These organs (fully/incompletely developed) are, I believe, strong indications of ambiguity in sex/gender at a very fundamental level, oui? People getting mixed up about their gender shouldn't come as a surprise given the above. I'd say it'd be more astonishing if homosexuals and transexuals didn't exist. — Agent Smith

The ambiguity of some male/female physical features is not so surprising if you consider that the embryo -- formed from male sperm & female egg -- begins its development with basic female forms, and only at a later stage -- after certain hormones are pumped in -- begin to differentiate, with the fundamental human/female organs continuing on, and male organs beginning to specialize in drone functions : to service the queen, so to speak.

This scenario is reminiscent of Plato's myth of primordial androgynous humans with features of both male & female. Unfortunately, those all-in-one hermaphrodites were split by the inept gods into three genders : female, male, and androgynous. Presumably, that third option has developed over time into the anomalous LGBTQ . . . . xyz varieties of gender/sex that we find coming out of the closet today. :joke:

We’ve seen where that has gotten us, though. Men are being allowed to compete in women’s sports, or to disrobe in their change rooms, for example. We’re forcing people to use language we would never use otherwise. We’re cutting off people’s genitalia and feeding hormones to children. We are sacrificing much more than truth.

At what point do you say, “no, that’s not a woman”? — NOS4A2

To me, you have to first ask why we are categorising men/women in each case.

In the case of what third person pronoun to use, I see no fundamental reason that pronoun has to be linked to biological sex, other than that is just the way it has been done (a poor reason in my opinion). Language gender does not have to be inked to biological sex.

In the case of the categories of men/women in sports, this is different. The reason for the categorisation is that biological men have on average an advantage over women in most sports. So here I don't think we can simply say you can identify with whatever gender you wish. There are other possibilities, such as identifying what exactly gives biological males an advantage, and then saying that a biological man can compete in the women's category if they undertake steps to stop that advantage (hormone therapy for example). But that last point is an active discussion point and I don't think a definitive answer has been found yet.

:ok:

The funny thing is, if a man behaved like a women, for instance, wouldn't you tend to think of them as being feminine rather than masculine, despite what you see on the outside?

I would tend to think of them as acting feminine rather than being feminine. There is nothing feminine about chest hair or an Adam’s apple, for example, at least as far as I’m concerned.



Eschewing language conventions because one can seems to me a terrible idea, at least if we are to share a language. The same goes for pronouns. Of course, one can use whatever pronouns one likes, so long as he is willing to accept how jarring and odd it might seem to his interlocutors, but to expect others to conform to such usage is absurd.

Eschewing language conventions because one can seems to me a terrible idea, at least if we are to share a language. The same goes for pronouns. Of course, one can use whatever pronouns one likes, so long as he is willing to accept how jarring and odd it might seem to his interlocutors, but to expect others to conform to such usage is absurd. — NOS4A2

But language conventions change over time, in particular English language conventions. And what you are seeing is not the eschewing of language conventions, but the change of them.

And since that change reflects societal changes happening among younger generations, I think the language changes in this instance will stick.

I also think people who grew up with the old conventions will find the new ones jarring and odd. But newer generations will take up the new conventions, and the circle of life will continue.

I would tend to think of them as acting feminine rather than being feminine. — NOS4A2

So for instance a woman can only pretend to be more rational than emotional and they can't actually be more rational than emotional, going by common stereotypes?

But language conventions change over time, in particular English language conventions. And what you are seeing is not the eschewing of language conventions, but the change of them.

And since that change reflects societal changes happening among younger generations, I think the language changes in this instance will stick.

I also think people who grew up with the old conventions will find the new ones jarring and odd. But newer generations will take up the new conventions, and the circle of life will continue.

Perhaps it will stick. Perhaps it won’t.

So for instance a woman can only pretend to be more rational than emotional and they can't actually be more rational than emotional, going by common stereotypes?

Indipendent? It makes you wonder who comes up with these.

Anyone can alter his mannerisms, behavior, and dress to appear feminine, but acting can only go so far.

Indipendent? It makes you wonder who comes up with these. — NOS4A2

That's how they spell it in Kersplakistan, goofy Europeans. :smirk:

Anyone can alter his mannerisms, behavior, and dress to appear feminine, but acting can only go so far. — NOS4A2

I'm talking about characteristics like being aggressive or submissive, competitive or cooperative, etc

I'm talking about characteristics like being aggressive or submissive, competitive or cooperative, etc

I’m just saying that’s not what I was talking about. By “acting like a woman”, I thought you meant he was effeminate in his mannerisms and dress, not adhering to your stereotypes.

...one cannot really see ( the distinction between gender and sex) outside of that domain of rhetoric, is my point. — NOS4A2

You need to get out more? Walk down the streets of any metropolis.

Feminism has broken the comfortable, historic, patriarchal usage.

I walk around and see the sexes, the biology, often despite the performative and contrived.

I imagine a feminist would know what a woman is.

Gender and sex were always contrived. It’s just that now it is not enforced.

Is your sex contrived?

Flowers and dinner, at least.

Use your own judgment I really don’t care what you think — I like sushi

Excellent. Then you agree that trans people really shouldn't care what others think - especially when they are not around when others are using language to refer to them.

Gender and sex were always contrived. It’s just that now it is not enforced. — Banno

I'm talking about characteristics like being aggressive or submissive, competitive or cooperative, etc — praxis

These are some of the contrived, social characteristics (stereotypes) of what some society means to be a man or a woman. If you've watched women's sports, you will see that they can be just as aggressive and competitive as men. It's not a lack of aggressiveness or competitiveness that are the reasons we separate women's and men's sports. Biology is the reason we separate them.

"President" and "Senator" are also contrived labels. Does this mean that I can be a president or senator if I so choose? Why are the contrived terms of "man" and "woman" not enforced but "President" and "Senator" are? What makes sex/gender so special in this regard?

It seems to me that when two women are attracted to the same man, then aggressive and competitive are fully apt terms to refer to their behavior and they can be just as aggressive and competitive as two men that are attracted to the same woman it's just that they display it in different ways.

If gender is fluid then why can't others hold differing ideas of what it means to be a man or a woman without forcing their own idea of what it means to be a man or a woman on others? It seems to me that trans-people think that gender is only fluid for themselves (a feeling) and not for the society at large (a social construction). This mass delusion is such that they can advocate for politeness and fluidity, but only for themselves and don't feel the need to be polite to others concerning others' ideas of sex/gender or the fluidity of such on the collective scale, as opposed to their own individual scale.

It's not really all that complicated to distinguish between a man and a woman when you cease using these contrived stereotypes of behavior that all humans participate in regardless of sex/gender and focus strictly on biology as the characteristics that define a man or a woman.

There is some interesting confusion about the distinctions between sex and gender, between states of affairs and states of fantasy. — NOS4A2

Yes, there seems to be a difference between being a trans-woman and being a woman. I wonder what that difference is if not biology.

The problem at hand is the confusing of the wide range of human behaviors with the narrow behaviors of the sexes. There are behaviors that all humans can participate in, regardless of one's sex - like wearing dresses or pants - as opposed to behaviors that only a particular sex can engage in - like giving birth.

The ambiguity of some male/female physical features is not so surprising if you consider that the embryo -- formed from male sperm & female egg -- begins its development with basic female forms, and only at a later stage -- after certain hormones are pumped in -- begin to differentiate, with the fundamental human/female organs continuing on, and male organs beginning to specialize in drone functions : to service the queen, so to speak. — Gnomon

There is not just ambiguity in the sex but in the species as well. Because we evolved from pre-existing species our embryonic development is similar to other species.

Does this mean that I can identify as a chicken or a rabbit? If I did would I receive the same respect that others are advocating showing someone that identifies as the opposite sex? Why or why not?

I'm willing to bet that you when you read the last part you smirked, if not laughed out loud, at what what said. Identifying as a chicken is funny. Asserting that you are offended if you are not referenced properly as a chicken is even funnier. That is clear evidence that you don't take such claims seriously. Why then would we accept, without question, the claims of someone claiming to be something that they are not when it's about sex? What is so special about sex in this regard?

The funny thing is, if a man behaved like a women, for instance, wouldn't you tend to think of them as being feminine rather than masculine, despite what you see on the outside? — praxis

There seems to be distinction between being a man or a woman and acting like one. If you see a person wearing pants do you automatically refer to them as "he" or "sir"? If you have to ask before using those terms then it appears that the way that people act or dress is not a clear indication of what they are. When an white person tries to act like a black person they are ostracized for culture appropriation. How is it not sexual appropriation when a man acts like a woman? Again, we are giving special, undue credit to claims of sex/gender when someone identifies as something that they are not, as opposed to other types of behaviors that copy the likeness of other types of people.

When an white person tries to act like a black person they are ostracized for culture appropriation. How is it not sexual appropriation when a man acts like a woman? — Harry Hindu

When it’s not an act, obviously.

The point that I was trying to make is how we naturally distinguish gender/sex, contrary to what NOS seemed to be suggesting.

Fuck off … please?

That is clear evidence that you don't take such claims seriously. Why then would we accept, without question, the claims of someone claiming to be something that they are not when it's about sex? What is so special about sex in this regard? — Harry Hindu

If you are talking about trans-sexual people, those opposed to non-traditional non-binary gender roles, might say they are "claiming to be something they are not". But the trans- person might retort that society is trying to "force them to be something they are not". Yet, where does the truth lie, in objective observations from outside, or subjective feelings from within?

In the movie, The Crying Game, the protagonist found someone who behaved & appeared to be an attractive woman, but who turned-out, upon closer inspection -- and much to his disgust -- to have an unexpected appendage, that at first seemed to be a deal-breaker. But, he eventually falls in love with him/her, despite his/her congenital deformity. So, was his love the result of false advertising, or of his own realization that it's what's in the heart that matters in a love relationship?

Unfortunately, the sex/gender game is full of false advertising, from boob-jobs to macho-posturing. So, who is the best judge of a person's sex/gender, the person his/herself, or society & scriptures? Due to the rarity (10%-15% ??) of non-binary examples (out of the closet), most social systems have judged non-conformance to natural/cultural norms to be abnormal & unnatural. But modern science & technologies have demonstrated that mental gender is a continuum, not as clear-cut as the normal physical duality. Since some citizens feel & believe that their gender does not match their sex, who's to say they are wrong?

Hitler's worldview was neatly black & white, so you were defined as either Aryan or Jew, even if you had one parent of each race. And either Male or Female, even if your body is masculine, but your brain is feminine. Therefore, the question comes down to the old Social versus Individual political views. Who rules in such cases? Would you agree to have political laws define your gender against your personal wishes? I can't say, from personal experience, but that seems to be what the LGBTQ...xyz non-conformists are claiming.

What's so special about sex/gender is that it's only partly physical (body), and partly metaphysical (mind). Binary gender is clearly the norm, but Nature sometimes makes mistakes : allowing exceptions to the rule of Reproduction as the Reason for being. For all I know, some animals may be homo-trans-sexuals, but they can't speak for themselves, so they just do do as they feel. As long as humans don't interfere in their private affairs. :smile:

Gender Continuum :
http://www.issuesmagazine.com.au/article/issue-june-2014/breaking-through-binary-gender-continuum.html
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30556480/

Feminine does not mean female any more than masculine means male. It is unfortunate that those are the terms used now just like ‘race’ is used to describe cultural groups rather than actual different ‘races’.

A terminology overhaul is quite a difficult thing to do and takes time.

When it’s not an act, obviously.

The point that I was trying to make is how we naturally distinguish gender/sex, contrary to what NOS seemed to be suggesting. — praxis

Are the behaviors and claims of a schizophrenic person an act? There seems to be clear cases where someone does not believe that their ideas are false yet we still don't believe them. I'm sure you have no quarrels about telling others on this forum that their firmly held beliefs are wrong.

It makes me happy when we agree. :smile:

If you are talking about trans-sexual people, those opposed to non-traditional non-binary gender roles, might say they are "claiming to be something they are not". But the trans- person might retort that society is trying to "force them to be something they are not". Yet, where does the truth lie, in objective observations from outside, or subjective feelings from within? — Gnomon

Do the feelings of a delusional person (specifically, somatic delusions) harbor truth? This explanation seems to eradicate delusional states and render them non-existent. Are you saying that there are no such thing as delusional disorders?

In the movie, The Crying Game, the protagonist found someone who behaved & appeared to be an attractive woman, but who turned-out, upon closer inspection -- and much to his disgust -- to have an unexpected appendage, that at first seemed to be a deal-breaker. But, he eventually falls in love with him/her, despite his/her congenital deformity. So, was his love the result of false advertising, or of his own realization that it's what's in the heart that matters in a love relationship? — Gnomon

So are you saying that there is a little homosexuality in all of us - that we are capable of having an intimate relationship with the same sex if we just give it a chance, or be fooled into it as in your example. Would you say this to a gay person - that if a male homosexual man met a a woman dressed as a man and began to fall in love but found out suddenly they have a vagina instead of a penis, then they shouldn't be offended at being misled? I don't know about you, but the moment someone shows that they've been lying to me all along, I am no longer attracted to them. It seems that you'd be okay with being lied to.

Unfortunately, the sex/gender game is full of false advertising, from boob-jobs to macho-posturing. So, who is the best judge of a person's sex/gender, the person his/herself, or society & scriptures? Due to the rarity (10%-15% ??) of non-binary examples (out of the closet), most social systems have judged non-conformance to natural/cultural norms to be abnormal & unnatural. But modern science & technologies have demonstrated that mental gender is a continuum, not as clear-cut as the normal physical duality. Since, some citizens feel & believe that their gender does not match their sex, who's to say they are wrong? — Gnomon

Where is your source? Transgenderism is extremely rare (<1%). Words like "woman" and "man" are useful because a vast majority of humans fall neatly into two groups. Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes and the other traits (chromosomes, hormones, etc.) almost always occur with these. If there was no over-lapping then the terms would not be useful because there would be no distinction to make. By claiming to be a man or a woman, transgenders are making the terms useless in one way and being sexist in another way because they are claiming that behaving a particular way and wearing particular clothes is what makes you a woman or man. Think about if I said that blacks only act and dress a certain way. That would be racist. The hypocrisy is nauseating. Science isn't science when it's been hijacked by governments and used against scientists to make them conform to the current direction the wind is blowing in society. On one hand scientists say delusional disorders exist (like somatic delusions) and on the other they give sexual somatic delusions a pass. Why is that?

Hitler's worldview was neatly black & white, so you were defined as either Aryan or Jew, even if you had one parent of both races. And either Male or Female, even if your body is masculine, but your brain is feminine. Therefore, the question comes down to the old Social versus Individual political views. Who rules in such cases? Would you agree to have political laws define your gender against your personal wishes? I can't say, from personal experience, but that seems to be what the LGBTQ...xyz non-conformists are claiming. — Gnomon

Exactly. You're using a single person that had a lot of power, Hitler, imposing his own worldview on everyone else. This is actually a great comparison to what the extremists on the left are doing. If it really were not enforced then we wouldn't have a certain group of people dictating to the majority how words are used based on their feelings. Political laws do not define gender. Science does.

What's so special about sex/gender is that it's only partly physical (body), and partly metaphysical (mind). Binary gender is clearly the norm, but Nature sometimes makes mistakes : allowing exceptions to the rule of Reproduction as the Reason for being. For all I know, some animals may be homo-trans-sexuals, but they can't speak for themselves, so they just do do as they feel. As long as humans don't interfere in their private affairs. :smile: — Gnomon

You'll have to do better than this. The same can be said of someone that identifies as being a chicken. It's partly physical and partly mental.

Feminine does not mean female… — I like sushi

It means possessing characteristics associated with women, like the qualities mentioned earlier, but are not exclusive to women, and that is the point, that we can make a natural distinction between gender/sex.

Are you saying that there are no such thing as delusional disorders? — Harry Hindu

No. You are interpreting a trans-person's self-image as a delusion. But, if so, your own self-image would also be a delusion. :wink:

So are you saying that there is a little homosexuality in all of us - — Harry Hindu

No. That's irrelevant to what I said. Instead, the implication is that a fertilized egg is not predetermined as male or female. Instead, it is transformed into one gender or another during development. So, copying errors of DNA, or delays in adding certain hormones can result in a fetus with features of both genders. :nerd:

Where is your source? Transgenderism is extremely rare (<1%). — Harry Hindu

No. I didn't say that trans-gender-people are 10%-15% of the general population. The reference was to all forms of gender abnormality. And the percentage is just a guess. LGBTQ people prefer the higher numbers, but what's important for us to understand is that gender anomalies are fairly common. If you want sources, just Google "genetic gender anomalies". :cool:

Political laws do not define gender. Science does — Harry Hindu

Unfortunately, political laws do try to define gender. :worry:

The legal definition of gender as 'the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society,' might change once and for all
https://dukeundergraduatelawmagazine.org/2019/11/06/international-law-convention-evaluates-legal-definition-of-gender/

You'll have to do better than this. The same can be said of someone that identifies as being a chicken. It's partly physical and partly mental. — Harry Hindu

There you go again, interpreting a person's self-identification (trans- or chicken-) as a mental disorder. That equation of gender & species is a sign of gender prejudice, such as Hitler advocated -- implying that gays are less than human. Genetic Science indicates that non-binary babies result from natural causes, not from mental disorders. :smile:

Homosexuals and Nazi Germany :
Homosexuality was classed as a “degenerate form of behaviour”
https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/homosexuals-and-nazi-germany/

Causes of Gender Dysphoria :
It was traditionally thought to be a psychiatric condition meaning a mental ailment. Now there is evidence that the disease may not have origins in the brain alone.
Studies suggest that gender dysphoria may have biological causes associated with the development of gender identity before birth.
https://www.news-medical.net/health/Causes-of-Gender-Dysphoria.aspx

PS__I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not gay, and I'm not a gay-rights advocate. I just want to keep our philosophical discussions on an intellectual, not visceral, level.

Okay. All good. Just fishing for clarity :)

It is a VERY good point that shows the problem some people have with distinguishing ‘gender’ from ‘sex’.

I wanted to thank you for linking the SEP article. Very interesting read, and helped clarify some of the points Butler made (I enjoy reading Butler but since I’m new to the field I sometimes miss things).

I was also very much wrestling with the idea when I made the OP (this is from the article you linked): “feminists aim to speak and make political demands in the car name of women, at the same time rejecting the idea that there is a unified category of women”

Along with “to respond to oppression of women in general, feminists must understand them as a category in some sense.” This echos some of the concerns of feminists I have talked to recently that got me thinking about gender in the first place: without an idea of woman, the idea of “women’s oppression” is nonsense, and in some ways, feminism is self defeating if it rejects the category of women.

With that being said, perhaps some “fuzzy” category of women (where the “edges” are unclear but the critical mass is understood and agreed upon by most people) is all that feminism really needs to achieve its political goals.

Does this mean that I can identify as a chicken or a rabbit?

When an white person tries to act like a black person they are ostracized for culture appropriation. How is it not sexual appropriation when a man acts like a woman?

This point is worth addressing and not dismissing (in my experience, it often is dismissed when asked).
I have yet to hear a satisfactory response so I really hope some other people can chime in here.

There are two responses I’ve heard to this. The first one is an appeal to neuropsychology, which argues that trans brains are more “similar” to the gender they are transitioning to. To me, this is unconvincing because neuropsychology is very poorly understood, so defining this “similarity” feels (to me) like cherry picking. At the end of the day, the brain is also a biological system, so once again if someone’s “brain biology” doesn’t match their “genital/chromosomal biology,” which is to win out in our definition of gender?

Furthermore, this argument is directly opposed to (mainstream) feminism because it seems to imply gender or sexual determinism by arguing there are clear (enough) brain differences to categorize people into “man” or “woman” based on brain structure alone. Feminism, in my view, has tried to distance itself from these arguments as these were the same ones used to argue women couldn’t fly airplanes or shouldn’t be allowed to participate in politics. In this case, if someone who was born with a vagina and identifies as a woman but has a brain structure that is more similar to a man’s, should we call them a “man”?

Another way of approaching this is to argue that gender expression itself has a neuropsychological basis. However, if gender is a social construct (as many feminists argue), why would there be a biological or neurobiological basis for gender expression? And if there is, wouldn’t this imply that there is a biological basis for gender (and gender stereotypes) different than how we define sex?

The second response is that there are trans people in many societies throughout history. “Transgender people are known to have existed since ancient times…However…the modern concept of being transgender, and gender in general, did not develop until the mid-1900s.” This is more convincing to differentiate it from people who claim they are trans racial or trans species. However this does not address the question of whether or not transgender-ism should be pathologized. One could also argue that people born without a limb have existed since ancient societies and even in animals. However this is still pathologized as abnormal.

Thanks, and yes, I agree.

...trans people in many societies throughout history — Paulm12

I recall, back in the early eighties, some close Nepalese friends puzzling as to where Australia's Meti where. I didn't understand the question for another twenty years...