A pitiful response.

You are factually wrong here. Someone's body is not language used to talk to them. A baby being born is not a statement of their sex. The existence of states hormones, organs and chromosomes is never such speech. Any talk about the body is a separate and distinct state, which has no impact upon it.

I'd speculate (and it is only that) so for a lot of animals, if only because they don't talk in terms of sex.

If someone doesn't use the category of sex, they have no sex to change. Even someone who thought they ought to have a different body would, rather than identifying with another sex category, just express a desire for a bodily states.

Agustino's approach here is damning of his argument. The fact animals lack denial of their nature (we are assuming) shows that "nature" is not found in the presence of specific biological states, but rather in the language. In such circumstances, animals to not even have a concept of "nature" to deny. It's a feature of language found in highly-self aware species concerned with organising society into specific categories.

No - desire can exist even if they don't have the capacity for making it actual. — Agustino

Yes, but my point was that some components of complex desires are incapable of being comprehended by other, less advanced species, so such desires cannot arise in those species, and this seems to be one of them. The absence of such a desire can be explained in more plausible ways which have nothing to do with the ridiculous argument that you're making, which commits a category error. You're looking for something where it can't be found, like assessing a banana for levels of consciousness. You're then using this as a means to justify your prejudice against transgendered people.

In such circumstances, animals do not even have a concept of "nature" to deny. It's a feature of language found in highly-self aware species concurrent with organising society into specific categories. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Exactly.

Gender or sex definitely isn't binary in every species except ours http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/12/23/scientists-discover-genderfluid-lioness-who-looks-acts-and-roars-like-a-male/

You know what the other lions probably aren't doing though? Engaging in prejudiced righteous indignation, attacks on competence or sanity and delionization.

More importantly, there are no dogmas, or tenets which tie transgender people together. I've come across a a number of very different theories, explanations, positions. No theoretical, linguistic theories ties trans people together. No surprise, but post-modernism is just as poorly understood, and ridiculed in the trans community as anywhere else people reject engaging with things they'd need more than a cursory understanding of.

There is no universal beliefs. Plenty of trans people will not go as far as to claim themselves to be women, like natal women are women, but since they aren't trying to eat anyone's babies, what's the big deal with letting people live their lives as they want?

Well, obviously, a word gets coined, or used in a new context, and this usage gains popularity, until, in some cases, at some point, it eventually becomes common usage. You don't need to do extensive research to gain that knowledge. It happened with the words "gay" and "queer" and many, many others.
— Sapientia
I am not a linguist and would not like to pretend I am one. I really am sorry, but I just don't have knowledge to converse about this. Nor do I think I can just know by thinking about it 10mins for the first time in my life. — Agustino

For ordinary discourse by the vast majority of people, the meaning of words can change, and often does change, generally over a fair amount of time.

In 1850 guys who liked sex with other men were referenced with the term "sodomy" -- a term which still has a fairly stable meaning. "Homosexual" was first coined in German in the 1860s. The first known use of "homosexual" in English was in Charles Gilbert Chaddock's 1892 translation of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis, a study on sexual practices. "Homosexual" became the preferred "official" term for guys who liked sex with other men (there were lots of other, slang / slur terms in use of course--queer, faggot, cocksucker, etc).

Homosexual and sodomy haven't changed their meanings very much. "Gay" has not always referenced "guys who like sex with other men". It's not an undisputed term now.

Take "crippled". A space ship that is hit by a little rock is "crippled". Older people note that so and so is crippled up with arthritis, and it isn't an insult. People who were paralyzed by polio were "crippled". For some reason this became a "bad term". Activists who were "crippled" wanted a different term: They are "physically handicapped"; "Physically challenged"; "Mobility impaired"; "Differently abled"; or "crippled". They don't like the term "able bodied" even though that is presumably a very good thing. Is one visually impaired or half blind? Hearing impaired or can't hear a thing? People in wheel chairs complain that people treat them like non-entities. Calling a wheelchair a "mobility device" isn't going to enhance the passenger.

First there were "transsexuals" (back in the 1960-1980s) then there were "transgendered". "Gender, gendered, gendering, transgendered" and so on reflect post-modernism which views sexual behavior as socially constructed and fluid. Post-modernists like turgid language which obscures more than reveals. Post-modernist thinkers don't see an essentially binary set up in nature (roosters and hens are just engaging in pointless performances, apparently). They see a continuum which ranges from god-knows-what on one end to archaic, oppressive, colonialist, all-powerful White Males on the other end (he said, sarcastically).

The self-esteem and individualist tendencies blended with post-modern gendering and produced people who decide for themselves and declare what they are, and if you don't like it, that is your closed minded problem, not theirs--even if it is nonsensical.

I believe there are, indeed, people whose self-identity is at odds with the physical body in which they find themselves packaged. I have found on a number of occasions that my self-identity doesn't match my body either. There are people with whom I'd like to have a winning fist fight, for instance, but when I look in the mirror, I find that it is highly unlikely I would get past the first punch. There are people to whom I would like to be irresistible, but for some reason, they are able to not even notice me. I would like to win bicycle races but I don't have Lance Armstrong's body, mind, or supply of drugs.

Many people have abnormal bodies which don't match the self image of the occupant. People who are blind, deaf, epileptic, schizophrenic; have diseases such as multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, congenital deformities, and so forth, all have to make daily compromises with the physical/mental variances that shape their lives.

One of the things I dislike about "transgenderism" is that it projects that deviation from the 'norm' onto everyone. Everyone is someplace on a wide spectrum, continuum, of sexuality. Well, some are, but it seems like an awful lot of people do not find their sexuality scattered across the graph. A similar phenomena occurs among some gay activists: "Every man has at least a little desire for sex with another man. Sure, some more or less straight men do. But most straight men don't seem to have any such desire.

Projecting individual wishes onto everyone is generally not thought to be a sensible intellectual procedure.

The more important fact is that such species do not display a desire to change their sex. They accept their nature as it is. Man is the only animal that sometimes tries to deny his nature. — Agustino

In some cases it's pretty clear that an animal is displaying a desire. I would guess that in mammals, at least, there is some range of innate sexual responsiveness. But what would a horse desiring to change that innate sexual response look like? Don't know.

I don't think it will prevent them for living a better life. Quite a lot of research shows that people who do successful change sex do have serious psychological issues and continue to suffer. So I think not changing sex, not giving in to an unnatural desire, is the first step to a cure. — Agustino

If one spent one's first 20 years being deeply conflicted about their sexual identity (am I male or female?) it would not be surprising if these conflicts would cause long-lasting personality issues. People who have merely ordinary physical handicaps such as very poor vision or deafness very often develop long-term personality problems, or distortions, owning to their experience of disability. If the child is lucky, he or she will grow up normally, but that depends on getting good breaks along the way.

That would be even more true for persons with difficult complex sexual problems. (Look at the long-term damage that child sexual abuse does.)

First there were "transsexuals" (back in the 1960-1980s) then there were "transgendered". "Gender, gendered, gendering, transgendered" and so on reflect post-modernism which views sexual behavior as socially constructed and fluid. Post-modernists like turgid language which obscures more than reveals. Post-modernist thinkers don't see an essentially binary set up in nature (roosters and hens are just engaging in pointless performances, apparently). They see a continuum which ranges from god-knows-what on one end to archaic, oppressive, colonialist, all-powerful White Males on the other end (he said, sarcastically). — Bitter Crank

A transsexual is someone that has, or is in the process of medical transition, whereas transgender is internal identity.

You have no more scientific props for yours than I have for mine. The facts are that there are just some things that you want, and have probably always wanted, and you can either be a sinful, unnatural, insane person for that, or it can be okay. No scientific anything convinced people that homosexuality maybe isn't such a big deal, lack of actual significant consequences, and yes, the idea that freedom for you, is freedom for me, is what did that. People only start coming up with the science stuff after they've already become sympathetic, and open. They just weren't looking for it, didn't interpret things that way, didn't look for alternatives besides mental health, or satan. People that support conversion therapy, and claim to have prevented trangenderism in children make this claim on the notion of the escalation of perversion, by imagining homosexuality, and trangenderism to be a scale of perversion, and when the kids grow up to be gay, they at least prevented the worst of it. Win!

It's funny how, you also suggest that it is both unreasonable to live your life in a way that is nonsensical to others, and also it is unreasonable to project your dispositions, attitudes, and feelings "that deviation from the norm on to everyone." (and there being a spectrum somehow implies that everyone exists at every single point on the spectrum, so that if there is spectrum of sexuality, that means that everyone is actually bisexual, and at least somewhat attracted to everything that it is possible for anyone to be attracted to...), but that's precisely how we understand each other. We have no other options, when people are too different, we simply can't understand them. Wittgenstein's English speaking lion.

So if I decide that "red" means "gay sex", then I have the right to call people who disagree with my usage ignorant and behind the times? :s — Agustino

If you alone decide that, you have no right to expect everybody to agree with your usage. If a thousand people say red means gay sex, they don't have a right to expect agreement. If a million people use red to mean gay sex, then... maybe.

"Gay" was not a respectable term for a long time. The New York Times did not agreed to accept "gay" meaning "homosexual" until long after it became the preferred term in most media.

"New words" are borrowed from other languages ("salsa," "pizza"), coined by cobbling together ancient words (Latin 'jur' + 'dictio' = English "jurisdiction, by way of Old French), coined out of thin air ("OK"), or an old word is given a new meaning ("gay", "bread", "dope"). There is no formula which predicts which word will become standard. "dope" just recently became an adjective meaning "really good"; "bread" has been a term among some people meaning money for maybe 50 years.

Preferred descriptors get changed by professionals who like to tweak phrases. Public Health people decided that "venereal disease" was not a good term and so "sexually transmitted diseases" was used in its place. That wasn't good enough either, so now we have "sexually transmitted infections".

VD ---> STD ---> STI---> god knows what is next. This all within about 45 years.

People elect euphemisms for words that describe unpleasant conditions:

"passing" for dying is an example. "indigestion" for vomit; "Pelvic exam" for vaginal/cervix exam (doctors are not examining the pelvis). "gas" for fart. "feces" for shit. "bathroom" for toilet (or "restroom" or "ladies room" etc).

All sorts for interests come into play and change language: class, profession, religion, science, economic interests, and more.

Out-groups (like inner city blacks) often develop a patois that is mined by in-groups (suburban whites) for its outré value.

Linguistic "leaders" try to model the most "correct language", in the same way that people who want to be au currant latch on to concepts like "cultural appropriation". White people singing blues music is "cultural appropriation". Wearing a totally fake feathered headdress for halloween is "cultural appropriation".

How long "cultural appropriation" as a linguistic cultural sin will last is anybody's guess. I'd give it 5 years at the most.

Gender simply is the sex you're born with, end of story. — Agustino

End of discussion. I wonder why you even posted the thread?

But other folks find the story debatable and by no means ended by your pontification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction

It seems to me that a philosopher who wishes to consider such matters would do well to trouble to understand that other thoughtful people make a distinction between sex and gender and find it useful. Then one could make an argument that this distinction is unhelpful or unsustainable, instead of claiming that it it is an abuse of language confined to a small group of misfits.

So it turns out that men can breastfeed. One has to conclude that this nurturing behaviour is not, as it appears to be, part of the sexual dimorphism which is supposed to be so clear. Well it might be convenient to say that is is not part of the biological sexual distinction, but is culturally strongly gendered. It does rather make one wonder though why man-boobs are perfectly acceptable for public display, but woman boobs are not?

So, lactating males are as useful as tits on a boar after all.

Granted: all mammalian fetuses begin development using a common template. Offspring with xy chromosomes emphasize some parts of the template; children with xx chromosomes emphasize other parts. Our biological systems are very similar, whether male or female.

Our biological systems are extremely similar whether one belongs to the black, red, white, yellow, or mixed race. Norwegians, Navahos, Nigerians and Nepalese are extremely similar.

Individuals vary considerably, but still bear the clear stamp of the template which we are all derived from. But some people delight in parsing out all our minute differences (lauding and honoring difference itself) while others find it more sensible to merge as many of our commonalities as possible.

Target stores have a 3rd restroom that anyone can use. It is private.

That would seem to be the best solution overall to a new problem that really should not be a problem in the first place. Or so it would seem.

What if those are terms explicitly stated in the marriage agreement and agreed by both parties at the time of the marriage? — Agustino

If I agree to mow your lawn for $20 and I don't do it, the court will not require me to mow your lawn. You would be entitled to the additional costs you have to pay to get your lawn cut. If you could find someone else to cut you lawn for $20, you'd get nothing because you weren't damaged.

What does this have to do with your question? Assuming marriages were actual contracts governed only by contract law (which they are not), you still could not require someone to do what they said they were going to do in the marriage and you could not keep two people married any more than you could keep two business partners remaining as business partners. The typical remedy for a contractual violation is determining the financial damage caused by the breach and giving that to the damaged party, not in imprisoning or otherwise forcing the violator to do what he contracted to do.

If I chose to use a women's bathroom, shower, and gym because I like to see women in various states of undress, what makes that justification less worthy than my justification that I'm using those facilities because I identify with women more than men?

Why is it ok for a guy to go into the women's room because he wants to have a cooter but not ok if he just likes to look at cooter? As I shower my naked body next to some random naked woman in the women's locker room, if I say "I want one of them things like what you got down yonder," should I avoid prosecution?