So you should not be force or coercion not to play against the under 10's

.

I don’t think you should force people to play with you, but if someone wants to organize a game between men and women, and everyone involved wants to play, then there is no reason to be bothered by it.

I cannot say that eliminating the demarcation between men and women’s sport is fair play, though. The disparity of sport performance between the sexes is inescapable. Wasting energy in combat and sport are some of the few activities males excel at. We’re primates, after all.

And the psychology of gender relates primarily to the identity function, described earlier by Michael, which is also absent in animals. Only biological sex has any relevance to animals. And that's not an issue here. We all know what it is. The issue is about finding a social solution to a contradiction between psychological identity and biological identity. Your Billy goat won't help us with that. — Baden

I didn't read what @Michaelsaid that way. I read him as denying any discernable definition of gender other than generally thinking himself a man, offering no characteristic of what a man would be.

If we dissociate gender entirely from physical attributes, the concept of physical transition becomes incoherent. How can you physically transition from male to female if you are already a female and your body has nothing to do with that?

I think more thought needs to be had into the link between the anatomy and the mindset when defining gender, as opposed to your very clean bright line between the two. Otherwise, you're left wondering why all these trans folks do link gender to their own anatomy.

The question then is why one's organs are relevant in deciding which football team one is on. — Banno

But this presumes a common objective, which as you've presented it, is the promotion of fairness. Not a bad objective, but not a necessary one.

Community Right wishes to go to the marketplace and purchase tickets to a CIS event. They don't want to watch a trans event. They then go to the supermarket and buy blueberries. They don't want strawberries.

I read him as denying any discernable definition of gender other than generally thinking himself a man, offering no characteristic of what a man would be.

If we dissociate gender entirely from physical attributes, the concept of physical transition becomes incoherent. How can you physically transition from male to female if you are already a female and your body has nothing to do with that? — Hanover

I'm sure a Manchester United supporter would feel uncomfortable wearing a Manchester City shirt. It's not incoherent for them to want to change their clothes.

I'm sure a Manchester United supporter would feel uncomfortable wearing a Manchester City shirt. It's not incoherent for them to want to change their clothes. — Michael

Then part of your identity links to your appearance. If not, why the discomfort?

Then part of your identity links to your appearance. — Hanover

Not in the sense that the appearance is what determines identity. Wearing a Manchester United shirt isn’t what it means to be a Manchester United supporter.

Not in the sense that the appearance is what determines identity. Wearing a Manchester United shirt isn’t what it means to be a Manchester United supporter. — Michael

I get that language is an expression of intent and not an actual tangible mental state. Language is a behavioral manifestation of belief.

You tell me what doesn't count as an attribute of a MU supporter, but can't tell me what does. I don't think you can leave it at that but need something more.

My position is that wearing the shirt and attending the matches is part of what it means to be a MU fan. As with the trans issue, I similarly would expect a trans MtF to wear women's clothes. That's part of it. Saying the expression isn't part of the identity seems too brittle a distinction. The behavior isn't all you are, but is part.

I agree it takes a fair degree of thought to work out what's going on.

I think about it like this:

Level 1: Biology >> signals gender and social identity.
Level 2: Psychology >> determines gender identity and signals biological identity.
Level 3: Society >> determines gender norms, which form the context in which gender identity is broadly interpreted.

You go from biology (the human/sex) to psychology (the person/gender identity) to the social (the group/gender norms) and you get different answers depending on how you pose the question of definition and at what level you pose it.

So, biology is relevant to gender but underdetermines it because it underdetermines (necessarily) psychology. It doesn't provide us enough evidence to assign a gender identity to a person, only to a body. This brings us back to where the denialists always end up, either explicitly or implicitly claiming the mind and society are not real and by extension that people are not real, simply because they can't accept this underdetermination and so end up reducing everything to Level 1. Animals are irrelevant because they are always stuck at Level 1, being neither people nor social in the sense we are.

So, the ground of debate is not here at the level of biology (human/animal) vs psychology (person), rather at the level of the relationship between gender identity (psychology) and gender norms (society). Minds do exist, people do exist ,and some people do identify as a gender that "contradicts" their biological sex.

Maybe the reason some can't move on from this is they misunderstand the "identity" in "gender identity" as something like preference or choice/behaviour. Language is slippery here because we don't normally need to strongly delineate between identity and preference. "I like dogs" can be phrased, "I am a dog person" {preference=identity} and that's fine. There's a degree of stickiness there. Maybe more than "I like pistachio flavor ice-cream" (as to say "I'm a pistachio-flavor-ice-cream person"{preference=identity} sounds a bit over the top). But when we say "I am a man" or "I am a woman", we're talking an identity that's core. So, it's not just that it's not a choice/behaviour, it's beyond a preference in that there's no coherent preference=identity pair to fall back on. I am a man doesn't mean I like manliness or even I like being a man, it just means that I identify as my understanding of the gender norm "man".

You can be a homosexual man, for example, who dresses and acts in a feminine way but still identifies as a man. It's not primarily about behaviour, or preference, identity is what it means to that person to be a man or a woman and whether their understanding of themselves can be squared with society in general. Society's job then, in my view, is to be inclusive to the degree that it is rational and practical to so be. And there is nothing irrational or impractical about recognizing the phenomenon of psychological identity as it relates to gender. Just the opposite.

You've maybe struck on the fundamental difference between animals and people. For animals, behaviour is determinative. They are fully identified with and by their behaviour. An animal is just what it does. We, on the other hand, are aware of ourselves as individuals that act, which gives us the ability to act in ways that underdetermine what we are as well as to be that which underdetermines how we act. The gap between behaviour and identity is human freedom.

Animal examples have applicability as analogies, but not as direct examples. A male goat could act (as evaluated by humans) in a female way, resulting in an undetermination of biology to "gender" (anthropomorphicislzing the term). Such analogies are often used by those denying naturalistic arguments, disputing that traditional sexual behavior. Is dictated by nature.

Where I'm most stuck really is in the holistic definition of "man" you try to maintain, as if there is nothing about being a man that can be said other than that it is. How is being a man different than being a woman then?

Defining "man" or "woman" is like the problem of defining "game". Every time you find a characteristic that seems essential, you find a game that doesn't have that characteristic but is still a game. A game is whatever social norms allow us to call a game and so it is with "man" and "woman".

Edit: Maybe someone has said that already in this discussion. If so, still worth repeating.

I hope that doesn't sound slippery by the way. Identity is the base level of personal reality. And the minute you try to define aspects of it as this or that, you easily get caught in exceptions. I don't know what it means to be a man, and yet (I feel) I know I am a man, that a man is a meaningful category, and that being a man is meaningful. But yes, you could change my anatomy without changing my opinion that I am a man. I would just feel you put the wrong body on me. I could also change my behaviour and act like a woman and still feel that I was a man. Or both. I could feel I was in the wrong body and act like a woman, and still be a man in terms of how I identify. It's not the behaviour; it's not the biology; it's a psychological reality that trumps both.

You tell me what doesn't count as an attribute of a MU supporter, but can't tell me what does. — Hanover

Identifying as a Manchester United supporter.

My position is that wearing the shirt and attending the matches is part of what it means to be a MU fan. As with the trans issue, I similarly would expect a trans MtF to wear women's clothes. That's part of it. Saying the expression isn't part of the identity seems too brittle a distinction. The behavior isn't all you are, but is part. — Hanover

I support England when they play. I don't wear the shirt and most of the times I don't even watch the games.

Identifying as a Manchester United supporter. — Michael

Identity is the base level of personal reality — Baden

:up:

support England when they play. I don't wear the shirt and most of the times I don't even watch the games. — Michael

And now I question whether you're actually a fan.

Something makes you a fan. Your love of the team, your undying commitment to your land, the excitement of singing stupid songs, getting drunk with hooligans, whatever, but if it's just an undefined identity, then it's meaningless

Something makes you a fan. — Hanover

Identifying as a fan.

Your love of the team, your undying commitment to your land, the excitement of singing stupid songs, getting drunk with hooligans — Hanover

I think you're getting it backwards. I'm not a supporter because I wear the shirt or watch the games; rather I wear the shirt or watch the games because I'm a supporter.

I'm not a supporter because I wear the shirt or watch the games; rather I wear the shirt or watch the games because I'm a supporter. — Michael

I get that, but what makes you a fan?

Fanhood isn't immutable. From point A to Point B, what causes you to change into a fan?

Fanhood isn't immutable. From point A to Point B, what causes you to change into a fan? — Hanover

Perhaps being English and living in England. Or perhaps a family member is a supporter and so I adopted the team as my own.

But it's a mistake to say that the cause of that self-identity is the characteristic that constitutes the self-identity. It's not like I recognized that I am English and live in England and then concluded that I therefore must be a supporter of the English football team.

But it's a mistake to say that the cause of that self-identity is the characteristic that constitutes the self-identity. It's not like I recognized that I am English and live in England and then concluded that I therefore must be a supporter of the English football team. — Michael

What you describe as not having occurred in your particular case does happen though.

That is, I realize my emotional, spiritual, recreational, occupational, and general preferences are consistent with traditional female attributes, so I seek physical modifications to align those characteristics with other parts of my identity and that then encompasses me as a whole woman.

Being ac woman are all those things.

Otherwise you just have a person in a vacuum who claims himself a man for no reason at all.

What you describe as not having occurred in your particular case does happen though. — Hanover

I think the wording was ambiguous. This is closer to what I meant:

It's not like I recognized that I am English and live in England and then concluded that I therefore must already be a supporter of the English football team.

National Public Radio news casters are now using the term "pregnant persons" as opposed to pregnant women. Such bullshit!

Otherwise you just have a person in a vacuum who claims himself a man for no reason at all. — Hanover

I think we can expect edge cases that aren't convincing. So far I've only met trans people who were clearly embracing stereotypical traits of the of their new gender. The trans man was growing facial hair. The trans women, which I saw more often, were wearing dresses and carrying purses.

I have known one biological male who embraced a trans lifestyle (no surgery or hormones, just clothing and manner) only to eventually return a relatively masculine style. This particular person had a history of finding ways to be conspicuous, so even his friends were skeptical if also polite.

"A trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth."

"Trans men may or may not be capable of menstruation and pregnancy depending on their individual circumstances."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_man

"a transgender man : a man who was identified as female at birth"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trans%20man

The usage is accurate. There is nothing to be angry about. Social reality shall do its thing regardless.

Animals are irrelevant because they are always stuck at Level 1, being neither people nor social in the sense we are. — Baden

Why bash animals? I've always thought that we are just smart animals, but otherwise there's not much different other than our extreme hubris about ourselves.

Something makes you a fan. Your love of the team, your undying commitment to your land, the excitement of singing stupid songs, getting drunk with hooligans, whatever, but if it's just an undefined identity, then it's meaningless — Hanover

I've always what especially with being a sport teams fans has anything to do with "undying commitment to your land". The collective experience of singing stupid songs and getting drunk and breaking stuff I can imagine.

If this person's existence makes any of you angry, I suggest the problem is with you, not him. And you can't stop him existing or being recognized as existing. You lost the battle for social reality. That part is over.

Why bash animals? I've always thought that we are just smart animals, but otherwise there's not much different other than our extreme hubris about ourselves. — ssu

In the context of my posts, it should be clear I'm not "bashing" animals.

Fair enough, I haven't read all of your posts.

But I still think there's a lot of hubris in our thinking that we are sooo different from animals. Yes, having an advance language system has it's perks, but still.

It depends on the specific context. In some ways, we are very similar to animals, yes, but it's a minor side issue here anyway.

It depends on the specific context. In some ways, we are very similar to animals, yes, but it's a minor side issue here anyway. — Baden

Might be.

But usually these issues are more about virtue signalling than about the actual issues. So few are actually trans, for example. Some people want to be insightful and progressive, wishing to be in the minority fighting for the rights that later are accepted universally, but today are a hot potato. And other people want to be the conservatives, upholding "common reason" and decency against nonsense. And both of these types dominate the public discussion. However they may declare themselves to be open minded and wanting a discussion, they are just waiting to put you into the other camp, those who are wrong, and attack you.

Yeah, perhaps I have had enough of these stupid culture wars.

I’m not against dress-up and pretend — NOS4A2

You can only pretend to be something if you don't identify as so being. So, I can pretend to be a woman because I don't identify as one, but a trans woman does, so she can't. Of course, you can pretend a trans woman is not a woman even though social reality defines her as such. It just carries no weight or significance beyond your personal standpoint. It's like pretending Joe Biden isn't President because it hurts your feelings to admit it. That horse has bolted. When you've lost the dictionaries and encyclopedias, you've lost, period. The media (as demonstrated by BC) and then the public in general will follow. What's left of the debate (in advanced Western democracies at least) is specifically what it takes to qualify as a trans person and details like how we deal with trans people in sports etc. Interesting issues worth discussing if you're up for it.