Again, its not about equal rights. Its about the soundness of claims being made. Schizophrenics have equal rights, however that doesn't require me to believe their claims and behave as if their claims are true.

How does a man even know "what is like" to be a woman to make the claim that they are really a woman in a man's body and vice versa?

Again (I need to repeat myself because you seem a bit thick-headed) I am not questioning their rights. I am questioning their claims.

I am sorry but I don't understand the point you are laying out here. Gender is based as much on your behavior and clothes as it is on your physical appearance. In fact, the brain process first the physical appearance to determine whenever or not you can call the person in front of you she or he. Then the rest comes after. — Terran Imperium

Gender: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
Sex: either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.

Again, look over literature regarding gender. They are different things, shown by the bolded text. The brain processing physical appearances first doesn't mean they are the same thing. It is how I can be a male (sexually) and dress/act like a women (gender). So I am taking on the physical role of a man, while taking on the social/cultural role of a women. This cannot be that confusing.

Who is it that is "requiring" you to believe their claims or behave as if you do?

Those that accuse me of being a hater, bigot, transgenderphobe, or just implying that I am trampling on someone's rights when I question the validity of their claims - like you are doing.

Again (I need to repeat myself because you seem a bit thick-headed) I am not questioning their rights. I am questioning their claims. — Harry Hindu

I have a good friend that considers himself transgender. I was always wondering how to ask him about those feelings without it coming off as derogatory. It feels like it would be taboo to question this, as it seems any questioning about their "feelings" (for lack of better word) is a step towards non-acceptance (bigotry).

It seems to me that one's physical state and reproductive functions have a drastic effect on the socisl roles we play.

It seems to me that making a distinction between gender and sex the way you did is part of the problem and creates the confusion.

Yet we question orher people's feelings and understanding all the time and that isn't considered taboo. It is the result of fear. Christians fail to question their feelings and beliefs out of fear. That is what is keeping today's society from questioning the claims of transgenders - fear - the fear of being labeled a bigot or a hater.

It definitely does drastically effect the roles we play/played but those roles are much more fungible at this point. They may not have been before, but they are definitely more fluid now.

It makes it more confusing but at the same time more precise. It lets us explain discrepancies in individuals roles or behavior. What other way would you differentiate sexuality (physical), from everything else (cultural/social)? Without that extra dimension you don't have a way to describe discrepancies in different cultures that also share the same biological sexes.

True enough... That reflects my feelings towards asking him. I'm concerned he'll think I'm invalidating him. What if they don't know the answers? That would be troublesome for their psyche and could cause the volatile reaction I'm so worried about.

They do have a drastic effect(all human events, actually, given that any human reposes involves their body reacting), just not the sort of of essentialist, reduction to singular meaning of gender behaviour or social value effect some people like to imagine. Gender and sex constructionists are well aware of the presence and effects of bodies. They are not interested in denying our bodies are our bodies.

Instead, they are drawing out the distinction between bodies and meanings/categories of sex and gender. A body is not a category of sex. A body is not a category of gender. Bodies are what they are no matter the category they are sorted. They are defined independently of any sex or gender categorisation.

In the respect, the sex/gender split is rather unhelpful. Not because there isn't a difference between sex categories and gender categories, but in the distinction asserts that gender is "constructed" while sex is supposedly immutable aspect of the body itself.

The sex/gender split is still caught in confusion of the body with categories into which bodies area placed. It doesn't recognise sex isn't the body at all.

I merely think it pointless to question claims of others regarding what they think themselves to be if it poses no threat of harm, and that we usually do a disservice to ourselves and others when we disturb ourselves over matters which aren't in our control.

I think the act of "questioning" us dubious itself because it has no aim knowledge. The challenge of "How do you know you are right?" only has cutting down the idea a person you are talking about in mind. It ignores responsibility to understand and respect what is true. Everyone is assumed to not be saying anything of value (except of course oneself) by default. Profoundly disrespectful of anyone challenged, for it begins in an assumption no-one understands what they are talking about.

That's before we even get to the obviously discriminatory usage of such "challenges" only being put forward to devalue and reject the experiences of minority groups. You don't see people going about "challenging" the cisgender man over whether his claim to be a man can be trusted.

So this is something I'm not well read in and it puzzles me. You say this:

Bodies are what they are no matter the category they are sorted. They are defined independently of any sex or gender categorisation.
[...]
It doesn't recognise sex isn't the body at all.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. Even if I think sex is immutable I'm obviously not denying "bodies are what they are", nor am I saying that "sex is the body".

Rather, I'm taking the view that there is an type of object called "body". This type of object, when instantiated in the world (e.g. myself), has among its properties "sex" which I will assume does not change since it's based on concrete properties that do not vary with time nor interpretation (e.g. the genetic capacity to bear children, so infertility isn't relevant). This has no similarity to your objections to those saying sex is immutable and non-constructed. Sex is, let's suppose, a property that human bodies have. No one is saying bodies are identical to the sex they bear as a property.

Am I misunderstanding you?

I wasn't thinking you were denying bodies are what they are (though you might do so if I was to talk about some intersex bodies).

My point the idea of sex you are using claims bodies are more than bodies. If I take a body, let's say one with XX chromosomes, a womb, breasts, a vagina, etc., your position proclaims it must belong to the sex category/sex identity of "female." It is subsuming our linguistical/conceptual/social practice of "female sex" into the body itself. You say such a body must be "female" when such a categorisation is not actually given in the existence of body.

A body with XX chromosomes, a womb, breasts, a vagina, etc. might be categorised any number of ways. We might have such a body and not refer to it be a sex at all. We might categorise such a body as "male ". The body itself doesn't pose a meaning of sex itself. It will be a Y chromosomes, a womb, breasts, a vagina, etc., not matter which category we place it in.
A body being present doesn't suppose anything "male" or "female."

This is why people using your categories have to say: Well, that body is definitely female because XZY...". If the present of a body did suppose sex, we wouldn't have to suppose an extra understanding over the body we already know. I would be able to think: "There's a body with XX chromosomes, a womb, breasts, a vagina, etc." and understand them "female" without engaging with sex as a distinction.

Yet, sex is a distinction. It means something distinct to "there is a body with...". Sex is not contained within the body. It always remains a seperate concept/meaning. The step of placing the body in the extra meaning of "sex" has to be taken.

I wasn't thinking you were denying bodies are what they are (though you might do so if I was to talk about some intersex bodies).

My point the idea of sex you are using claims bodies are more than bodies. If I take a body, let's say one with XX chromosomes, a womb, breasts, a vagina, etc., your position proclaims it must belong to the sex category/sex identity of "female." It is subsuming our linguistical/conceptual/social practice of "female sex" into the body itself. You say such a body must be "female" when such a categorisation is not actually given in the existence of body.

A body with XX chromosomes, a womb, breasts, a vagina, etc. might be categorised any number of ways. We might have such a body and not refer to it be a sex at all. We might categorise such a body as "male ". The body itself doesn't pose a meaning of sex itself. It will be a Y chromosomes, a womb, breasts, a vagina, etc., not matter which category we place it in.
A body being present doesn't suppose anything "male" or "female."

This is why people using your categories have to say: Well, that body is definitely female because XZY...". If the present of a body did suppose sex, we wouldn't have to suppose an extra understanding over the body we already know. I would be able to think: "There's a body with XX chromosomes, a womb, breasts, a vagina, etc." and understand them "female" without engaging with sex as a distinction.

Yet, sex is a distinction. It means something distinct to "there is a body with...". Sex is not contained within the body. It always remains a seperate concept/meaning. The step of placing the body in the extra meaning of "sex" has to be taken. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I am sorry but you are merely playing with words there. Let's say we are talking from our perception of a door. Does that mean a door is not really a door but its a concept we impose on the object? If you understand what I mean. Sex refers to your genitalia. I don't think its that hard to understand. The split between the two definitions gender/sex is definitely not helpful as you said. It doesn't solve anything as it was supposed to in first place. It only made it worse in the end.

Gender: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
Sex: either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.

Again, look over literature regarding gender. They are different things, shown by the bolded text. The brain processing physical appearances first doesn't mean they are the same thing. It is how I can be a male (sexually) and dress/act like a women (gender). So I am taking on the physical role of a man, while taking on the social/cultural role of a women. This cannot be that confusing. — yatagarasu

It is because they depend on each other, still. The distinction between sex and gender differentiates a person's biological sex (the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system) from that person's gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own and secondary sex characteristics. Which is your overall physical appearance. That is the definition of gender and that is the definition of sex as we know it. Do you understand what I mean, now? Gender depends on sex but sex doesn't depend on gender. Sex is a biological reality.

Feminist literature as it apparently exists doesn't get to change the meaning of words when they feel like it.

Actually, it is an explosive proliferation of gender-related identities. Can this process develop on its own? Are there some forces and institutions behind?

My point the idea of sex you are using claims bodies are more than bodies. If I take a body, let's say one with XX chromosomes, a womb, breasts, a vagina, etc., your position proclaims it must belong to the sex category/sex identity of "female." It is subsuming our linguistical/conceptual/social practice of "female sex" into the body itself. You say such a body must be "female" when such a categorisation is not actually given in the existence of body.

You are playing with words in a way that is unhelpful. I am not claiming bodies are more than bodies. Referring to a body with such characteristics as "female" is a matter of definition, not of needless addition. This would be akin to complaining about calling an SUV and SUV when it's simply a vehicle. Well obviously some vehicles meet the criterion that make them SUVs, just as certain bodies have the properties which instantiate "female".

True enough... That reflects my feelings towards asking him. I'm concerned he'll think I'm invalidating him. What if they don't know the answers? That would be troublesome for their psyche and could cause the volatile reaction I'm so worried about. — yatagarasu

That is just another name for "fear of the unknown". Religious people experience this and is part of the reason they just accept their beliefs based on faith because NOT knowing is scary.

I feel that the truth is more important than one's feelings. Who is to say that they won't feel better when they realize the reality of their condition and can then take action to address it instead of lying to themselves (humans are capable of lying to themselves and being misinformed of their bodily and mental states) and allowing others to propagate that lie?

Why don't we think of a schizophrenic's feelings when we diagnose their condition correctly and tell them that their hallucinations aren't real?

It definitely does drastically effect the roles we play/played but those roles are much more fungible at this point. They may not have been before, but they are definitely more fluid now.

It makes it more confusing but at the same time more precise. It lets us explain discrepancies in individuals roles or behavior. What other way would you differentiate sexuality (physical), from everything else (cultural/social)? Without that extra dimension you don't have a way to describe discrepancies in different cultures that also share the same biological sexes. — yatagarasu

It doesn't make it more confusing. There are males and females. Then there are the ways that they behave in some social structure based on their physiology. For instance, in the animal world females tend to be more picky when it comes to choosing mates as they have to spend the more resources and time in raising the young. Seahorse males are the ones that carry the young so the roles get flipped in a seahorse society. Human males do not have the capacity to get pregnant and give birth. Men are physically stronger, etc.

So there are just males and females and then there are males and females with mental problems that enable them to think that they are anything from the opposite sex, aliens, tigers, Elvis, etc.

This isn't complex or contradictory and explains the current conditions perfectly.

I merely think it pointless to question claims of others regarding what they think themselves to be if it poses no threat of harm, and that we usually do a disservice to ourselves and others when we disturb ourselves over matters which aren't in our control. — Ciceronianus the White

So then why do we point out to schizophrenics that they have a mental condition and that their hallucinations aren't real? Why aren't we concerned about their feelings when their hallucinations aren't threatening to anyone?

Why do we point out that anorexics aren't really fat and that they have a mental disorder without concern for their feelings about who and what they are?

Is lying to someone about their condition just so that you can avoid being labeled as a bigot, harmless?

They do have a drastic effect(all human events, actually, given that any human reposes involves their body reacting), just not the sort of of essentialist, reduction to singular meaning of gender behaviour or social value effect some people like to imagine. Gender and sex constructionists are well aware of the presence and effects of bodies. They are not interested in denying our bodies are our bodies.

Instead, they are drawing out the distinction between bodies and meanings/categories of sex and gender. A body is not a category of sex. A body is not a category of gender. Bodies are what they are no matter the category they are sorted. They are defined independently of any sex or gender categorisation.

In the respect, the sex/gender split is rather unhelpful. Not because there isn't a difference between sex categories and gender categories, but in the distinction asserts that gender is "constructed" while sex is supposedly immutable aspect of the body itself.

The sex/gender split is still caught in confusion of the body with categories into which bodies area placed. It doesn't recognise sex isn't the body at all. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is total nonsense. We categorize bodies all the time. How do you think we make distinctions between species and between sexes of the various species? Some species don't even have males and females, and that will dictate their behavior in their social structure.

Human males do not have the capacity to be pregnant and give birth, nor do they face the possibility of the father leaving, or cheating with another female. These are all behaviors based on our physiology and are different for other species with different sexual physiology.

You still have not explained the cultural aspect of sex (aka gender). You just described different types of physiology that influence behavior. But humans have the same physiology (roughly) but their behavior changes. A man does not have act like a prototypical man, nor does a women. A seahorse does, therefore their sex greatly influences their behaviors. Humans have a wide variety of ways they act, that has changed between cultures. Sex does not cover that at all, which is why gender was/is used to separate it.

@Terran Imperium

It is because they depend on each other, still. The distinction between sex and gender differentiates a person's biological sex (the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system) from that person's gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own and secondary sex characteristics. Which is your overall physical appearance. That is the definition of gender and that is the definition of sex as we know it. Do you understand what I mean, now? Gender depends on sex but sex doesn't depend on gender. Sex is a biological reality.

Feminist literature as it apparently exists doesn't get to change the meaning of words when they feel like it. — Terran Imperium

What do you mean do I understand now? I gave the definitions. haha Sex is the biological and gender is everything else outside of that realm. Secondary sex characteristics are biological, they are not part of gender. No, gender doesn't depend on sex. If I was born a male (biologically), but wore women's clothing and acted like a women I would be the male sex, but female in gender. The second part I can agree with, sex doesn't depend on gender, as no matter how you act you cannot change your sex.

They are the ones that created the differences in the two words, so I have no clue what you are implying.

@Harry Hindu

That is just another name for "fear of the unknown". Religious people experience this and is part of the reason they just accept their beliefs based on faith because NOT knowing is scary.

I feel that the truth is more important than one's feelings. Who is to say that they won't feel better when they realize the reality of their condition and can then take action to address it instead of lying to themselves (humans are capable of lying to themselves and being misinformed of their bodily and mental states) and allowing others to propagate that lie?

Why don't we think of a schizophrenic's feelings when we diagnose their condition correctly and tell them that their hallucinations aren't real? — Harry Hindu

Yes, that is true, but them not understanding their condition doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong in what they experience.

Fair enough. Since I believe gender to be a social construct I could see that. Humans are incredible at self-deception. I am open to that possibility.

Probably because culture and the things they want to be are more tangible than the obvious delusions no one else can account for in schizophrenia. As an interesting side note... The friend I mentioned was diagnosed as being very likely to develop schizophrenia going through their adulthood. He has mentioned hearing auditory hallucinations and is being treated for it alongside other issues. I see what you are saying. More research is necessary, and it might not happen if we just assume this a social issue rather than a psychological one.

Has the issue of transgenderism become politicized?
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/gender_confusion_a_tool_of_the_left.html

Categorisation isn’t an issue. People categorise things all the time. Many categorisations are true. My position isn’t against categories. I’m talking about how it is one category is true or not. When I say sex identity is independent of a body, my int is not to say bodies do not belong to categories.

I’m saying a body does not belong to a category by virtue of existence as a body. We can see this in how imagined bodies (which do not exist!) belong to categories. Belonging to a category is a particular and independent logical meaning, separate to just the presence of a body.

A body does not take on belonging to a category of “male” or “female” because it is “a body. One does not get belonging to a category from the fact of a body, from a hormone, from a penis, from a vagina, form a womb, form a certain set of chromosomes, etc. It’s always a fact of belonging to a category itself— i.e a body which is of this category because it is of this category rather than a body which is of this category because it’s a body.

The equivocation of the body with its category leads to erroneous locating of bodily difference in the meaning of a category. A man can get pregnant, provided he has a functioning womb and other associated body functions . When such a body is in the “male” category, there is a man who can get pregnant. The difference maker is the bodily state in question, not what category of identity they have. It's about having body, not a meaning of sex.

I'm not merely playing with words. Error is your concepts are my target. I'm pointing out logical different/facts about the meanings of sex and the body you are missing.

The property of being a vehicle (a body) does not define the property of being a SUV (female). Only the property of being an SUV (female) can define the presence of being an SUV (female).

Sex does not simply refer to genitalia. If it did, we wouldn't even have the logical distinction of sex. We would just be saying: "There is this genitalia" not "This person has some genitalia and has the sex meaning of "female." Your own usages include this distinction.

Does that mean a door is not really a door but its a concept we impose on the object? If you understand what I mean. — Terran Imperium

It means a door is a door by virtue of them meaning of door, not because it is an existing body.

Our language is also something we impose upon our object here. Neither our concept of the door nor our language acts of speaking about the door are the thing of the meaning of door.
The existence of a door is nor defined by the meaning of the language we use. Our language is not magic in that way.

The existence of the door defined by the presence of a thing, in its body being present. In terms of how it maybe be talked about or categorised, there are many different ways. Some language, for example, might even give the door a gender, despise it having no human body and no genitalia!

I would like to set out what is objectionable and what is illogical in your OP.

The introduction is the ubiquitous claim that you started out neutral but after bad experiences with your respondents you now think "these people" are delusional. There is something quite objectionable about the phrase "these people", in that it serves to sever them from "us"; as if "we" do not owe them any respect.

Then there is your use of teleology. You speak of the "purpose" of sex as procreation, grossly oversimplifying the human experience - so, for example, sex is also recreational. You speak of "design", but of course there is no design. Unless you are defending some sort of creationism, in which case your view on sexuality is post hoc and the real issue is your imaginary friends.

Sex is biological. Male and female look clearly distinguishable; but of course the truth is that there are exceptions to any definition you might wish to set out.

Gender is societal; we decide what gender is. As such there are again exceptions, but further we can make changes and exceptions as we see fit.

Gender is a set of expectations foisted on us by others, depending on the contents of our underpants rather than our relevant abilities.

It is easier to change expectations than to change genitals.

It might be worth asking how comfortable you are with folk who are different from yourself. Why should it matter to you that the person in the next toilet cubical has a penis? Why the interest, again, in the contents of other people;s underwear? Is it this that makes people worthy of respect, or not?

I agree with you that there are problems with the way transgender issues are articulated. But your lack of capacity to accept and respect difference might speak more about you and your approach to others than about problems with trans folk.

am sorry but you are merely playing with words there. Let's say we are talking from our perception of a door. Does that mean a door is not really a door but its a concept we impose on the object? — Terran Imperium

Well, this is not a question easily answered. It involves an epistemological theory. What you are speaking from is known as realism. Furthermore, this is an empirical realism you are speaking from. The epistemology of trans philosophy is different fundamentally.

This is the root of the differences.

Gender depends on sex but sex doesn't depend on gender. Sex is a biological reality.

Feminist literature as it apparently exists doesn't get to change the meaning of words when they feel like it. — Terran Imperium

According to your epistemology, which is not very accurately based.

What about linguistic gender? Why is tree masculine and plant feminine in German? What are these demarcations of knowledge?
They are arbitrary.

Since gender regards identity, and human identity is of consciousness, of personality and furthermore of thought; and since thought is the determinant of gender, with regard to the gender variations of language that structure reality, the gender of a personality, in terms of its psychological constitution in the strict sense of the word (logos + Psyche), regards not the material world (which your realism regards) and facticity but consciousness carte blanche.
@yatagarasu@Banno@TheWillowOfDarkness

Language is a tool of communication as well as a mean of culture-building/identity-building. Yes, its integrity relates to its ability to maintain meaning fixed across time, but it also relates to the individuality that we wish to communicate. The medium is the message, after all, and we all wish to put ourselves in our communications. Every single sentences we produces are signed, so to speak, both at the direct level of the expressions used betraying ourselves and our intentions, and at the meta level of the relation we have toward the linguistic code we are using. The way we speak the language, the language itself, shows a character. Its why we French always sound arrogant : because French is arrogant.

But language is a character performance, really. We show who we want to show, in the end. If I'm at a stripper bar in Montreal I stop using my French accent and switch to my French-Canadian backwater town lexicon. Its just safer. We all perform the language. If its too hard for you to change your performance slightly to help someone who has or has had issues that you are lucky to never have, then I dont recognize in you the same great culture that has fostered tolerance and defended human rights.