoked that so it wasn't a slip back in.

B. You seemed to think polysemous meant ambiguous. It doesn't. It remains for you to show the ambiguity of "woman" and it's relevance. — 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 (implicit meaning, the phrase) 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. — Philosophim

Polysemy (/pəˈlɪsɪmi/ or /ˈpɒlɪˌsiːmi/;[1][2] from Ancient Greek πολύ- (polý-) 'many' and σῆμα (sêma) 'sign') is the capacity for a sign (e.g. a symbol, morpheme, word, or phrase) to have multiple related meanings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy

Basically you argued because the word woman can have multiple meanings in a sentence, the phrase couldn't be ambiguous. That's so poor of an argument I could only conclude you were hoping a fancy word would make me think the argument was more intelligent than it was.

C. I am not able to address your "points about it being ambiguous in regards to English phrasing and culture" until you present them. — Banno

My response:

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. — Philosophim

Banno, the entire debate is about the question of whether it is more rational and normative to interpret the phrase as referring to sex or gender. You played dumb because I asked the question, "What's wrong with clarifying the phrase to avoid the ambiguity?" You retreated to playing dumb because you didn't want to answer the question. I'm not going to take you seriously when you're playing dumb to avoid a question. And I'm going to claim I won the point that rationally we should clarify the phrase because you never answered it.

"Trans men are adult human females that take on the gender of adult human males" is also, in context, true, falsifying your original claim. — Banno

No, that didn't falsify my original claim at all. I noted it was more rational for woman/man to be interpreted as referencing sex. I noted that the phrase "Trans men are men" by English would be interpreted without context to mean, "Trans men are adult human men." Therefore it would be better to reduce this ambiguity by properly stating the phrase as you noted. My original claim remains true because I noted "Trans men are adult human men" is false.

It also in turn presumes that there is a single identifiable gender role adopted by adult human males. — Banno

Not at all. It means the reference to gender in regards to males can be stated. In no way does it define what that gender is for males by the individual, culture, or human race. Gender is a social construct, meaning it is subjective and malleable. Meaning one person could view that men wear top hats, women don't. Another person can say women wear top hats, and men don't. Each has their own personal gendered view of what men should do.

There's a rhetorical strategy here, repeated several times, of insisting that folk who critique you are being disrespectful. It failed when used towards Jamal and it fails here. — Banno

Let see, what did you JUST post...?

That's a pattern that has been seen many times here - were a careful philosophical analysis is rejected because it doesn't fit a particular prejudice. It's a refusal to follow the argument where it leads, and accept the outcome. Sad, but ubiquitous. — Banno

"Sad". Was that intended to be respectful Banno? Or was Jamals accusation that my original post is prejudiced, without any reason mind you, respectful? I upheld my side of the argument at the end while you gave up. Then you tried presenting it as if you won while disparaging me? That's pathetic Banno. I'm most upset because I thought we had a good conversation up to this point. We didn't agree on everything, but we didn't try to play dumb games like this.

Philosophim, put briefly, you have agreed that the OP is flawed, that there are indeed ways in which "A trans woman is a woman" is true, but insisted that one definition has primacy, because it is more "rational", without having given an adequate explanation of what that rationality amounts to. — Banno

Again, this is playing dumb. I've mentioned English, 'cis' and 'trans', and the fact that if you ask a person "Imagine a woman in the woods" then after ask, "Did you envision an adult human female or an adult human male," they'll say, "Adult human female". I've addressed all of this already. If you don't agree that's fine, but that doesn't prove that my statements were wrong.

I've already covered all this, we've already discussed all of this, and you failed to present a coherent argument when it came time to argue against the ambiguity of the term and why we shouldn't just clarify the phrase. I'm about done at this point. All of that discussion and either you remember none of it, or just glossed over it because you want a particular outcome that you didn't earn. I think I've had enough of this drama and this is no longer about debating, but about debating what was said. I'm not interested in this beyond an initial defending of my name. Enjoy the last word, but I am done with this discussion with you now.

SO you think

if you ask a person "Imagine a woman in the woods" then after ask, "Did you envision an adult human female or an adult human male," they'll say, "Adult human female". — Philosophim

demonstrates that it is more rational to think of "woman" as an adult human female rather than a transexual. What an odd argument.

It might show that folk usually imagination a female. Fine. But some might indeed imagine a trans woman in the woods. Nothgn in the logic prevents this - so on what grounds would it be irrational?

Further, to carry your conclusion, it must bring with it a normative evaluation - that one ought not imagine a transexual woman in the woods. But of course, that's down to you and your pre-judging.

The argument is on a par with "Since most people imagine a chair as wooden, chairs must be wooden, ought be made of wood, and it is irrational to imagine a plastic chair".

At least that bit was somewhat novel. The rest of your post has already been addressed.

The argument is on a par with "Since most people imagine a chair as wooden, chairs must be wooden, ought be made of wood, and it is irrational to imagine a plastic chair". — Banno

Not really a fair analogy. I chair must be wooden, plastic or made from a non-precious metal; and made from gold would be more fitting statistically.

Further, to carry your conclusion, it must bring with it a normative evaluation - that one ought not imagine a transexual woman in the woods. But of course, that's down to you and your pre-judging. — Banno

I think this is not the way to go at all. We can say we ought not needlessly conflate language. That is at the heart of what is being said here. If we worked with an alternative example, liek the chair, and dropped the whole Trans issue I think this problem would become clearer.

It would be pretty stupid to imagine a trans woman in the woods just as it would be to imagine a female in the woods if you said trans woman in its place. Such a colloquial example shows colloquial usage.

I can also that one ought not do X, and then create a scenario that shows that one could go against this rule. We ought not kill people > If someone is trying to kill me and my family and the only way to stop them is to kill them, I ought to kill them.

We should imagine a female when we say woman, but in many niche cases we should not. How is this difficult to comprehend? Just like if a say banana people should assume it is the yellow fruit I am referring to, yet if this is not the case and is unclear in the context of the discussion, the onus is on me to state something like 'the banana painting,' likewise if talking about a woman in the woods the onus is on the speaker to make explicit they are talking about a trans woman if they wish those listening to appreciate the person is a trans woman.

I wasn't able to follow most of that. I don't see why you think it not a fair analogy, unless you presuppose some form of essentialism. A chair must be wooden, plastic or made from a non-precious metal; a woman may be female or male or transexual or asexual. The material doesn't determine the classification, "chair"; and the biology doesn't determine the gender.

I don't see why you think it not a fair analogy, unless you presuppose some form of essentialism. — Banno

Many chairs are plastic and many many chairs are wooden. Women almost always refers to females. I colloquial speech utterances like 'a woman in the woods' refers to a female. Where it does not it needs to be made explicit by context or literally uttered.

This is how basic communication works.

If I asked what is it like outside and you say 'it is raining outside' I imagine water is fallign from the sky. If I then go outside and find it is raining blood or orange juice I would feel that you neglected to make it clear what was going on.

This is precisely what is being contended. Conventions of language in the future MAY lead to people assuming 'woman' means practically anything in terms of gender and they may prioritse this over everything else. Then the word would likely become redundant or be converted into some form of trivial greeting like 'Hi woman!'.

If you wish for the use of language others do too. This is perfectly normal. I just do not see, in this particular case, the use. In fact, I see the opposite. I have no issue with saying 'trans gender women are women' in the context of gender. It is farcical to suggest that 'woman in the woods' vould rightly mean a trans woman. I think you will find the correct phrasing woudl be 'a trans woman in the woods'. The confusing point in amongst all of this is that I may very well see a trans woman in the woods and say I saw a woman. The very same could be said of many other items where I seea reflection and believe it is the actual item.

This is not really about essentialism. I am not some -ist. I am simply pointing out that just because you feel there are some essential rules to grammar that make this all fine, you miss the semantic issue.

I am starting to understand the OPs frustration here now. It is far more complicated than it first appears.

Nothgn in the logic prevents this - so on what grounds would it be irrational? — Banno

Because this is not how language functions. Just because I can put together a logical sentence like "the turnip flew to Mars" it does not make it so. I imagine if I talked about an elephant in the room you may insist that it is worth considering that I am talking about an actual elephant in the room. In such a case I would have to say something like 'there is quite literally an elephant in this room; you know, the actual animal, I am not speaking metaphorically'. If I just say 'there is an elephant in the room' you OUGHT to assume I mean something is not being addressed because it is making us feel uncomfortable and we do not want to deal with it right now.

Just to be clear I have no issue with the phrase 'trans women are women' in a technical sense as gender is being refered too.

I am very much saying we ought (normatively) assume a woman is female in the sentence 'woman in the woods' because that is how language functions.

Thanks for helping tme refine that point btw. Sometimes it is hard to explicate what is obviuous wihtout push back!

Women almost always refers to females. — I like sushi

Sure. But not always. Which is enough to allow "A trans woman is a woman" in just the same way as "An ice chair is a chair".

If I asked what is it like outside and you say 'it is raining outside' I imagine water is fallign from the sky. If I then go outside and find it is raining blood or orange juice I would feel that you neglected to make it clear what was going on. — I like sushi

But I would not have lied. What I said was true. The conventions of language were discussed . broadly agreed that conventions are insufficient to explain language use

I have no issue with saying 'trans gender women are women' in the context of gender. — I like sushi

Cool. So what's the issue here? That was the bone of contention, wasn't it?

I am starting to understand the OPs frustration here now. It is far more complicated than it first appears. — I like sushi

Philosophy proper is.

I am very much saying we ought (normatively) assume a woman is female in the sentence 'woman in the woods' because that is how language functions. — I like sushi

I don't see any reason to do so, and indeed given that doing so would offend many of my friends, I won't be joining you. I suppose it depends on the company one keeps. (I wonder who Jesus would've spent his time with? :chin: )

Cheers. Thanks.

(Actually, let me add an example. Suppose, instead of imagining a wood, you are responsible for hospital admissions, and a woman presents themself for admission. Is it morally correct to assume that they are female? Or should you just ask?)

I don't see any reason to do so, and indeed given that doing so would offend many of my friends, I won't be joining you. — Banno

Fine. I imagine in your circles people make a clearer distinction in speech between female and woman. If not, and when speaking to strangers, then I would still strongly contend that saying 'a woman in the woods' refers to the female meaning of 'woman'. If you spoke to me in my day-to-day life and talked about a woman I may forget this interaction and act on the convention.

The conventions of language were discussed . ↪Philosophim broadly agreed that conventions are insufficient to explain language use — Banno

I am not arguing his corner nor mine. I am trying to figure out what it is you mean and where you stand in your understanding of language use. The whole issue of transgenderism is academically interesting for hte reasons I stated earlier regarding how human will alter themselves in the future. This politically charged ground will likely form the foundation of how we cope with such incoming difficulties.

I may throw up a thread about this in the future if you wish to explore some possible problems with language and definitions regarding what humans are and human rights etc.,? (Augmented, implants and CRISPR).

Anyway,

Normative Ought can, and does, apply to conventions of speech. I highlighted that in the metaphorical context of 'elephant in the room'.

Regarding the rain, you would not be lying but you have certainly missed out a pretty important detail. It is perfectly reasonable that I would feel it was highly unusual you had not mentioned the nature of the rain.

Another obvious push back might be the convention of jobs. It is reasonable to assume someone who is a nurse is female; but it would be a push to say I 'ought to' assume a nurse is female. This has some relation to 'gender roles' but these are 'professional roles'. The difference being a 'nurse' is a 'nurse' and does nursing acts. It is historically associated with 'female' due to females being the ones who actually nurses babies and have commonly cared for children, etc.,. (there are caveats here, obviously, just making a broader point about the nature of 'job roles'). A teacher is a teacher, and it makes little sense to assume one over the other unless it is down to personal experience; even then there is no 'ought to' involved other than on a personal basis. Gender is descriptive not really based on actions or responsibilities. Meaning, a man or woman is not duty bound to perform this or that act or behave in this or that manner, whereas a 'job role' is defined on the basis of having duties.

So taking this to look at (A) 'doctor in the woods', versus (B) 'woman in the woods' we may easily confuse what is going on here as being identical when we hear these utterances because we may imagine a male or female, but this is not really the case at all. In (A) we can imagine a man or woman, but in (B) we imagine a woman.

If I asked you to imagine an angry man and a happy woman, you will undoubtedly imagine pretty much the same as me because conventionally men have a certain look and women have a certain look - sex is irrelevant. Convention here dictates that descriptively a man or woman almost always adheres to male and female. I can say a 'man in a dress' and 'woman in a dress' and this conjures up specific differences unless you also contend that a man is a woman. This is not a prejudice, it is just how language follows conventions. And conventions exist due to differences that are a combination of culture and innate traits.

I am by no means saying there are not grey areas anymore than I would say abortion at point x is better than point y by z amount, because we have to clamber through such messy problems in language and action to some lesser or larger degree everyday.

Pointing out an obscurity is not prejudice in and of itself. Assuming a prejudice is prejudice. We are all carrying prejudices to some degree or another. This is called being human. Pre-judging and prejudice are often hard to tease apart.

(Actually, let me add an example. Suppose, instead of imagining a wood, you are responsible for hospital admissions, and a woman presents themself for admission. Is it morally correct to assume that they are female? Or should you just ask?) — Banno

No. You should clarify sex for obvious medical reasons. You ought not assume 'woman' means 'female' in all given social contexts. This does not contradict what I am saying regarding 'woman in the woods,' as your example is a 'moral ought' rather than a 'logical ought' where clarity is sought out to prevent needless harm. I assume there are forms to fill in that cover this kind of thing? If not there should be.

I don't see any reason to do so, and indeed given that doing so would offend many of my friends — Banno

This is part of the reason why this is such a contentious issue.

I personally have no issues respecting transgendered people, or simply accepting their narrative about being issued the wrong sex by nature (or "God" if you anyone wants to put it that way), but it's not easy to remember to call a transexual person the right pronoun. It takes regular habituation being around the person before you stop misgendering them entirely.

By default, gender paints our understandings of other people in fairly unpredictable and pervasive ways, so when people start saying "i want to be identified as the other gender", then it makes complete sense why other people look at it like an existential crisis. I personally, for ethical reasons (people generally don't want me to stick my nose too deeply in their business), can't bring myself to complain about how transgender people live their lives, but it's still a pretty damn sticky conundrum on a political and social basis...I wish I understood better, but I think there are reasons to believe that transgendered people are biologically different, and people not in that group can't fully grasp where they are coming from. It's easier for people to sympathize with others who come from totally different socio-economic backgrounds. I admit i will never fully understand what it's like to be a woman, so the same applies to someone who's a man, but either doesn't want to be a man or doesn't feel like they should be one.