Yes, I read us as saying similar enough things too.

I think many or most subjects end up being like this - elusive. What does it mean to be strong? What is reality? What is the purpose of living? I can't think of many subjects that don't end up in the zone of contradictions and confusions, so why should gender be any different? — Tom Storm

I agree with you.

Some people want to discard certain concepts because they don't fit precisely within their view of reality, then they want to impose their conceptual view on the rest of us. Guess what, many of our concepts are like this, that's just the way language is.

When I say prove, I don't mean by providing a logical argument and laying out the evidence. We do it without words, we demonstrate it. Gender identity is communicated in less than a second, and only in exceptional or rare circumstances will there ever be a conversation about it. — Judaka

Focusing here, because this is something I agree with.

I invoked the notion of asking because it's basically the golden standard for determining some one person's identity, in my view -- and talk of wanting standards for categories to determine identity runs counter to the notion of simply listening to a person talk about themself. I agree that we don't go about using the golden standard, however. We just glide along, barely without even a belief formed, accepting people's identity before it's even face-value, before its even named.

My thought is that who we are isn't really chosen by us. So "girding" that conversation isn't important. It's not something which needs to have intersubjective agreement, nor does it need to be an object of knowledge. The very reality of our identity takes care of itself, and so self-identification doesn't undermine identity. That is -- I take statements of one's identity to be truth-apt, I just think that the person whose best situated to make judgments about their truth is the person making the statement (EDIT: about themself, that is).

But then there's the other side of identity, how you interpret others. But this doesn't have to do with features or aspects of others, in my opinion. As you noted, we don't ask people for their identity. It happens before we're even really cognitively engaged. We glide along, accepting the identity we see and interacting with it before really judging whether the identity we perceive is right or wrong or whatever.

So given these two features -- that a person is better situated to judge whether something is true of themselves, and the lack of cognitive engagement in ascertaining others identities on a regular basis -- I'd say that a general conversation is exactly wrong headed. We don't need sets with specified traits to make judgments of others with. We just need to listen to what others have to say about themselves.

But I honestly think in a way that everyone is non binary. — Susu

You are non-binary. Perhaps there do exist people who are not like you in that respect. They would be binary and not non-binary. They might be quite certain that they are binary and they might resent any hint of denying their binary identity. Some of them may deny that non-binary people exist and think that in a way everyone is binary. And in that respect - thinking that everyone is in some way really like themselves - they would be just like you. You are non-binary and you think in a way that everyone else is too. They would be binary and they would think in a way that everyone else is too. There seems to be no shortage of binary and non-binary people who talk just like that. I think we need more people who recognise that others might be profoundly and disturbingly different from themselves rather than trying to convince everyone that they are the norm.

. I think we need more people who recognise that others might be profoundly and disturbingly different from themselves rather than trying to convince everyone that they are the norm. — Cuthbert

How about the idea that the norm is an averaging, and thus flattening of individual differences?Perhaps as a culture we’re just beginning to explore these differences rather than ignoring them or being oblivious to them.

What we call the gender binary is an abstraction or idealization resulting from an averaging that flattens all the individual differences — Joshs

I agree.

My language can be clumsy when it comes to this topic so correct me if I'm wrong. When someone calls themselves "non-binary", they are saying they don't fit neatly into either male or female categories, abstractions or not. When I said experiencing being non-binary, I meant this experience, as opposed to having a view that gender is binary or not.

I think my point about the uniqueness of individual gender agrees with Moliere’s ( perhaps for slightly different reasons) about the advisability of letting each individual publicly define their own gender. And it agrees with his assertion( again for slightly different reasons, and specifically with regard to gender) that the person who has had to deal with challenges to having their gender behavior accepted might come to know a little more about the natural of gender than someone who never was accused of behaving in a gender-nonconforming way. — Joshs

I've spent a lot of time listening to people with such experiences to better understand the topic of gender identity because I believe that perspective is important for me to understand when considering this topic. But ultimately I decide for myself what to think, even in cases where people with better qualifications than I exist.


The issue of gender identity is not limited to classification, but covers a range of topics about gender-exclusive areas, gender-exclusive activities, legal rights, language, social and cultural norms, obligations and expectations, manners and many other topics. Also, it includes many different views in the fields of biology, psychology, philosophy and so on. It is a much bigger topic than someone freely describing their gender and avoiding resistance. Gender is significant in culture, religion, social norms, politics, philosophy and the list goes on. We can consider questions about social etiquette and norms for inclusivity, pronouns using new words or terms like ze/zir, the preference for using gender-neutral pronouns and words, gender norms, assumptions about people based on gender and even the act of assuming someone's gender. These issues and many others are too big for any one person to decide, do you not agree?

I'm not sure if it was a misunderstanding or if you've appreciated some of my points but your latest description of how identity is communicated and received is more agreeable than what I understood you to think in previous posts. Though I still disagree with your insistence on deferring to a person's description of themselves. My freedom to describe the world as I see it is invaluable to me. I recognise what others say as a valuable source of information, as opposed to just taking the view that they know themselves best, I think they know things about themselves that only they know, so I take what they say into account. Sometimes I will trust them because I've no reason to doubt them I offer no objection because I don't want to offend. Sometimes I'll go along with a request as a courtesy, this is how I approach the issue of being asked to refer to someone as a specific gender, absent of any glaring absurdity.

Can you clarify, could you be describing something more like doing someone a courtesy or giving the benefit of the doubt as I have here, as opposed to believing whatever you're told regardless of your own personal views? Because surely you do have your own personal views about how gender is determined and expressed and yada yada... right?

These issues and many others are too big for any one person to decide, do you not agree? — Judaka

Sure.

Can you clarify, could you be describing something more like doing someone a courtesy or giving the benefit of the doubt as I have here, as opposed to believing whatever you're told regardless of your own personal views? Because surely you do have your own personal views about how gender is determined and expressed and yada yada... right? — Judaka

I do, and I've been laying them out -- I haven't been saying "do not discuss" or "have no opinion" or something along those lines. Here we are discussing! :D And I'm not trying to say "Do not post again!" or something along those lines. We cannot help but to have an opinion, a lot of the times.

My belief is that these things aren't very clear cut, that there is no one definition for identifying as such-and-such, there are multiple ways to be a man or a woman or neither, and so the type of philosophy which lays out definitions and counter-examples in a dialectic simply will not come to an understanding of gender, at least as I understand these things. Who we are is softer than the tools of analysis which are meant for reaping and harvesting of intellectual products.

Metaphorically, we are flowers and turtles -- and the harvest kills both while it pursues maximizing wheat germ.

Does that make any kind of sense?

So, when someone says they are a man/woman, what exactly are they pointing to? So, when someone says they are a man/woman, what exactly are they pointing to? Behaviours? Mentality? Likes/dislikes? Because even then, it's still vague. — Susu

I will try to simplify the issue ...
If someone says to you, "I am a man", would you ask him "What do you mean by that?"

Asking such a question woul only have a meaning if women had everything in common with men, i.e, if there would be no difference between them. Which is absurd.

***

Behavior, mentality and likes/dislikes are not criteria. Differences in them exist within both groups of men and women. However, these elements are developed in a person, who is influenced by one's environment --family and society-- since the day one is born and throughout one's life.

It is my opinion that hormones and hormone receptors do matter. However, with what we know today our sexuality is not as simple as being this or that. We now think of terms of a spectrum.

Also, some babies are born with atypical genitalia due to a difference in sex development.

This type of difference was once called a “disorder of sex development,” but this term is problematic. In a 2015 surveyTrusted Source, most respondents perceived the term negatively. A further review found that many people do not use it at all, and instead use “intersex.”

Being intersex can mean different things. For example, a person might have genitals or internal sex organs that fall outside of typical binary categories. Or, a person might have a different combination of chromosomes. Some people do not know that they are intersex until they reach puberty.

Biologists have started to discussTrusted Source the idea that sex may be a spectrum. This is not a new concept but one that has taken time to come into the public consciousness. For example, the idea of sex as a spectrum was discussed in a 1993 article published by the New York Academy of Sciences. — Medically reviewed by Emelia Arquilla, DO — By Tim Newman on May 11, 2021

I can tell you're a kind person, and that your motivation is to be kind and respectful to others, and I appreciate the need to be flexible and deal with things on a case-by-case basis. I always advocate for dealing with things on a case-by-case basis, and emphasise flexibility and taking context into account. In this matter, since people who struggle with gender identity have to face a lot of shit, I'm especially concerned about how a small action justified when viewed in isolation, can add up when it occurs regularly to create something very unpleasant. So, it's completely reasonable to factor into the equation all types of concerns and a general discussion should also include these concerns. In fact, it is precisely these considerations that merit a greater discussion about gender identity, to increase awareness and organise an appropriate response.

Your "golden rule" might be fine in isolation, it might work well for you but as a solution in general it's not feasible. Gender identity is communicated in less than a second, and it is communicated to every single person one meets, this may be several or dozens of people each day. Our expectations for how others treat us are communicated by our expression of our gender identity. Ideally, gender identity is communicated without words, and also ideally, everyone is informed of how they are to treat someone based on their gender identity and sex. To avoid awkward situations and to ensure everyone is treated fairly.

We're pretty far away from that right now, most people don't even understand what it means to be non-binary or transgender. Let alone appreciating how this changes how they're supposed to interact and what the rules are. There are all kinds of opinions about what is appropriate behaviour when it comes to gender identity, the rules are extremely unclear. It's not really good enough to "treat with respect" or "treat as you'd like to be treated". It's valuable for everyone to agree on what the rules are and to know them without having to ask every person they meet.

Not that long ago, most people weren't sure what the rules were or how to treat someone based on their sexuality. The responses used to be very different than they are today, and completely inappropriate by today's standards. I'm not saying that conversation is over but it's come a long way, gender identity is still in the dark ages comparatively. The question of "what makes someone a man or a woman", for example, isn't just about deciding who's opinions are invalid, it's about creating rules for how people should be treated. Right now, it's something like the wild west, it seems everyone has their own opinions and operates by their own rules. This makes things incredibly difficult for everyone, don't you agree?

It's not really good enough to "treat with respect" — Judaka

OK. Would it be a good start and a move in the right direction? I think so. Then, when everyone is treating everyone else with respect, we could think about where to go from there. Think how far we have to go before we reach even that modest goal.

Right now, it's something like the wild west, it seems everyone has their own opinions and operates by their own rules. This makes things incredibly difficult for everyone, don't you agree? — Judaka

Some people find it very easy. There are many who do not recognise any genders except male and female and will happily assign every person to exactly one of those. They don't have a problem and they have all the rules they need. I think you mean that we should have rules that agreed by all. I doubt whether that is possible. It may be possible to minimise harm resulting from discrimination. Even that is limited. Gay and lesbian equality has been the law for many years and yet two lesbians kissing on the bus may be physically attacked.

I don't think one can expect people to have unconditional respect for others, I'm sure you don't have that because if you did it would mean you're unable to think and express yourself. You have reasons for when and why you treat people with respect, based on a mix between your personal beliefs and understanding, and your knowledge of how the rules of your culture. If you were told to respect or tolerate something you disagree with, or a law was made to compel you to accept something you found intolerable, you wouldn't be happy about it, and may not go along with it, right? That's not a call for you to empathise, I'm being more cold and practical about this.

One of the points I'm trying to make is that this is a social and cultural topic, not just a personal one. The types of comments, jokes, teasing, behaviours, gestures, etc that are acceptable change over time. Some people are assholes who will do what they're going to do, but what the people around this person are willing to tolerate or go along with can be impacted. There are many issues to be worked out, many different problems that the average person is not able to navigate effectively. Let me also be clear that although some people treat 2020 as the end of history, I think this is the dark ages in many areas. I'm sure we will not be viewed favourably by future generations, this is a work-in-progress. When such a significant part of the population is part of the problem, it is a cultural and societal failure. So, no, not everyone needs to agree on the rules, and I'm not saying any set of rules would do. I have my opinions about what the general rules should be, but they're not the same as yours and I'm not sure what we'll get. I think currently that most people are so clueless and inexperienced with regard to gender identity that most views and actions are more of a product of ignorance than some well-thought-out alternative.

People have concerns and questions when it comes to gender identity, some due to gross misunderstanding, some questions that make a lot more sense to me. The solution is not "be nicer" or "be respectful", these issues need to be worked out. As the average citizen becomes better educated or experiments with alternatives on the what, why, how and the rules of what is acceptable and what is expected from all parties etc, we'll see change. I think this change will be defined by the evidence available and a general desire to improve the quality of life for everyone. The trend has been positive and I expect it to continue.

It is meaningless. Remove the make-up, the clothes, the act, and we’ll see the reality of it all, and whether one’s identity conforms with it or not. This inescapable reality must bear heavily on the gender bender, I imagine.

I don't think one can expect people to have unconditional respect for others, I'm sure you don't have that because if you did it would mean you're unable to think and express yourself. — Judaka

I don't expect people to have respect for each other, let alone unconditional respect. I expect lesbians on busses to continue to be afraid for years to come. My expectations are very low. That's why, when you say a principle of 'be respectful' is not enough, I said I think it's actually quite a big ambition. But now you think it's too much?

Maybe I could refuse to obey a vile law and also not attack the person who made the law for being gay or Black. Respect does not mean compliance. It doesn't even mean I approve of lesbians. It means merely that if I see two lesbians kissing I refrain from abusing them or beating them up.

The solution is not "be nicer" or "be respectful", these issues need to be worked out.

You are right. It's only a modest start. And you dismiss the modest start before we've even started.

You want rules. Beyond the law, there are no rules in this area or in any other. There is only the restraint of our good manners, as far as that will go. Many people feel quite well educated enough and are happy in their own opinions which differ profoundly from yours. They are not going to go to the education sessions. They've signed up for an entirely different class. That's why restraint and respect are a source of hope. Agreement will not be within our grasp.

I think currently that most people are so clueless and inexperienced with regard to gender identity that most views and actions are more of a product of ignorance than some well-thought-out alternative. — Judaka

I have not heard anyone apparently clueless or inexperienced. Almost everyone seems quite certain of their views on gender identity. Adults generally claim to have been well versed in the topic and have a settled and confident opinion. They tend to dismiss contrary opinions as invalid, being fully sure of their own. People will readily admit to being clueless about maths or French and inexperienced in making crochet blankets. But gender identity - nobody's going to get educated, they all have their degrees already. The problem is not lack of experience. It's difference of viewpoints and opinions.

Keep in mind that you are the one who has introduced the context of people being assaulted, that was not what I had in mind at all. I condemn violence or aggression regardless of the reason. I don't think our society condones violence for any reason either, and again, some people are evil and do evil, but that's a different subject, I think.

You are right. It's only a modest start. And you dismiss the modest start before we've even started. — Cuthbert

I'm unsure of what you think I'm referring to now, because it was never acts of violence or bullying, anything that would be wrong because it falls into the category of some other condemned act. If we're talking about bullying, harassment, violence, rudeness, vandalism, assault and things of this nature. Those things are not ever justified, the reason for it is irrelevant, especially in the case of one citizen harming another for who they are or what they say. I am talking about things of a much less severe nature than this.

I have not heard anyone apparently clueless or inexperienced. Almost everyone seems quite certain of their views on gender identity. Adults generally claim to have been well versed in the topic and have a settled and confident opinion — Cuthbert

Really? Even on this forum, some people are completely clueless lol.

It is meaningless. Remove the make-up, the clothes, the act, and we’ll see the reality of it all, and whether one’s identity conforms with it or not. This inescapable reality must bear heavily on the gender bender, I imagine. — NOS4A2

I know it's nos but I don't even need to leave this page to find an ignorant opinion. I'm really surprised to hear you think that the average person is well-versed in what it means to be transgender, non-binary or such. For how long have these concepts really been in the public consciousness? LGBT is now LGBTQIA and the list of ideas and concepts surrounding gender continue to change every single year.

Keep in mind that you are the one who has introduced the context of people being assaulted, that was not what I had in mind at all — Judaka

I realise that. You suggested that 'be respectful' is just not enough - we need more. I pointed out that we have not achieved even the respect that you think is not enough. Example: people are assaulted for being gay. That's my argument and that's why I brought it up. You dismiss 'respect' as not enough - then you claim it's too much, because people can't have unconditional respect.

Of course you don't condone violence! Me neither. I'm asking you to remember that violence is there and that dismissing the principle of respect also (unthinkingly) dismisses the principle of restraint of our worst behaviour. I'm speaking up for that principle.

I know it's nos but I don't even need to leave this page to find an ignorant opinion. — Judaka

You theory is that other people are ignorant and educating them will relieve them of their ignorance. But it's not like French or crochet. What you call 'ignorance' is merely a different opinion from yours. That's no way to get people to come to classes to learn what the strings of letters stand for. And even if they did, many would still walk away calling it all nonsense. The best we can hope for is that they walk way without committing the kind of violence that you rightly pointed out I brought into the debate and that I brought into the debate for a reason and to make an argument. (Not, to say again, to smear you with collusion with violence, which is clearly not on your agenda or mine.)

You suggested that 'be respectful' is just not enough - we need more — Cuthbert

I don't remember saying that "we need more"...

You have reasons for when and why you treat people with respect, based on a mix between your personal beliefs and understanding, and your knowledge of how the rules of your culture. — Judaka

I said respect isn't something you can order people to have, it's not enough to just tell people to be respectful. But even if you could order people to be respectful, it would still be insufficient and impractical, because people don't even agree on what is respectful, what the correct etiquette is and what the rules are.

Of course you don't condone violence! Me neither. I'm asking you to remember that violence is there and that dismissing the principle of respect also (unthinkingly) dismisses the principle of restraint of our worst behaviour. I'm speaking up for that principle. — Cuthbert

I don't think that violence should be okay even if you don't respect someone, so I don't understand this. Even if you absolutely hate someone and think they're the scum of the Earth, you're still not permitted to act violently. Why would restraint require respect? If it requires any respect then isn't it respect for human decency or the law and not how someone self-identifies their gender?

Would this mean that you think transgender people are confused? IOW they feel that actually they are not the sex they were born with and often want to align, as much as they can, their physiology with their true gender/sex.

Would you see them as confused, attributing qualities they have to 'the other sex.'` when in fact they are just non-binary like everyone else?

I know it's nos but I don't even need to leave this page to find an ignorant opinion. I'm really surprised to hear you think that the average person is well-versed in what it means to be transgender, non-binary or such. For how long have these concepts really been in the public consciousness? LGBT is now LGBTQIA and the list of ideas and concepts surrounding gender continue to change every single year.

It doesn’t take much to assume dysphoria and contempt for one’s own body must be harrowing. Dysphoria is the antonym to euphoria, after-all. It’s ignorant to assume otherwise.

You stated it yourself. Gender identity is a mental construct. Sex has to do with physical characteristics and potential reproductive function. What you do with your parts is your business.

It seems apparent that different groups (generations, cultures, classes, etc.) associate different things to gender. For example, older generations tend to see the gender male as the breadwinner, head of household, and dominant role within the traditional nuclear family. Gender is socially constructed, and since various social environments differ from one another, it seems likely this is due to differences between social groups.

There is a lot of confusion about sex and gender, especially if people use the term "gender" to refer to things that are separate.
Gender / sex has three aspects :

1. the biological sex of a person. There are exactly two of them (male and female), you are born with it, you can't change it (no mammal can do this) and it is as objective and real as the five fingers of a hand or your blood group- (or can anybody change their blood group via self-ID?).
2. the gender role, also called 'gender': it is socially constructed, it is fluid, there is a spectrum (masculine vs feminine) and there are no limits to the imagination.
3. the legal sex. This usually coincides with the biological one, except in those rare cases where someone suffers from gender dysphoria, and thereupon applies to be allowed to make a transition. Or if someone is intersex, in which case they can ask to become non-binary (or 'diverse', as it is called in Germany)

There is a lot of confusion about sex and gender, especially if people use the term "gender" to refer to things that are separate — Matias66

I find it curious that so many people say there is confusion but very few people seem to believe that they are themselves confused. It is a topic on which most people who offer any opinion at all hold forth with the greatest clarity and confidence, often dismissing contrary views as harmful nonsense. That would seem to be a sign of division and disagreement rather than confusion. I have heard the views of many people who would dismiss those three categories and who would be quite clear, forthright, and consistent and in their opinions.

older generations tend to see the gender male as the breadwinner, head of household, and dominant role within the traditional nuclear family — Cartesian trigger-puppets

That's myself and I'm a faux gender-bender extraordinaire like so many from the gay-not-gay walk-on-the-wild-side 1970's. So it's difficult to generalise.

I have not heard anyone apparently clueless or inexperienced. Almost everyone seems quite certain of their views on gender identity. Adults generally claim to have been well versed in the topic and have a settled and confident opinion. They tend to dismiss contrary opinions as invalid, being fully sure of their own. People will readily admit to being clueless about maths or French and inexperienced in making crochet blankets. But gender identity - nobody's going to get educated, they all have their degrees already. The problem is not lack of experience. It's difference of viewpoints and opinions. — Cuthbert

You don't think individuals can BOTH be "confident" and be "clueless"?
You don't think individuals can BOTH believe themselves "well versed" and be "clueless"?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/742150

You don't think individuals can BOTH be "confident" and be "clueless"? — ThinkOfOne

Perhaps I'm mistaken. It's not mainly about difference of viewpoints, opinion and outlook. It's mostly about knowledge, awareness and information. It's a common view in arenas where views about the topic are expressed. Only tell the trans folk about biology and they will quickly see their error. Educate the terfs about trans rights and they will understand. It doesn't seem to work. Sure, there is ignorance, too, although few people who offer a view lay claim to it. But it's mainly about outlook. Offering people more experience or information does not suit the case. People may have equal knowledge, experience and information and still disagree.

But it's mainly about outlook. Offering people more experience or information does not suit the case. People may have equal knowledge, experience and information and still disagree. — Cuthbert

One could make a similar argument about rival scientific paradigms. But if a new paradigm , by organizing experience in a new way, can ‘solve more puzzles’ as Kuhn put it, than the paradigm it replaces, even though it is not simply a matter of a linear increase in ‘information’, then perhaps we can say that grasping the idea that we each are born with a global perceptual style that subtly shapes all of our interactions with others offers an enriched understanding an aspect of human behavior that is missing from those for whom the concept of gender is non-existent except as a male-female binary, even though grasping this ‘gender paradigm’ is not simply an accretion of information. Word-views , including notions about sex and gender, are very resistant to change, precisely because they are such complex organizational structures. But this doesn’t mean that once we have transitioned from one framework to another we don’t feel that we have gained in understanding, even though we know also understand differently than before.

Perhaps I'm mistaken. It's not mainly about difference of viewpoints, opinion and outlook. It's mostly about knowledge, awareness and information. It's a common view in arenas where views about the topic are expressed. Only tell the trans folk about biology and they will quickly see their error. Educate the terfs about trans rights and they will understand. It doesn't seem to work. Sure, there is ignorance, too, although few people who offer a view lay claim to it. But it's mainly about outlook. Offering people more experience or information does not suit the case. People may have equal knowledge, experience and information and still disagree. — Cuthbert

Let's try this a different way. Consider critical thinking skills:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

Critical thinking skills are also on a spectrum: from poor to excellent. Given the same information: an individual with excellent critical thinking skills forms sound beliefs while an individual with poor critical thinking skills forms unsound beliefs. A bigot with otherwise good critical thinking skills will also form unsound beliefs.

Individuals who forms unsound beliefs will "disagree" with the sound beliefs. Many of them will try to assert that it is merely a "difference of viewpoints, opinion and outlook" or whatever other disingenuous rationalizations that they may dream up.

Individuals who form unsound beliefs will "disagree" with the sound beliefs. Many of them will try to assert that it is merely a "difference of viewpoints, opinion and outlook" or whatever other disingenuous rationalizations that they may dream up — ThinkOfOne

On the other hand, one could argue that the accusation leveled against another of ‘unsound critical thinking skills’ is often a convenient way to blame the other for our failure to understand their framework for interpreting a situation.