It's clarity, directness and ability to be weilded for policy purposes means that "man" and "woman" should be distinct from the more nuanced, and possibly undefinable concepts of gender in each case - which can be captured by "transman" or "transwoman" without ambiguity - the "trans" gives you the data you need to categorize accurately without passing any moral judgement. — AmadeusD

This begs the questions of policy. Should a "transman" use the men's or women's toilets? Should a transwoman play women's sports? It also ignores pronouns. Does a transwoman use "she" and "her"? (I admit that we need a singular neuter pronoun. It grates on my nerves to use "they" or "them" -- but the only alternative is to recast the sentence. That's fine when writing, but awkward in speech.)

Of course your suggestion is more accurate and less ambiguous. But what's so bad about ambiguity? Also, those (nobody here I'm sure) who are prejudiced against trans individuals will be enabled to discriminate more easily.

Yeah definitely, those are the 'up in the air' concepts.

I think, personally, that clarity is best for communication. My support for that is the universal, time-tested theory that less-clear communication almost always results in worse goal-oriented results than clear, unambiguous language.

I agree about they/them although in practice I find it fine enough to use in the small number of cases its asked of me.

No, I am not begging the question. The assertion of a definition, and a reason why it is that definition is not a conclusion within the premises. — Philosophim

Nonsense. The definition is changing, or has changed. Why else would it be commonplace for people to list their "pronouns". The use of "she" and "her" to refer to transwomen is accepted and normal (although not, perhaps, in MAGA circles). To refer to a trans individual by his or her birth name or birth pronouns is commonly considered rude. Manners (and the definitions of words) are culturally constituted. "Biology" plays little role in how words are defined.

So that premise, at least, is dubious.

The point is most people don't do this. Most people probably don't quite understand the concept. You're right, that there is an attempt to change the meanings of those words, but equally there is resistance so I think its totally reasonable to look at the last, say 500 years, and say "well, until about 1990 this was how it was so let's start there and discuss the journey to where we are, picking up on mistakes along hte way).

No, I am not begging the question. The assertion of a definition, and a reason why it is that definition is not a conclusion within the premises.
— Philosophim

Nonsense. The definition is changing, or has changed. — Ecurb

The claim it is the default definition is a given. Go to anyone you know and say, "A woman was walking in the woods." Wait a second. Then ask them, "Did you imagine an adult human male or an adult human female?" Of course we all know the answer is, "Adult human female". That is because man and woman by default do not refer to a role, but a sex.

The claim it is the default definition is a given. Go to anyone you know and say, "A woman was walking in the woods." Wait a second. Then ask them, "Did you imagine an adult human male or an adult human female?" Of course we all know the answer is, "Adult human female". That is because man and woman by default do not refer to a role, but a sex. — Philosophim

If the same person saw a person with long hair, breasts, wearing a dress walking in the woods, he or she might say, "I saw a woman walking in the woods." Or if he saw such a person entering a men's toilet, he might say, "Huh? Why is a woman entering a men's toilet?"

This is obvious. Of course there is some ambiguity. The question is how to deal with it. I suggest dealing with it with kindness, empathy and good manners. You suggest (incorrectly) that would be a lie.
Since definitions change, it would not be a lie.

I've answered your point about it not being the default definition. We can keep talking about that, but this OP and Jamal's focus is on definitions and proper English usage. There is zero emotional considerations here. This is not about politeness, social standings, or how we ought to treat trans individuals. This is about language.

This is about language. — Philosophim

And I gave you an example where almost all native English speakers would say, "I saw a woman walking in the woods."

Are you going to insist on asking, "How do you know? Just because she looks like a woman, acts like a woman and presents as a woman, you might be lying, because HE might have been born male."

If the same person saw a person with long hair, breasts, wearing a dress walking in the woods, he or she might say, "I saw a woman walking in the woods." Or if he saw such a person entering a men's toilet, he might say, "Huh? Why is a woman entering a men's toilet?" — Ecurb

I think this is a little tortured: Humans are, apparently, more than 99% accurate at determining sex from facial features alone. It is an extremely rare and aberrant situation that someone see's a 'woman' in your description and doesn't think 'male' even if their social tickertape says 'woman'. It takes effort.

And I gave you an example where almost all native English speakers would say, "I saw a woman walking in the woods." — Ecurb

Correct. What you didn't imply in any way is that most people would think that 'woman' in this instance was referring to a role and not a sex. Let Jamal answer Ecurb, I'm sure he'll present a good response. If you spy something he missed feel free to point it out then.

There is zero emotional considerations here. This is not about politeness, social standings, or how we ought to treat trans individuals. This is about language. — Philosophim

This is disingenuous.

How the language is used will decide if it is a weapon or not used against transgender persons.

This is disingenuous.

How the language is used will decide if it is a weapon or not used against transgender persons. — Questioner

That's ridiculous. Effective language is used to describe reality.

Let me give you an example of why effective language is more important than getting something you want. Global warming. I've heard on the right quite often that global warming isn't real. They don't have very good arguments against it, but dig further and you realize what they're really doing. They don't want to sacrifice or increase taxes, so they deny the reality of global warming. Isn't that stupid? Should you reject reality because you have an alternative goal and think the only way to achieve it is to deny reality?

What conservatives should do is simply evaluate global warming independent of politics first. Then there can be a discussion. A conservative could then say, "Yes, global warming is real, but are your solutions effective? No, we have solutions we think will be more effective."

So I ask you to ask yourself the same question. Are you arguing against clear language to get something beyond that language that you want? Or are you ok with agreeing to basic language, then deciding with that language how to get what you want? If the phrase 'Trans men are men" isn't proper language, shouldn't it be clarified? Once its clarified, you both have an area of agreement on a basic premise, then you can argue what trans men should be able to do in society.

than getting something you want. — Philosophim

Let's first focus on this - reducing the need for authenticity to a "want." You seem to imply that transgender persons are somehow selfish should their claim to their true identity be their goal. Do you apply this judgement only to transgender persons, or to all persons?

Global warming. — Philosophim

Invalidating and erasing a scientific theory is not the same as invalidating and erasing a state of being.

Although, ignorance applies in both cases.

Are you arguing against clear language to get something beyond that language that you want? Or a — Philosophim

If the phrase 'Trans men are men" isn't proper language, shouldn't it be clarified? Once its clarified, you both have an area of agreement on a basic premise, then you can argue what trans men should be able to do in society. — Philosophim

Trans men are men. Trans women are women.

"What they should be able to do in society?" - I believe you are talking about using public rest rooms and playing in sports. Well, I have to tell you, only the people who pretend to be the gender that they are not are the danger in rest rooms, and barring trans persons from the rest rooms will not solve that problem. They are not the problem.

In sports - a transgender woman would still have the strength of a man, so should not be allowed to enter as a woman in sports. But - I will mention - - trans people make up less than less than 0.002% (10/500,000) of US college athletes, and even fewer of recent Olympians (0.001%) identify as trans.

A total red herring.

Here's the thing - the current war against transgender persons in the US is not about using the language properly, it is a campaign based on disgust - and disgust should never be the basis for policy.

You made no comment about Bree Fram, that I introduced to you?

Effective language is used to describe reality. — Philosophim

Conceptions of reality change. Language changes with it.

Conceptions of reality change. Language changes with it. — frank

Sure. That doesn't invalidate the OP.

Sure. That doesn't invalidate the OP. — Philosophim

Cool. So if people change the way they talk about gender, you'll change your views.

than getting something you want.
— Philosophim

Let's first focus on this - reducing the need for authenticity to a "want." — Questioner

Let me stop you there. This is not an OP that decides anything about trans gender desires, politics, etc. This is a language argument. This is not, "What are we politically going to do about global warming." This is, "Is global warming real?"

So stay on topic with the OP please. Where is it wrong?

Sure. That doesn't invalidate the OP.
— Philosophim

Cool. So if people change the way they talk about gender, you'll change your views. — frank

That's worded quite strangely. If it the prevailing definition of the term 'woman' became social role instead of sex, then the OP's conclusion would change. It has not as of this time.

This is a language argument. — Philosophim

I was arguing your use of the word "want"

This is a language argument.
— Philosophim

I was arguing your use of the word "want" — Questioner

And I'm noting this is not an argument about 'want', but what 'is'.

That's worded quite strangely. If it the prevailing definition of the term 'woman' became social role instead of sex role, then the OP's conclusion would change. It has not as of this time. — Philosophim

Ok. But when you go to the hospital, someone is going to fill in a blank beside the words: Gender Preference. So you're cool with that because every hospital in America is presently doing it.

You just sort of go with the flow. I can't say I'm overly proud of you for that, but I recognize your stance.

Ok. But when you go to the hospital, someone is going to fill in a blank beside the words: Gender Preference. So you're cool with that because every hospital in America is presently doing that. — frank

Yes, but they aren't saying "Sex preference". I'm not sure what the point was here Frank. That's not intended to sound sarcastic, I'm just not sure what you meant here.

You just sort of go with the flow. I can't say I'm overly proud of you for that, but I recognize your stance. — frank

This is a non-political discussion. This is about language. Politics are about getting what you want no matter what gets in your way. Philosophy is an attempt to analyze language and ideas to conclude what is most logical.

Yes, but they aren't saying "Sex preference". I'm not sure what the point was here Frank. That's not intended to sound sarcastic, I'm just not sure what you meant here. — Philosophim

They were born with a certain sex. That's true. They tell you what their gender is.

Yes, but they aren't saying "Sex preference". I'm not sure what the point was here Frank. That's not intended to sound sarcastic, I'm just not sure what you meant here.
— Philosophim

They were born with a certain sex. That's true. They tell you what their gender is. — frank

I still don't get how that applies to the OP Frank.

I still don't get how that applies to the OP Frank. — Philosophim

It doesn't appear the OP is saying anything that isn't trivially true.

I still don't get how that applies to the OP Frank.
— Philosophim

It doesn't appear the OP is saying anything that isn't trivially true. — frank

I didn't think so either, but apparently its not so trivial based on the discussion generated. Appreciate the input.

I didn't think so either, but apparently its not so trivial based on the discussion generated — Philosophim

I think they probably thought you were saying something a little more substantial.

Appreciate the input. — Philosophim

:up:

I'm seeing some posts online about Foucalt being a really hardcore pedophile. That true?

Trans men are men. Trans women are women. — Questioner

What is a woman?

Incorrect. If you want to have this debate and contest that definition, that's your call. First, you have to address what the OP is doing, not what you think it should be doing. I've defined men and women as used by default. Again, contest if you wish. It is not my failing for asserting a definition in an argument that you wish to contest. — Philosophim

Premises which necessarily lead to a conclusion is a deductive argument. Which means that if the premises are true, the conclusion is true. So then we have both acknowledged that the argument I've made is deductive and valid. You want to debate the premises. Which is fine. But I have not lacked in the argument or used poor logic. — Philosophim

I think you're still missing the point. It is your failing if you consider the OP to have made some kind of argumentative achievement.

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

(The same pattern for "woman," and interpreting "male" biologically.)

Nobody disputes this argument's validity, but validity is not sufficient for philosophical substance in a contested debate. And yet, you do claim to have shown something philosophically substantive, namely that a trans man is not a man etc., thereby coming down on one side of the actually ongoing debate.

Of course, what you have actually done is attempted to sidestep the central dispute, which is over whether or not your definition is correct. Your conclusion follows only because you have already made it inevitable by assuming the centrally contested definition. This amounts to begging the question (but see below for more about that).

Now, had you taken the time to defend the definition, none of this would matter. Perhaps you just wanted to set things out clearly and simply, and what could be wrong with that? But the following is all you offered in defence:

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

This is where you need a good argument—where it's difficult.

---

No, I am not begging the question. The assertion of a definition, and a reason why it is that definition is not a conclusion within the premises. The conclusion also requires other premises in the argument. If I noted "The bible is true because God says so, and the bible is true because its Gods word", that is begging the question. The premise is the conclusion, and the premise is true because it says it is true. But I do not. If the other premises changed, then the conclusion would not be necessarily reached despite my asserted definition of man and woman. — Philosophim

If this were an accurate description of begging the question, there would never be a need to identify it, because it would never exist. This is better: you beg the question when your premises assume the truth of the conclusion. And I think your argument does that, not explicitly but in the context of the ongoing debate. Premise 1 presupposes the conclusion by fixing the meaning of "man" in a way that already excludes trans men. The conclusion is assumed rather than argued for.

In reality, begging the question takes different forms: assuming a disputed claim, building the conclusion into a definitional premise, or stipulating a definition that can only be accepted by someone who already agrees with the conclusion. Some philosophers have made the distinction between intrinsic and dialectical question-begging. In those terms, you have done the latter.

If you have a particular argument against the OP, it is your job to point it out and explain why it counters the premises or conclusion of the OP. If there is a particular debate that you feel is worth pulling in to address the claims of the OP, feel free. But a general reference to unspecified arguments without any demonstrable link to the OP is something I can rationally ignore. — Philosophim

If you just want to win, then sure. But if you want to find truth, then no, you cannot ignore the chance of attaining knowledge. I pointed you in the direction of a respected philosophical authority (the SEP), and mentioned that some thinkers regard man and woman as cluster concepts. I assumed, because you hadn't mentioned anything remotely like that, that you were unaware of all the work that has already been done in the field.

If man and woman operate socially as roles (which they obviously do in many contexts, e.g., bathrooms, marriage, dress codes, comportment expectations), then sex is not the default, but one factor among others. — Jamal

This is a counter assertion, which is good. But this is actually begging the question. If there is not only the objective reality of "Adult human male", but also "the role of an adult human male", there is a missing rational link to "Sex is not the default (majority) meaning for male and female". — Philosophim

I meant to call your statement that sex is the default into doubt, to push back against it with examples. If social position is operative in society in substantial, non-ephemeral ways—and I gave examples—then it shows there is a burden on you to support your statement that sex is the default. It does not rigorously prove that sex is not the default, but I had no intention of doing that.

How so? The majority of people use the term 'majority' to refer to 'the greater number of' right? That's a definition, not an appeal to popularity. I'm claiming a majority of people use the term women and man to refer to adult human females and males respectively by definition. Are you claiming that men and woman cannot be defined as I've noted so far? I don't think you are, so your only viable critique at this point is to claim 'the majority of people don't define men and women that way'. — Philosophim

The thing is, you are not merely saying, "Given my definition, trans women are not women." (Everyone agrees with this). You are also saying that your definition is the default, and that rival definitions, and therefore contrary conclusions, are deviations from correct usage. At this point, the masses are functioning as an authority.

This becomes clear in the concluding paragraph of the OP:

The terms man and woman indicate a person's age and sex, not gender. — Philosophim

How do you get to that? The logic surely goes like this:

Most people use "man" and "woman" to refer to sex, not gender.
Therefore "man" and "women" refer to sex, not gender.

There is a missing premise there: If most people use a term a certain way, then that is what the term refers to. Without it, it's an appeal to popularity. In fact, it's an appeal to popularity even with that premise, because that premise is itself an appeal to popularity.