• ToothyMaw
    1.3k
    It seems to me that the existence of people that identify as a gender that doesn’t match their sex implies that there are distinct qualities that are necessary to the identities of men and women that go beyond physiological differences; there is an element of subjectivity, which I will define as: “knowledge of one’s own mental characteristics arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes.” This is if you grant that trans people exist, and we have no reason to doubt them when they tell us if they are men or women.

    Of course, some men display feminine traits, and some women display more masculine traits, but they still qualify as a man or woman nonetheless - if only because that is what they identify as. But that is somewhat circular to say that one is a woman merely because they identify as a woman. Am I John Cena merely because I identify as someone who doesn’t have spaghetti arms? If anything, this claim is more clearly verifiable than me identifying as a woman because I have man-breasts or like Sex and the City.

    One might say that it doesn’t matter; there are no adverse consequences for recognizing that someone is a man or woman merely because they identify as such, and, thus, we should not interfere with people’s gender expression.

    We all know, however, that there can be severe consequences - but only in a very narrow way. I wouldn’t claim that trans women aren’t women (they are definitely real women), but I do claim that they should not be allowed to crush women who have been training for many years to go up against cisgender women in sports - especially fighting. No one wants to see cisgender women getting battered and severely injured by some mediocre trans athlete. Not sorry; such displays are disgusting.

    So, we know that men are generally bigger, stronger, and faster. Upper body strength is definitely different between men and women, and men tend to have more of it, and thus greater upper body strength is one of many traits that, when considered, is something that could differentiate oneself from certain, or even most, women.

    I think whether or not one is a man or woman is a function of how their characteristics allow them to relate to other people, especially the opposite gender, and those people’s characteristics, be they more masculine or feminine. These traits, which are on a continuum, while not absolutely necessary for one’s gender identity, influence it as something holistic which is then parsed by one in terms of man/woman.

    So, what we have is a partially essentialist view of gender and sex. I don’t really know what specifically makes a woman a woman or a man a man, and that isn’t the focus of this post. The point is that gender identity is both essentialist and subjective.

    And when someone like Ben Shapiro militates against the limited but still existent subjectivity inherent to something like gender, he claims he does so in the name of biology and to try to establish some hard truths. I think he is at least partially honest when he states his motivations, but he must know that gender is at least partially subjective; we know there is more to being a man than “lifts heavy things” or “has broad shoulders”, such as strong paternal instincts.

    I think that people, especially men, want to protect women, or at least feel like they are protecting them. This is understandable, but it can turn sinister when it comes to disenfranchising a group of people. We should all respect people’s identities even if we are made uncomfortable by them, and this issue is almost totally unrelated to trans women in sports. If you cannot wrap your head around that you are being stupid - not bigoted, but rather stupid.

    And yes, I haven’t addressed that gender isn’t binary and that we can make up genders all day - mostly because they are only worth what people recognize them for being worth; I can claim I have the most expensive model train set ever and that people ought respect me for it, but in that context it is only worth what people recognize it to be - not a sign of status but rather a waste of money. Or maybe you love trains. Or lots of unnecessary punctuation and overly complex comment formats. That seems to be worth quite a bit around here.
  • Joshs
    5.8k


    And when someone like Ben Shapiro militates against the limited but still existent subjectivity inherent to something like gender, he claims he does so in the name of biology and to try to establish some hard truths. I think he is at least partially honest when he states his motivations, but he must know that gender is at least partially subjective; we know there is more to being a man than “lifts heavy things” or “has broad shoulders”, such as strong paternal instincts.ToothyMaw



    Not sure if anything you mentioned in the OP deals with what is involved in something like recognizing ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ behavioral differences between male and female animals having to do with perceptual , motivational , emotional and cognitive styles. These are biological( more specifically , neuro-psychological) non-subjective features of gender that someone like Shapiro may or may not admit are robust behavioral characteristics that differentiate heterosexual sis-gendered males from females across mammalian species . He most certainly would deny, however, that there are intermediate points in this binary , or that there could be individuals in which brain-wired gender does not match their biological sex. What about you? What’s your position on brain-wired gender-determined perceptual-affective style?
  • Michael
    15.8k
    there are distinct qualities that are necessary to the identities of men and womenToothyMaw

    I question that assertion. I'm skeptical of essentialism.
  • ToothyMaw
    1.3k


    When I say that I mostly mean that each man and woman possess characteristics that are - to them at least - necessary to their gender expression if trans people genuinely are the men or women they claim they are because there must be at least one characteristic in there that makes them what they say they are, or they possess an attribute that could be identified with anyone, and the terms "woman" and "man" become empty.

    Unless you assert that certain attributes are essentially inconsistent with what men or women are, in which case you are making an argument that only certain people can be men or women. That seems to constitute a similar thing to essentialism to me.

    Furthermore, what is viewed as essential could also be subjective; not every person has an identical idea of what it is to be a man or woman. It stands to reason that many women, for example, would identify certain attributes with themselves and probably also others to affirm their gender identity and the gender identities of those other people.

    If that doesn't count as essentialism, then I concede that last part.
  • Michael
    15.8k
    When I say that I mostly mean that each man and woman possess characteristics that are - to them at least - necessary to their gender expressionToothyMaw

    I don’t think so. I can’t think of any such characteristics in my case. I just am a man.
  • ToothyMaw
    1.3k


    And what conclusions should we draw? A man is anyone who identifies as a man? Is "man" a totally vacuous label? What about women? Should men who identify as women be allowed to use women's restrooms? Should male fighters get to smash female fighters because they identify as women?
  • Michael
    15.8k
    Should men who identify as women be allowed to use women's restrooms? Should male fighters get to smash female fighters because they identify as women?ToothyMaw

    Your wording is ambiguous. When you say “men who identify as women” do you just mean men who say they’re women, or do you mean transgender women?
  • ToothyMaw
    1.3k


    I mean anybody who identifies as a woman at all. The conclusion from what you posted is that anyone, even if they aren't a transgender woman, who identifies as a woman should, for instance, be allowed to use the women's restroom.

    I personally think transgender women should be allowed to use women's restrooms, but I was not making that point.
  • Michael
    15.8k
    anyone, even if they aren't a transgender woman, who identifies as a woman shouldToothyMaw

    This is why your wording is ambiguous. A biological male who identifies as a women is a transgender woman, as I understand the word “identify”. What do you mean by the word?
  • ToothyMaw
    1.3k
    This is why your wording is ambiguous. A biological male who identifies as a women is a transgender woman, as I understand the word “identify”. What do you mean by the word?Michael

    I see what you are saying. I am saying that according to your empty definition of man, which can be carried over to woman I would think, could give cover to men who just say they are women, but don't actually identify as such, yes.
  • ToothyMaw
    1.3k


    I didn't know "identify" was only used in the case that someone is genuinely a transgender person.

    edit: yes, that was stupid
  • praxis
    6.5k
    We should all respect people’s identities even if we are made uncomfortable by them, and this issue is almost totally unrelated to trans women in sports. If you cannot wrap your head around that you are being stupid - not bigoted, but rather stupid.ToothyMaw

    In considering the issue people often fail to take into account that trans women in sports undergo hormone therapies that make them physically more like women.
  • ToothyMaw
    1.3k


    From what I've heard and read what really matters is whether or not you went through puberty as a boy or girl. Once you undergo androgenization you will have an advantage that doesn't go away with hormone therapy.
  • praxis
    6.5k


    Can you point out these studies?
  • ToothyMaw
    1.3k


    I appear to not be able to find much information to support what I said. My bad. I'm looking at info on hormone therapy, and while most sex characteristics that would give an advantage can be reversed if the subject is masculinized, which is much like puberty, it appears as if the bone structure is permanent once one goes through androgenization. So, a female transgender athlete will have a different, unchangeable bone structure but reduced amounts of upper body muscle as compared to what they used to have within one or two years.

    The question is just how much said muscle strength and mass is reduced relative to what they had.
  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    Where are you heading with this? What are you looking for? These threads often descend into trans-phobia and become a conga line of suck-holes bathing in Fox News style judgments.
  • ToothyMaw
    1.3k


    Honestly, sometimes I post things to gather my thoughts in one place and just see if it starts a discussion that forces me to rethink what I previously thought. Someone might even find something of value in said discussion.

    I definitely don't want to be a beacon for trans-phobia, but I also can't account for the fact that someone might post something shitty. I think I made it clear that I definitely hold no ground with trans-phobes.
  • Hanover
    13k
    I don’t think so. I can’t think of any such characteristics in my case. I just am a man.Michael

    I also deny essentialism, but I don't think that amounts to an inability to itemize characteristics of a term. That a term's meaning is derived from use would entail that usage can be described and attributed to the term. So, if "cup" is used in Instances 1 through 20 to mean an object with descriptors A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, we're not required to say any particular descriptor is essential, but we can say there must be some sharing of descriptors for the object to be of the same sort.

    That is, my cup might be A, C, D and yours B, F, G, neither sharing the essence, but both being delimited to certain aspects. If not, terms would be devoid of meaning.

    Using transsexualism just creates a loaded example to deal with, but I don't follow how just from a linguistic theory it can be alleged by you that you are just a man without suggestion a definition can be attached to that. That is, there is something characteristically a man about you, which might not be the same characteristic I have that makes me a man, but some characteristic must be placing you in the man category.
  • Michael
    15.8k
    That is, there is something characteristically a man about you, which might not be the same characteristic I have that makes me a man, but some characteristic must be placing you in the man category.Hanover

    I don’t know what any such characteristics would be. I can imagine waking up in a woman’s body, whether by magic or a brain transplant, and yet I’d continue to identify as a man, so it certainly doesn’t have anything to do with my body. And I can’t think of what psychological traits I have, except the obvious of identifying as a man, that would count as being such characteristics.
  • Hanover
    13k
    Is this peculiar to internal states, or does it apply to cups too?
  • Michael
    15.8k
    It applies to being a man (and woman). I don't know off the top of my head what other things are like this. Maybe being a supporter of Manchester United?
  • Hanover
    13k
    applies to being a man (and woman). I don't know off the top of my head what other things are like this. Maybe being a supporter of Manchester United?Michael

    So in terms of meaning being use, I rely upon what usage to know if you're a man? That you tell me you are? Is that the only public usage manifestation?

    That strikes me as essentialism. To be a man, it is essential that one believe they are and then say they are.

    A usage theory requires variability of characteristics and a public meaning, not just an internal state.
  • sime
    1.1k
    Isn't a person's self identity largely thrust upon them by society? e.g, couldn't a boy perceive himself to be a girl as a result of bullying that caused him to believe that he couldn't compete as a man and seek support from the opposite sex?

    For society to automatically respect self-identification seems morally problematic, because it would mean for society to automatically reinforce the social treatment a person receives, however dysfunctional and situational.
  • Michael
    15.8k
    So in terms of meaning being use, I rely upon what usage to know if you're a man? That you tell me you are? Is that the only public usage manifestation?Hanover

    You can make an assumption based on appearances if you like, and in most cases you'd be right, but then if you hear me or someone who knows me say otherwise then you'll be corrected.

    That strikes me as essentialism. To be a man, it is essential that one believe they areHanover

    I suppose if you want to say that the essential characteristic of being a man is identifying as a man then it's a kind of essentialism, but I was thinking of essentialism as involving a little more than that when I asserted my rejection of it.

    A usage theory requires variability of characteristics and a public meaning, not just an internal state.Hanover

    I'm not convinced by a usage theory of meaning, but maybe that's a topic for another discussion.
  • Michael
    15.8k
    Isn't a person's self identity largely thrust upon them by society?sime

    I believe so. I suspect I identify as a man because I've been told that I'm a man as I grew up and it stuck.

    For society to automatically respect self-identification seems morally problematic, because it would mean for society to automatically reinforce the social treatment a person receives, however dysfunctional and situational.sime

    Do you have specific examples of why it is morally problematic to respect gender self-identity?
  • Tom Storm
    9.2k
    I think I made it clear that I definitely hold no ground with trans-phobes.ToothyMaw

    I understand that. We'll see how this one goes, right?
  • sime
    1.1k
    Do you have specific examples of why it is morally problematic to respect gender self-identity?Michael

    For example, situational factors that provoke someone to seek gender reassignment surgery, whom having undergone the operation decide they want to revert back after the situational factors are removed.
  • Hanover
    13k
    suppose if you want to say that the essential characteristic of being a man is identifying as a man then it's a kind of essentialism, but I was thinking of essentialism as involving a little more than that when I asserted my rejection of it.Michael

    OK, but I was thinking you were arguing fluidity of meaning based upon usage, which I would subscribe closer to, but I guess I don't know what you mean when you reject essentialism. It seems you're just arguing that your usage is more consistent with common progressive morality and is therefore preferred, but that makes it prescriptive and essentialist, which is the failing of those whose definition you reject.

    I've missed something?
  • Banno
    25.3k
    Seems to me that the problem stems from sport using the wrong criteria to group athletes. It's a congenital problem with the notion of "fair" competition.

    Why gender, as opposed to height or bodyweight or muscle mass index or blood testosterone levels?
  • DingoJones
    2.8k


    Why gender, as opposed to height or bodyweight or muscle mass index or blood testosterone levels?Banno

    You mean the characteristics that males have over females? Thats precisely the things that separate male and female athletics.
  • BC
    13.6k
    I'm not sure I want to "wade into" the murky fluid of "trans and gender issues. Some people believe that, contrary to appearances, they are not the sex they were "assigned". First of all, "sex" isn't "assigned at birth"; sex is identified, based on readily apparent organs. Sometimes, (not very often, .001%) genitals are too ambiguous to make a visual determination. [The term "assigned sex" is employed to support the ideological notion that the identity of male or female is arbitrary.]

    Not at all unreasonably or inhumanely, babies are raised to be the sex their unambiguous genitals say they are. More to the point, the genitals are a result of the DNA which has directed a male or female body to exist.

    How people identify themselves in the body they are born with is more complicated then which gender roles any given person performs. As a gay man, I prefer sex with other men, but I have no inclination to think of myself as a woman, or to behave like a woman. Some homosexuals do think of themselves as their opposite sex, at least some time. There are heterosexual men who prefer sex with women who like to behave like women, at least some of the time -- cross dressers. It's quite literally "role play". Some women like to play the same game, dressing as men.

    It seems to me that "transgendered people" have adopted an extreme form of homosexual drag, one in which they commit to playing their opposite gender role all the time, and making changes to their body to match their concept of the role. So, for some it is a matter of changing costume and hair. For others, it involves an extensive re-upholstering of their body,

    I believe their are limits to this game. One can have the opposite's genitals constructed; one can take hormones to shape the body. The appearances can be changed. But, after all that, one remains one's biologically determined sex.

    It's a game of appearances, and as Oscar Wilde said, "It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible."
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.