It is the equivalent to me having plastic surgery. — Andrew4Handel

. . . and. . . the implication here?

I don't know if you read my whole post because I pressed enter too early by accident.

I was drawing a distinction between accidentally being mistaken for the opposite sex and impersonating the opposite sex and imitating how you believe they act and think (which in Dylan Mulvaney's case is an offensive parody).

Legally if anyone born male/ with male DNA etc is allowed to identify as a women there are literally no more women's only spaces or women's rights.

It is a fundamental attack on the identity of a vulnerable group that has become more aggressive in recent years and the consequences are becoming more blatant each year.

For example two female inmates in the USA were impregnated by a trans identified male in a women's prison and male born people have started to take more and more women's sporting trophies with the consequence that they have had to ban people who went through male puberty (men) from women's swimming, cycling and athletic.

And this is a dystopian and draconian policing of thought and language as well to impose someone else's inner desires on feelings on everyone else. Apart from that there is a surge of detransitioners with damaged bodies that are getting harder to ignore. So it is an unsustainable situation.

I'm using the word women/men to regard the social/cultural categories and all assumed stereotypes or behaviors coincident with those terms colloquially. — substantivalism

I am not, nor was it presented as such in this discussion. Men and women are based on sex differences. Gender is a subjective belief in how a man or woman should act. Male human = man, Female human = woman.

You must first have a human male or female to then ascribe gender. Because gender is the expectation of an individual or culture in how a human male or female should dress or act in particular situations that do not involve the physical aspect of their sex. If you need to express it in terms that fit with the accepted definitions of the OP, you can use the term cis and transgendered.

No, that's incomplete. Do men dressed in clown suits get rejected from the men's restroom? No. Its not appearance, its based on sex.
— Philosophim
Except that isn't what you implied before. . . — substantivalism

I think you may have misunderstood me or I was not clear enough. This is exactly what I am implying. My examples of noting that someone can disguise themselves are irrelevant to the separation of bathrooms by sex. It doesn't matter if you go into a bathroom and no one realizes you're not of the same sex, its still not supposed to happen.

If I break into a person's home, steal nothing, then leave, did I still break the law? Yes. Doesn't matter if I didn't do any harm. Doesn't matter if most people who break in won't do harm. My home is a safe place that I let my friends into. If you disguised yourself as my friend and I didn't notice, its still wrong.

Can you attempt to disguise your sex? Yes. Does that change your sex? No. Does that mean that because we can disguise our sex that suddenly it makes it ok? No. Appearance is not your sex. Being able to "pass" does not change your sex.
— Philosophim
It does change the point or significance of using it or its utility in a true general sense. — substantivalism

No it doesn't. Bathrooms are for personal hygene and getting rid of waste bodily fluids. The sexes have different ways of getting rid of those. Dressing or acting in a particular way does not change that. Its not a party place. Its not a place to express fashion. Its to go to the bathroom. And since you have to undress or put yourself in a vulnerable position to expel certain bodily fluids, we keep the sexes separate.

Being seen as a likely perpetrator or as a statistical risk based off of your 'grouping' is also not based directly on your sex. — substantivalism

Yes it is. It has nothing to do with your gender expression. I want to make it VERY clear. Transgender people are not sexual predators. Sexual predators are sexual predators. We keep the sexes clear for sexual privacy, not gendered privacy.

You know, you are right. So let us agree for the moment with Butler that gender is to be seen as a performance. You aren't pretending to be a man dressed as women. You are you. Identity isn't XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes. . . it's who you 'are' or what you consider your 'self'. — substantivalism

The definition of a performance is an act. So yes, you are pretending to be a man dressed as a woman or vice versa. That's basic a basic set of definitions and a logical conclusion. If you're saying that acting like something you are not, or identifying as something you are not, makes you that something, that's false.

Now, if you want to internally identify yourself as whatever you want, feel free. Invent your own language as you see fit. But when you go into society which has accepted definitions and language, you do not get to tell society to accept yours. You can ask, but it is not obligated in any way to agree with you. If you identify as a woman in society, but you are not a woman by sex, you are simply wrong in your identity.

The question is why it should be a dividing line at all WITH a lawful set of consequences that negate some moral intuitions we have on it. — substantivalism

Your set of sentences after this were too abstract and didn't really answer the question I gave. Please clarify with examples.

Turns out, such stereotyping is seemingly motivating the decision to punish someone who's only action was using the restroom. The motivation being one's 'uncomfortability' which is garnered by societal expectations of how one who is MALE is to be judged on sight or even under a 'disguise'. — substantivalism

No, I've said several times that its based on the very real sex differences between men and women. Its not about the likelihood, its about the potential. This is not a gender issue.

Again, you seem to want to agree with me on gender and yet if a person doesn't conform to gendered expectations of their sex then they are still said to be 'doing it wrong'. — substantivalism

I've never said someone not conforming to their gender is "doing it wrong". I've been claiming this entire time that gender is subjective stereotyping. Your gender has nothing to do with your sex.

Female people don't own facial expressions and externalized forms of certain behavior nor do males as if some one doing something similar is 'stealing' it or some 'cheap copy'. As that assumes, contrary to our assumptions, that gender is in fact strapped to your chromosomal status. — substantivalism

Gender is the expectation of behavior for a sex, so of course it is tied to a sex. If you say you have the gender of a man, you're taking someone's belief of how a biological man should act or dress in culture. Now does that gender differ from someone else's? Sure. But if they say you have a male gender, the implication is you are acting the way a biological male is expected to act.

Why is the solution to pretend a stereotype means you now belong in a place of another sex, despite you not being that other sex?
— Philosophim
First, sex is not the reason they feel the need to be with the same sex. . . its SIMILARITY. Do I need to quote you again. . . — substantivalism

We're not talking about being around the same sex. Anyone can make friends or hang out with people of any sex or gender. But there are particular places and events that are divided based on sex. The way you act or dress does not suddenly make this sex divide go away.

Nothing. That's the entire point. Gender is a subjective stereotype of a group or individuals. If it doesn't have to do with physical characteristics, its not sex.
— Philosophim
However, the motivation and reason why this choice is made can be heavily influenced by gender. — substantivalism

People can make decisions based off of gender, which would be the stereotype of some individual or culture. But you have not made a case for why certain situations divided by sex: bathrooms, sports, and shelters for example, should suddenly be changed because of gender. A subjective outlook that can differ from individual to individual has no basis overriding biological fact that stands despite subjective outlooks.

Bathrooms are for personal hygene and getting rid of waste bodily fluids. — Philosophim

Maybe somebody already spoke to this, but bathrooms are also a place to adjust one's clothing, possibly change clothing, and apply makeup (if one does such a thing). These are also private activities, tolerable in front of the same sex but less so in front of the opposite sex. Bathrooms are also, as you indicated, supposed to be a calm place, without unnecessary static.

But you have not made a case for why certain situations divided by sex: bathrooms, sports, and shelters for example, should suddenly be changed because of gender. A subjective outlook that can differ from individual to individual has no basis overriding biological fact that stands despite subjective outlooks. — Philosophim

Those subjective outlooks however question to what extent this biological fact is supposed to rule divide them in the first place. Notice how you haven't actually explained why sex (as chromosomes alone) is the only criterion used to make these distinctions. You've said it is, not why it is.

No it doesn't. Bathrooms are for personal hygene and getting rid of waste bodily fluids. The sexes have different ways of getting rid of those. Dressing or acting in a particular way does not change that. Its not a party place. Its not a place to express fashion. Its to go to the bathroom. And since you have to undress or put yourself in a vulnerable position to expel certain bodily fluids, we keep the sexes separate. — Philosophim

Except when it comes to biologically transitioned individuals and intersex people who still, besides their possibly 'discordant' sex organs, can use either bathroom just as easily.

Yes it is. It has nothing to do with your gender expression. I want to make it VERY clear. Transgender people are not sexual predators. Sexual predators are sexual predators. We keep the sexes clear for sexual privacy, not gendered privacy. — Philosophim

So a person is a trans-female who passes. . . are they seen as a sexual predator or not?

If you're saying that acting like something you are not, or identifying as something you are not, makes you that something, that's false. — Philosophim

Unless what that thing is, is nothing above the act itself. Being feminine/masculine (NOT TALKING ABOUT SEX) is heavily enforced by and cemented socially in a variety of acts that do not have to involve you taking your clothes off or revealing your chromosomes.

Now, if you want to internally identify yourself as whatever you want, feel free. Invent your own language as you see fit. But when you go into society which has accepted definitions and language, you do not get to tell society to accept yours. — Philosophim

Society then has what right to tell us who we are internally? None.

If you identify as a woman in society, but you are not a woman by sex, you are simply wrong in your identity. — Philosophim

That is, if they are talking about a woman as someone with XX chromosomes. However, they are probably talking about woman as a social and protected political identity which is where the discussion comes in.

No, I've said several times that its based on the very real sex differences between men and women. — Philosophim

The sex differences between men and women are chromosomes or what primary/secondary sexual organs you possess. Sex is not the 'potential to rape' or 'probably going to rape'. That is something that ISN'T SEX.

You may use sex as a classification scheme to reduce the possibility but sex is still not a 'statistical likelihood' or an 'uncomfortable' feeling or 'the potential to. . .' .

We're not talking about being around the same sex. Anyone can make friends or hang out with people of any sex or gender. But there are particular places and events that are divided based on sex. The way you act or dress does not suddenly make this sex divide go away. — Philosophim

. . . and it's there because. . . why? Why should it be there?

People can make decisions based off of gender, which would be the stereotype of some individual or culture. But you have not made a case for why certain situations divided by sex: bathrooms, sports, and shelters for example, should suddenly be changed because of gender. A subjective outlook that can differ from individual to individual has no basis overriding biological fact that stands despite subjective outlooks. — Philosophim

. . . and these divisions by chromosomal status are there because. . .? Why should it be there?

It is a fundamental attack on the identity of a vulnerable group that has become more aggressive in recent years and the consequences are becoming more blatant each year. — Andrew4Handel

You know what is funny. One of the biggest issues posed for a feminist viewpoint is actually getting at a definition of unison among all woman and therefore the rights such a group therefore deserves to be given. It's been split along the gendered discussion but also along economic as well as racial lines it seems. They may all be XX chromosome biologically but what is to be done, what rights, or what attributed global 'identity' they are given may usually fall short of just stereotyping them all at best or at worst steam rolling important differences.

That is why it seems some feminists seem to consider a white middle class female as a different kind woman than a poor african american female. I.E. the social unison or class here is not marking off important differences or needs to account for those in a way that naive approaches are argued to supposedly miss completely.

If you were having heart surgery would you want to be treated by someone who trained as a heart surgeon or someone who identified as a heart surgeon.?

If you were catching a plane somewhere would you want to be flown by someone with a legitimate Pilot's license or someone who had been giving a replica pilots license out of sympathy?

This appears to be the only area in life we allow someone to identify as something or someone they are not and identify into a category that is already taken. And it sets a bad precedence and undermines the truth.

One of the biggest issues posed for a feminist viewpoint is actually getting at a definition of unison among all woman and therefore the rights such a group therefore deserves to be given — substantivalism

Woman as word is derived from the biological reality of women in whose wombs every human being grew. There is a whole field of medicine dedicated to women's bodies.

Whatever a woman's socio-economic status, class, political leanings and ethnicity only a woman can have endometritis, get pregnant, miscarry, menstruate, go through menopause or have an abortion.

There are enough commonalities among women as well as historical and current inequalities based on biological sex to make them a clear and distinct protected category with rights aimed at their unique experiences and needs.
If one group of women deserved a bigger voice than others it would be working class women. Afghan women, young girls and so on.
But gender ideology is promoted by middle class well off women and people attending university not by women in prison who may end up sharing a cell with a male bodied person or women who already have the least protections.
I believe biological real world distinctions need to be protected by everyone and feminist viewpoints that undermine women's biological reality and give women's spaces and rights to men are pernicious and misogynistic.

As gay man I feel the same way about how my own identity is being compromised by other gay people without my input or permission. There should not be an elite group of feminists setting standards and policy for all other women.

Those subjective outlooks however question to what extent this biological fact is supposed to rule divide them in the first place. Notice how you haven't actually explained why sex (as chromosomes alone) is the only criterion used to make these distinctions. You've said it is, not why it is. — substantivalism

Sex is not a subjective outlook. We're starting to repeat, so I'm going to note this has already been stated.

Notice how you haven't actually explained why sex (as chromosomes alone) is the only criterion used to make these distinctions. You've said it is, not why it is. — substantivalism

I've said several times why it is. You even quoted me right here:

Dressing or acting in a particular way does not change that. Its not a party place. Its not a place to express fashion. Its to go to the bathroom. And since you have to undress or put yourself in a vulnerable position to expel certain bodily fluids, we keep the sexes separate. — Philosophim

Except when it comes to biologically transitioned individuals and intersex people who still, besides their possibly 'discordant' sex organs, can use either bathroom just as easily. — substantivalism

Absolutely. We're not talking about exceptions. I noted that a long time back. If you're neither a man nor a woman, then yes, you can use either bathroom. Its a non-issue in this conversation. We are talking about biological men and biological women.

So a person is a trans-female who passes. . . are they seen as a sexual predator or not? — substantivalism

I am starting to feel like you are not actually reading my replies. I have said several times that trans people are not sexual predators. Stop implying that they are. Stop implying that I've said they are. I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

If you're saying that acting like something you are not, or identifying as something you are not, makes you that something, that's false.
— Philosophim
Unless what that thing is, is nothing above the act itself. Being feminine/masculine (NOT TALKING ABOUT SEX) is heavily enforced by and cemented socially in a variety of acts that do not have to involve you taking your clothes off or revealing your chromosomes. — substantivalism

This is called gender. This is the entire focus on the conversation. Nothing new has been stated. Please re-read my definition of gender and sex again.

Society then has what right to tell us who we are internally? None. — substantivalism

I clearly said you can identify yourself however you want. But if I identify myself as the president, then start telling society I'm the president and try to get into the White House, they're going to kick me out because I'm not the president. You can identify however you want, but society is under no obligation to accept it. In the case of sex, biology is a world wide agreed upon standard which we follow. It has nothing to do with gender.

The sex differences between men and women are chromosomes or what primary/secondary sexual organs you possess. Sex is not the 'potential to rape' or 'probably going to rape'. That is something that ISN'T SEX. — substantivalism

I've said this several times. I feel like you're just rambling now. Go re-read our back and forth.

. . and it's there because. . . why? Why should it be there? — substantivalism

Again, re-read the last few replies. I'm not retyping the same thing I've already typed three times.

. . and these divisions by chromosomal status are there because. . .? Why should it be there? — substantivalism

Again, reread.

I was enjoying the conversation but you are at your end. Either you've lost what I've been saying in the conversation, or you know exactly what I'm saying, you can't counter what I'm saying, and you're grasping at straws. Please do better on your next response or I will know this discussion is finished.

Hello, this is my first post, so apologies if I do something incorrectly (I did read the site guidelines)!

I would disagree with the OP claim that sex is objective. What is objective are biological features or properties. 'Sex' is a subjective term that is used to categorize beings based on those features, but it depends on the accepted definition, i.e. which features do we consider as essential for that category.

A case in point: people with the Swyer syndrome have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome, therefore might be considered as genetic males (according to the OP). However, due to underdevelopment of their male gonads, they develop uterus and vagina. In childhood they are typically identified as females, only at puberty their development problems are diagnosed. They do not develop female gonads either, so they are infertile, but can be surrogate mothers: when implanted with fertilized egg, they can carry it and give birth. That means that a XY chromosome person can give birth.

Interestingly, such cases have prompted researchers to study the issue more thoroughly and it turns out that the Swyer syndrome is not the only cause of lack of development of a male phenotype. Generally, without proper hormone regulation an embryo, even with male genetics, 'defaults' to having most (but not all) female features. According to research done in Denmark one in 15000 people with male genetic setup have been identified and raised as girls due to their features typical of female phenotype. Surprisingly, some of them were not diagnosed with any abnormalities at all, beside lack of menstruation and infertility and were considered as biologically female even in their thirties.

Hello Jabberwock! Welcome to the forums. Please, write your thoughts and feelings freely.

I would disagree with the OP claim that sex is objective. What is objective are biological features or properties. 'Sex' is a subjective term that is used to categorize beings based on those features, but it depends on the accepted definition, i.e. which features do we consider as essential for that category. — Jabberwock

For a first time post, this is a very good point to bring up. Yes, I am aware of genetic abnormalities that result in a lack of clear distinction between the sexes. But these are exceptions. Further, it doesn't change the definition of what a man or a woman is. In this case, these people fit neither fully into the category of man or woman.

In these cases, an abnormality or handicap asks us different questions. How does someone who is genetically not a man or a woman fit into sexually divided spaces? I think that should be considered based on the difference. But not we're not talking about gendered behavior, we're talking about placing someone with an objectively separate sex from a normal man and woman.

A subjective idea is an opinion. For example, lets say in one society men are not expected to wear dresses. In another society, they are. This is a societal expectation of how a sex should dress, but it is not an objective measure of how a sex should act. Objective measures of sex would be solid sex organ differences or clear genetic traits. It really doesn't matter what someone's opinion on the matter is, sex is a clearly defined term that has been studied and is known across all cultures and outlooks.

The subject is then focused on the norm, not the exceptions. While exceptions can be great to examine to make sure we aren't mistaken on the norm, I don't think that is the case here. No one is subjectively determining the sexual genetic normal for men and women. But I argue that gender, or the expectation of how men and women by sex should act, is a subjective stereotype, and does not override one's sex.

Great post again Jabberwock, and I hope you enjoy yourself here!

I must disagree. While indeed most androgen insensitivy syndromes are genetically based, it does not mean that their genotype itself is not male or female: they have 46, XY karyotype, so geneticists would identify their genomes as male. The difference is in the expression of those genes or the phenotype. Indeed, however, unethical it might be, if we introduced androgen blockers during gestation of an embryo with a male genome, we could induce the exact same symptoms: such person would be genetically male, but not biologically (phenotypically). If your definition of man/woman is strictly genetic, then they would be males.

I must disagree. While indeed most androgen insensitivy syndromes are genetically based, it does not mean that their genotype itself is not male or female: they have 46, XY karyotype, so geneticists would identify their genomes as male. — Jabberwock

Again, there is no problem in handling an exception. While they have an XY set of genetics, either there is some flaw within them, or an accident happened during birth that would change the phenotype. In this case again, the exception is the physical and objective difference, not a gendered difference. The difference is not subjective. In this case we can decide as a society how to best divide such a person based on these phenotypical differences outside of the person's control. But again, we are judging based on physical sex expression, not gender.

This is a far cry from a normal person. Societies sex division is based on the norm, not exceptions. And exceptions apply to exceptions. Exceptions do not override the norm. What you are talking about are transexuals. You can be a transgendered transexual, but being a transexual is not a matter of gender.

Exceptions are important in demarcating the differences, if sex is supposed to be objective. As i see it, objectively, there are two possible cases:
1. Sex is only determined genetically. That means that on the first day after the conception it can be identified and whatever happens phenotypically is irrelevant. By that account, people with androgen insensitivity syndrome are males, even though they have vaginas, everyone treats them as females and they themselves identify as females.
2. Sex is not fully determined by the genome, i.e. it can also be determined by the phenotype (i.e. actually expressed features). That means that even though the embryo has a male genome, something might happen along its development that will still make that person non-male.

Which is the case, in your opinion?

And thank you for the kind words, It is nice to feel welcome here!

Exceptions are important in demarcating the differences, if sex is supposed to be objective. — Jabberwock

Absolutely. But do the exceptions deny what a man and a woman are by DNA? No. A man is still an XY, and a woman is still an XX by default.

Let compare it to a tree. Lets say a tree grows is short like a bush. In fact, from a layperson's observation, it looks like a bush in its physical expression. According to biology is it a bush? No, its a tree, though an exception to the general definition of tree. Does this exception change the general definition of tree? No. Same here.

1. Sex is only determined genetically. That means that on the first day after the conception it can be identified and whatever happens phenotypically is irrelevant. By that account, people with androgen insensitivity syndrome are males, even though they have vaginas, everyone treats them as females and they themselves identify as females. — Jabberwock

Yes, if sex is determined genetically, then we have the definitions of male and female. But what if a person has an XXY chromosome? Well they are neither a man nor a woman in that case. Its not that the objectivity of sex has changed, its that we objectively have something that isn't a man or woman in the general definition, its an exception. It may be an exception enough that we invent a new term for it, or we simply say its "a woman that physically resembles a man". This would be more to your second argument.

The differences of secondary sex characteristics do not change the objective sex. In general, men are stronger than women. But a woman could appear that ends up being far stronger than most men. That doesn't change the fact that she's a woman by genetics. What we're really discussing is what we do with such individuals when we have situations in society that are divided by sex, but the overall secondary sex expression does not match the norm. Where do we fit a man that physically expresses as a woman? We would re-examine why we have the sex divide, and see if the physical sex expression is different enough that such a person could enter in both areas, or it would be better for everyone else if they entered only one.

In my view, these are transexuals. In matters of transsex, discussions of sex division ARE relevant. How and why we divide people who do not fit in the norms are relevant. Personally, I see no issue with a trans sexed individual who physically matches the secondary sex characteristics of the other genome from using either sexed bathroom. But to be clear, being transsex is not the same as being transgendered. A transgendered individual is someone who identifies with a subjective view point of the way a sex is supposed to dress or act. So a fully chromosonal and secondary sex expressed man who wears a dress is transgendered. Their gender expression should have no sway in discussions about sex division. Things like bathrooms and sports are not divided by gender, but are divided by sex. Thus why transgendered individuals should not be able to cross into places divided by sex.

Fantastic points! You are definitely welcome here and thanks for engaging with the discussion!

If we agree that different parts of the body can have different expressions, how do we actually know whether a person is fully expressed as a man? Just looking at their body is not enough, if the person's brain or even some of its areas might express as woman's. I am not saying that it is always the case for transgender people, but there is some research that indicates that in some cases their brains might indeed be different. It is inconclusive at this time, in fact it seems transgendered people's brains show differences both to male and female ones. However, that would put them in your category of transsex people.

In such cases maybe it would be more productive to limit the divisions not to sex (as we agree that the expression might not be clear cut in some persons), but to particular features.

I think you are mistaken to see transgender people as 'impersonators', meaning 'fake'. That is because as Judith Butler argued gender is performance. When it comes down to it the most definitive basis of sex is related to reproductive roles. As far as chromosomes are concerned most people make presumptions about what their chromosomes are, because unless there is a particular reason for it chromosomes are not tested. Even with genitals people make assumptions about what genitals a person has and in some cases they may be wrong.

In speaking of the cases which point to disasters like if a transwoman rapes in a female only environment it is wrong to make generalisations. The majority of people who are transgender wish to simply live their own lives. Some blend in better than others in their chosen gender which may be more about ability to 'pass'. This may be about fortune than anything else and to focus on those who don't blend in is to reinforce stereotypes about bodies.

When people point to incongruencies about appearance it does not help, as if poking fun and stigmatisation of 'abnormality'. That is because it is those stereotypical ideals which may lead people to feel that they need to change their bodies in order to express their gender identity which does not always match biological gender.

Just looking at their body is not enough, if the person's brain or even some of its areas might express as woman's. I am not saying that it is always the case for transgender people, but there is some research that indicates that in some cases their brains might indeed be different. — Jabberwock

True. For example women in general have more grey matter in their brains than men do. But if a man has more grey matter than a few women, does that make him a woman? Of course not. Sex separations in society are also not based on brain differences. No one cares about your brain composition in sports, bathrooms, or women's shelters.

In such cases maybe it would be more productive to limit the divisions not to sex (as we agree that the expression might not be clear cut in some persons), but to particular features. — Jabberwock

Lets look at it this way. We make laws based on norms, then make exceptions for cases that do not fit the norm.

So we have 95% of the population or more is a clear cut man or woman. Someone comes along and genetically does not fit. In that case we as a society can decide if their physical features are more important. Likely such a person would want to be in places where their expressed features more closely mirror the secondary affects of a particular sex, so society should probably accept that. I doubt anyone here has a problem with it.

Lets say though that a genetic woman has had some type of disruption in their development that they have the secondary sex characteristics of a man. Despite this, they choose to use the woman's restroom because they are in fact, a woman. I don't think anyone would have a problem with this either.

Now does that mean we suddenly change the rules for the norm? No. If you're a genotypical and phenotypical woman and you disguise yourself as a man, you don't suddenly get a right to walk into the men's restroom or play in men's sports. It doesn't matter that the exception can, they have something they can't change themselves.

Again, all of this is really talk of transexuals, which is not really an issue. Does a genotypical and phenotypical male get to dress up and talk like a stereotypical woman and suddenly get access to places restricted by sex? No, that doesn't make any sense at all.

Do you run around tearing wigs off of bald people? Do you refuse to acknowledge that they appear to have hair? Same difference. It's rude to point out that someone's wearing a wig; there's nothing to be gained by "proving" bald people wrong about their false hair. They would like to be accepted as having hair, because they feel more comfortable that way. It's the way they instinctively, naturally, or whatever word for inherent effect you like; find they want to interact with society.

It turns out to be effortless to allow someone to exist.

I'll make a concession that trying to enforce social decency(treating people the way they present themselves) has been poorly handled. Insisting someone is literally a different sex when it's intuitively a contradiction to a lot of the public has just made things worse. I more or less adopted the opinion of a surgeon that performs the procedures. In his words, the result is a feminized man or the inverse. The alteration seems to help but no one thinks they have become a different sex. They feel they moved closer to the sex they identify with and the remaining difference is something they continue to reconcile. So, let them be, I wouldn't wish that burden on anyone. In closing, let women's sports regulate women's sports. They were managing just fine without the public's input.

I think you are mistaken to see transgender people as 'impersonators', meaning 'fake'. That is because as Judith Butler argued gender is performance — Jack Cummins

What is this gender you are referring to and what is this performance?

Women have innate traits based on their biology including characteristics that enable a woman to carry a child like large hips, breasts to feed a child etc. It is biological traits that are being impersonated as well as stereotypes.

I come from a family where none of the women have modified their appearance and most of the females do not wear make up they are unmistakeably female. I look unmistakeably male but I don't like sports or cars or laddish behaviour and happily read my sisters romance novels as a teenager. I don't feel less male dependent on my diversity of interests and behaviour.

If people are putting on a performance I would see that that was unhealthy unless it was solely for fun such as dressing up to go out or to enhance preexisting femininity.

I do not accept the concept of gender which seems synonymous with harmful stereotypes. Some one should not be labelled a woman because they are feminine, like makeup etc as if not conforming to trite stereotypes mean you need hormones and surgeries.

Women's rights and space and awards should be solely preserved for the reality of the biological sex. female.
I don't like women claiming they are men and having male experiences because they have no clue what is like to be truly biological male. I am not performing masculinity. I am male bodied from birth with male health issues like prostate problems. My identity is not a costume nor my decades of struggles as a male.

The performance aspect of gender is where biology and culture meet. It often results in an exaggeration of biological differences. It varies throughout history and geographical locations.

Currently, the media play a critical role, especially in ideals about the body and its aesthetics. It is a even a source of gender dysphoria as people are bombarded by images, including before and after images of transgender.

Stereotypes exaggerate biological differences and a clear binary divisions. It is possible to see gender in a less rigid way as a possible continuum, which was expressed in the idea of androgyny which has existed throughout human culture, long before the rise of the medical diagnosis of transsexualism and the movement of transgender and its politics.

I think what constitutes and identity is unclear and plays no role in biology/ anatomy text books.

Whether you say "transsexual" or "transgender" is controversial. The idea you are born in the wrong body and change sex has fallen out of fashion. But with one of the first ever person to undergo any gender affirming care Lily Elbe they medical experimented on his body to make it resemble a woman's and they went to the extent of implanting a uterus to fulfil his desire of being a mother.

"In 1931, Elbe returned for her fourth surgery, to transplant a uterus and construct a vaginal canal.[8][9][37][7] This made her one of the earliest transgender women to undergo a vaginoplasty surgery, a few weeks after Erwin Gohrbandt performed the experimental procedure on Dora Richter.[30]"

The surgery and it's subsequent attack by his immune system killed him shortly after.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lili_Elbe

But back to the topic of identity. Other than genetic and biological facts what we choose as someone's identity seems arbitrary. A lot of people occasionally pick their nose and eat what they find. But no one would want that to form part of their identity I imagine. We all breathe until dead so is that part of out identity? We have a huge range of preferences and beliefs but none of these can be said to be owned by one sex or the other.

Rachel Dolezal identified as black with no recent African Heritage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

Nkechi Amare Diallo (/nɪˈkeɪtʃiː əˈmɑːreɪ diːˈɑːloʊ/; born Rachel Anne Dolezal, November 12, 1977)[fn 1] (/ˈdoʊləʒɑːl/)[9] is an American former college instructor and activist known for presenting herself as a black woman despite being white. In addition to claiming black ancestry, she also claimed Native American descent.[10] She is also a former National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter president.

The whole Rachel Dolezal saga is really relevant to this issue despite people protesting it isn't and it highlights the inconsistency/hypocrisy of identity politics. Woman's identities are not sacred but black peoples are.

Do you run around tearing wigs off of bald people? Do you refuse to acknowledge that they appear to have hair? — Cheshire

No because I'm not in a situation where people are separated by having hair and not having hair. We are not talking about the general public. Your gender or sex is really no one else's business in public. We are talking about places that are divided by sex. My claim is that gender does not override sex division, because gender and sex are different.

Insisting someone is literally a different sex when it's intuitively a contradiction to a lot of the public has just made things worse. I more or less adopted the opinion of a surgeon that performs the procedures. In his words, the result is a feminized man or the inverse. — Cheshire

I think we agree. Gender presentation does not change your sex.

The alteration seems to help but no one thinks they have become a different sex. — Cheshire

Then they should have no problems with not being allowed into places based on sex division when they are not that sex.

Again, all of this is really talk of transexuals, which is not really an issue. Does a genotypical and phenotypical male get to dress up and talk like a stereotypical woman and suddenly get access to places restricted by sex? No, that doesn't make any sense at all. — Philosophim

But you just assume that transgender people are not transsexual, because 'the society does not care about brains'. We were supposed to talk about objective demarcation, so if the brains are different, we should take it into account.

Suppose that a person has a male body with male genitals, but due to some developmental occurrence this person's brain acquires features typically associated with women, therefore causing that person's strong identification with women. Would that person be transsexual or not?

Suppose that a person has a male body with male genitals, but due to some developmental occurrence this person's brain acquires features typically associated with women, therefore causing that person's strong identification with women. Would that person be transsexual or not? — Jabberwock

No, that person would be transgender according to the definitions I've provided. Gender is how we expect a sex to act or dress. That's what the brain controls. We could also call that subjective stereotyping, or sexism. I think its very important as a society that is trying to avoid discrimination that we don't go back to the old idea that women and men's gender should define who they are.

No, that person would be transgender according to the definitions I've provided. Gender is how we expect a sex to act or dress. That's what the brain controls. We could also call that subjective stereotyping, or sexism. I think its very important as a society that is trying to avoid discrimination that we don't go back to the old idea that women and men's gender should define who they are. — Philosophim

Then you are inconsistent in your definitions – you treat physical sex expression in genitals differently than physical sex expression in a brain.

Then you are inconsistent in your definitions – you treat physical sex expression in genitals differently than physical sex expression in a brain. — Jabberwock

No, I'm not. I'm saying that expected behavior is gender. If your brain now determines your sex, that means a lesbian could be considered a man because their brain is attracted to a woman. Do we want to go down that path? No, we don't. Sex is simply chromosonal and secondary sex expression.

To a point I made earlier, we don't divide the sexes by their brains. Bathroom division is based on physical privacy and vulnerability. Sports are divided based on the fact that testosterone and male hormones create physically superior people per weight class. Women's shelter's are to protect sexually traumatized women from being around the sex that traumatized them. Your brain is irrelevant.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that expected behavior is gender. If your brain now determines your sex, that means a lesbian could be considered a man because their brain is attracted to a woman. Do we want to go down that path? No, we don't. Sex is simply chromosonal and secondary sex expression. — Philosophim

Not if attraction to women is just one biological feature that aligns with features typically attributed to men and her other psychological features align with those of women. Again, psychology is also part of genetic expression and it might also be sexual, as there are biologically caused psychological differences typically attributed to sex. Thus it should be considered by you as 'secondary sex expression'.

We are talking about places that are divided by sex. My claim is that gender does not override sex division, because gender and sex are different. — Philosophim

So, your entire argument is regarding the caveat moments such as dressing rooms and bathrooms?

Not if attraction to women is just one biological feature that aligns with features typically attributed to men and her other psychological features align with those of women. Again, psychology is also part of genetic expression and it might also be sexual, as there are biologically caused psychological differences typically attributed to sex. Thus it should be considered by you as 'secondary sex expression'. — Jabberwock

1. We do not know enough about the brain to determine this.
2. Separations by sex have NEVER involved brain differences. As such, a brain difference should not suddenly become a deciding factor. You think that a six foot 10 230 pound male should compete in women's sports because he has more grey matter in his brain than average?
3. What would be more feminine or masculine in the brain that isn't gender? Wanting to wear a dress doesn't make you feminine. There is nothing biological about being a woman that naturally compels one to wear a dress. Can you give some examples on your end?

We are talking about places that are divided by sex. My claim is that gender does not override sex division, because gender and sex are different.
— Philosophim

So, your entire argument is regarding the caveat moments such as dressing rooms and bathrooms? — Cheshire

My entire argument is the entire argument. Please read it.