white, male, American father of son's, — universeness

And a daughter.

Yes -- but I've been acknowledging biology while saying it's the one with lesser influence on identity. Testosterone, I think, actually is an important factor in how men are, but things get complicated -- and it's just what I think, rather than a scientific belief. We don't walk around the world with testosterone concentration kits or estrogen concentration kits. This is the language of causes and science as opposed to the language of identity and intent.

A pop-biology isn't an insult as much as it's an acknowledgement of how we get by in these conversations. While I do biochemistry, it has nothing to do with the biochemistry of gender identity -- but my biochemistry background is what makes me suspicious of claiming that we're biologically this or that way. Especially if we're just referencing the genome, which is incredibly small in comparison to the proteome which arises from the genome (which is where I'd at least *predict* hormone differences to be predictable... but I don't know). The cutting-edge stuff in medicine is all about being able to simultaneously tailor medicines to an individuals genome because it's acknowledged that what's actually happening in the proteome is dependent upon the actual sequence you're working with rather than a generalized description of the chromosomes.

Philosophy, even in a world run by scientific fact alone, is still relevant because we, as people, will never be able to make decisions with respect to scientific fact. It just takes too long to figure out. So it's worth noting that this is a pop-biology, at least to say that we're not really doing science here.

So -- androgenous man is the gender identity I've come to prefer, but I'm not settled on the wording. I'm surprised to find others don't feel like me -- but isn't that all part of the path of self-discovery? — Moliere

One of my sister's children, a biological male, identifies as non-binary. I must admit I have a hard time understanding that. Do you think that's the same thing you're talking about?

Yup! That's exactly what I'm talking about.

But I'm still *just* attached enough to my male-side that I prefer to say androgenous man. I, too, am attached to things no one cares about and will do it anyway without explanation because you wouldn't understand anyways and fuck it I'm a man. ;)

But I'm also ooey gooey, at times, and really don't mind sharing that side of me, and anymore prefer the predictable to the chaotic. I call it practical

So it just seems to kind of fit.

Would you not agree that a human name was not normally arbitrarily chosen? — universeness

So you want to shift the argument from the general syntactical point – the conventions of mathematical logic - to one of social pragmatics?

Sure, as I am arguing from the viewpoint of Peircean semiotics, I would be the first to agree that the hard distinctions of syntax always have a soft underbelly of semantics.

The syntax claims its limit distinctions. The arbitrary is not the necessary, and the necessary is not the arbitary, by dichotomistic definition. But then this claim is itself semantic. Godelian incompleteness rears its head.

The semiotician says of course. Arbitrary~necessary are the ultimate limits on being ... at least for all practical purpose in terms of a pragmatic system of measurement.

So the human use of naming as a semantic act is going to reflect the pragmatics of human discourse rather than the absolutism of mathematical logic.

But the question for you is do you want to argue that the names that humans give other humans, or even the names that humans give themselves, must come with the force of strong necessity?

To say that the arbitraryness relation can be instead merely somewhat weakened – for the obvious reason that humans have semantic grounds for wanting to signify hereditary connections, job occupations, religious conventions, boastful claims about their children's supposed qualities or social status, or whatever else – is quite something else, and is already covered by my semiotic approach.

So you want to shift the argument from the general syntactical point – the conventions of mathematical logic - to one of social pragmatics? — apokrisis

Not necessarily 'shift the argument,' more to highlight social realities, so as people don't get totally restricted to thinking in mathematical logic modes.

So the human use of naming as a semantic act is going to reflect the pragmatics of human discourse rather than the absolutism of mathematical logic. — apokrisis

I would not choose to use the word 'semantic' in the context you use it, in the above sentence, as semantic rules are representations of mathematical logic. I taught how to learn programming languages by mostly ignoring syntax and concentrate on understanding the general semantic rules of all procedural programming languages as opposed to object oriented programming languages or RAD based programming languages, for many years.

Naming a human is not a semantic act, it's an emotive act, and as you say, it's not a product of mathematical logic. It's a reference to the job, birthplace, patriarchal birth line (ie, 'son of') etc of the person or it's a statement of an aspect of the observed nature of the person, such as butch (butcher/tough guy) or Sophie (wisdom), Stephen (Crown/wreath), Mary (rebellious woman), these names are all in the same tribal tradition as 'Raven hair' or 'dances at dawn' etc.
Human naming can indeed be directly associated with societal drivers such as patriarchy so, my reasons for harping on about human naming to you is merely in response to my interpretations of some of your sentences such as:

And how useful is it to label yourself? Who benefits exactly? — apokrisis

So labelling yourself is counterproductive in that it over-constrains your sense of self in a mechanical fashion. — apokrisis

But then on the other hand, at the level of humans as part of a social collective, encouraging self-labelling is useful. — apokrisis

My own view is shaped by systems science. — apokrisis

But the question for you is do you want to argue that the names that humans give other humans, or even the names that humans give themselves, must come with the force of strong necessity? — apokrisis

No, my point is that human names reflect societal influences. Many children are named after that which influenced their parents. Some kids got called 'Neo' because of the Matrix films.
Johnny Cash wrote a song about a boy named 'Sue,' with the line:
'I gave you that name and I said goodbye and I knew you'd have to get tough or die.'
How's that for masculine, patriarchal reasoning or perhaps even Johnny's notion of 'strong necessity'?

To say that the arbitraryness relation can be instead merely somewhat weakened – for the obvious reason that humans have semantic grounds for wanting to signify hereditary connections, job occupations, religious conventions, boastful claims about their children's supposed qualities or social status, or whatever else – is quite something else, and is already covered by my semiotic approach. — apokrisis

Well, no, I don't think it is 'quite something else,' I think naming children can be very strongly influenced by the notions of masculinity/femininity held by the father and mother.
Signs and symbols have meanings yes. I am just trying to be very clear on what those meanings are, and to clearly establish the motivations of their source.

One of my sister's children, a biological male, identifies as non-binary. I must admit I have a hard time understanding that. — T Clark

I have to ask, but you can of course decide not to answer, as you may feel that it's 'none of my business!' Do you have any feelings of 'disappointment,' towards this sexually non-binary person, that you are a blood relative of? Do you think that they are aware of your current status of having a hard time understanding their current sexual status?
Do you feel that it's important that you don't demonstrate any bias against this relation, in comparison with any other niece or nephew you have, purely on the basis of their non-binary sexual status?
Do you feel a 'current social pressure' to not demonstrate any such bias or do you feel you must reject any such current societal pressure and maintain/conserve the factors that contribute to your status of 'hard time understanding that.' Or, are my interpretations way off the mark here?

But I'm still *just* attached enough to my male-side that I prefer to say androgenous man. — Moliere

What confuses me is not that some people are not attached to their gender identities, but that it is important enough to them that they must reject those identities publicly at significant social cost to themselves and others.

I have to ask, but you can of course decide not to answer, as you may feel that it's 'none of my business!' Do you have any feelings of 'disappointment,' towards this sexually non-binary person, that you are a blood relative of? Do you think that they are aware of your current status of having a hard time understanding their current sexual status? — universeness

My sister and I are not related by blood. Her mother married my father when I was about 30. The decision had very negative impacts on the family - my sister and her husband were devastated. It took them years to come to terms with what seemed like a complete rejection of their family. This was not a moral or religious reaction on their part, it was emotional, personal. I've tried to be supportive to both my sister and brother-in-law and their child. It's true though that it angers me that my sister has had to go through all that for a reason I can't understand. I've never talked to anyone about that and I don't think I show it. I don't see the child often enough that it would ever be an issue.

Do you feel that it's important that you don't demonstrate any bias against this relation, in comparison with any other niece or nephew you have, purely on the basis of their non-binary sexual status? — universeness

I would never intentionally show a negative attitude toward them and I don't think I do unintentionally. I still care about them. !@#$% a lot of my resentment is linguistic.

Do you feel a 'current social pressure' to not demonstrate any such bias or do you feel you must reject any such current societal pressure and maintain/conserve the factors that contribute to your status of 'hard time understanding that.' — universeness

"...maintain/conserve the factors that contribute to your status of 'hard time understanding that." What the fuck does that mean?

Johnny Cash wrote a song about a boy named 'Sue,' — universeness

Shel Silverstein wrote it; also "25 Minutes to Go"

Shel Silverstein wrote it — Srap Tasmaner

I never knew that. Makes sense though.

My sister and I are not related by blood. Her mother married my father when I was about 30. The decision had very negative impacts on the family - my sister and her husband were devastated. It took them years to come to terms with what seemed like a complete rejection of their family. This was not a moral or religious reaction on their part, it was emotional, personal. I've tried to be supportive to both my sister and brother-in-law and their child. It's true though that it angers me that my sister has had to go through all that for a reason I can't understand — T Clark

So your sister in your step sister and not a blood relation and you are saying that your step sis and her husband are 'devastated' by the 'non-binary' status of their child, is that correct?
That's a tough situation. Outside support would seem to me to be the way to go but, I have had no personal or familial experience of such circumstances so my comment is only based on what advice I have heard stated by trans people on the Trans Atlantic Call In Show.

"...maintain/conserve the factors that contribute to your status of 'hard time understanding that." What the fuck does that mean? — T Clark

Yeah, I pondered over the words to use for that question for a while, My choice of words were obviously not well received.

Do you feel a 'current social pressure' to not demonstrate any such bias or do you feel you must reject any such current societal pressure and maintain/conserve the factors that contribute to your status of 'hard time understanding that.' — universeness

I will try again, but first, a little backstory. From an early age, I experienced a male culture that was very anti non-heterosexuals.
Any suspected non-heterosexual who came anywhere near the territory or orbit of the youths I hung with and was very much a willing part of, were in serious danger of being physically attacked or verbally abused or both.
When I was around 14, I was ordered by one of the older guys (about 16) to attack his younger gay brother (who was 15 but bigger than me), I did attack him, he did not fight back, and I beat him up pretty badly. I have been involved in other nasty acts against non-heterosexual people in the past.

When I look back in shame at these acts and my thought process during my youth. I do wonder to what extent I was a product of my environment, in that a non-heterosexual was something I could not understand or at least, I had never tried to, they were alien to me and I was told their behaviour was vile. It was expected by most of my peer group, that I should hate them and hurt them, as much as I should hate and hurt a non-white or a catholic or an English guy or those who were in a rival street gang etc, etc. I would now say, I was involved in, and was influenced by, a violent manifestation of masculinity and patriarchy. I was also just a stupid, f***wit child.

I am not trying to tar you with the same brush as me, but I am intrigued by your comment 'I have a hard time understanding that.' I suppose, rather than dance around as I did, and tried and failed to find the right way to ask, I should have simply asked, Why do you have a hard time understanding that?

I appreciate the correction.

I would now say, I was involved in, and was influenced by, a violent manifestation of masculinity and patriarchy. — universeness

What is masculine about senseless violence?

I find it quite worrying that people attribute such things to masculinity without batting an eye. In my view, this is nothing other than misandry - man-hating.

Ironically, the view you profess fuels the problem. Apparently senseless violence is considered manly, and therefore naive, young men trying to be manly will be drawn towards it.

What is masculine about senseless violence? — Tzeentch

It does not seem senseless at the time. You are protecting your tribe and all it stands for.

Ironically, the view you profess fuels the problem. Apparently senseless violence is considered manly, and therefore naive, young men trying to be manly will be drawn towards it. — Tzeentch

You better believe they will! Unless they are educated and taught how to avoid the darker sides of unfettered masculinity and patriarchy. Mankind was initially taught 'jungle style,' we can outdo the savagery of any current animal species. Do you still think it's wise to defend the excesses of unfettered masculinity with such an ineffectual defence of it, as Misandry?

You are protecting your tribe and all it stands for. — universeness

Bullshit.

You're succumbing to peer pressure in a vain attempt at forming an ego. But I'm guessing you view that as something 'manly' too.

Had you felt you were protecting anything, you wouldn't be here confessing your shame.

Who are you trying to make this point to? Me now? Or me as a youth?

Do you feel a 'current social pressure' to not demonstrate any such bias or do you feel you must reject any such current societal pressure and maintain/conserve the factors that contribute to your status of 'hard time understanding that.'
— universeness — universeness

I was not a very socially aware teenager. I must have been aware of homosexuality, but I don't remember thinking about it much or being bothered by it. I don't remember there ever being incidents against gay people in my school. I don't know whether that was because there weren't any or because I just didn't notice them.

Why do you have a hard time understanding that? — universeness

As I said in my previous post to @Moliere:

What confuses me is not that some people are not attached to their gender identities, but that it is important enough to them that they must reject those identities publicly at significant social cost to themselves and others. — T Clark

Imagine for a moment, you had a powerful personal experience, that absolutely convinced you, that Allah exists and was the one true god. Would you need to tell your loved ones? Would you be compelled to declare your new faith publicly, regardless of the significant social cost to yourself and perhaps your family?

Is there any identity that you can imagineer, that could be important enough to you that you must reject your current identity, publicly at significant social cost to you and others?
Surely those deconstructing from theism choose to face that situation all the time.
Do you understand those who decide to upset their entire lives and their familial support system by rejecting their religion and choosing to become an atheist?
Is transitioning to a new sexual identity soooooooo different from that?
Can you offer anymore detail in exactly what it is that you don't understand about such decisions? Especially when I have actually heard some trans people say online, words as serious as 'I either transitioned or I killed myself.'

What confuses me is not that some people are not attached to their gender identities, but that it is important enough to them that they must reject those identities publicly at significant social cost to themselves and others. — T Clark

Can one cease to be themselves in public?

Can we just put our identities away for propriety?

Well, we can if we're being punished at least. But I don't think for long. Living up to a public image to be pleasing to others for no benefit other than the comfort of others who don't recognize your identity isn't exactly high on the priority list for most people. Seems like a whole lot of work just to feel alienated, in the long run. What it teaches is that the acceptance of others is conditional -- in which case the relationship is transactional and so it makes sense to ask, at some point "What am I getting out of this?"

Either way, whether I choose to conform for others or not, the opinions of others aren't about me but rather about how I function in their world("Be a man!" as "Do as I say!"). Which, to me, just sounds like work. And no one's paying me to make them comfortable with my identity, yet, though if the offer were right then I might accept it ;)

Imagine for a moment, you had a powerful personal experience, that absolutely convinced you, that Allah exists and was the one true god. Would you need to tell your loved ones? Would you be compelled to declare your new faith publicly, regardless of the significant social cost to yourself and perhaps your family? — universeness

I don't know what I would do, but it's beside the point. Converting to Islam means you identify as a Muslim. That's really different from identifying as not being something. It takes a special effort to do that. The world is full of things I'm not. Picking one out to emphasize and advertise is a very strong statement of rejection. I have the same reaction to atheism.

Is there any identity that you can imagineer, that could be important enough to you that you must reject your current identity, publicly at significant social cost to you and others? — universeness

No, and if there were, it would mean I'm a different person than I am.

Living up to a public image to be pleasing to others for no benefit other than the comfort of others who don't recognize your identity isn't exactly high on the priority list for most people. — Moliere

I don't expect anyone to do what you've described. As I responded to @universeness, I can understand identifying as just about anything, it's identifying as not something that I don't get. It would have be more than you just don't feel like a man, it would mean you reject the implication of maleness. What's the point of that? What does it accomplish? These days, you can live your life just about any way you want without ever encountering questions of your manhood.

Either way, whether I choose to conform for others or not, the opinions of others aren't about me but rather about how I function in their world("Be a man!" as "Do as I say!"). Which, to me, just sounds like work. And no one's paying me to make them comfortable with my identity, yet, though if the offer were right then I might accept it ;) — Moliere

What you say makes sense and I think it supports my position. Why go to the trouble to declare yourself not a man - it just sounds like work.

What can I say? My point was about labelling ourselves in predicate logic fashion as a bundle of atomic attributes. You started withering on about being labelled by our proper names as well. If you can’t understand the irrelevance of that to what I was arguing, then so be it.

For me a critique of masculinity coupled with an acceptance of my own femininity is enough -- so androgenous man. I picked the term up from a book on gender which theorizes gender as an affirmation or a negation of either the masculine or the feminine -- so there are four genders in the theory, where +/+ is androgeny, +/- is masculinity, -/+ is femininity, and -/- is undifferentiated.

All four genders are a legitimate identity. (also, it's just one way to theorize gender to point out that the binary isn't complicated enough to really describe the phenomena of gender). It's not work to be oneself -- but if one is, say, +/+, and only respected when expressing as a +/-, then the work is in figuring out what the others respond like and only showing them what they like to see.

The person who declares they're not something has probably been treated like they are something -- so it's a correction under the assumption that others will care. When you find out that others don't care then, given the transactional nature of this relationship, why on earth would anyone declare otherwise? What benefit is there in telling you what you want to hear, or to lie about themself? That's work.

there are four genders in the theory, where +/+ is androgeny, +/- is masculinity, -/+ is femininity, and -/- is undifferentiated. — Moliere

As I noted in a previous post, I don't identify myself as a man in opposition to anything. That would make me +/... I think people think that's impossible, as if the dialectic represents reality rather than human-manufactured mental process.

What benefit is there in telling you what you want to hear, or to lie about themself? That's work. — Moliere

No. Telling me what you're not is work. Telling me nothing is the low-effort path. I won't bring it up if you won't.

As I noted in a previous post, I don't identify myself as a man in opposition to anything. That would make me +/... I think people think that's impossible, as if the dialectic represents reality rather than human-manufactured mental process. — T Clark

"Negation" as in "does not express" rather than "is in opposition to" -- so if you do not express femininity, then "-" would be applicable in accord with the theory.

But it is just a theory. I think it's too simple for gender.

No. Telling me what you're not is work. Telling me nothing is the low-effort path. I won't bring it up if you won't. — T Clark

This would make sense if gender were simply a set of sentences or beliefs, but it's kind of wrapped up in one's whole identity, their way of presenting themselves to others and interacting. So "telling" doesn't have to be with words -- it can be done with mannerisms, dress, tone, and even unconscious actions. And that's only looking at behavior.

Telling you what I'm not, in most conversations, is an explanation that you're not treating me as I am. It's work to tell you, but it's even more work to pretend I'm something I'm not.

A tactic I'm familiar with:

"In saying your identity fits with +/+ you're saying you don't know what it is to be a real man. So the entire conversation, from the opening to now, is negated by saying you're not quite a man, but this something else."

A penis is not enough, a masculine body is not enough -- what we need is for you to cut your hair, to stop talking about certain things, to stop expressing desires that are unmanly, and generally just be normal in public so that we don't have to deal with all that. You're a man! Be it! And if you're not just say you are then do the man things! Men don't care what they feel inside, they just do what is needed. So do it, son!

My thought is -- fuck you pay me.

It's easier to say that when you have a job and a place, though. And for the most part I prefer to get along, so it's just hard to say anyways. Just seemed important.

So, I just got the word today, that I get to go from three month checkups after treatment for prostate cancer, to six month check ups. Is it kosher for me to bring up experience with hormone therapy in the Masculinity thread?

"Negation" as in "does not express" rather than "is in opposition to" -- so if you do not express femininity, then "-" would be applicable in accord with the theory. — Moliere

Of course I behave in ways that might be described as typical for a women. I show affection in action and words. I try to look after the emotional well-being of people I'm around. I work toward consensus. I'm empathetic. I can be passive when it's appropriate.

This would make sense if gender were simply a set of sentences or beliefs, but it's kind of wrapped up in one's whole identity, their way of presenting themselves to others and interacting. So "telling" doesn't have to be with words -- it can be done with mannerisms, dress, tone, and even unconscious actions. And that's only looking at behavior.

Telling you what I'm not, in most conversations, is an explanation that you're not treating me as I am. It's work to tell you, but it's even more work to pretend I'm something I'm not. — Moliere

I know men who have a lot of characteristics typical of women. I know women who have a lot of characteristics typical of men. I have never had any problem treating all sorts of people with respect. People who demand to be treated as not having a gender are rigidly defining what it means to be a man or a women at least as much as people who reject the idea of gender uncertainty.

Yup! Personal reflections are welcome, insofar that you're willing to share publicly.