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. — praxis

In other words, these characteristics are not really associated with women, but with humans in general. The fluidity of gender is being confused wth the fluidity of human behaviors and roles. The behaviors associated with sex is very narrow. In this sense, gender doesn't exist except as sexual stereotypes in one's mind. Sex is what is real.

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? — Paulm12

Exactly. Show me the part of the brain of a man that claims to have the brain of a woman that controls the menstrual cycle.

Not only that, but what about the "what it's like" to be a bat or anything else that you are not? The whole point of Nagel's argument is that we can't know what it is like to be something that we are not. So how exactly does a man know what it's like to be a woman when they are not? The same people on this forum that have used Nagel's argument are the same ones claiming that men can know what it's like to be a woman. The hypocrisy is everywhere on this topic. They are also the same people that have no quarrels in questioning the claims of other people, and advocate for the right to do it, but when it comes to transgenders claims, they are given a pass. None of the atheists (myself included) here are concerned about the feelings of theists when they question their claims. I'm the one being consistent because I insist on questioning all outlandish claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

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? — Paulm12

Yes, I've made this point before. Social constructions are agreements between two or more people about the expectations we have of each other. Transgenders are rejecting the social construction by not agreeing on the expectations we have of each other based on our sex. So is gender a social construction or a personal feeling? If gender is a social construction then gender fluidity is social fluidity meaning that for gender to change, society has to change. If it is a personal feeling then it is personal image fluidity and comes and goes at the whim of the individual. They simply can't agree on what it is so why are they so confused that others are so confused about what it is they are claiming?

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. — Paulm12

Since different cultures have different expectations of the sexes then transgenderism in different cultures means different things. In Scotland where some men wear skirts, is wearing pants in Scotland indicative that you identify as a woman? In cultures where men sport long hair and wear jewelry, is having your hair short and avoiding decorating yourself with gems indicative of your identity as a woman? If it depends on the culture you find yourself in then the differences aren't in the brains of men and women, but in the expectations of the various societies that exist and have existed.

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. — Gnomon

Then a schizophrenics self-image is not a delusion or a hallucination either?

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. — Gnomon

Your use of the term, "error" is telling in that being born with features of both "genders" (don't you mean sex? The fact that you keep using gender to mean sex is quite telling as well) would be an error. The fact that 99.9% of humans don't have errors must mean something.

what's important for us to understand is that gender anomalies are fairly common. — Gnomon

<1% is not common.

Unfortunately, political laws do try to define gender. — Gnomon

Then gender is not an objective feature of the world as in the structure of brains, but an arbitrary, subjective characteristic of societies that varies over time and space.

Science transcends the differences which in other fields of endeavor make one period incommensurate with another, or one cultural expression untranslatable in another context. Science knows no contextual limitations. It merely seeks the truth.

gender doesn't exist except as sexual stereotypes in one's mind. Sex is what is real. — Harry Hindu

What is it that really defines a man or woman, the question seems to be. Sex alone doesn’t seem to cut it, particularly in less liberal perspectives. For instance, if a man were to act too feminine in a very macho culture they may not be considered a man and it wouldn’t be at all unusual for them to be told directly that they’re “not a man.”

Feminine does not mean female any more than masculine means male.

What is feminine supposed to describe, if not females? What other objects in the world ought to be described as “feminine”?

What is it that really defines a man or woman, the question seems to be. Sex alone doesn’t seem to cut it, particularly in less liberal perspectives. For instance, if a man were to act too feminine in a very macho culture they may not be considered a man and it wouldn’t be at all unusual for them to be told directly that they’re “not a man.”

If not a man, then what? Some other sex?

Colours, tables, houses … the list goes on.

But the point was that it is an old term (like ‘race’) that has morphed into some other meaning depending on context.

Colours, tables, houses … the list goes on.

But the point was that it is an old term (like ‘race’) that has morphed into some other meaning depending on context.

I always understood that something is feminine if it is characteristic of, or appropriate or unique to women.

So compassion is a feminine characteristic and you know of no men who are compassionate? Maybe noting that will help you understand that mere categories set up for convenience are not actual reflections of reality. As I said, ‘race’ is meaningless in its scientific technical sense when people talk about being this or that ‘race’.

You have never studied and Spanish, French or German? There are plenty of example where mundane objects are given masculine or feminine labels.

Then there is pink. Is pink ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’? Did you know that only a few generations ago newborn boys were dressed in pink and girls in blue.

Trends change. Biology doesn’t - at least not so fast.

If not a man, then what? Some other sex? — NOS4A2

I assume it means a lack of maturity, or perhaps past maturity, or some other gender. Just looked it up and as of today there are 72 genders, so there's plenty to choose from. :grin:

Dictionaries record usage, “trends” in definition, and “feminine” means “having the qualities or appearance considered to be typical of women; connected with women” (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/feminine_1). It is synonymous with “womanly”.

Sure, the word can be applied to man, to stereotypes, to objects, and so on, but it will always be figurative. It will never be accurate.

Grammatical gender is different than natural gender. Grammatical gender is a feature of language, a way to classify words, going back thousands of years (Protagoras?).

To me, the complication is the use of the same word "woman" to mean "female + trans women" and "female but not trans women" in different places. — Paulm12

Yes, I would say this is an unwanted lingual effect.

Much like "WE" can be you and I, or I and others but not you, or I and you and others. Because of my autism, the use of pronouns without a clear connection to their antecedents makes a text incomprehensible.

I addressed this all on other page by agreeing with Praxis. I was just checking for clarification of how they meant ‘feminine’.

It was cleared up. End of story … you probably missed it.

The KEY point was that a ‘feminine’ trait is not a ‘female’ trait. The example I gave was ‘compassion’ … clearly men and women both possess ‘compassion’.

If we are talking about personality traits and differences between the sexes; there is not a massive difference at all. In fact, taking any random woman or man from the street and having them take a personality test then showing said test to a qualified psychologist and asking them ‘which is a man and which is woman’ would get you the answer ‘I have no clue whatsoever’.

The differences are averages across huge samples. Physiologically there are quite distinct differences between men and women. Psychologically the differences are all that pronounced at all.

Therefore ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ traits are, at best vaguely associated with one sex or the other, but it is nothing like a hard fast rule of thumb. Due to basic distribution the differences do stick out more often than not at the extremes.

And please note that ‘pink’ is generally considered a ‘feminine’ colour today around the globe. This is a modern cultural shift away from Catholicism - blue for virgin Mary was associated with girls and pink boys.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding here. If not so be it.

Compassion is a characteristic of men and women, and therefor not a feminine trait. End of story.

I’m talking about biological characteristics and traits. An Adam’s apple or chest hair is not feminine. Those are masculine traits, in other words, characteristic of a man. I don’t think a man with those or any other masculine traits ought to be called a woman. Anyways, that’s all I’ve been trying to say.

It doesn’t matter what your opinion is here.

Compassion is classed as a feminine trait. You cannot simply change how language is used to suit our needs and beliefs and expect everyone else to get on board … which is kind of what some here are arguing against when saying female and woman are the same thing. Colloquially I agree that gender and sex and used synonymously and we’ve yet to fully adjust to technical terminology.

I don’t expect you to get on board. I could care less what others believe. I’m just saying compassion isn’t a feminine trait, but a characteristic of both men and women.

Because you misunderstand the uses of ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’. Like I said, they don’t mean ‘male’ and ‘female’ nor do ‘feminine traits’ (which compassion IS) mean they are exclusively an item of either sex.

It is an old fashioned generalisation that has survived in the terminological categorisation.

What is it that really defines a man or woman, the question seems to be. Sex alone doesn’t seem to cut it, particularly in less liberal perspectives. — praxis

I say sex is all that is necessary. But lets entertain your idea that sex is not the only thing that defines what a man and woman are. Is sex is a necessary part - meaning that ones physiology is a necessary part of being a man or a woman along with whatever other characteristics you wish to add. Can one be a man or woman without the proper physiology?

For instance, if a man were to act too feminine in a very macho culture they may not be considered a man and it wouldn’t be at all unusual for them to be told directly that they’re “not a man.” — praxis

This what is called a figure of speech.

Figure of speech: a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect.

Also, this is implying that what makes one a man or a woman is society or others' view of you, not yourself based on your personal feelings.

For instance, if a man were to act too feminine in a very macho culture they may not be considered a man and it wouldn’t be at all unusual for them to be told directly that they’re “not a man.”
— praxis

This what is called a figure of speech. — Harry Hindu

Figures of speech convey meaning, and in this case, what it means to be a man.

Also, this is implying that what makes one a man or a woman is society or others' view of you, not yourself based on your personal feelings. — Harry Hindu

It implies that our own view and the view of others may not align or be in agreement.

Then a schizophrenics self-image is not a delusion or a hallucination either? — Harry Hindu

Again, you are using a prejudicial comparison to implicitly label the trans-person as insane. I don't personally know any trannies, yet “gender dysphoria” is not considered to be a medical condition. Instead, it's an emotional distress, due to a conflict between self-image & social labels. Their "mental" problem is similar to other marginalized people, who are bullied in school and online.

I don't know where you get your information, but since your bias seems to be pretty firm, I won't try to argue with your other "mythical" assertions. Perhaps someone with more direct knowledge of the physical & social aspects of being a social outcast can offer you a different perspective of the gender/genetic story. :smile:

Myth #8: Transgender people are mentally ill :
https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/5/13/17938120/transgender-people-mental-illness-health-care

Figures of speech convey meaning, and in this case, what it means to be a man. — praxis

You didn't read the definition:

Figure of speech: a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect.

It implies that our own view and the view of others may not align or be in agreement. — praxis

And we can work that out if the other person isn't insistent that their view is the only right view, hence my questions to you that you avoided answering.

Again, you are using a prejudicial comparison to implicitly label the trans-person as insane. I don't personally know any trannies, yet “gender dysphoria” is not considered to be a medical condition. Instead, it's an emotional distress, due to a conflict between self-image & social labels. Their "mental" problem is similar to other marginalized people, who are bullied in school and online. — Gnomon

No. I have pointed out the similarities between a trans-person's claims and the claims of others diagnosed with delusional disorders. You have yet to make any argument against that and instead are insisting on throwing about thinly veiled ad hominems and pleading to authority.

I don't know where you get your information, — Gnomon

Logical thinking.

You didn't read the definition:

Figure of speech: a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect. — Harry Hindu

Oh I read it alright. Perhaps you will be kind enough to read my definition:

Meaning: what is meant by a fucking word, text, concept, or action! :blush:

And we can work that out if the other person isn't insistent that their view is the only right view, hence my questions to you that you avoided answering. — Harry Hindu

A noble patron of postmodern thought would stand with standpoint theory.

Finally it has reached even this place. The postmodern woke sillyness.

My daughter asked for a library card and as under age, she had to get the permission of her parents. The application asked for gender (only for statistical purposes).

The alternatives were:

1) Male
2) Female
3) Other
4) I decline to comment

I wonder really, what they need that kinds of statistics. Of course the utter hypocrisy is that they also ask for the whole social security number in the same application, which actually tells the sex of the person (at birth, at least) quite clearly, if you just know how to read the numbers. So guess the statistics they want to know is about how many don't think the sex at birth doesn't represent them, have had a sex change or something.

The alternatives were:

1) Male
2) Female
3) Other
4) I decline to comment — ssu

Of course, 4 would be a performative contradiction.

So guess the statistics they want to know is about how many don't think the sex at birth doesn't represent them, have had a sex change or something. — ssu

But the question on the application, according to you, asks for the gender, not the sex.

Oh I read it alright. Perhaps you will be kind enough to read my definition:

Meaning: what is meant by a fucking word, text, concept, or action! — praxis

Only fucking words? What about non-fucking words?

You are making unnecessary distinctions and at the same time being purposely obtuse to the necessary distinctions, as in the difference between non-literal meanings and literal meanings.

Is your example of the use of the term, "man", in the literal or non-literal sense? What is the difference in being a man in the literal sense vs the non-literal sense? Just to avoid any confusion, I'm aiming at the literal sense of the term, "man". So if you agree that your example is a non-literal use, then your example isn't useful in defining "man" in the literal sense. In other words, we are talking past each other.

So guess the statistics they want to know is about how many don't think the sex at birth doesn't represent them, have had a sex change or something. — ssu

To get a library card? I think it has more to do with the author(s) of the application are simply virtue signaling.

purposely obtuse — Harry Hindu

Forgive me, I got tired of endlessly repeating the same point, that a discussion between gender and sex is natural and quite common.

By the question on the application, according to you, asks for the gender, not the sex. — jamalrob

Technically they ask for both.

To get a library card? I think it has more to do with the author(s) of the application are simply virtue signaling. — Harry Hindu

I don't know what the objective is, but this kind of virtue signalling is beyond me.

In fact it's actually good that you never have here any questions about race or ethnicity. I find them usually quite dubious. It's something that we really, really shouldn't mimic from the US (or the UK).