my view of gender is actually much closer to the social constructionist approaches to gender of authors like Butler and Foucault than your cultural perspective is. Like me, they view gender in terms of a constellation of shared patterns of behaviors that bind communities.
— Joshs

Of course, but that's in full agreement with my definition of gender as well. Gender is socially constructed, and gender is often used as a binding or enforcement tool for behaviors that the particular culture desires people to act on — Philosophim

I thought your definition of gender was whatever someone says it is, because your view of social construction is randomly assigned behavioral definitions by individuals, or groups who wield power over individuals to force them to act in certain ways. Foucault wrote a book called The Order of Things. In it, he presented what he called an archeological model of modern cultural history, extending from the Renaissance to the Modern era, and dividing this span into three segments, which he called epistemes. Each episteme ties together ideas from a range of cultural modalities that includes linguistics, the sciences and economic theory. Specifically, the various cultural modalities within an episteme fit together as variations on a shared theme or logic defining that era.

As Western culture shifted its thinking from one episteme to a new one, all these cultural modalities were transformed as aspects of a unified pattern. For Foucault, the ideas that comprise an episteme are the result of power flowing through and between individual subjectivities. This power is not to be understood as being controlled by any group or individual to be wielded against others they dominate. “…power is everywhere not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere”. Power is not possessed by a dominant agent, nor located in that agent's relations to those dominated, but is instead distributed throughout complex social networks. Put differently, a culture produces its sciences and other forms of knowledge via a reciprocal interaffecting that incudes material arrangements and practices.

The key notion I want to emphasize from this summary is that for Foucault socially constructed knowledge and values are not imposed on a community by an individual or group wielding power and desiring that the community act a certain way. Instead, they form an integrated pattern of understanding with its own internal ‘logic’ not imposed by anybody in particular, and not in top down fashion but disseminating itself through a culture from the bottom up , as a shared pattern of thinking and behaving. As I pointed out earlier, this notion of pattern of experiencing shared by a community but not arbitrarily imposed on it by an individual or group is missing from your concepts of social construction and gender.

Foucault’s approach is quite different from Butler’s — Number2018

I know that Foucault’s approach is different from Butler’s. I was simplifying my argument to focus on a notion of discursive formations as thematically patterned structures or epistemes.

Foucault rejects the essentialist perspective on the source of power as an ultimate instance of rights, identity, intelligibility, or recognition — Number2018

I’m aware of this. While this is true of Foucault , it is not true of transgender activists influenced to some extent by Foucaultian ideas who nevertheless retain a rights-based political orientation. Again, my aim in this discussion is not a correct reading of Foucault but an explication of how current concepts of gender invoked by transgender activists and feminists have been influenced to an extent by Foucault and social constructionism.

The transgender view of gender is a consequence of gender being a social construct. Just as two citizens of a nation could debate whether music or food is a more important aspect of their culture, two individuals can argue about what gender norms should be, what qualifies one to be a gender, whether it is a spectrum or binary, and whatever else. The lie about gender is that, unlike culture, there is scientific truth to gender, to the extent that people will try to defer to the science on the matter.

Essentially, there is nothing unscientific about rejecting the idea that gender is a spectrum, or that one's gender shouldn't be tied to one's sex, many different options are possible, we're just making it up after all. What should be based on gender versus sex? We need to evaluate the choices based on merit and our values, and hopefully some common sense.

The reason why we do stupid shit like allowing biologically male athletes into female sports competitions, in my view, is primarily due to political correctness, and the notion that putting forward contradictory ideas on gender is intolerant and hateful. Unsurprisingly, gender isn't alone, concepts such as culture, race, sexism, racism, nationality, class and so on are in the same situation.

Even if one's view on gender isn't ill-intentioned or hateful, the consequences of your definition can lead to it being interpreted as hate speech. So long as this is okay, any view of gender that doesn't accommodate trans people can be considered immoral.

The transgender view of gender is clearly optimising to allow the transition to be as complete as possible. The goal is to reduce the differences between what it means to be a biological man/woman and being a man/woman by gender as much as humanly possible. Any reason to treat people according to sex over gender will be opposed wherever possible.

The more socially constructed being a man/woman is, the more a person can transition from being a biological male/female to a male/female in terms of gender. However, it's also possible to argue that trans people are born with brains more similar to the other gender, so then a transition in appearance from the male/female sex to the opposite male/female gender can be complete even while acknowledging fundamental non-physical differences between sexes. It's not a coincidence that these two entirely contradictory views that both conveniently facilitate more effective transitions are prevalent among trans supporters.

The "science" is just people doing whatever they can to prove ideas true that would be useful in this aim of validating as complete of a transition as possible. The issue is that gender and gender-based ideas are being changed to accommodate the concept of transition, without any actual care as to the larger consequences, and any attempt to speak against this is very successfully silenced as hate speech.

I thought your definition of gender was whatever someone says it is, because your view of social construction is randomly assigned behavioral definitions by individuals, or groups who wield power over individuals to force them to act in certain ways. — Joshs

No, my definition of gender is clear, its simply a social construct. Of course that construct can be used for good, evil, power, pleasure, etc. Social constructs are tools, and humans use tools in every way possible.

The key notion I want to emphasize from this summary is that for Foucault socially constructed knowledge and values are not imposed on a community by an individual or group wielding power and desiring that the community act a certain way. Instead, they form an integrated pattern of understanding with its own internal ‘logic’ not imposed by anybody in particular, and not in top down fashion but disseminating itself through a culture from the bottom up , as a shared pattern of thinking and behaving. — Joshs

Certainly, there are groups of people who use gender exactly like Foucault states. Does everyone? Per my first set of comments, of course not.

The transgender view of gender is a consequence of gender being a social construct — Judaka

Yes, the transgender idea is that you can cross the culturally perceived gender barrier. The arguments you present are commonly known. However, if such arguments settled the issue, it would be done by now. I find there is a lot of vitriol between parties when the discussion is approached this way, and so this was an attempt to make the argument which sometimes has subtle notions of power and manipulation at play from both sides, and instead focus on the logic of the language.

Philosophy is best when it can look at a problem that people are stuck on, and find a new way of approaching it that can settle the issue. Philosophy should not care about the politics of the issue, and its intent should be a fair and equal logical conclusion for all parties involved.

This was that attempt. I simply find that the language of sex and gender, when taken to their logical conclusions, entail that separation by sex should never be overriden by gender. Its not political, personal, or intended to harm anyone. Its just what logically works best for all involved.

On a personal note, I do sympathize with people who feel the need to switch sex, know they are unable to truly do so, and so desperately cling onto gender as a lifeline to fulfil their fantasy or erase their distress. But, when you have to lie or hold illogical statements for emotional value, I have found this inevitably causes harm to yourself and those around you. It is not truth. And a life not lived true, is a far worse life than lived as a lie.

The politics on this issue are the result of the differing philosophical views of opposing parties, your view clearly shows which side you are on, there is no transcending this. The problem with focusing on the "logic of the language" is that language, generally, but especially with the word "gender" is deeply influenced by one's views on the matter. To the extent that the way one defines the word gender is likely to strongly indicate their stance on this issue.

Even if that wasn't true, how a word is defined shouldn't compel anyone to think in any specific way. If the language around sex or gender didn't fit the logic that I thought was accurate or best, then I would simply use the words in the way I wanted instead, and that's 100% common practice. Just as I'm sure when you say "philosophy", your use of this word entails your personal feelings on what philosophy is and isn't.

You aren't even remotely neutral here, your political views are included in your interpretation of these concepts and ideas, and I say that as someone who pretty much agrees with you.

Though for me, the reason why separation by sex shouldn't be overridden by gender is that the reasons for separating people by sex are primarily physical and have nothing to do with gender. Most of my problems with transgender issues are in the handling, and the reason the handling is so bad is that common sense safety measures are considered bigotry.

The barrier of entry to transitioning is so low, and how you self-identify is the priority, a trans person could mean anything from not passing whatsoever to someone who lives and passes as the opposite gender. We're also in such a rush, there's no caution in anything here, and we're no longer even accommodating transgender people, we're straight up promoting transitioning in every way we can, it's crazy.

The problem with focusing on the "logic of the language" is that language, generally, but especially with the word "gender" is deeply influenced by one's views on the matter. — Judaka

I disagree. Logic allows you to question your views on the matter and offer a stable reason where bias and subjective opinion may have once been your influence. I do not say this as a matter of opinion, I say this as one who has lived it.

Even if that wasn't true, how a word is defined shouldn't compel anyone to think in any specific way. If the language around sex or gender didn't fit the logic that I thought was accurate or best, then I would simply use the words in the way I wanted instead, and that's 100% common practice. — Judaka

It is common practice, but it is not a practice that entails a solution that all parties can logically agree on. At that point its a power struggle of opinion and emotions. You will never get anyone to agree with you who does not share your emotional desires. If you can remove subjective prejudice and focus on the logic of the situation, I believe it is conclusive that a subjective identification of oneself should never override societies objective classification of biology. My conclusion is a logical conclusion even a transgender person cannot refute. It has nothing to do with how we feel about the situation.

You aren't even remotely neutral here, your political views are included in your interpretation of these concepts and ideas, and I say that as someone who pretty much agrees with you. — Judaka

Incorrect. I have attempted to look at both sides of the issue. I've attempted to take the definitions that the community has provided and largely agreed upon, and come to a logical conclusion. My feelings on the matter are irrelevant and unknown to you. A problem in trying to be a neutral party and discuss such things is that people rush to assumptions and political emotions that cloud the ability to judge accurately. This causes people to not think of the idea, but instead simply accept or reject the person. That is not thinking, that's just bias.

Though for me, the reason why separation by sex shouldn't be overridden by gender is that the reasons for separating people by sex are primarily physical and have nothing to do with gender. — Judaka

Agreed. The point of this OP was to analyze why that was at a deeper level. To explore that gender is entirely subjective, biology is objective, and even if there are slight overlaps in some areas, why those overlaps are not enough to override the biological divisions we've created. We need more conversations with each other instead of camps where we insult each other as "an other". Logic can break down such walls and remind each other we're both people who even if we cannot come to a common agreement, can discuss and hear another way of looking at the issue.

I was very glad to hear Josh's viewpoint on the matter. I very much considered his points, despite them not changing my mind. I am now aware of a viewpoint that I had not considered before, and I can take it with me in future conversations. If we had just yelled at each other, that never would have happened.

In the context of philosophy, both sides should be making logical arguments, that's just a pre-requisite for reasonable discussion. You've interpreted gender as overriding sex, which it might be based on your perspective on gender & sex, what you think these words mean and based on what you consider "overriding" but that's where the subjectivity is.

I don't think political disputes are resolved by peaceful discussion, and I'd wager your position is mostly a moral one. In politics, "Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent". The worst thing you can try to do is change the minds of those who staunchly disagree with you, a lot of effort with no payoff. Instead, convince people on the fence, or those who were slightly on your side to fully commit.

It's kind of funny honestly, those who claim to care about logic try so hard to act morally, and the despicable screeching harpies they hate are punching so far above their weight class in terms of accomplishing their political goals. Who's really being pragmatic here? A minority of trans supporters have changed a civilisation with their methods, and the diplomatic, logical types have just had to sit on the sidelines watching it happen.

You've interpreted gender as overriding sex, which it might be based on your perspective on gender & sex, what you think these words mean and based on what you consider "overriding" but that's where the subjectivity is. — Judaka

Its not interpretation. Its using the definitions provided in the OP which the transgender community accepts to come to a conclusion. Hopefully a logical conclusion, but that's what debate is for.

In politics, "Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent". The worst thing you can try to do is change the minds of those who staunchly disagree with you, a lot of effort with no payoff. Instead, convince people on the fence, or those who were slightly on your side to fully commit. — Judaka

There is wisdom in that, but if I wanted to discuss politics or try to change the political world, I wouldn't be on a philosophy forum. :) I was once deep into religion Judaka. I had a mother who was highly manipulative and used lies and half truths to get what she wanted. I know what its like to be emotionally manipulated into something that another person wants without regard to logic or an objective world view. I have no desire to do that to anyone else.

Logic and philosophy is not about convincing others to change. Its not about our own personal egos. Its about finding a logical conclusion that at the end of the day, can be discussed objectively. A person then chooses to change their life based on what they've read. Its not manipulation. There are people like me who need more than politics, religion, or a whole host of emotional sways. Sometimes we just need to think and wonder if our emotional impulses and cultural beliefs actually make sense. People like me reject the emotional manipulations of the world. Let others do that, that is their job in life.

Maybe there is someone else like me who is tired of manipulations as well. And if not? I got to think through it myself. Philosophy after all is not the love of debate or the love of politics, its is the love of wisdom.

I know that Foucault’s approach is different from Butler’s. — Joshs

The key notion I want to emphasize is that for Foucault socially constructed knowledge and values are not imposed on a community by an individual or group wielding power and desiring that the community act a certain way. Instead, they form an integrated pattern of understanding with its own internal ‘logic’ not imposed by anybody in particular, and not in top down fashion but disseminating itself through a culture from the bottom up , as a shared pattern of thinking and behaving. — Joshs

It is worth considering again the principal difference between Foucault and Butler. Butler writes:” I contravene Foucault in some respects. For if the Foucauldian wisdom seems to consist in the insight that regulatory power has certain broad historical characteristics and that it operates on gender as well as on other kinds of social and cultural norms, then it seems that gender is but the instance of a larger regulatory operation of power. I would argue against this subsumption of gender to regulatory power that the regulatory apparatus that governs gender is one that is itself gender specific. Gender requires and institutes its own distinctive regulatory and disciplinary regime.” (Butler, ‘Undoing gender,’ pg. 41) On another side, Foucault asserts that biopolitical norms do not primarily work to exclude and repress the deviating individuals; in contrast, they encompass the whole spectrum of practices, producing an account of what is normal and abnormal. ‘Power that comes from everywhere’ animates the discursive formation and the encompassing greed of intelligibility concerning gender. So, while Foucault’s project is based on ‘constitutive inclusion,’ Butler insists on the principle of ‘constitutive exclusion.’” Even when a form of recognition is allegedly extended to all the people, there remains an active premise that there is a vast region of those who remain unrecognizable.” (Butler, ‘Notes toward a performative theory of assembly,’ pg. 5) A disenfranchised group should find a way to claim effective all-embraced recognition. An open-ended hegemonic struggle should produce performative effects reconfiguring the general field of acceptability and identification. To a considerable extent, Butler’s approach expresses today’s dominating tendencies in the struggle for gender equality and identity politics. Yet, contradicting her premise of the importance of a precarious community, Butler underlines a crucial role of media globalization: “The performativity of gender presumes a field of appearance in which gender appears, and a scheme of recognizability with which gender shows up…The media does not merely report the scene of appearance; it constitutes the scene in a time and space that includes and exceeds its local instantiation…it depends on that mediation to take place as the event as it is” (‘Notes toward a performative theory of assembly,’ pg. 92) Here, Butler does not refer back to Foucault’s discursive formation of socially constructed shared pattern of thinking and behaving. Instead, she implicitly invokes the decisive role of the global digital medium. Accordingly, as Deleuze points out in ‘The Postscript of control society,’ we should discern the bits and flows of data that make up dividuals and data banks, always passing beneath the individual. The newest techniques of power permeate the patterns of desires, ideas, and imaginations that constitute our subjectivity and agency.

Here, Butler does not refer back to Foucault’s discursive formation of socially constructed shared pattern of thinking and behaving. Instead, she implicitly invokes the decisive role of the global digital medium. Accordingly, as Deleuze points out in ‘The Postscript of control society,’ we should discern the bits and flows of data that make up dividuals and data banks, always passing beneath the individual. The newest techniques of power permeate the patterns of desires, ideas, and imaginations that constitute our subjectivity and agency — Number2018

That’s interesting, thanks. So you think that Deleuze is in closer accord with Butler on this matter than he is with Foucault?

That’s interesting, thanks. So you think that Deleuze is in closer accord with Butler on this matter than he is with Foucault? — Joshs

I think that in spite of his statements, Deleuze is close to Foucault; he tries to further reinterpret, radicalize, and reapply the deindivinduation segment of Foucault’s propositions on power. Yet, unlike Foucault, in ‘The Postscript’ he just briefly outlined his latest perspective on power. Further, it seems that Deleuze’s framework is utterly incompatible with the entire approach of Butler’s
project, and her resonance with the ideas from ‘The Postscript’ is just an unintentional coincidence. The final analysis may indicate that despite the advantage of witnessing the latest developments and taking an active role in contemporary social movements, Butler overlooks the newest technologies of power.
.

Its not interpretation. Its using the definitions provided in the OP which the transgender community accepts to come to a conclusion. Hopefully a logical conclusion, but that's what debate is for. — Philosophim

Definitions aren't enough, even if the "transgender community" accepted them, that doesn't mean they would accept your conclusions using these definitions. That is the case with most words, but especially one as complex as gender. The devil is in the detail, as they say, a one-sentence definition just serves as the fence to generally indicate what is being talked about. You've been challenged on your interpretations by many posters throughout this thread, and that's unsurprising given the context.

I generally think that you've taken logic & objectivity wrongly, though I have issues with both these words. In so far as we agree, it is really just common sense. We've separated sports by sex because it's unfair and unsafe otherwise, we can't make exceptions based on gender. It's a simple, but intellectually and emotionally compelling argument, and that should suffice. It would've probably would've been if people weren't afraid to speak against this movement, or if the people who did weren't so successfully demonised and slandered. That is the real problem here, not that, for instance, people are actually too stupid to realise that it's absurd to allow a biological man to compete in women's sports regardless of gender.

There is wisdom in that, but if I wanted to discuss politics or try to change the political world, I wouldn't be on a philosophy forum — Philosophim

Hmm, is it that simple though? I think you would like to change the political world, and you are indeed discussing politics, but philosophy as a recreational activity is a lot more fun. That describes how it is for me at least, I don't want to spend my time in politics, but I'm far from indifferent in my preference towards political outcomes. Nonetheless, my aim was to provide an explanation for why political discourse has strayed so far from how we might wish people would act, I hope you continue to conduct yourself as you have.

probably would've been if people weren't afraid to speak against this movement — Judaka

Before crowning some trans activists as secret monarchs of the world, it might be worth glancing over Wikipedia's article about the issue in sports. Things have happened you may disagree with, other things you agree with, but it should be pretty clear that sports associations have not universally rolled over when someone is mean to them on Twitter. It's complicated. The rules rule-makers are coming up with are complicated, and many associations are on their second or third attempt at this point. Of course trans activists have some influence, but that doesn't mean everyone is just following their orders or something.

I talk the way I do about the influence that trans activists have had because I believe that we are talking about an extreme minority of people, with neither wealth nor power. To have even a moderate influence on how sporting associations rule on trans athletes is an astonishing feat.

It defies common sense to permit the things that have happened, such as athletes who transitioned long after puberty, in some cases just a year or so before competing. To influence these powerful sporting associations to act so irrationally and irresponsibly, despite the actions being unpopular with ordinary fans, is quite something.

So, I am not hyperbolising, rather, I feel to accurately account for what has happened, the explanations must be somewhat dramatic. It is a nuanced and complex matter, and all I can say is that rarely is anything ever so simple as x causing y. I definitely don't think what I said was wrong, but if your main point is just saying it's not the whole truth, then sure, I agree, not even close.

athletes who transitioned long after puberty, in some cases just a year or so before competing — Judaka

Has happened, sure, but I was genuinely surprised when I looked at Wikipedia how many associations have really gotten in the weeds with this issue, and a lot of them no longer allow this, even if they did in the past. Nothing is universal across all sports in all nations, but it appears to me that in mid-2023, there are in most cases considerable hoops for a trans woman to jump through before she can compete in women's sports. Having gone through puberty as a male is in itself permanently disqualifying for a surprising number of sports.

Definitions aren't enough, even if the "transgender community" accepted them, that doesn't mean they would accept your conclusions using these definitions — Judaka

Its not a matter of whether someone accepts the conclusions, its whether the conclusions are logical. People dismiss logical conclusions all the time, but objective society can dismiss those subjective conclusions in favor of the objective ones.

Nonetheless, my aim was to provide an explanation for why political discourse has strayed so far from how we might wish people would act, I hope you continue to conduct yourself as you have. — Judaka

Fair enough, and kind words Judaka, thanks.