Where you say "or" here that is where the distinction between sex and gender lies. So as long as you understand that there are these two components -- physiological characteristics, and human expectations (of various sorts, behaviors are just easier to point to) -- then you should be able to understand the distinction between sex and gender. — Moliere

My point has always been that gender is arbitrary - as in the various ways humans expect other humans to behave, while sex isn't. So, gender is meaningless in many circumstances, especially in a culture that supports the equal treatment and expectations of both sexes.

I also pointed out that these "transgenders" change their sex, not their "gender".

I'm not sure how else to proceed other than ostensively, though. I don't have another tactic. I'm not throwing up my hands and blaming your ignorance, but I am ignorant on how else to proceed. — Moliere

Why don't you provide me the same courtesy I have shown you and try to address my points and answer my questions.

I didn't mean to be patrionizing. — Moliere

:razz:

I think the dustbin of philosophical history. — unenlightened

Yeah, but it got your attention.

So gender stops being patriarchal, though it still has both social and psychological components. — Moliere

OK, so can we go with that? What might such gender norms look like? And how would they be separated from sexual differences.?

So Harry Hindu refuses to make the distinction we are using in this discussion — Banno

This is just another poorly veiled ad hominem attack. — Harry Hindu

Rubbish. We are trying to play chess while you refuse to acknowledge that the white pieces are different from the black pieces.

Rubbish. We are trying to play chess while you refuse to acknowledge that the white pieces are different from the black pieces. — Banno

This is the most ridiculous analogy I've seen.

No, Banno. It's not like that at all. We aren't talking about race.

Remember, for the 3rd time, I'm using the terms as used in the dictionary. You are not.

You could say that I'm the one using the rules, and you are the one trying to tell me that you can move the King like the Queen whenever you feel like it.

OK, so can we go with that? What might such gender norms look like? — Banno

Keeping in mind that my focus has mostly been on interiority, and there are people in a better position than I to answer these questions --

Since we're talking specifically gender norms, as in the social dimension of gender, it seems to me that self-identification is one of the stronger norms. So I couldn't say to you that you are this or that gender-identity, but you could say so -- and you could change your mind, depending on how you feel. Another social norm is that one's gender-identity and the expression of that gender-identity should not play a role in social role. So regardless of what identity you identify with and express you should, for instance, be paid the same as someone who identifies differently.

Here's a list of genders embedded in an article about such terms. What do you make of it?

And how would they be separated from sexual differences.?

It seems to me that masculine and feminine are already separated from sexual differences. What does short hair, for instance, have to do with one's physiology? Sexual differences play a very minor role, at least when comparing the number of entities in the set of gendered entities, in marking what is masculine and what is feminine.

So removing them entirely from the set of gendered entities is all that would be required. Feelings, as vague as that term is, would be the arbiter of identity rather than physiology.

Gender is re-invented precisely because physiology is not important, and gender doesn't bind one to a social role -- but not eliminated because there are people who feel a need to express and identify as such.

Why don't you provide me the same courtesy I have shown you and try to address my points and answer my questions. — Harry Hindu

You have asked questions? I noticed only assertions, and corrections of others' views. :chin:

I'm using the terms as used in the dictionary. — Harry Hindu

But this is a topic where opinions are changing. Therefore the terms we use to describe it are changing too. The language belongs to the people, and all that. :wink: So dictionary definitions aren't necessarily helpful, as they necessarily lag the dynamic usage of terms. :chin:

Keeping in mind that my focus has mostly been on interiority, and there are people in a better position than I to answer these questions -- — Moliere

EXCEPT when their interiority contradicts their exterior - as in when they believe that they are Jesus, an alien, or the opposite sex. Beliefs are interior and many of them are wrong. How do you go about consistently determining which feelings are accurate or not?

It seems to me that masculine and feminine are already separated from sexual differences. What does short hair, for instance, have to do with one's physiology? Sexual differences play a very minor role, at least when comparing the number of entities in the set of gendered entities, in marking what is masculine and what is feminine. — Moliere

Isn't short or long hair PART of your physiology, just as being bald is? The length of one's hair does not determine sex, nor gender, as it varies across sexual and cultural boundaries. It is simply a human, not a "gender", trait of which both sexes can engage in.

So removing them entirely from the set of gendered entities is all that would be required. Feelings, as vague as that term is, would be the arbiter of identity rather than physiology. — Moliere

So then the feelings that believers have would be the arbiter of the truth for the existence of their god? Again, how do you consistently determine which wide range of feelings human beings are capable of, are the arbiter of truth and which are not - other than the fact that human beings have feelings about certain things that often come into conflict and contradict others' feelings, like in the debate we have right now?

And don't forget my question (one that I've asked half a dozen times with no answer (and no it's not rhetorical. I expect an answer if you expect me to understand what you mean about "gender")) about those that talk about how they feel like a different "gender", yet go about changing their sex via surgery?

Keeping in mind that my focus has mostly been on interiority, and there are people in a better position than I to answer these questions -- — Moliere

If they feel like the opposite "gender" then why do they need go about performing physical changes to validate their feeling? Why would they need to change the length of their hair, their style of clothes, hormone therapy, replacing their genitals, etc. if their feeling is all they need to validate the accuracy of their belief?

Isn't short or long hair PART of your physiology, just as being bald is? — Harry Hindu

It is physical, but it is not a sexual trait. It's not even a biological trait. Things like the maximum length hair can grow to are, but aligning short/long hair to masculine/feminine is not. There are myriad examples of non-sexual masculine/feminine entities.

How do you go about consistently determining which feelings are accurate or not? — Harry Hindu

So then the feelings that believers have would be the arbiter of the truth for the existence of their god? — Harry Hindu

It seems to me that you don't see a difference between feelings and beliefs. Before I said there is a difference between feelings and claims. There is a difference between feelings and beliefs as well.

Feelings are not true or false. Beliefs are.

If I feel hunger it would be strange to say that my hunger is accurate or not. What could be accurate is my belief about hunger -- I can be mistaken about how I feel after all. That is cognitive. That is in the realm of belief. My hunger can also be felt for reasons which are out of harmony, unnatural, or irrational; say in the case that I feel hungry any time I am bored even though I do not need food.

But the hunger is not true or false, in either case.

So if I feel like a woman then the feeling is not true or false. Or if I simply want to be a woman, even if I do not feel like I am one now, that feeling is not true or false. What can be true or false is my belief about my feelings. We can be confused about ourselves -- we are not infallible.

But neither is the clinician, and they don't even have the benefit of feeling my feelings to sort things out.

If they feel like the opposite "gender" then why do they need go about performing physical changes to validate their feeling? Why would they need to change the length of their hair, their style of clothes, hormone therapy, replacing their genitals, etc. if their feeling is all they need to validate the accuracy of their belief? — Harry Hindu

And don't forget my question (one that I've asked half a dozen times with no answer (and no it's not rhetorical. I expect an answer if you expect me to understand what you mean about "gender")) about those that talk about how they feel like a different "gender", yet go about changing their sex via surgery? — Harry Hindu

How do you know that every transgender person is seeking to validate their feeling by means of physical change? Or validate accuracy? That is a wild overgeneralization.

The simple answer is because someone desires to.

It's worth noting that not every aspect of human psychology is wrapped up in the game of accuracy, truth, evidence, and independent corroboration. You seem to believe that it is. But this is a false belief on your part.

EDIT: Just to highlight -- feelings are the arbiters of truth with respect to identity, not all beliefs.

Not that the current climate facilitates any form of discussion on the topic, and indeed if there was at least a grain of truth to the leftist narrative, it wouldn't have to be promoted in such a tyrannical, downright authoritarian manner. The left is the majority, after all.

The left is the majority, after all. — Coldlight

I think not. Trump is POTUS, and the 'alt-right' are rising across the world. :fear:

...

...or are you making a joke, and I took it literally? :blush:

I think not. — Pattern-chaser

Go to academia and workplace in Western countries and try arguing in favour of any right wing policy.

Trump is POTUS — Pattern-chaser

So? That has nothing to do with the right wing. There was a number of people who voted Trump only because they didn't want Clinton. The so called alt-right is a minority.

I'm using the terms as used in the dictionary. — Harry Hindu

That's not what is in my dictionary. But then, i'm using the Oxford, not one I wrote myself.

But if they are male and claim to be female, or if they are female and claim to be male - then there is something worthy of further discussion. — Banno

Why does this language game require your attention? Is it causing trouble for you?

I am supporting trans people professionally. I find myself looking for a better view of their situation.

But where is the deficiency in their situation? Is it a matter of semantics? Is there some insidious conceptual problem? Is it a social problem?

See the OP.

If someone is male, but wishes to be treated as a woman, I don't see an issue. If someone is female, but wishes to be treated as a man, no problem.

But if they are male and claim to be female, or if they are female and claim to be male - then there is something worthy of further discussion. — Banno

Why (is it worthy of further discussion)? Do these claims cause harm? No. Do they mislead or deceive? No. Does it matter at all if I, biologically male, ask you to address me as she/her or Ms? No. Not in the slightest. There is no issue to discuss here. How I identify, and how I request that you identify me, are choices that can be safely left to ... me. With no resulting harm to anyone. :up:

Does it matter at all if I, biologically male, ask you to address me as she/her or Ms? No. Not in the slightest. There is no issue to discuss here. How I identify, and how I request that you identify me, are choices that can be safely left to ... me. With no resulting harm to anyone. :up: — Pattern-chaser

But that's not what's happening with the transgender movement though is it, and it's slightly disingenuous to paint it that way. What actually happens is John (a biological male) asks to be called by terms previously associated with biological females, he asks to use the rest-rooms previously reserved for biological females, he asks to have his notion that he "feels like a woman" accepted etc. Nothing at all wrong with any of that as you say. John's hair, title, dress and make-up are an important part of who he is so why should he be restricted in that?

The problem arises when Mary (a biological woman) answers "no thank you" to that request. When she says that her manner of speaking is an important part of who she is and would rather not be told how to apply 'Mr' and 'Mrs' but would rather the autonomy to apply them in the way that best expresses how she feels. When Mary politely says that in her world view there is nothing that it 'feels like' to be a woman so she'd like to politely disagree that John feels like woman. All this should be fine too, but it's not, she gets called an intolerant bigot.

So I can't be called by the title of my choice if Mary objects? What business is it of hers? I'm not harming anyone with my request, so what's the problem? :chin: So Mary would prefer to address me as "freak" or "pervert" if she chooses (for this also follows from what you write)? :roll: Hard luck for her, I'm afraid.

[ Disclosure: I'm not one of those people who claims to have "transgender friends". I know one transgender woman, quite well. ]

Because Mary's choice of how to apply terms is her choice, it expresses a part of who she is no less than John's choice of hairstyle or dress. Why would you accept that it is meaningful to John to have words spoken to him in a particular way, but then deny that it is equally meaningful to Mary to speak those words in a particular way?

It's the difference between John choosing the title she is addressed by, and Mary choosing the title by which John must be called. Would Mary be happy for me to choose to address her as he/him, I wonder? :chin:

It's the difference between John choosing the title she is addressed by, and Mary choosing the title by which John must be called. — Pattern-chaser

What is that difference? John would like people to to refer to him a particular way. He would like everyone to use the terms 'Mr' and 'Mrs' to refer to the way people act and feel. Mary would prefer to use the terms 'Mr' and 'Mrs' (or perhaps 'him' the and 'her' would be better examples) to refer to the biological sex of the person. Why does John's preference about how words are used trump Mary's? There are no other examples I can think of where this has been the precedent. If I was tall but would rather people refer to me as short, I don't get the final say on the use of 'tall' and 'short', just because they refer to me.

The precedent is long-established. When I fill in a form, real or online, it asks me what title I prefer to use. It's for me to decide, not Mary.

So now long-established conventions are what determine right behaviour? You can see where that leads in respect to transgender issues surely. For the sake of your own argument you'll need a better justification than that.

Notwithstanding the above, the form is asking how you would like to be addressed. I've already agreed that such a request is harmless. The form doesn't go on to make it a social or legal duty for everyone to comply with that request does it?

The thing that's being restricted is the act of speaking, the very personal construction of the world that is encoded in one's grammar. Language is what defines our species, it plays such an important role in constructing our world-view that some intelligent people have even argued that such advanced thoughts are not even possible without it. To dictate to someone how they must use their language is to dictate how they must form their world-view. It's no trivial matter.

Perhaps Mary would have an issue if John preferred to call her Molly. Or Mark. I think in these circumstances that it is definitely the case that Mary's self-identification is preferred. There does not seem to be a philosophical issue with people changing their name.

I guess part of the question is whether personal pronouns refer to individual people, categories of people, general sets of people, or something else. I guess if you want to talk to someone as if they are an object, then it does not matter what their perspective is on the matter and you can call them according to whatever term you prefer. But if you intend to speak to someone as a subject or a person, should you not take this fundamental part of dialogue - their perspective of who they are - into account?

Perhaps Mary would have an issue if John preferred to call her Molly. Or Mark. I think in these circumstances that it is definitely the case that Mary's self-identification is preferred. — angslan

Not at all. One might consider it crucially important to one's world-view that proper names are bestowed by parents, not the person themselves. In that case, it would be imposing on that person's world-view for Mary to demand of them that they now refer to her as Molly. The clash would have to be resolved. Maybe by discussion, maybe by some compromise. What it wouldn't be resolved by is making it an act of violent bigotry against Mary simply to have (and wish to express in one's language) the world-view that names should be given by parents.

You're mistaking that fact that such a world-view is uncommon, and where present not vehemently held, for the fact of their being some ethical 'wrongness' to it.

The world-view that categorical 'genders' as a thing that one simply is, don't exist is not only a commonly held world-view, but it is very important to many people in defining who they are, particularly many feminists use the concept as a basis for their philosophy. To tell them that they are no longer allowed to express that world-view requires a discussion about relative harms, not a slagging match.