For a biologist's take...

Again, I offer this for readers’ comments; they aren’t yet my own final definitions. I say this because the subject is touchy and though I want to be biologically accurate, I also want to be civil. And we should recognize that there are diverse definitions of the terms below, though nearly all biologists adhere to the gametic criterion for “biological sex.”

So, here goes:

Sex: Classes of individuals in a species that have the potential to fuse their gametes with those of individuals from a different class, producing a zygote.

Humans (like all mammals and most metazoans) fall into two classes:

Biological Male: Individuals having the capacity/biological equipment to make small, mobile gametes: sperm.

Biological Female: Individuals having the capacity/biological equipment to make large, immobile gametes: eggs.

Under this definition sex is based on gamete type, which nearly always (but not always) correlates with chromosome type or bodily morphology (e.g., secondary sex characters like breasts and body hair). For example, some individuals with Turner syndrome (XO females, lacking one X instead of the common XX females) can make eggs and become pregnant), while some males with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY rather than XY) have motile sperm, though most are usually sterile. Regardless, these individuals fit into the biological “male” or “female” categories above, and do not constitute new sexes.

Likewise, many individuals with ambiguous genitalia can nevertheless make viable sperm or eggs, and thus fit into one of the two classes above...

I do not think transexual people are transgendered. A transgendered person exhibits cultural actions that defy their sex. A transexual person is trying to act in a gendered way that fits the sex they want to be. — Philosophim

I'm unsure whether you misspoke here, or are conflating the two ideas you're trying to prise apart.

If we are to understand that gender is, in fact, a bundle of loosely-collective behaviours and tendencies, there's no 'defy'ing going on at all. We're all simply people who behave in various ways, and some of us don't sit in the pregnant middle of the distribution. There is not a condition or 'social justice' issue to be discussed here. I would say, on your preceding account, this (above) statement is a little incoherent.

If someone is 'transgender' and regards that condition to relate to the opposite sex then the only reasonable determinant is that they believe gender and sex are correlated. Otherwise, to be 'trans gender' would mean to, as you say, defy one's sex. It seems these can't exist without contradiction.

In a similar vein, the concept of 'transexual' makes only logical sense, and not practical sense. Sex can't be traversed.

I think the biggest problem is that some trans people are claiming to literally be the opposite sex, and some are denying that that's possible. Some claim to have a mental illness, some claim you must have a mental illness etc...
It is ill-defined, badly researched and reported even worse. If it were possible to eek out an exact notion of transgenderism, we could move forward - but those who use the term seem terminally incapable of doing so. Sunk-cost, imo.

Feels Lounge-y to me.

It really, really isn't. But it will get there very quickly, i'm sure.

Yet another crowning achievement of 20th century trans-Atlantic "philosophy", to the podium along with JTB and feminist epistemology. I will stick to the continentals.

Funnily enough, I was going to post a couple of further readings, to ensure there's some rigour in the thread. One being this, as an example of feminist, political rhetoric on the topic:
https://philpapers.org/rec/DRARAL-4

And this, from a very much British Feminist perspective:

https://philpapers.org/rec/STONTS (she also has a great piece on sexual orientation, which is related, since people are claiming men can be lesbians now).

I do not think transexual people are transgendered. A transgendered person exhibits cultural actions that defy their sex. A transexual person is trying to act in a gendered way that fits the sex they want to be.
— Philosophim

I'm unsure whether you misspoke here, or are conflating the two ideas you're trying to prise apart. — AmadeusD

Yes, my mistake that I'll edit back in. I meant "defy the cultural expectations of their sex."

In a similar vein, the concept of 'transexual' makes only logical sense, and not practical sense. Sex can't be traversed. — AmadeusD

Sex cannot be transversed, its true. It can be emulated through hormones and surgery. Transexualism seems the easiest word for this, but if another word would fit it better, I would have no problem. Sex emulation? Feel free to contribute if you wish. :)

It is ill-defined, badly researched and reported even worse. If it were possible to eek out an exact notion of transgenderism, we could move forward - but those who use the term seem terminally incapable of doing so. — AmadeusD

I think trying to make a word better defined is a common pursuit in philosophy. If you wish to give up, that's fine. But I think its worth thinking about. I'm more interested in what you think about the underlying difference I've noted here. Do you think it works that transexual people (as defined here) are not actually transgendered, but sexual emulants trying to fit the gender of the sex they want to pass as?

Transexualism seems the easiest word for this — Philosophim

I would agree, if it didn't leave open the doors I brushed past in the ending of my previous comment (which you quoted there, I see from the comment box hehe)..

I think trying to make a word better defined is a common pursuit in philosophy. If you wish to give up, that's fine. — Philosophim

Not at all. But when there are scores of philosophers who have literally nothing to do with their time, but use philosophy to support the supposition that their special identity relies on, it's really fucking hard.

Making the types of arguments we're making get people fired, in the real world. My University philosophy club has for three of its highest administrators trans people. This means certain views are off-limited because they don't want to hear it. They are happy to put the cart before the horse. Adn this is extremely disheartening to someone who feels teh way you do. I'm not suggesting we 'give up'. I am suggesting that it may be a matter of time.

I'm more interested in what you think about the underlying difference I've noted here. — Philosophim

I think Sex and Gender are patently, inarguably different sets of properties and are easily discernable from one another. It is totally bizarre to me that it's taken seriously that they are either the same thing, or somehow reliant on one another. Questioning your gender shouldn't ever invoke some kind of negative connotation, or indication of mental illness. Questioning your sex (if not intersex) would indicate one of those. Though, it is to be noted that intersex individuals are all, without exception either male or female. "intersex" is a confusing misnomer used by dumb people to support wild, unsupportable theories about how sex is a social construct.

I think Sex really, really matters, and Gender far less so. I think Gender is merely a loose system of categorizing social roles and behaviours, and should be relegated to a nicety and nothing determinant of anything whatever in Law or elsewhere. However, I admit freely that I am slightly less open to some of the more 'progressive' arguments in this sphere due to having once bough them hook-line-and-sinker. I am somewhat afraid of succumbing to public/social pressure as I once did. There are facts that I will not ignore, despite vehement, and threatening protestations from angry journalists and whimpering children.

Making the types of arguments we're making get people fired, in the real world. — AmadeusD

This is when we need to speak about it the most then. Philosophy often is dismissed as 'useless'. I think this is a good venue for it and philosophers need speak up.

I think Gender is merely a loose system of categorizing social roles and behaviours, and should be relegated to a nicety and nothing determinant of anything whatever in Law or elsewhere. — AmadeusD

I agree. Which is why using words that more clearly delineate between the two is important.

I think this is a good venue for it and philosophers need speak up. — Philosophim

I agree. But the reality is they do and get vilified. Holly Lawford-Smith is a great example, as is Kathleen Stock; Judith Butler. Plenty of examples of what you're suggesting being genuinely dangerous for philosophers. Even Rebecca Tuvel, who is pro-trans, got absolutely torn to shreds for suggesting that the same logic applies to race. Which it clearly does.

There are practical considerations that are going to be far more important that being 'right' for many philosophers and particularly women (who stand to have the most important views on this, imo).

Which is why using words that more clearly delineate between the two is important. — Philosophim

Yes.

What are you basing that on?

Sex isn't exactly binary either. — Vaskane

Which is fine. There are definite exceptions to the rule. I don't believe those exceptions change what I'm noting here for most people though.

You might be interested in this 2020 thread Disambiguating the concept of gender
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/336888

There are definite exceptions to the rule. — Philosophim

What are these exceptions?

I appreciate it and agree. I suppose what I'm trying to do here is note that transgender and transex are not only not the same, they preclude one another. If you are transex, then you are not transgender as you are trying to take on gender aspects of the sex you are emulating and aspiring to be. Thus being transgender does not make one transex, and being transex does not make one transgender (unless of course a person who is transex tried to act like the gender of their original sex, but most won't)

Thus I don't believe there's any good reason at all to lump the meaning of these two words into one.

Sex has two extremes that it aims towards sure, but on occasion the spectrum is blurred between the two extremes. Even when the 23pair is XX or XY a male, for example could be born with fallopian tubes for example. And even still there are more karyotypes than just XY and XX although not different sexes persay, just not falling within the Binary extreme of XX and XY. — Vaskane

Thank you for clarifying what you're trying to say, and in that sense, I agree, and think this is why Gender is actually apt at all - we need not invoke aberration to note the wild variance within sexes). However, none of these examples presents anything other than a male or female individual. That's the issue that I think the "sex is a construct" people don't get.

Mammalian sex is, in fact, 100% binary to our knowledge. Aberrations in sex development don't change, or 'partial alter' your sex. If you're saying they do, I'm open to the argument at least :)

It is, though, and you've accepted as much with the statement:

not different sexes persay — Vaskane

Variance within the two sexes doesn't constitute a third, or non- sex.

The division between sex and gender is complex because a person's identity as being male or female involves so much, including reproductive functions and sexual expression. This gives rise to many forms of fundamentalism, including religious ways of thinking. One issue may be to what extent it amounts to theory and how much is about personal identity? The two may overlap, to some extent, but, where there may be 'real' issues is about the nature of bodies and gendering. Part of the issue may be about how life and gendering is formed around ideas of sexuality.

A person who is transgender may turn so much upside down in thinking of bodies and gender; by wishing to be the opposite of ' what nature intended'. This may be where the fundamentalists step in with the hardcore objections, as if it was as simple as a matter of bodies. Human identity involves such a complex mixture of bodily and social aspects of gender identity. It is such a complex area of psychology and many who identify in the transgender spectrum struggle with the issues of gender identity.

One complex case is that of Kiera Bell, who, in England, transitioned from female to male in England, as a teenager, and regretted it. Kiera is now transitioning back to female and regretting the effects of hormones and surgery. On the other hand, many are struggling with gender dysphoria and the ways and means of gaining access to achieve hormones and surgery.

If anything, the times of twentieth first century offer so much scope for achieving bodily transformation. Some may experience psychological difficulties,or side- effects of meditation, such as polycythemia in female to male transsexuals. So much may come down to being able to have the 'desired body' of the chosen gender; and the whole range of psychological discrepancies. If anything, the mind- body issue of transgender people, as well as those of intersex individuals, may raise so much about the whole nature and assumptions of the nature of gender.

It may raise the question of the binary and, what is involved in binary thinking of gender. How much is about body and mind, the discrepancies between the two and how such conflicts may be put together,?

The division between sex and gender is complex because a person's identity as being male or female involves so much, including reproductive functions and sexual expression. — Jack Cummins

I don't think it has to be complex. Since gender is cultural, the cultural expectations for a man or woman in different cultures can differ. Its about the culture one wants to identify with, not the biology. If someone wants the biology of another sex, that's not transgender, that's transex. When trying to emulate another sex, you take on the gender of that sex you are emulating. Thus you are trying to use a gender that matches your sex, and really aren't transgender.

I know you're thinking only of the gametes. That's okay, outdated, but I understand where you're coming from. There's a reason why many "sexual aberrations" as you like to call them are referred to as "INTERSEX" conditions. And I take that as a valid view, just a very "stiff" view is all. — Vaskane

Haha. Errm... In reverse, I don't, because it isn't a view, it's a word which is used to refer to aberrations in sexual development (more commonly referred to now as differences of sex development, not intersex conditions as a catch-all). No one is "inter" sex. You're obviously entitled to your view, but using these words has become quite important, and being wrong about htem common.

intersex conditions say absolutely nothing about the sex binary.

:up:

If so, then tell me what you think of this argument ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/336888

Your reply seems a little simplistic and not embracing the dilemmas of transgender individuals. I have worked with people who are transgender in mental healthcare and the nature of labels, what one is biologically and what what one wishes to become. It does involve ideas of the 'body'.

To a large extent, I see this thread topic as one which is academic and lacking in understanding of issues of variance, both transgender and intersex. Each person comes from an individual perspective of experience. This is important but what I see is the problem is that on the basis of ideas, especially generalised ones, is that generalise and prescriptive ideas are generated as a matter of 'pure' theory, as opposed to looking at individuals and their daily life dilemmas.

Hit me with your precise definition of Sex. (hehe I sense you know I'll find plenty to undermine your outdated position on only including gametes [it's why I say Sex is to State because it looks at the whole of the individual in question])
------------------------------------------------------ — Vaskane

As usual, your pretensions fail you. You are describing gender and then attributing your description to the word sex. Nothing to do with me that you're using words incorrectly to suit your emotional position on them.

It is the activation (or not) of the SRY gene in utero which determines which (male or female) developmental cascade one undergoes (very basically, Mullerian or Wolffian). From that point, aberrations occur in about 0.018% of people qualifying them for the "DSD" label because their aberration returns a non-ideal (in the strict sense) phenotype with reference to the sex present in that individual. You will note, though, that DSDs are sex-specific in almost all cases and this is not an issue for the binary. The one's which can occur in both, occur differently in each sex (per SRY/not SRY).

Many professionals actually take this to be something 'determined' at conception, and merely expressed at a certain point during early gestation.
And, I have to say, it's bizarre that people get emotionally attached to these things when it doesn't actively affect them (i.e they are trans)... The lady doth protest too much, me thinks. Or, in your case, the weirdo answers his own questions and thinks he can read minds :broken:

The above few comments in turn are about sex?

However, I'm nearly with you on this. I don't entirely agree that its a 'mental status' but it certainly appears to be a result of mentation largely.
I think its totally reasonable to posit that a lot of that mentation is influenced by the facts of biology though. Cluckiness does not ever occur in males, because we don't have the hormones for it as an example. So while Gender can be conceptualised as bundles of loosely-associated behaviours, they are loosely associated to a sex. Which is probably hte source if the totally confusing statements in Philosophim's posts.

Your reply seems a little simplistic and not embracing the dilemmas of transgender individuals. I have worked with people who are transgender in mental healthcare and the nature of labels, what one is biologically and what what one wishes to become. It does involve ideas of the 'body'. — Jack Cummins

Sounds like you've worked with transexuals then. There are people who want to be transgender yet not change their physical bodies. One of my best friends of 20 years is flirting with transexualism right now. We discuss these issues regularly and both agree that the current vocabulary to talk about these issues is flat out awful and needs improvement.

While yes, individuals vary in their experiences, when we talk about words that apply to the broader culture we need to create words of proper scope with more details and less generalizations. An academic approach is very much needed in a broader social sense to have good and open discussions.

Hmmm. Does the acknowledgement of variance within sexes not do that job a bit better? Male and female are, in fact, absolute categories in humans. There isn't a grey area to be covered with terms, if you see what I mean. You either are male, or are female.

Where we find grey is in phenotype - but this is the case with those who suffer no aberration whatever in their development. A fully in-tact and healthy hormonal cascade can result in Eddie Hall or Mike Tyson as much as it can result in Maynard Keenan or Chris Colfer. Thought, it also worth noting that humans are incredibly accurate in determining sex from facial features alone: the pop-sci take and less pop and again

even the grey area isn't all that grey.

dilemmas of transgender individuals — Jack Cummins

What do you conceive these dilemmas consisting in?

Hmm, Ok I see the problem you're trying to solve now. I don't find it a problem though, as will become clear.

MALE and FEMALE can FUSE their gametes. — Vaskane

Not quite.

have the potential to fuse their gametes

They have the potential to. They need not, currently, be able to do so. At what point that potential is read, as far as makes any sense to me, is the moment of the hormonal cascade beginning (either triggered by SRY activation, or not). Ignoring that, though, because fair - it's probably not the strongest argument on its face - on your account, someone who has had an horrific injury after siring 20 children is no longer male, either, as he is incapable of even producing sperm, let alone fusing any of them with ova. But I'm sure you'll agree that seems very wrong.

However, playing to my perspective, a "male" with female sex organs — Vaskane

I'm not sure how you are understanding this concept. so forgive if the following misses it... "female sex organs" is a little misleading here too - the external genitalia present as female, but there are no internal sex organs aligned with the female phenotype.
A 'male' as per either the above quote, or my construction, cannot have female organs because female sex organs do not produce male gametes, irrespective of whether the individual has a vagina or penis. However, I understand that this position (CAIS is a bit more accurate, as far as I know - otherwise, we're not looking at something problematic) results in a human who is biologically male (required for the condition) but has female presentation, and is infertile. An infertile male with a typically female phenotype doesn't seem very hard to categorise to me - unless we're strictly using your conception on whicih any child, post-menopausal woman or infertile adult of any kind, has no sex.

I also understand, though, that suffers of CAIS does have male streak gonads, providing enough evidence for the 'potential' if but for the aberration, required to satisfy this category. That said, I have never seen a person with any DSD for whom it was not obvious what their biological sex was. Caster Semenya is the prime example of this problem in action. She is a male. It was obvious to many of us.

Yet another crowning achievement of 20th century trans-Atlantic "philosophy", to the podium along with JTB. I will stick to the continentals.

The only reason continentals haven't caught up here is because they're too busy debating if they exist or not or exactly how it is that the nothing nothings when it is nothing. That and inventing new languages for each subfield of inquiry. :smile:

Mammalian sex is, in fact, 100% binary to our knowledge. Aberrations in sex development don't change, or 'partial alter' your sex. If you're saying they do, I'm open to the argument at least

It seems like this is less ambiguous in the aggregate. We wouldn't say the number of chromosomes humans have exists on a spectrum because trisomies occur, or that the number of kidneys a human has exists on a spectrum because some people are born missing one or both kidneys.

But I can see arguments for how defining sex at the individual level might be different.