That is an odd turn of phrase. I don't sit back and observe myself being male. Yet the notion that I experience being male implies something like that.

I don't experience being a man.

Being a man is not something that happens to me, in the way I experience a film or a pain.

I know when I am feeling pain and when I am not; when I am attending a film and when I am not. But I can have no idea of what it would feel like to not be a man. similarly, I cannot have any idea of what it might feel like to be a woman.

That's a superficial argument, but it goes much deeper than that. Suppose a woman imagines herself with a penis, testicles, extra testosterone and whatever. She claims that she feels like a man... But how could we tell she was right? How could we tell that what she felt was really what it feels like to be a man?

It simply can't be done. There is nothing it feels like to be a man.

One does not experience one's gender. Perhaps one lives it. — Banno

I don't think that living it differs much from feeling it. I don't think learning about yourself is like sitting back, taking inventory, and reporting on what you find. But I do have certain feelings, all the same, and they aren't shared by everyone -- but they are shared by some.

I believe you when you say you don't experience being a man. I also believe my coworkers who say they are such and such -- be it man or woman or something else. You and they are trustworthy people who I've had conversations with before, and I have no reason to think you are lying. This is how we can tell whether or not someone else is speaking the truth. This is the only method that I know of. In a sense you could look at the statements that people say of themselves as the data. To question them is like questioning "How do we know the ruler is really telling me this paper is 10 inches in length?" -- because the ruler says so.

In particular, for myself, while gender doesn't play a central role to my interior experience, depression does. And those are far from shared experiences at all. Not everyone has depression. But those who do "get it" -- and those who don't can only imagine, just like I can only imagine what it feels like to be transgender.

The ethics is much clearer here than the logic, isn't it. The issue is not what we (you and I) do about transgender folk, and we will continue to suport and defend how they choose to live.

The issue is logical; it is how best to think about the challenge of transgender to the previously polar opposite gender.

Of course these two are related, and hence the puzzle.

In a case of bodily dysphoria it is open to others to say that the feeling that the limb does not belong to the patient is pathological; that it is the feeling that needs to be treated, not the limb.

If our conception of transgender is also based solely on a feeling, then it also remains open to others to say that the feeling that the genitals do not belong to the patient is pathological; that it is the feeling that needs to be treated, not the body.

The idea that gender is determined by feeling leaves itself open to this criticism. What's the answer?

And this is where Rebecca Reilly-Cooper's discourse becomes a great strength: at it's heart, the concept of gender is no longer defensible.

So the answer to my question, "how best to think about the challenge of transgender?", is to admit that gender is a social construct that we are better off without.

I suspect that in defending the concept of gender you both missed the thrust of this discussion.

I haven't followed your discussion in detail. The notion of innate homosexuality plays a great roll in the legal thinking that leads to equity for homosexual behaviour. Transgender folk may be following this lead in advocating for gender as some innate feeling. For the reasons given in my reply to @unenlightened, above, I think this might be an error on their part.

Your thoughts would be more than welcome.

Is there a way to edit the name of this thread?

While homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals have unique concerns, we all share deviant sexual desires and behaviors. That doesn't mean that the etiology of our deviances are the same, or that we are all variations on a common theme.

What we know about transsexuals is this: They state a desire to be and appear to be, the gender opposite of the one they have. Plastic surgery and hormone therapy can reshape the body so that it superficially appears to match the desired gender. This seems to relieve the discomfort of discordance between how they appear and how they wish to appear.

As far as I know, (and as far as I have observed in ordinary contexts) there are no biological markers for transsexuality. There are no physical features that identify transsexuals. As far as I know, the critical test for transsexuality is a fervently defended consistent narrative. However, most transsexuals seem to enjoy the changes brought about by hormone therapy (feminization or masculinization) as well as the changes that can be brought about surgically (breast/ovaries/penis/testicle removal or vagina and penis construction).

It is one thing if reasonably mature gay men decide that they really would rather be women, or a heterosexuals decide they would rather be the opposite sex. We can be doubtful and wonder if there isn't something slightly crazy about the whole thing, but at least they are adults.

I for one am not willing to accept that 4 or 5 year olds declaring that they want to be the opposite sex should be given the benefit of the doubt. To put it bluntly, I am suspicious of the parents, cooperating school authorities, and medical officials who aid or allow children to act out any sort of transsexual fantasy. It would not be the first time that incredibly naive (or stupid) theory was applied to young children. It also wouldn't be the first time that parents imposed inappropriate ideas on their children.

The thing about homosexuals, heterosexuals, and bisexuals is that they can demonstrate the validity of their preference by performing what it is that they prefer. Consistent arousal in a same sex or opposite sex situation provides physical proof (if anybody needed it). Further, there is the consistency of fantasy and arousal.

I suppose it can be said that transsexuals also demonstrate by performance the validity of their condition. What is more difficult is for a transsexual to demonstrate arousal. If they have been given hormone and surgical treatment, the body parts that show arousal may not be there any more, or may not work as they did before hormone therapy.

I am not in favor of categorizing adult transsexuals as people who only engage in very elaborate drag. The people who have embarked on transsexual transition have often had to endure too much brutal public ridicule (and a good deal worse sometimes) for it to be considered merely an affectation. This is especially true for transsexuals operating on a shoestring. Clearly they are committed.

On the other hand, people are prone to believing their own bullshit. A lot of empathetic types who want to be sensitive on the issue accept pretty much everything transsexual advocates say without too much critical questioning. More critical thinking is needed here, and not just for pro-advocacy.

Is there a way to edit the name of this thread? — Banno

Can't you as the author change the text in the title? How about asking the mods to do it.

My two-cents worth is that most of these terms are not well-defined. I am unaware of any that are well-defined - of course there are practical understandings that serve some purpose. Feeling too has to be defined. Most of us probably know that lots of laws contain a definitions section, for the simple reason that folks can know what the law is about and to whom it applies and so forth.

My bias about these terms and what they mean has changed over a lot of years. I now buy the notion that most understanding about social aspects of sex is just plain wrong. That doesn't mean it was or is necessarily useless or evil, but where there is a lack of accurate understanding, there cannot be correct application.

The great hazard with feelings is that they can change, so I'm inclined to indorse any notion that where feelings are part of the mix, that they be addressed and resolved before anyone cuts anything.

In a case of bodily dysphoria it is open to others to say that the feeling that the limb does not belong to the patient is pathological; that it is the feeling that needs to be treated, not the limb.

If our conception of transgender is also based solely on a feeling, then it also remains open to others to say that the feeling that the genitals do not belong to the patient is pathological; that it is the feeling that needs to be treated, not the body.

The idea that gender is determined by feeling leaves itself open to this criticism. What's the answer?

And this is where Rebecca Reilly-Cooper's discourse becomes a great strength: at it's heart, the concept of gender is no longer defensible.

So the answer to my question, "how best to think about the challenge of transgender?", is to admit that gender is a social construct that we are better off without. — Banno

But that is not an answer to anything. We would be better off without the constructs of race and nationality, but we don't have the option. And not having the option, one might want to say it is pathological to want to lighten your skin, but the pathology is society's not the individual's. Surely the point is that gender is not determined by feeling or by physicality but by conformity to stereotypes.

I remember the days when a bloke growing his hair over his ears was an act of rebellion that people found threatening to their own identity. The thinking was fairly transparent; 'If a bloke has long hair, I might fancy him, and that would make me a queer.' And that was a fate worse than death at the time. And it is the same kind of threat to their own identity that galvanises folks in their horror at the idea of a penis in the women's toilets. Rebecca is a conformist, and her suggestion that gender is indefensible is a performative contradiction.

Why?

I've drawn from more examples than gender to elucidate interiority. And I've noted a few times how people both bond over identities (so they are shared, though not by everyone) and can know what others feel based upon sharing experiences through words.

Gender is just another faucet of the interior which, treated in a consistent manner, is included.

I've also directly answered the question "How do we know?" to demonstrate the logic of interiority two times now. The answer to "How?" doesn't change whether we are talking about gender identity or some other aspect of identity.

I'd say we just happen to disagree. Which is different from missing the point, I think.

Gender is just another faucet of the interior — Moliere

Your spell check needs a new washer.

Awww. lol. Yup. That's a common one for me. Spelling has always been a weak point for me.

One test for depression is the following series of questions, rated on a scale from 0-3:

Over the last 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by any of the following problems?

Little interest or pleasure in doing things?

Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless?

Trouble falling or staying asleep, or sleeping too much?

Feeling tired or having little energy?

Poor appetite or overeating?

Feeling bad about yourself — or that you are a failure or have let yourself or your family down?

Trouble concentrating on things, such as reading the newspaper or watching television?

Moving or speaking so slowly that other people could have noticed? Or so fidgety or restless that you have been moving a lot more than usual?

Thoughts that you would be better off dead, or thoughts of hurting yourself in some way?

One thing this has in common with gender is that the statements of the person of interest are taken at face value for what they are. That does not mean they are unintepretted, or that there couldn't be other facts or inferences that play a role in making a determination or that they are not truth-apt. Just like the ruler -- it reads 10", but if you measure any one thing several times over you'll see that it's actually very precise, but you don't get the same measurement every single time. It also doesn't mean that everything said by a patient is just treated as true all the time -- that saying so makes it so. Another commonality is the imprecision such a test has -- it may be accurate, but it is imprecise. Notice how even in the very same question behaviors or feelings which are even opposite one from another are used to determine depression.

Now I use this mostly because it is a diagnostic, in the sense that is demonstrates how one might determine how another feels -- it is simultaneously imprecise and ambiguous, but not meaningless and not futile. And the best judgements are had over time -- that is, they require some kind of a relationship with another person, they require some amount of trust (rather than control), and they require sharing and listening.


Now there is an aspect to this that really is a social construct. Depression didn't always exist, and the medical treatment of the soul is quite novel. The identity of depression is certainly novel and invented. There are particular activities associated with the word. One need not have any of these trappings. And one could even de-construct it, reinvent. One could believe that the world would be better off without such identifiers.

But the feelings would remain. The interior experience would still be something which is only partially shared, partially not shared, and only determinable by asking questions within a relationship and listening to the answers.

Is there a way to edit the name of this thread? — Banno

Edit the OP. Oops. You have already.

Precisely, by virtue of the understanding of the difference between synthetic and analytic propositions.

The problem here is the binary. Many transgender people say that they are non binary. However, the binary has implications.
If a person says that they ARE NOT a woman, and this characterization of what they are remains within the binary conceptualization of gender, then they are a man.
It is not about feeling like a man as much as it is knowing that one is not what they have been defined by others to be.
Furthermore, what is a man? What is a woman? There, after analyzing, only exists some imaginary abstraction of what a true man or woman would be, so in a sense they recreate what they are, based in an understanding of what they are not. And this is true for everyone. You are what you are not, and you are not what you are (Sartre).

Thanks for your reply. Your reflections are valuable for me.

I find myself in the position of defending transgender folk and finding the existing explanations inadequate. What stands out is the "fervently defended consistent narrative". Such a narrative depends on the perceived competence of the narrator. The disabled and young are left in an ambiguous position. Hence, I agree with:

I for one am not willing to accept that 4 or 5 year olds declaring that they want to be the opposite sex should be given the benefit of the doubt. To put it bluntly, I am suspicious of the parents, cooperating school authorities, and medical officials who aid or allow children to act out any sort of transsexual fantasy. It would not be the first time that incredibly naive (or stupid) theory was applied to young children. It also wouldn't be the first time that parents imposed inappropriate ideas on their children. — Bitter Crank

and leave myself open to the accusation of having been duped.

That is, I desire, but cannot find, a firmer platform on which to stand in defence of transgender folk.

I noticed also the thread at gender-ideology-and-its-contradictions and the compounded confusions of @Terran Imperium. I cannot agree with your conclusion that transsexuals are delusional. Rather I would say they epitomise, and instantiate, the incoherence of the notion of gender. Perhaps it is social expectation that is delusional.

The great hazard with feelings is that they can change, so I'm inclined to indorse any notion that where feelings are part of the mix, that they be addressed and resolved before anyone cuts anything. — tim wood

Sure. But given that feelings change, how could you know when an issue involving feelings is resolved?

Hence we are again dependent on the fervently defended consistent narrative, and the power of the narrator.

...her suggestion that gender is indefensible is a performative contradiction. — unenlightened

How's that? I don't see your argument.

It's not that gender is incoherent, it's that it can be found to be so if overanalysed, like not seeing the wood for the trees. If you take a magnifying glass to it, then you risk missing what would otherwise be apparent. It's a problem with the method of examination, not the thing being examined. This is a common error in philosophy. Try taking your philosopher hat off for a while and give it a rethink.

SO gender is fine, provided we don't take it seriously.

Fine.

SO gender is fine, provided we don't take it seriously.

Fine. — Banno

:roll:

No, Banno, that is not what I was suggesting. I'm giving my serious input on where the problem lies, and suggesting that it might help to think about it differently, from another angle. The conclusions that you're drawing don't sit right, and I'm thinking about why that is.

How's that? I don't see your argument. — Banno

Well, perhaps that was a bit hyperbolic, but...

I think it is reasonable to distinguish the physical, the social and the personal as aspects of the world.

So, Rebecca is a conformist to social stereotypes (dress, hair, make-up, demeanour) that align with her physicality (I presume), and (a) identifies the two, and (b) identifies with/as that unity 'woman', and (c) is comfortable with that.

So her performance is of a comfortable identity of sex and gender, while her rhetoric is that only sex matters, and gender and comfort or discomfort can be disregarded.

Her performance is strongly gendered, therefore "...her suggestion that gender is indefensible is a performative contradiction."

The problem here is the binary. Many transgender people say that they are non binary. However, the binary has implications. — Blue Lux

Is that possible to exist "in between"? I've met a transgender who said: "Today mourning I felt as if I was a man, and later as if I was a woman..." So, is that possible to avoid the binary in self-identification?

Well, 'trans'gender means to go beyond gender. So. You can be whatever you want to be. You can describe yourself in any manner. That is your freedom.

Well, 'trans'gender means to go beyond gender. So. You can be whatever you want to be. You can describe yourself in any manner. That is your freedom. — Blue Lux

Here is the problem: to become a transgender by many people ( and, by transgenders themselves) is understood as a manifestation of their freedom, as a free choice of a new identity. Yet, isn't this process is guided and taken up by mass-media and by so many institutions and organizations? So, it is rather taking part in a mass movement than a free choice of an individual identity.

It originates with conventional gender non-conformists... It has been taken up by media and other whatevers, but this is mostly because it is a revolutionary way of thinking.

Probably, for the first transgenders it was really an act of free choice.

Well, I think people use the public discourse on transgenderedism as an outlet and a medium by which they can identify how they feel about themselves. For instance, I am gay. If there was not a public discourse on acceptance and the 'ratifying' of homosexuality as authentic then I would have probably not felt as comfortable in my own skin and probably would not have been able to feel as comfortable with my 'partner' in public. In other words, I probably would not be as open about our relationship to people. And I would feel more alienated by others. So it is important to have an atmosphere of understanding about transgenderedism so people can feel more encouraged.

The most important thing about transgenderedism, in my opinion, is that it is empowering of people expressing humanity carte blanche.