That quote says no more than that there are male and female brains — Questioner

You stated some men have female brains. Or have I misinterpreted your posts?
If this is true, how does it follow that a male is not delusional to think that he is a woman?
Is a male with a female brain not just a man with some feminine (based on gender) characteristics?
Why is there a need to be seen by others to be a woman?
It all seems to be based on sexist assumptions of what a woman is.

Insisting on only the biological sense is a misunderstanding of how language works, not a logical or empirical requirement. — Banno

You have already agreed that this is not how language currently works. You did this by admitting that 'woman in a forest' is generally taken to mean female.

If I am talking about apples and how tasty they are you can assume I am talking about apple devices, but that woudl be pretty silly, unless you are assuming I mean 'tasty' in a metaphorical sense. Either way, simply being able to interpret one thing as another does hold the weight of 'should' and 'ought to' in an epistemic normative sense--basic conventions of communication. It pays to understand the context, correct misunderstanding and, more importantly, where possible avoid misunderstandings in the first place. Therefore, it is perfectly logical to clarify the use of a term in a given context and have a conventional use of a term where such distinctions are unclear.

If I say I like orange this is understood as me saying I like the colour orange. If I say I like an orange people do not say 'An orange what?' unless it is relevant to the context of the exchange.

If someone says they are gay or transgender we have to have a really good reason to frame them as suffering from some form of mental disorder > which is a separate item to transgenderism or sexual orientation as far as we currently understand these phenomena.
— I like sushi
I'm not sure if this was a view you were attributing to someone else, or were advocating yourself.

Might be worth clarifying. — Banno

Nothing needs clarifying.

If this is true, how does it follow that a male is not delusional to think that he is a woman? — Malcolm Parry

A delusion is characterized by a false reality. Here is Google's explanation of a delusion:

Delusions happen when the brain misinterprets experiences, often triggered by extreme stress, trauma, isolation, or substance use, creating strongly held false beliefs as a way to make sense of confusing or threatening feelings, involving complex interactions between genetics, brain chemistry (neurotransmitter imbalances), and environmental factors,

This is not the case with transgender persons. A male transgender person in reality has a male brain (although a female body). A female transgender person in reality has a female brain (although a male body).

The gender of their brain is not a delusion, it is a reality.

Is a male with a female brain not just a man with some feminine (based on gender) characteristics? — Malcolm Parry

No. In a previous post, I listed the ways in which male and female brains differ.

Why is there a need to be seen by others to be a woman? — Malcolm Parry

I don't think it is about "being seen" - I think it is just about "being" - being who you are.

It all seems to be based on sexist assumptions of what a woman is. — Malcolm Parry

Not at all.

A delusion is characterized by a false reality. — Questioner

It is a false reality. Males cannot be women.

I think it is just about "being" - being who you are. — Questioner

Yes. Men have delusions that they are women.

Not at all. — Questioner

Absolutely.

What makes a woman a woman anyway?

Men have delusions that they are women. — Malcolm Parry

Is this your reasoning?

P1. Men are humans with XY chromosomes, testes, a penis, etc.
P2. Women are humans with XX chromosomes, ovaries, a vagina, etc.
P3. No human with XY chromosomes, etc. is a human with XX chromosomes, etc.
C1. Therefore, no man is a woman
P4. Some men believe that they are women
C2. Therefore, some men falsely believe that they are women
P5. A delusion is a false belief
C3. Thererefore, some men have delusions that they are women

You stated some men have female brains. — Malcolm Parry

This is a point I touched on earlier. The average person tends to be uncultured, dumb, basically borderline deficient, and so much more. To these people, anything intelligent, emotional, or refined—despite actually being above them—their decrepit minds have to consider it as being beneath them so as to function "normally." Ergo, they consider anything that isn't lowbrow, primal, and animalistic (violent or destructive ie. demolition derbies, MMA fights, etc.) as "weird" or "not normal" or "non-masculine" ie. "feminine."

And the people in charge—who actually enjoy all of the refined things—simply say "Yeah, sure. Whatever you say." Because dumb people are easily controlled by dumb things. They'd rather the average person never pick up a book or question their life choices; it makes for better more compliant slaves. If you don't know you're a fly in a bottle, you'll never attempt to escape from it. From cradle to grave under a blanket of ignorance and self-delusion. People complain when the ruling class get richer or burden the working class with an unpopular change in policy, then they go watch football or an MMA match and forget about it an hour later until the next manufactured social issue is selected.

And the thing is, they're truly happier this way. The people in charge are—at the end of the day—giving the people what they want, happiness. Despite the cost behind it. Thinking hurts for them. Or at least cultured things are mind-numbingly boring. The average layperson's mind simply isn't equipped (or at least isn't wired) to process or understand the finer things in life we enjoy so naturally, so they'll call it "girly" or "feminine" (by which they mean "beneath them", again despite it being clearly the opposite) so as to maintain their ego and sense of purpose. Part hedonistic treadmill, part "the mind will believe anything if it makes it happy" ie. psychological homeostasis.

So, yeah. A great many people refer to people with intelligence, who like intelligent things over low brow activities are first, statistically "odd" or "uncommon", which the ego of the layperson of course assumes themself to be the perfect "man" (or "woman"), therefore, it would only logically follow, that makes this "uncommon" mind "feminine", since they don't like the things they do. Basically, someone's wrong or missing out on life. "Is it me? Nah, it must be that other guy. He's just weird/feminine." This is how the ego and average mind works. Is it logical? Just ask them. To them, it's no different than 2 + 2 = 4.

It is a false reality. Males cannot be women. — Malcolm Parry

A person's identity is not produced by their ovaries or their testes but by their brains.

All your perceptions, all your interpretations, all your emotions, all your thought processing, happens in the brain.

What you seem to be insisting on is that the brain must match the body. If you have any kind of evidence for this, please present your source.

What you seem to be insisting on is that the brain must match the body. — Questioner

What is a brain that doesn't match the body? How would it even function?

Again, per my above post, this has turned into a discussion about conformity to social norms, which inherently vary from culture to culture and society to society. Maybe there's some remote island village somewhere where men are enslaved by women and as a result men are "shy, reserved" or otherwise retain their childhood mannerisms (this is in reality what people actually refer to when they refer to "femininity" despite believing otherwise) whereas the women are brutish, crude, and abusive.

This makes discussing social norms and conformity to said social norms quite trivial. I cannot for the life of me imagine "a [functioning] brain that doesn't match the body?" What would that even mean? Now, as I said, it's possible more biological males (or females) in a given time, place, society, or culture are all similar. This is normally how it is. And those that aren't, are simply atypical. The problem is, as social creatures with a powerful often deadly need to conform, we assume if something is "atypical" it has to have a negative social context. Because different people who make different choices tend to make us question our own life choices. And the mind likes to be correct. So we'll discount the other person as "odd", which is true in the sense of regularity, but is actually a one-dimensional and superficial judgement that speaks volumes about the person judging and nothing about the person being judged. But we'll gladly think the opposite and sleep soundly at night all the same.

I cannot for the life of me imagine "a [functioning] brain that doesn't match the body?" What would that even mean? — Outlander

I have fully explained it up-thread, and it's my guess that it's not a lack of understanding that is blocking you, but rather a lack of acceptance.

With respect to "male" and "female" brains, the notion is that most biological men have a broadly similar brain structure, that most biological women have a broadly similar brain structure, and that the brain structure of the typical biological man is dissimilar in notable ways to the brain structure of the typical biological woman. So we can putatively determine someone's biological sex with a high probability by examining their brain structure, hence a so-called "male" or "female" brain.

The claim then is that transgender women have a brain structure more similar to the typical biological woman than to the typical biological man, and that transgender men have a brain structure more similar to the typical biological man than to the typical biological woman, hence transgender women having a "female" brain and transgender men having a "male" brain.

Although as referenced in a few articles above, there are studies that suggest that the transgender person's brain structure is dissimilar to both the typical "male" brain and the typical "female" brain.

If a phrase could possibly mean one of two things, but one of those things is utterly absurd, then unless you believe that the person who said it is suffering from psychosis, you ought use a little common sense and understand that they mean the non-absurd thing. — Michael

Unless you prove that everyone who uses the phrase in a way different than you feel its to be read is an idiot or dishonest, this in no way proves the sentence isn't ambiguous.

It's really simple. — Michael

I'm not going to answer anymore if you just repost the same point.

Although as referenced in a few articles above, there are studies that suggest that the transgender person's brain structure is dissimilar to both the typical "male" brain and the typical "female" brain. — Michael

Again, if those studies did not take sexual orientation into account, the study isn't valid as it is known that homosexual brains have some similarities with female brains. Finally, even though I feel this current understanding benefits my point, I also acknowledge that the brain science across the board is very much in flux and debatable. To my point though, you would need to eliminate the sexual orientation variable for it to be a worth while citation.

Genuinely, I'm having a difficult time understanding what you were trying to convey in that particular post.
— Philosophim

All I can suggest is to read it again and feel free to ask me questions about it. — Questioner

If you're not going to clarify a legitimate request for clarification, I'm not going to try to guess what you're saying. I've done that before in conversations and it never works out well for either party. Please continue to contribute to the discussion but I will bow out where it seems unclear.

If you're not going to clarify a legitimate request for clarification — Philosophim

What part of this do you not understand:

but insofar as transgender persons are concerned it is more accurately referred to as their identity.

And what determines identity? The mind/brain.

So - we need to consider fetal development. During the first trimester of pregnancy, the body differentiates (testes or ovaries) under the influence of genes. And then, in a completely different process, under the influence of genes and hormones, during the 3rd trimester, the brain differentiates to a male or a female brain.

In most cases, the two processes are coincident, and a cisgender person is born. The development of their brain and their body are in the same sex.

But, sometimes, the two processes do not result in the same sex. So, a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born.

Unless you prove that everyone who uses the phrase in a way different than you feel its to be read is an idiot or dishonest, this in no way proves the sentence isn't ambiguous. — Philosophim

You are misunderstanding me again. I'll try to be even clearer:

P1. Michael says "trans men are men".
C1. Therefore, Michael is saying (and believes) that humans with XX chromosomes who identify as men are humans with XY chromosomes.

Unless there are good reasons to believe that Michael is suffering from something like schizophrenia, it should be common sense to any rational person that C1 is false. Therefore, it should be common sense to any rational person that when Michael says "trans men are men" he does not mean "humans with XX chromosomes who identify as men are humans with XY chromosomes".

You're not an idiot or dishonest if you use the phrase "trans men are men" in a different way to Michael, but you are an idiot or dishonest if you infer C1 from P1 and so believe or assert that C1 is true.

No, it's the reality of who you are. — Questioner

It is literally a self image. There is no such thing as a 'male' or 'female' brain any more than there is 'man' and 'woman' as clear-cut categories. There are typical clusters of things like chemical balance, structure and density - but these varies in-group wildly. There is no binary to this, and we cannot say one has a male or female brain. That is, what I understand TRAs call, biological essentialism - although, that's oxymoronic given they want to rely on this to prove a trans identity (not your problem; just noting).

I do take exception to the mention of "trans ideology and politics" - being transgender is not an ideology - but a recognition of a biological reality. — Questioner

This is patently an opinion. And one not supported by much of anything. Seeing yourself as trans is a personal opinion of one's situation. The same way phantom limb syndrome causes people's self-ID to cause them serious discomfort about something which does not exist. An extreme example, to be sure, but 'being trans' is not functionally different - nothing can be pointed out that makes someone trans or not other than their report of their feelings about themselves. Puts paid to this argument.

It's really not. — Michael

It is, though. I need to wade back into this, as I've aptly put it to Banno why this is hte case. Your particular chamber of thought isn't the wider world. In the wider world not only is it ambiguous, there are legal battles trying to sort out its ambiguity. Pretending ths isn't happening is unbecoming of the discussion. It appears to me you've simply taken on a belief about these words (nothing wrong with that) and projected it upon a world which does not conform to it.

This is a particularly bad move to make. Let's look at some other links we can bring up:

Nothing beyond clusters. There are some statistical averages, but this includes more variance within males than females, and a significant overlap between them. There is no clear-cut way to deduce a female or male brain.

More or less reads like a description of Gender but in neurological terms - i.e, not defined particularly well or notable.

Brains are 'mosaics' and do not represent meaningful groups as between male and female.

No difference beyond size (which varies with body size anyhow)

These are some of the biggest, more robust studies of the kind one can find. Its essentially a myth that there are male and female brains. This is pretty much the same logic racist biology.

So let's take an incredibly reductive approach and say that a biological man is a human with a penis and a biological woman is a human with a vagina.

You've encountered people who believe that humans with a vagina who identify as men are humans with a penis?

I don't believe you have. — Michael

This misunderstands (and as I see it, willfully so) the crux of what's being said. Those people, and they are many, believe that a 'man' can have a vagina. On a biological level. Ask them to explain, and you get abused. That you don't take this line is good. They do. That's what's being discussed. Probably good to remember. You need only look to X, Twitch, TikTok etc.. to find hundreds of thousands of people making this claim in various forms. Here's a piece of the absolute rag, Hypatia, claiming 'trans women' are 'becoming female'. Here some more (this one is particularly self-contradictory.. it rejects a 'male/female' brain dichotomy, but still argues woman is a biological category males can be in.. tsk tsk.

There's plenty more - I don't want to post hoards of people's personal posts but I included hte one Reddit post. You could peruse Reddit and lose your mind over this topic with the utter insanity being peddled - including looking toward womb transplant to complete a 'biological' transition to female from male. Again, if you don't think these are reasonable that's good. But these are views out there, and you simply saying you don't believe us is again, beneath this discusison.

That the sentence starts with the term "trans men" is all the context any rational person needs to understand that the ending phrase "are men" is referring to gender and not biological sex. — Michael

This is objectively untrue. That's is why there is debate. You cannot define something using itself. I agree with that you're getting at... trans, definitionally, means the individual is the opposite sex of whatever comes next. But if 'man' is not a sex, then this is meaningless. It would be 'unambiguous' if the phrase were "transfemales are women". I fear this has been entirely missed by both Banno and yourself. It is a particularly ambiguous phrase because its self-referential using a term which should have its definition cleared: that is what Phil tried to do. I happen to agree with his approach, but I'm not stuck to it.

It's quite absurd that this needs to be repeated and that this discussion has reached 19 pages. — Michael

This proves, categorically, that you are simply wrong. That explains any absurdity you feel. Your position is not one whcih is open to the realities being discussed here.

Unless there are good reasons to believe that Michael is suffering from something like schizophrenia, it should be common sense to any rational person that C1 is a false conclusion. — Michael

Again, you're making a circular assumption.

Because the phrase is not ambiguous, only an idiot or dishonest person would interpret the phrase not in the way you want. Therefore its not ambiguous.

You're being very clear. I can use this, "Only an idiot or dishonest person would interpret the phrase in the way you do Michael," and it would be just as legitimate as your argument. Meaning, not legitimate at all. I'm done. You're just expressing the same thing again and again without addressing the arguments that the phrase is ambiguous. You assume it is not and declare it is not. That's not a discussion, that's circular preaching.

I have fully explained it up-thread, — Questioner

You absolutely have not. What you have done is put forward a theory which does not work about gender identity. You explain something contingent, and claim it is fundamental. That is clearly wrong. Beyond this, you are relying on idea that one can be born in 'the wrong body'.

I do not think, after 19 pages, that needs treating. Its is utterly absurd and childish to claim one can be born in the wrong body, unless you are a God person and believe God makes mistakes .



100%. Its so odd that htis one topic stymies people's ability to think clearly.

In the wider world not only is it ambiguous, there are legal battles trying to sort out its ambiguity. — AmadeusD

Here are two different claims:

1. Trans men are men
2. Under this Act, it is illegal to refuse entry to men

The phrase "are men" in (1) is unambiguously referring to gender identity, even if the term "men" in (2) is ambiguous (and even if it is referring to biological sex).

In the context of this discussion I have only ever been addressing (1). I don't deny that there are legitimate legal disputes about the meaning of (2).

And it is fallacious to argue that if (2) does not protect trans men then (1) is false, just as it would be fallacious to argue that if (1) is true then (2) protects trans men. Both sides of the political debate are often guilty of such equivocation.

This misunderstands (and as I see it, willfully so) the crux of what's being said. — AmadeusD

I don't think it does. I think you are continuing to equivocate. Here are a few different claims:

1. Men can become women
2. Biological men can become biological women
3. Humans with an active SRY gene can become humans without an active SRY gene
4. Humans born with an active SRY gene can become humans born without an active SRY gene

I doubt any (sane) person believes (4) as that would require time travel and likely introduce a paradox.

Some people may believe that (3) is possible in the future, but almost certainly know that it is beyond our current technology.

Even if "many people" believe (2) as you claim, they almost certainly don't believe (3) or (4), and so the obvious conclusion is that when they use the phrase "biological man" they don't mean "a human [born] with an active SRY gene" (as I believe you mean by the phrase).

It doesn't take much to take a step back and ask ourselves if someone really means what a superficial interpretation of their words would mean to us, or if it's more rational to accept that they probably mean something else.

During the first trimester of pregnancy, the body differentiates (testes or ovaries) under the influence of genes. And then, in a completely different process, under the influence of genes and hormones, during the 3rd trimester, the brain differentiates to a male or a female brain.

In most cases, the two processes are coincident, and a cisgender person is born. The development of their brain and their body are in the same sex.

But, sometimes, the two processes do not result in the same sex. So, a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born. — Questioner

Finally, we get to the meat of the issue. Two relevant questions that immediately come to mind.

1.) How intimate are you with neuroscience? Could you pick out a male vs. female brain NOT using post-birth indication/life experience (ie. mannerisms, social norms, cues, none of that stuff that develops AFTER a human is born)?

Pardon the morbidity, but, say if you had to examine two deceased babies, and you know for a fact one is male and one is female but you only had the brain to go by, could you really and definitively determine one from the other?

2.) The bold part of your reply shows you make the claim that a "transgender" person can be definitively identified by sonogram early on before birth. This isn't supported by any established, widely-agreed upon science I've heard of. Again, so far, all that science tell us is most males have average brains. This makes it colloquially a "male brain." Most females have average female-typical brains. This makes it, colloquially, a "female brain."

Why do you think just because a brain develops atypically, favoring patterns or structures generally common for the opposite gender, that human being is "transgender"? That's in a word, bollocks; pure quackery. So not really a question. But I need to hear your reasoning specifically what institution or group is propagating such "information" to you. Unless that's your own "original research" (random opinion).

--

There is a clear third option as well.

Perhaps the human brain is simply developing, human evolution is occurring (why would it not, after all?), and the male brain is becoming more refined (about time by God) and is slowly becoming more intelligent, able to recognize and associate more strongly with emotions and empathy (what it means to be human and not an animal), something previously gifted only to the "female brain". This enhanced ability, something the male mind lacks, is erroneously being referred to as "femininity" or "transgender" in a purposeful and widely-orchestrated attempt by the less than evolved (the majority) to retain their dominance at the cost of human evolution by ensuring the superior mind is kept down even before birth.

Sure, that's just a theory. But there's just as much evidence for that as there is for your "born transgender" claim. But it makes sense. Females are less violent, usually (perhaps due to different mental partitioning in regards to emotional capacity ie. a so-called "female" brain structure). Violence is the cause of most suffering, inequality, war, etc. on this Earth. So why would humanity not evolve as a whole to be less violent and more emotionally intelligent (or as the stubborn majority of people holding humanity back would say: "more feminine")? :chin:

Edit: That was more of a spitball, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense. This world is stained by war. Every civilization, every culture, every people, every land. Men didn't have to be intelligent. For crying out loud, they didn't even have to sane. All they had to do was be able to beat someone over the head with anything available, take what that person had, and use it to reproduce. That's what propagated throughout the tens of thousands of years. Junk DNA (not to be crude, but that's using their own vernacular when they refer to "smaller" or "weaker" people, so-called "beta males". So. That's in their own words). Intelligence clearly won, despite how its mocked so cruelly to this day. Are we not using smartphones and computers and modern engines or are we using wooden clubs and furs? Game, set, match. Good job, smart people. :cool: But the war is not yet over. No, not by far. :gasp:

There is no such thing as a 'male' or 'female' brain — AmadeusD

The female brain does develop differently from the male brain. This is well established by science, and we see the differences in our own personal experiences. As I posted up-thread:

Male and female brains differ in size, matter ratios (e.g. processing vs. connections), regional volumes, connectivity patterns, circuitry organization, processing styles, neurochemistry and hormonal influence.

fMRI scans can be used to differentiate the activity of a male from a female brain

https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-events/newsroom/new-artificial-intelligence-model-identifies-brain-organization-patterns-women-and-men

Now, there may a spectrum of "how much" but the differences in the aggregate do exist.

Seeing yourself as trans is a personal opinion of one's situation. — AmadeusD

False. This is your opinion. My position is supported by science, yours is not.

The same way phantom limb syndrome causes people's self-ID to cause them serious discomfort about something which does not exist. An extreme example, to be sure, but 'being trans' is not functionally different - nothing can be pointed out that makes someone trans or not other than their report of their feelings about themselves. — AmadeusD

Please provide a source of this information.

Its is utterly absurd and childish to claim one can be born in the wrong body — AmadeusD

Oh, dear, then all the following medical associations are absurd and childish, since they have all put our statements firmly in favour of gender-affirming treatment, including clinical care -

Click on this link - MEDICAL ORGANIZATION STATEMENTS - to go a page where you can click on any in the list below to read their statement -

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Academy of Dermatology
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Nursing
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Physician Assistants
American College Health Association
American College of Nurse-Midwives
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American College of Physicians
American Counseling Association
American Heart Association
American Medical Association
American Medical Student Association
American Nurses Association
American Osteopathic Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Public Health Association
American Society of Plastic Surgeons
Endocrine Society
Federation of Pediatric Organizations
GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality
National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health
National Association of Social Workers
National Commission on Correctional Health Care
Pediatric Endocrine Society
Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
World Medical Association
World Professional Association for Transgender Health

Could you pick out a male vs. female brain NOT using post-birth indication/life experience — Outlander

yes, it can be done with fMRI - scans of brain activity

https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-events/newsroom/new-artificial-intelligence-model-identifies-brain-organization-patterns-women-and-men

a "transgender" person can be definitively identified by sonogram early on before birth. — Outlander

I made no such claim.

what institution or group is propagating such "information" to you. — Outlander

I don't appreciate the condescension.

Perhaps the human brain is simply developing, human evolution is occurring (why would it not, after all?), and the male brain is becoming more refined (about time by God) and is slowly becoming more intelligent, able to recognize and associate more strongly with emotions and empathy (what it means to be human and not an animal), something previously gifted only to the "female brain". This enhanced ability, something the male mind lacks, is erroneously being referred to as "femininity" or "transgender" in a purposeful and widely-orchestrated attempt by the less than evolved (the majority) to retain their dominance at the cost of human evolution by ensuring the superior mind is kept down even before birth. — Outlander

have you ever talked to a transgender person in your life?

Grifters who'd perform unneeded surgery on their own mother for the chance to get even one extra dime out of the bottomless money well that is insurance. Grifters all of them. :cool:

Seriously, though. Does money not make the world go 'round? Or do we do what's right simply for its own sake to the point of starvation? Tell me you know enough about your own nature as a human being to answer at least that.

yes, it can be done with fMRI - scans of brain activity — Questioner

Ok, in principle I believe that. I don't like the AI link. There's no reason it had to take "AI" to reach that conclusion. I'm not saying it doesn't take automated computer processing, but that's a basic "find the similarities" process inherently similar to the grade school matching game kids solve. They had that tech in the 90s.

Literally no reason for AI to have been involved. So now I'm suspicious if that's the only link you have. Again, I'm sure there are patterns that are more or less (if not more-so than not) accurate. But I haven't read anything in the article that suggests it's 100% accurate and no outlying "configurations" are possible. And need I remind you... what was the first step in evolution but a "odd outlying configuration." Ah, yes see we get to the root of the issue back to the theory I proposed.

Assuming you believe in all that, what if the first fish that crawled out from the water never made it to land to evolve because some fish doctors and all of fish society said "oh you're a transfish, sorry. We're going to bully you and treat you different until you take mind-altering medication and surgically alter yourself until we accept you (we won't even then, but whatever, It'll be fun to watch). That's basically, at least you haven't proven otherwise, what's happening in 2025. Crabs in a bucket mentality of low IQ people. We refuse to let one another succeed, so we drag not only ourselves but all of humanity down in the process of our insipid and backwards worship of our frail egos. I said it before, I'll say it again: that's why man must be ruled by a superior force. Call that "governed" if it satiates your ego.

a "transgender" person can be definitively identified by sonogram early on before birth. — Outlander


I made no such claim. — Questioner

Ok, so here is why I see other people taking issue with your manner of replying. Let me illustrate.

The development of their brain and their body are in the same sex.

But, sometimes, the two processes do not result in the same sex. So, a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born. — Questioner

I don't see how you can say the above sentence and then reject the idea of ultrasound imagery immediately after. You know what an ultrasound is, yes? (I said sonography previously, which is the larger field)

I did a Google search using a specific phrase from your post.

You're one of "those" people aren't you. Yes, that's quite alright. We all have to make a living somehow. Truth is old-fashioned when it comes to a paycheck. Guess that means this place is getting popular. Good. That's good.

I don't appreciate the condescension. — Questioner

What, that you might be incorrect? You must be new here. That's basically the only reasonable inference one could forcibly strain from a question. Note I did not make it a "have you stopped beating your wife" false premise question since I left the secondary option (original research/own opinion) for you to answer as well. Which you did not. You're either hearing this from an organization, one I would like to know the name of, so perhaps as to verify, or this is your original research or opinion. What in Heaven's name could be so condescending about a simple desire to verify the truth? :chin:

have you ever talked to a transgender person in your life? — Questioner

That's hard to answer since you cannot seem to offer a solid fixed definition of what a "transgender" person is. First you say the process occurs and finalizes in the womb, then you say it can't be detected in the womb (which seems to imply the "transgender" baby has some sort of superpower that blocks ultrasound from observing it). Then, there's the simple definition of anyone (even just for fun or a dare) who chooses to surgically alter themself to "become" like the opposite gender. So between that widely cast net, I'd say it's likely.

But more than that. I've watched, read, and yea even studied the words, remarks, stories, but above all resulting actions and consequences of those who identify as such. In 90% of the cases the person felt "confused", was often bullied (ostracized) for not fitting in, then after cocktails of mind-altering drugs, anesthesia, pain meds (hint hint) and surgery (coincidentally right after that begins avoiding that circle of toxic people that led them to the initial state of "confusion") magically feels better. For a short period. Then whatever underlying issue was really going on tends to resurface. It's a cruel thing to watch. And it's all for money. It's a racket. And once you see it for what it is you'll have no wonder why the fate of the world must be as it will be.

A person's identity is not produced by their ovaries or their testes but by their brains — Questioner

No. That is clearly false. It is obvious in 99.99% of cases with a mere glance whether someone is a man or woman. How they think is irrelevant in modern society.

What is a brain that doesn't match the body? How would it even function? — Outlander

What do you mean by match the body? It would function perfectly well surely?

what if the first fish that crawled out from the water never made it to land to evolve because some fish doctors and all of fish society said "oh you're a transfish, sorry. We're going to bully you and treat you different until you take mind-altering medication and surgically alter yourself until we accept you (we won't even then, but whatever, It'll be fun to watch). That's basically, at least you haven't proven otherwise, what's happening in 2025. — Outlander

Wow. This philosophy is strange, to say the least.

Transgender people are not evolving fish.

Medical practitioners do not go to the transgender persons, the transgender persons go to them.

Medical practitioners are not the ones bullying or mistreating them, that would be a community that withholds support.

Crabs in a bucket mentality of low IQ people. — Outlander

You think transgender persons seek treatment, and others support them, to take you down? Because they are low IQ?

We refuse to let one another succeed, so we drag not only ourselves but all of humanity down in the process of our insipid and backwards worship of our frail egos. I said it before, I'll say it again: that's why man must be ruled by a superior force. Call that "governed" if it satiates your ego. — Outlander

When a transgender person seeks treatment, I really don’t think this is what is about. It is not about you, but them. I think when we take care of all our marginalized groups, that rather lifts society up.

I don't see how you can say the above sentence and then reject the idea of ultrasound imagery immediately after. — Outlander

Never entered my mind. The meaning of what I wrote is simply this: transgender persons are born that way. I never said anything about detection. That would be absurd.

You're one of "those" people aren't you. Yes, that's quite alright. We all have to make a living somehow. Truth is old-fashioned when it comes to a paycheck. Guess that means this place is getting popular. Good. That's good. — Outlander

I don't know what you're talking about, but it sounds like you're being condescending again. I'm just an old retired pensioner living in Canada. Is it not within your frame of reference to think my motivation is merely empathy for a much-maligned and misunderstood group?

But if there is a way to make money by posting on this forum, please share it with the group!

What, that you might be incorrect? — Outlander

No, when you insinuated that my ideas were not my own.

What in Heaven's name could be so condescending about a simple desire to verify the truth? — Outlander

That's not what I commented on and you know it.

That's hard to answer since you cannot seem to offer a solid fixed definition of what a "transgender" person is. — Outlander

They know who they are and they will let you know. You don't need me for that.

I read a wonderful memoir once about a transgender person who had undergone transition and in the most poetic terms they describe the euphoria they felt once they were in the "right" body.

Let me put it this way:

To all cisgender men: suppose you are exactly who you are, all the same perceptions, motivations, interpretations, inclinations, thought processes, emotions, etc, but you had a vagina. How would that affect your psychology?

To all cisgender women: suppose you are exactly who you are, all the same perceptions, motivations, interpretations, inclinations, thought processes, emotions, etc, but you had a penis. How would that affect your psychology?

And it's all for money. — Outlander

Do you believe heart surgeons should get paid?

No. That is clearly false. It is obvious in 99.99% of cases with a mere glance whether someone is a man or woman. How they think is irrelevant in modern society. — Malcolm Parry

(I'm trying to avoid making that old joke about men doing most of their thinking with the smaller of their heads, but, anyway...)

If you are alone in a room, away from society, are you still you? Does a man live in his head, or in his testicles? The brain is the seat of our identity, and our self-image.

100%. Its so odd that this one topic stymies people's ability to think clearly. — AmadeusD

Its why I keep seeing it as a secular religion. I grew up Christian and broke away on my own as I started questioning. I know the patterns of thought, avoidance, and behavior that come when you ask questions that violate the tenants of a religion. Otherwise intelligent people will double down on the weirdest and most logically deficient points if accepting it possibly threatens a core belief system. Its the same thing all over again here. I appreciate your accurate responses to the subject. Again, it doesn't mean you have to agree with me going forward, its just nice to see someone who isn't being weird about it.

You have already agreed that this is not how language currently works. You did this by admitting that 'woman in a forest' is generally taken to mean female. — I like sushi

Well, no. Rather,

I've pointed out that even if most people would understand "woman in the woods" as referring to a female, doing so is not a necessary consequence of either logic or grammar. This is shown by the fact that "the woman in the woods" might be a trans. — Banno

And sure,

If I am talking about apples and how tasty they are you can assume I am talking about apple devices, but that would be pretty silly, unless you are assuming I mean 'tasty' in a metaphorical sense. — I like sushi

But to carry Philosophim's point what is needed is that one ought not talk about apple devices being sweet.

What is salient is that we can talk about apple devices being sweet, and trans women being women.