if you're wondering why few people agree with your conclusion, that putting gender over sex is sexism
— Mijin

I think it is the case that massive numbers of people agree with this sentiment. You may just have a bubble into which outside voices are refused entry. Most do. Those of us who actively go out of their way to avoid this understand that its basically 50/50 on these types of claims. — AmadeusD

I don't think massive numbers of people agree with the specific claim of this thread, but go ahead and cite me wrong: I'm happy to hear it.

If you instead simply mean that lots of people are anti-trans: sure. It's been whipped up as the moral panic of the day. You talk about living in a bubble: well, the vast majority of people who have strong anti-trans views have never spoken to one, maybe not encountered one.
They've been force-fed that this is the prime issue to care about, and it works because it's easy to sell the idea that something that makes a person uncomfortable must therefore be immoral.

Here in the UK, so many people will ignore the damage that brexit did to the country, the grift and russian-backed treason of the Reform party (our equivalent of maga), because "the Left think men are women", or whatever version of the talking point.

For clarification, my understanding of the terms trans sexual and trans gender seem to differ from your usage here. That is, to my understanding transgender is an umbrella term for all folks whose (internal) gender identity does not completely conform to their biological sex, which includes those who take hormonal and surgical steps (which describes trans sexuals), but also folks who don't take those steps. — LuckyR

No, we are not using slang and colloquial language. Part of what philosophy should be doing is finding clear words and concepts that allow clear thoughts. A massive issue with 'trans' is that it is trying to unite two separate concepts that are different enough that it needs to be pointed out. There is much confusion over the topic for many people, and adding in these distinct terms erases a lot of the confusion. A trans gender person does not have to think they are the same as a trans sexual. Being trans gender does not mean you have to align your body with how you want to act in the world. Act in the world as you wish. It is sexist to think that your social behavior implies that you are not your sex.

Thus why my postings have tried to delineate the borderline between sexual and gender motivations, as described in the OP. — LuckyR

I think this is good btw. Please keep pushing that boundary. Maybe there is a blur that I'm not seeing, but I think for the large part they are very separate things.

But the more I think about it, the blurrier that borderline becomes, to the point that the umbrella term of transgender seems most accurate, since it's an umbrella term, ie all TS are TG, but not all TG are TS. — LuckyR

I don't see it that way. First, its not true that all trans sexuals are trans gender. There are people who only want the body of the opposite sex, but do not want to act in the stereotypical way that the other sex usually acts. With that body they may feel the need to 'perform' but genuinely want the body of the opposite sex and would rather be left alone afterward. There are men who want breasts for example, but keep their beards. Women can also grow beards and have facial hair. Because it is rare, there is a social push to keep it shaved or have hair removal. So they defy gender for their biology in this aspect.

But, I would love to hear examples of this blurring. Again, maybe you're right. While I do think there is a clear division from my observations, maybe there is some place where the division blurs and maybe a third term should be invented to capture that point.

I don't think massive numbers of people agree with the specific claim of this thread, but go ahead and cite me wrong: I'm happy to hear it. — Mijin

And you have equally zero claim that massive numbers of people don't agree with the specific claim of this thread. In fact, its irrelevant. You have a claim presented to you. Are you able to demonstrate why it is false? If not, then it stands as true. Lets not worry about what other people think, what do you think? Why is the premise of the thread wrong? Practice philosophy with us.

If you are concerned that I am somehow immoral, therefore you don't need to talk to me, realize that is a tactic of thought suppression. If it helps, one of my closest friends has been transitioning for several years now. We stay in touch regularly, and I would take a bullet for him. Its important that you realize that just because there is a narrative out there that is against trans individuals for the wrong reasons, does not mean that everyone who is against a particular trans ideology is immoral and cannot be reasoned with.

lots of people are anti-trans: sure. It's been whipped up as the moral panic of the day. — Mijin

They've been force-fed that this is the prime issue to care about, and it works because it's easy to sell the idea that something that makes a person uncomfortable must therefore be immoral. — Mijin

You’ve hit the nail on the head with this. Give the people something to be disgusted about, and you can con them into accepting all sorts of damaging policy.

In the US, the push to deny transgender persons their rights has been a real distraction – a bugaboo - and a convenient excuse for the administration to gut medical research, science, and the civil service, and transform the military. The US even voted against the recent UN resolution titled “Safety and Security of Humanitarian Personnel and Protection of United Nations Personnel” (a recurring UN General Assembly topic, addressing threats like violence, kidnapping, and attacks against aid workers and UN staff, aiming to ensure their protection through international law and host country responsibility.) - citing “radical gender ideology” as one of the reasons for such a huge policy shift.

The resolution passed at the UN, in a vote 153-1. The US was the only country that voted against it.

Laws should never be based on disgust. As Hannah Arendt tells us in The Origins of Totalitarianism - disgust can be used to justify damaging ideological outlooks and moral standards that do not align with basic human rights.

Consider the first paragraph of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world …

And so, the following position from @Philosophim presents as being based on disgust, rather than sound philosophy:

“I'm just noting it is sexist if they think their gender should be elevated over their sex.”

Imagine referring to people who wish to live in the gender their brain tells them that they are - as sexist!

As if the obligation to accommodate the prejudices of others should supersede Article 12 of the Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

What should be “elevated” is the human right to transgender persons to live an autonomous, authentic life free from persecution - that right should be elevated above living their lives according to the expectations of others, especially when those expectations are grounded in a disgust for a state of being they do not understand.

And you have equally zero claim that massive numbers of people don't agree with the specific claim of this thread. In fact, its irrelevant. You have a claim presented to you. Are you able to demonstrate why it is false? If not, then it stands as true. — Philosophim

You're asking me to prove a negative, otherwise your claim stands?
This is a philosophy forum; if there's one place such sloppy reasoning wouldn't fly, it's here.

If you are concerned that I am somehow immoral, therefore you don't need to talk to me, realize that is a tactic of thought suppression. — Philosophim

I made no such claim or insinuation.

I said, in my response to Amadeus, that a lot of people have been duped into believing that transgenderism is immoral, but even there I am not suggesting that people with that belief are necessarily immoral (though many are -- just an excuse to find a marginalized group to beat up on. But most others are just poorly informed). So it's quite a leap to suggest I was calling you immoral, let alone advocating that your speech should be suppressed.

Your comments on teh UK are unfounded as best I can tell - I am British by birth (Worcester.. which you know is true because I spelled it right), Irish by blood and I take myself to be culturally British and stay quite purposefully abreast of almost all British politics as it is my wife and I's plan to eventually live in the UK for a period. Starmer, Reeves, Lammy and umpteen others are not only ignorant, they are incapable of reasonable discussions about their policies. They ignore reality and pretend that for some reason, anyone who goes against their party line is immoral. Lammy's famous 'rights hoarders' horsecrap is a prime example.

I imagine being currently in the UK, with a particular bent, makes it largely untenable to expect a balanced view on things which is not in any way a disparagement of you - Nigel Garage has said plenty of batshit stuff over the years (as has Rees-Mog, Braverman, Mordaunt and the rest). You're not being unreasonable, and that is not what I'm trying to say. But why not acknowledge that you, and others on the other side are in bubbles? Plenty of conservatives are too. Wouldn't deny that for a moment. If you could just be honest about the reality that you live in a bubble, and so do many others, you could get out of it and have a worthwhile discussion. I had to do this at great psychology pain about 10 years ago due to the abject racism, sexism and in-group shaming that goes on on the left. Which I am still on.

I don't think massive numbers of people agree with the specific claim of this thread, but go ahead and cite me wrong: I'm happy to hear it.

If you instead simply mean that lots of people are anti-trans — Mijin

I can taste the bad faith - I am quite sure now that it is not unintentional. I will not engage. We;ve been here. I think it was correct for Wayf to suggest not to get into these threads. Not because they aren't meaningful (they are meaningful and obviously important), but because they just end up like this. A shame. There's lots to be said, if one will get out of their bubble. This has become two people with fingers in their ears ignoring everything else. Its funny that in dealing with the Bubble issue its "I know you are but what am i?" type of thing while trying to shame one into not discussing something they feel is important - as you did explicitly here. A shame.

Thank you for the kind words Bob. :)

:heart:

If you want a clearer separation, biological and sociological sexism might suffice.

Would you agree, though, semantics aside, that sexism in the sense of sex would be divorced from sexism in the sense of gender given your definitions of sex and gender?

To go back to gender, my point is that gender becomes sexism when elevated above sex.

Before I respond, I think I need to grasp better what you are conveying here. Am I correct in thinking that ‘elevation’ here refers to contradiction? That is, that being sexist in the sense of gender happens when the gender of a person contradicts their sex?

Yes. That is the tactic to get you to shut up. It begs the question why he bothered to come in to say that. Trying to shame people away from important conversations is how backsliding occurs. — AmadeusD

Exactly, it is shame that this forum doesn't support free speech and the free exchange of ideas about philosophy; as we could have productive conversations that help further the knowledge base.

I still love you.

You're asking me to prove a negative, otherwise your claim stands? — Mijin

No. I'm asserting that if gender is elevated over sex, its sexism. That's not proving a negative, that's disproving an affirmative.

This is a philosophy forum; if there's one place such sloppy reasoning wouldn't fly, it's here. — Mijin

I'll let the first claim be a pass. If you insist that I'm asking you to prove a negative, please point out specifically where and why its a negative. This requires more than an assertion.

If you are concerned that I am somehow immoral, therefore you don't need to talk to me, realize that is a tactic of thought suppression.
— Philosophim

I made no such claim or insinuation. — Mijin

Not a worry. It can be difficult to glean what a person is feeling over text, so I try to spell things out as clearly as possible.

So it's quite a leap to suggest I was calling you immoral, let alone advocating that your speech should be suppressed. — Mijin

Relax, its not a hard accusation. Would you like to engage with the topic then? You seem to have some feelings and thoughts on the matter, and I think its important that those thoughts and feelings are expressed. I don't want to go around thinking I'm right when I'm wrong. But if no one points out where its wrong...then I have to assume that I'm right.

If you want a clearer separation, biological and sociological sexism might suffice.

Would you agree, though, semantics aside, that sexism in the sense of sex would be divorced from sexism in the sense of gender given your definitions of sex and gender? — Bob Ross

I actually meant that more than semantics. Biological sexism would be treating a man with a voice within the range of an average female like they aren't a man. While its not the average biological sex expectation that a man have a voice range that high, it does happen. Treating them as a woman because they have a rare, but perfectly normal expression of being male would be biological sexism.

Gender sexism, or sociological sexism, would be what we've been talking about. Tophats and all. :)

To go back to gender, my point is that gender becomes sexism when elevated above sex.

Before I respond, I think I need to grasp better what you are conveying here. Am I correct in thinking that ‘elevation’ here refers to contradiction? — Bob Ross

No, elevation means favoring gender as indicating that a person is a sex over the fact of their sex. So if a woman wore a top hat and you called her a man, that's sexism due to the woman defying a gender expectation.

Exactly, it is shame that this forum doesn't support free speech and the free exchange of ideas about philosophy; as we could have productive conversations that help further the knowledge base. — Bob Ross

I disagree with this Bob. I've been able to post this topic, and I've seen a wide variety of topics that cover things which might be taboo or difficult to talk about. There still needs to be some moderation which handles approach and tone. It may be the case that people who read it may not want to discuss it properly, but that's a far cry from it being banned to be discussed at all.

I think it was correct for Wayf to suggest not to get into these threads. Not because they aren't meaningful (they are meaningful and obviously important), but because they just end up like this. — AmadeusD

This will always happen when discussing meaningful yet highly emotional subjects. We can't be turn away from topics just because some people have emotional difficulties with them. If anything, we need to address those topics more. I'm glad you've joined in and given your viewpoint, its very valuable for good discussion.

You’ve hit the nail on the head with this. Give the people something to be disgusted about, and you can con them into accepting all sorts of damaging policy.

In the US, the push to deny transgender persons their rights has been a real distraction – a bugaboo - and a convenient excuse for the administration to gut medical research, science, and the civil service, and transform the military — Questioner

Absolutely.
One of my guilty pleasures is occasionally listening to the political "debates" on youtube and other media. And you can bet, every time a MAGA supporter finds themselves needing to defend the indefensible: large-scale grift, illegality and contempt for Americans' lives...the response is something like "Yeah but the Biden administration was paying for mice to become trans!" (or some other BS trans talking point). Something that, even if it were true, would be totally inconsequential compared to the malfeasance being pointed out to them.

Your comments on teh UK are unfounded as best I can tell - I am British by birth (Worcester.. which you know is true because I spelled it right) — AmadeusD

I live in Worcester. Just moved here a few days ago

I imagine being currently in the UK, with a particular bent, makes it largely untenable to expect a balanced view on things — AmadeusD

So in the same post you are making claims about what life is like in the UK, despite not living here, but I cannot do the same? And where you live doesn't affect your ability to research all sides of a topic, but I can't?

How about we both agree not to resort to poisoning the well?

I can taste the bad faith - I am quite sure now that it is not unintentional. — AmadeusD

Please elaborate. You made a statement, I asked in good faith whether you meant you are suggesting the same statement of the OP, or something else?

I'll let the first claim be a pass. If you insist that I'm asking you to prove a negative, please point out specifically where and why its a negative. This requires more than an assertion. — Philosophim

Because you're asking me for a cite that most people don't consider your very specific claim to be true. It's obviously not a reasonable request -- the only evidence would be the result of a survey asking "Do you believe that transgenderism is sexism?" but there is no such survey. And you conclude that I must accept your claim.

By the same logic, we can conclude that most people are afraid of the oogie-boogie monster.

Relax, its not a hard accusation. Would you like to engage with the topic then? You seem to have some feelings and thoughts on the matter, and I think its important that those thoughts and feelings are expressed. — Philosophim

I have. I have given arguments for why your concept of transgenderism does not reflect reality.

Because you're asking me for a cite that most people don't consider your very specific claim to be true. It's obviously not a reasonable request -- the only evidence would be the result of a survey asking "Do you believe that transgenderism is sexism?" but there is no such survey. And you conclude that I must accept your claim. — Mijin

Not at all. I've posted what gender is, what sexism is, and demonstrated why when gender is elevated over sex, it meets the definition of sexism. There's a clear argument being made here that is open to discussion and is not a matter of opinion. And its not that you must accept my claim. Its that my claim, if uncontested, is correct by fact. If you don't answer it, I'm right. Emotions are irrelevant.

I have given arguments for why your concept of transgenderism does not reflect reality. — Mijin

Can you demonstrate why these arguments counter the point of the OP? Again, if not, then what I've posted stands. If it were so simple to counter, you would. Walking away generally means, "I don't like what you said, but I can't prove its wrong." I want you to imagine for a second that I have power in real life to make actionable change, and this argument is the basis upon which that change is made. Are you satisfied walking away, knowing that you could have demonstrated I was wrong? Its your last chance.

There's a clear argument being made here that is open to discussion and is not a matter of opinion. And its not that you must accept my claim. Its that my claim, if uncontested, is correct by fact. If you don't answer it, I'm right. Emotions are irrelevant. — Philosophim

No, that's irrational. No-one has demonstrated that the oogie-boogie monster doesn't exist and isn't feared by millions. Therefore, you need to accept that claim as true?

Can you demonstrate why these arguments counter the point of the OP? — Philosophim

Yes, because firstly I showed that people regularly exhibit traits that are somewhat emblematic of the other gender while maintaining their own gender. And secondly the association between transgenderism and transsexuality demonstrates that gender dysmorphia is not as simple as wanting to wear a dress or whatever.

No, that's irrational. No-one has demonstrated that the oogie-boogie monster doesn't exist and isn't feared by millions. Therefore, you need to accept that claim as true? — Mijin

Straw man, as I have no idea what you're talking about. You're attacking something that doesn't relate to the OP. Cite the argument of the OP and address why it is wrong please.

Yes, because firstly I showed that people regularly exhibit traits that are somewhat emblematic of the other gender while maintaining their own gender. — Mijin

I also agree with this. This does not counter the claim of the OP in any way.

And secondly the association between transgenderism and transsexuality demonstrates that gender dysmorphia is not as simple as wanting to wear a dress or whatever. — Mijin

The OP does not address gender dysmorphia. That is irrelevant. Further I noted that trans genderism and trans sexualism are separate things that do not require both to exist in a person. I have not see any counter claim to this. Present one and you'll have a point that we can explore.

So far, the OP stands.

Straw man, as I have no idea what you're talking about. You're attacking something that doesn't relate to the OP. Cite the argument of the OP and address why it is wrong please. — Philosophim

A "straw man" is when someone misstates an argument for the purposes of attacking it more easily. I was not misstating your argument, I was trying to explain a logical point to you.

The point that you are not getting is that the idea that a claim is true by default, until someone can prove it false, is irrational. It's trivial to show this with claims that cannot be falsified.

A "straw man" is when someone misstates an argument for the purposes of attacking it more easily. I was not misstating your argument, I was trying to explain a logical point to you. — Mijin

No, a straw man is when you build up an idea that the presenter never argued for or backed, then attack it.

The point that you are not getting is that the idea that a claim is true by default, until someone can prove it false, is irrational. It's trivial to show this with claims that cannot be falsified. — Mijin

No, its not irrational at all. That's how arguments work. Falsification means that there is a situation in which the claim could be false. For example, my definition of sexism is wrong. Or the elevation of gender over sex does not fit the definition of sexism. Or gender is wrong. Its absolutely falsifiable. Can you prove it to be false however? If you can't, then its true.