Relax, we're trying to do the same thing.
— Philosophim

AS noted, you seem absolutely resistant to a fool-proof grammatical way of solving your problem. What would you have assumed, If i had rejected the same? — AmadeusD

I think you're getting a little too worked up and reading things that aren't there. I get you're being attacked by others, but not me. I am not resistant to something fool proof and already told you it could work on your follow up. Relax. :)

I can see the viability in declaring more than two, and I don't see any problem in noting this.
— Philosophim

As 'sex' is defined, there is no viable option other than male or female. Again, if another culture usurps this word into a system that has a different word for sex(as we understand it) fine. But that's a ridiculous reason to accept that usurping. — AmadeusD

Of course its viable to create more than one sex. We can change definitions. There is no existent thing out there that decrees 'sex must be defined this way'. What is more important is coming up with definitions that serve purposes of being logical, clear, accurate, and useful to the most people. One of the core functions of philosophy is to question and ensure that vocabulary and concept are sometimes redefined or clarified to serve these purposes.

You have to understand that your view that there should only be two sexes is an option. One that you can reason with others to keep. But if you're dogmatic about it? People can viably reject you. Words are agreed upon by communities, not dictated from above.

Meaning, both the definition of sex cannot change, and one's sex cannot change. — Philosophim

Hey mate, I'm not editing this back into my more substantive reply, incase you're reading it right now - or, it's not particualrly relevant because I've missed something further on in the thread But:

The above quote seems to indicate that you're not open to the position you're currently taking. Has the position on the above changed, in a way that would explain the current acceptance of redefinition?

As such, I believe that labeling a transexual person as 'transgendered' creates confusion and harm.
— Philosophim

I'm am just intrigued to understand why and how you think this creates harm. — Beverley

Certainly. I posted this earlier and I'll do so again.

I have seen a host of problems by blending transgender and transsexual together. First, the concept of blending genetics and culture together is the root of stereotypes such as classism, racism, and sexism. The idea that I take on the culture of a woman, therefore am a woman, implies that there is some objective truth in genetics with culture. This argument can be applied to race as well, but we've learned that's a bad idea.

Second, there is much confusion among people who have gender dysphoria. Is it gender dysphoria, or sex dysphoria? They are very different. Gender, as in the cultural dysphoria, does not require one to get on drugs or get surgery to act culturally as the other gender. Understanding that gender is just cultural expectations by society means one can make different choices in adapting to and fulfilling their emotional desires.

Sex dysphoria on the other hand is often solved by physical disguises, drugs, or surgeries. Such things are last resort to solve issues, and yet I've come across people who think gender dysphoria should be solved by such changes, then regret the pain and loss they went through.

The point is that clear language allows a clear identity of issues. With clear identities, we can come up with clear solutions. The current lumping of the term which describes two separate issues is causing a confusion and mix within the community itself, and as such is causing great harm where decisions are incorrectly made for one's condition.

Finally, there is confusion outside of the community as well. Many people are willing to accept decision in regards to gender for gender issues, and sex regarding sex issues. But when people believe the subject is gender, and sex issues creep in, there can be backlash or disagreement. Thus, it serves everyone involved for the clearest language possible that describes the issue most accurately. — Philosophim

To add to this from some personal experience, I have a friend who is transgender. They mistakenly thought that this meant they needed to transition using hormones and surgery. The reality is they liked dressing up in women's clothing, painting their nails, and putting their hair in a pony tail. They could do all this and be happy. This is someone who is transgendered who initially thought that the only way to fulfill their transgender desires was body alteration. Body alteration through drugs or surgery comes with many risks for people and should be a last resort.

In short, confusion in the transgender and transex community is just as bad as without. People within the community should want clearly defined words and concepts that they can make good decisions with.

Philosophim — Philosophim

Thanks, I will digest this and get back to you. Sorry, I admit, I didn't read all of the comments on here as there are a lot. Thanks for reposting your earlier comments, I appreciate your patience.

To add to this from some personal experience, I have a friend who is transgender. They mistakenly thought that this meant they needed to transition using hormones and surgery. The reality is they liked dressing up in women's clothing, painting their nails, and putting their hair in a pony tail — Philosophim

More trans people I've known these days don't undertaken the operation or use hormones. Certainly not for the first years.

People within the community should want clearly defined words and concepts that they can make good decisions with. — Philosophim

Like every other community there is no one codified approach to all this. I'm not sure it would be realistic to expect this. People have different views and self-images in every community.

Meaning, both the definition of sex cannot change, and one's sex cannot change.
— Philosophim
Hey mate, I'm not editing this back into my more substantive reply, incase you're reading it right now - or, it's not particualrly relevant because I've missed something further on in the thread But:

The above quote seems to indicate that you're not open to the position you're currently taking. Has the position on the above changed, in a way that would explain the current acceptance of redefinition? — AmadeusD

Let me repost the context first.

Sex is immutable. It is a biological determinant of DNA. Hormone changes do not change your sex, only allow you to emulate a hormone aspect of the other sex. Meaning, both the definition of sex cannot change, and one's sex cannot change.

Here I am not referring to a definition that is mutable in regards to culture. My point here is that the definition of sex is linked to a biological determinant. Thus, if to my earlier point, we linked XX as female and XY as male, that's not changing. The discussion about changing the definition of sex is within the introduction of information that does not fit our original division of the sexes. For example, XXY. My point is that if we are linking sex to chromosomes, it is just as reasonable to say, "XXY is a male variant" versus "XXY is a new sex." The underlying immutableness of sex as chromosomes remains.

Relax. :) — Philosophim

I literally do not know what you're reading into my comments, but 'worked up' is not something I'm willing to accept about them. I've explained, in non-emotional terms that you appear resistance. Take it as you will my dude. You have laid out contradictory statements attempt to reject the assertions I've made. I was trying to make sense of this. Unfortunately, this isn't too helpful :P

There is no existent thing out there that decrees 'sex must be defined this way'. — Philosophim

That is precisely not what i addressed or talked about in any of my comments.

As 'sex' is defined — AmadeusD

See above. You seem to be arguing with something i've not said. Sex as defined gives no wiggle room to some third appendage. That's my point. And it's flatly true. I also gave an avenue for another culture adding to that - by redefinition, entirely, of the notion of 'sex', and attributing a different symbol to what we understand to be an immutable binary. That this isn't landing seems odd to me. Could you perhaps point out what's getting away from you there?

What is more important is coming up with definitions that serve purposes of being logical, clear, accurate, and useful to the most people. — Philosophim

Which is the only aim I took, and exactly the one all my comments have pushed toward. Again, can you point out where you think that might not have been the case?

You have to understand that your view that there should only be two sexes is an option. — Philosophim

This is not 'my view'. Sex as defined is restricted to two. It is a binary. It is a term which was designed to signify the reproductive binary of male/female in dimorphic animals. If you want to redefine, I have given an option for that to happen. As it is, your position here is nonsensical as it uses the word 'sexes' (which is restricted to two, by definition) and then calls into question 'my opinion'.

my opinion isn't engaged, whatever, in the above conflict of terminology.

Words are agreed upon by communities, not dictated from above. — Philosophim

I really, seriously, cannot grasp what you think is happening here. I'd really, really like for you to go back to the requests for outlining how you could come to the interpretations you have - I am nearly certain you are either wilfully misinterpreting or not reading my entire comments (this, because I've addressed, directly and at-length, many of your points here..)

No one, anywhere, has suggested that this is the case. I have even given a perfectly reasonable scenario in whcih the word 'sex' could be redefined to mean something other than in currently it. Can you remember what that was?

Another community than the one which designed and deployed the term. So we're in agreement. But you're still being extremely resistant to the asserted system (if you don't like it, that's fine. I'm talking about your inapt responses to my comments).

Next response is unrelated - starting a different track of enquiry on your positions:

The reality is they liked dressing up in women's clothing, painting their nails, and putting their hair in a pony tail. They could do all this and be happy. — Philosophim

Does it not strike you as pathologising to label enjoying certain fashion as some kind of mental condition? (transgenderism is a mental condition, whether or not you think its an illness - its a condition of hte mind, if you see what i mean).

The underlying immutableness of sex as chromosomes remains. — Philosophim

While i disagree, pretty vehemently, with this claim, the rest of your post was perfect to explain what I saw as contradiction. Thank you very much :)

Ok. Thanks mate.

Thanks, I will digest this and get back to you. Sorry, I admit, I didn't read all of the comments on here as there are a lot. Thanks for reposting your earlier comments, I appreciate your patience. — Beverley

Not a worry Beverly! Take your time and feel free to disagree after reading it.

More trans people I've known these days don't undertaken the operation or use hormones. Certainly not for the first years. — Tom Storm

That's a personal anecdote, not a fact. According to Trangend Health

"Introduction: The number of individuals seeking sex hormone therapy for gender dysphoria has been increasing. The prevalence gender dysphoria has recently been estimated as high as 390 to 460 per 100,000 with a consistently greater prevalence of trans women (MTF) than trans men (FTM). We report here the changing demographics encountered in our experience over the past 2 decades."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906237/#:~:text=Introduction%3A%20The%20number%20of%20individuals,than%20trans%20men%20(FTM).

People within the community should want clearly defined words and concepts that they can make good decisions with.
— Philosophim

Like every other community there is no one codified approach to all this. I'm not sure it would be realistic to expect this. People have different views and self-images in every community. — Tom Storm

Doesn't that sound like opinions? Everyone can have their own opinion, but if we are going to use language that asks us to accept facts, we need words and definitions that are more than personal feelings. Especially when we have decisions such as medical transition, sports participation, and a whole host of laws being made.

I'm going to ask you this then: "Why is it more advantageous to have language that isn't clear and ambiguous?" How does this benefit any community?

That's a personal anecdote, not a fact. According to Trangend Health — Philosophim

It's a trend I'm seeing in a city of 5 million working in psychosocial services and hospital partnerships where we have around 4% trans clients. But yes, it is my anecdote. My experince tells me this will increase.

Doesn't that sound like opinions? Everyone can have their own opinion, but if we are going to use language that asks us to accept facts, we need words and definitions that are more than personal feelings. Especially when we have decisions such as medical transition, sports participation, and a whole host of laws being made.

I'm going to ask you this then: "Why is it more advantageous to have language that isn't clear and ambiguous?" How does this benefit any community? — Philosophim

No, I do not believe you can categorize people into neat boxes like this. I would not support trans groups who say only one way to be trans either.

As others have posited, what makes us gatekeepers in this matter? Sports and schools and prisons and changing room owners can work though this issue as they need.

What is more important is coming up with definitions that serve purposes of being logical, clear, accurate, and useful to the most people.
— Philosophim

Which is the only aim I took, and exactly the one all my comments have pushed toward. Again, can you point out where you think that might not have been the case? — AmadeusD

I noted earlier that your point about the SRY gamet was fine. Our only disagreement at this point is that sex must necessarily be defined as being only two. There are good reasons to do so, but I can also see other reasons not to. That's all.

This is not 'my view'. Sex as defined is restricted to two. It is a binary. It is a term which was designed to signify the reproductive binary of male/female in dimorphic animals. If you want to redefine, I have given an option for that to happen. As it is, your position here is nonsensical as it uses the word 'sexes' (which is restricted to two, by definition) and then calls into question 'my opinion'. — AmadeusD

Here's an article in scientific America talking about the idea of making more than two sexes.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

As well, I gave you a point about chromosonal variance and the example of 'tall bush' vs 'short tree'. Go re-read the initial point as I think you misunderstood my greater point about when we use modifiers to words vs invent entirely new words.

Words are agreed upon by communities, not dictated from above.
— Philosophim

I really, seriously, cannot grasp what you think is happening here. — AmadeusD

If you can't understand after re-reading my point, then perhaps we just leave it then. Seems pointless to continue if after several replies you can't understand my point and you believe I've misunderstood yours. No harm or foul either, it may just not be our day to convey our proper intentions. :)

The reality is they liked dressing up in women's clothing, painting their nails, and putting their hair in a pony tail. They could do all this and be happy.
— Philosophim

Does it not strike you as pathologising to label enjoying certain fashion as some kind of mental condition? — AmadeusD

Where did I state this was a mental condition? Do women have a mental condition for wanting to wear dresses and paint their nails? No. Same with transgendered individuals. Look, my friend wrote lesbian fan fiction for years (Nothing I'm interested in). I've never once thought it was a mental condition.

The underlying immutableness of sex as chromosomes remains.
— Philosophim

While i disagree, pretty vehemently, with this claim, the rest of your post was perfect to explain what I saw as contradiction. Thank you very much :) — AmadeusD

I'm not seeing the contradiction, but you do you at this point. We seem to be talking at cross odds with each other today. That sometimes happens and I don't think there's any fixing it at this point.

No, I do not believe you can categorize people into neat boxes like this. I would not support trans groups who say only one way to be trans either. — Tom Storm

This didn't answer my question. My question was, "Why is it good to have language that devolves into ambiguous personal opinion, versus language that is clear and unambiguous?"

As others have posited, what makes us gatekeepers in this matter? Sports and schools and prisons and changing room owners can work though this issue as they need. — Tom Storm

Asking for clear language to communicate and discuss ideas is not gatekeeping. It is a requirement for honest and productive thought and conversation.

This didn't answer my question. My question was, "Why is it good to have language that devolves into ambiguous personal opinion, versus language that is clear and unambiguous?" — Philosophim

My answer is an attempt to supply you with a different frame for this matter. What I guess I am saying is that your demand for clear language to me seems like it's trying to fence in some complex ideas that have no convenient solution. I fully understand that this might not satisfy everyone, but that's were I sit with this. Maybe there is a more open ended set of descriptors we can use to broaden the language for trans? Either way it isn't really a critical problem from my perspective.

My answer is an attempt to supply you with a different frame for this matter. What I guess I am saying is that your demand for clear language to me seems like it's trying to fence in some complex ideas that have no convenient solution. — Tom Storm

That's why we're on a philosophy board though right? What's convenient about discussing morality, God, or any other host of debated topics? This is avoiding the question once again. You don't have to agree with my definitions. "Why is it good to have language that devolves into ambiguous personal opinion, versus language that is clear and unambiguous?" I think this is a very important question. Why do you think undefined and opinionated words benefit the community?

Maybe there is a more open ended set of descriptors we can use to broaden the language for trans? — Tom Storm

What is the advantage of making words less specific and unclear in this community?

Either way it isn't really a critical problem from my perspective. — Tom Storm

Seems important enough for you to have waded in. If you leave now, I'm not going to see your viewpoint. You seem to think that the community needs ambiguous and opinionated language. Why?

Ha! Ok

I’m not here for interminable arguments, I’m here to arrive at tentative positions. It seems you now want to gate-keep this site?

Seems important enough for you to have waded in — Philosophim

Yes, but there’s no need to stay in any one thread once a point is made. I wish more would do this but it’s not my call how others behave.

You seem to think that the community needs ambiguous and opinionated language. Why? — Philosophim

I have explained my position. Not sure it needs further clarification. As I said, not everyone will agree and the matter isn’t significant enough to pursue.

This is avoiding the question once again. — Philosophim

From my perspective you’re avoiding my answer.

This is a safe place to discuss topics. I'm very familiar with and supportive of the transgender community and this is not about being a bigot or hurting people. If you don't want to answer me, answer yourself in a quiet moment.

See previous.

Why is it good to have language that devolves into ambiguous personal opinion, versus language that is clear and unambiguous?" I think this is a very important question. Why do you think undefined and opinionated words benefit the community? — Philosophim

Oops forgot this point.

You seem to be universalizing my response about one aspect of one issue in order to dramatist a point. I make no such claims about language generally or the community - only what I said about this one matter. And I have already stated that this is my position and others may not like it. It requires no more than this.

You seem to be universalizing my response about one aspect of one issue in order to dramatist a point. I make no such claims about language generally or the community - only what I said about this one matter. — Tom Storm

What I guess I am saying is that your demand for clear language to me seems like it's trying to fence in some complex ideas that have no convenient solution. — Tom Storm

Then I'm sure you understand now why I'm trying to make words more specific and don't have a disagreement with that. If you are not making claims that it is better for terms to be ambiguous, then you should understand I am not attempting to fence anyone in. Clearer and easily understood terminology is better for the community then ambiguous opinionated terminology.

How on Earth did you derive that from anything I have said?
— unenlightened

By you claiming that sex is a lifestyle choice. I clearly wrote this. Sex is what you are. Lifestyle choices are how you decide to live. — Philosophim

You do love your definitions don't you.

. Genes are immutable, snd you want to define sex in terms of genes. What will you do if/when progress in gene therapy allows "sex - change" to be real in your own definition? Sex would cease to be immutable and become a lifestyle choice - again. — unenlightened

I clearly wrote that if gene therapy developed to allow more radical changes in genes, then one's genetic make up would not be immutable and become a lifestyle choice. Just as it is already a lifestyle choice to modify one's hormone levels and body form. You interpret the conditional as an absolute, because you did not read to understand, but to dispute.

" Tying lifestyle with sex or race is the definition of sexism and racism." As for this, it is really just bluster. If one notices for example that black men are hugely over represented in the prison population, that might be because of lifestyle being associated with race, or it might be because of a racist culture. A bit premature to decide in advance of looking. Women spend more time, money and effort on their appearance than men on average. This is a trivial social observation, not sexism. Just cool your ardour and have a little respect.

Sex is not an identity. Sex is an embodiment. — Philosophim

Again you use your definition to prove other definitions and conceptions wrong. You know that is illegitimate argument. Bodies can be modified, and this I suspect is what motivates you to retreat to genes as the last refuge of immutability. The story of mankind, and in particular of the scientific revolution is very much one of liberation from the immutability of nature. And every stage has suffered resistance from the old guard. Transport overcomes the limits of legs, refrigeration the limits of the seasons, and so on.

Eunuchs go back a long way before genetics were dreamed of, and the technique of controlling and modifying sex has been applied to humans and domesticated animals since antiquity. These were and still are seen as sexual modifications - one does not hear much about the gender identity of geldings. In animal husbandry, sex is a function, and one to be controlled, not at all immutable. Not penis, but functioning balls define the male. But this does not define the man who has had the snip, but can still satisfy his lover in all matters bar impregnation.

These are perfectly understandable usages that reflect the complexity of life rather better in my opinion than a rigid definition can manage.

A transgendered person exhibits cultural actions that defy the cultural expectations of their sex. — Philosophim

That, then, would be everyone, given that different cultures and individuals have different criteria and also given that pretty much everyone will have exceptional moments in their lives where they exhibit 'out of character' traits (in crisis, when tired, for fun, in private with someone they trust and so on.)

I also feel like we are giving to much power to the observer when we say someone changes gender when others judge that they have done something that doesn't fit cultural expectations. Like if I take a trip to Malaysia and suddenly on a street in a village I become a transgendered person. I don't think that makes sense. I get what you mean, but nothing happened to me. Other people had judgments in their minds, that doesn't make me move from being male to transgendered. This could be simple language misuse, but since that's the topic, I thought I'd mention it.

I think one problem out there in this debate, in some minds, is that sometimes genders are fixed. Oh, I have these traits, I am really male.
But in other instances they are not fixed.
Sure, I did that and I am a woman. Women can do that and feminine people can do that.

Are there personality traits that entail one is REALLY a woman or REALLY a man, or not?

I think there are a lot of mixed messages about this and in some ways fueling rage on both sides for what I think is no reason.

The old rigid sex and gender stereotypes were limiting for both sexes.
Some people hang onto to those.
And now, oddly, the Left has a mixed message about these.

I see no safe haven to be ourselves on any part of the political spectrum.

Do you think that if men and women, boys and girls, were all freely allowed to behave in "masculine" and "feminine" ways without any massively negative social consequences, that the transgender issue would disappear? Would that be an alternative world, you think, where the people who are currently transgender wouldn't feel the need to identify as transgender, and take HRT or do other sex-change type decisions?

Here's another one for you: by Walther von Wartburg (1928–2002), “sexus”, in Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch: — Vaskane

Once again, stop quoting things you know nothing about. The screenshot you used simply says states what sexe means and its etymology. No etymological dictionary is needed for that, you can find that information in any online French dictionary.
Sexus does not mean to differentiate nor does it mean to cleave. You don't know the difference between adjectives, nouns, and verbs — functionally illiterate.
English sex does not come from Latin sexus. It comes from French sexe. Otherwise you would have proved the sexus>sex sound change a long time ago, but you haven't done that, because you can't, because it doesn't exist.
You disgracefully abuse de Vaan's dictionary like a barbarian, I showed how it doesn't support your illiterate claims because you are uneducated and can't interpret the dictionary, then you go and skip to another source that states nothing that is beyond obvious. You do that in other posts. When your own ignorance is thrown on your face, you skip to something that is irrelevant to what is at hand.
You are an idiot who thinks himself smart but can't even read. That is usually what happens to mediocre people who skip to Nietzsche and Schopenhauer without first reading what those two are referencing.

The modern meaning of sectio 'division' suggests that sec/xus might derive from secare 'to sever', but the morphology remains unclear: does sexus go back to an s-present *sek-s 'to cut up', or was it derived from a form *sek-s- of the putative s-stem underlying secus.

Going over the quote again, for the sane people with rational souls who might be interested. The meaning of the word sectio, deverbal action noun of secō, suggests that sexus might come from secare. But the morpohology is still not clear. Why? In Latin, verbs typically don't derive nouns straight from their stem. Sexus does not come directly from the verb secare like dissecare does, but either from a reconstructed stem that underlies the verb secare, or from another reconstructed stem (this one hypothetical, not confirmed to exist) that underlies the noun secus — which one is unknown. Otherwise, de Vaan would put sexus under the entry for secō after "Derivatives", but he doesn't, sexus has its own entry.

I see why you left "Aristotle," out of your favorites — Vaskane

There was no particular reason for the choices in that list. It is funny how I am giving you a taste of your own poison over the last few days and you have gone obsessed over me. If you are gonna try to bully people online, consider not trying hard to look like you have XXY kariotype.

As such, I believe that labeling a transexual person as 'transgendered' creates confusion and harm. — Philosophim

Transsexualism is a condition. A transsexual may present as their assigned gender (especially before they begin HRT), so they may not be transgender at that point. The medical condition transsexualism is for some people the basis of trangenderism - we call that position trans-medicalism.

Do you think that if men and women, boys and girls, were all freely allowed to behave in "masculine" and "feminine" ways without any massively negative social consequences, that the transgender issue would disappear? — flannel jesus

No, but I think that would protect some children from thinking they have to make a choice that involves hormones and surgery, for example. I think it also would remove a mixed message aimed at children by the people on one side of the debate: one message coming from traditional feminism, the other coming from current a lot of trans-supportive rhetoric.

I don't consider trans people to all be confused. I actually think some are right. I don't think that's actually well supported by science, but I nevertheless believe it.

But I think currently it has become a very confusing movement and misleading people into problematic outcomes. Not all of them, but many of them.

Would that be an alternative world, you think, where the people who are currently transgender wouldn't feel the need to identify as transgender, and take HRT or do other sex-change type decisions? — flannel jesus

I think their would be a huge reduction. I also think that many of the people who end up now identifying with the sex they weren't born as AND who don't take hormones or get operations would now not really have to make a decision. They could do what they want without the need to decide they are the other sex. I think there would be beneficial side effects for people who never consider themselves trans. Many of these people may feel ashamed of certain facets of their personality or their interests or the way they move. Let's throw that out the window.

When I was a kid, boys did not want to be seen as/called 'fags', for example, regardless of whether they were homosexual or not. These rules about what a boy or girl should be and should not be cause everyone problems, limit everyone. I think the current, often well intended messages, are actually pushing us back in time in some ways. And that's from the Left. There is an essential gender. There is not an essential gender. The messages get sent out by the same people depending on the conversation.

I can easily imagine I might have wondered if I was 'really' a woman at times due to this or that facet of me. I had enough hallucinated fears and real fears. Hey, let's throw another one on top. Add in the mixed message and it's actually quite a damaging situation.

A surprisingly forward look. I was wrong about you. Unless of course you're being disingenuous, you are quite objective with biblical values. In your mind does God allow for such? Or are they like sinners going to hell and this is just a mask? — Vaskane

I don't see where Jesus ever tell his followers to "masc it up" -- what's ultimately important is whether one is "in christ" or not. Maybe someone is more "in christ" in the opposition gender. Gender roles don't play a major focus in the OT either. Jesus says we are not saved by our deeds so who are we to condemn all trans people to hell?

Deut. 22:5 does have a prohibit against crossdressing, but if you look into the hebrew it's actually very interesting and not at all as clearly cut and dry as english bibles make it out to be.

I noted earlier that your point about the SRY gamet was fine. Our only disagreement at this point is that sex must necessarily be defined as being only two. There are good reasons to do so, but I can also see other reasons not to. That's all. — Philosophim

This will be my last reply. The reason why, is that you are wilfully ignoring almost everything I have said to service a continuation of your point, which has been dealt with ad nauseum throughout several thorough replies. I will insert quotes to show that this is the case at every step of this exchange. It is not worth my time to continue speaking with you on a topic through which you remain impossible to converse with..

For the above:
We didn't disagree about that. Whcih i've pointed out. I've given several copies of the scenario in whci teh word can be redefined You have utterly refused to point out how you've come to conclusions counter to the exact things I have said, continually. This is example 1.

Here's an article in scientific America talking about the idea of making more than two sexes.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ — Philosophim

I have already dealt with even this specific article in this thread. It expressly points out that there are two determined sexes and variations within them. I have also point out, elsewhere inthis thread, that it is the exact same scenario as when SA posted an infographic by a Social Media manager that claimed the same - and concluded that there are indeed two sexes. The problem you seem to be 100% ignoring is that you are foregoing any attempt whatsoever to label (what we currently call) sex correct. I don't give a hoot if you think 'sex' can be redefined. Sure. But then WHAT REPLACES IT TO ACCURATELY DENOTE THE TWO *what we currently call* SEXES? You're just straight-up ignoring half of the conversation you're trying to have.

you can't understand my point and you believe I've misunderstood yours. — Philosophim

Neither of these things are true, and neither of them are intimated by anything elther of us has said - other than you constantly pretending that you haven' read direct replies to your insistence on redefinition etc.. which is have AGREED TO MULTIPLE TIMES. THIS is why I can't grasp what you think is going on. It is utterly insensible in light of the actually exchange being had. If i said "Hey, how're you doing?" and you reply "Uh, it's about 11:45 i think" you need to be told you didn't address teh question. That is eaxctly what's happening here.

Where did I state this was a mental condition? Do women have a mental condition for wanting to wear dresses and paint their nails? No. Same with transgendered individuals. Look, my friend wrote lesbian fan fiction for years (Nothing I'm interested in). I've never once thought it was a mental condition. — Philosophim

I did not intimate that you did. If you read what I wrote and took that you from it you literally had to make up a load of words that I didn't write. Apart from this, this utter strawman you want me to reply to is insulting. You can do better.

My entire point is that "transgenderism" is a condition, and that liking certain fashion is not. HOw could you possible be this horrible at reading plain English? This si why I asked you to go back and poinmt out how you got to these conclusions. YOu've refused. I have to assume you are not actually reading these replies, now that i've given you the chance to show otherwise.

I'm not seeing the contradiction, — Philosophim

Sorry, are you actually having trouble understanding plain English here? You literally quoted where i said i saw a contradiction and you cleared it up.

I apologise but this frustration is 100% warranted. You are not engaging whatosever. You are either being dishonest, or not reading my replies, you're bringing up things that aren't related to points, you're misattributing utterances and you're making claims about things you're quoting that aren't supported by the quotes.

What I guess I am saying is that your demand for clear language to me seems like it's trying to fence in some complex ideas that have no convenient solution. — Tom Storm

They do. Though. The ambiguous language is what leaves open all of the routes of harm.

Compassion without analysis is bereft of effectiveness.

You do love your definitions don't you. — unenlightened

I do. I've found in many discussions over the years that unclear or poor definitions are 9/10ths of the problem. Not to say I'm not guilty of using poor definitions of my own. But I do try where possible not to.

I clearly wrote that if gene therapy developed to allow more radical changes in genes, then one's genetic make up would not be immutable and become a lifestyle choice. Just as it is already a lifestyle choice to modify one's hormone levels and body form. You interpret the conditional as an absolute, because you did not read to understand, but to dispute. — unenlightened

See? Now I'm guilty of being unclear. :) The point is that sex is genetic. If you could change your genes, then you could change your sex. I have no problem with that. Modifying specific sex hormones or castrating your normal hormone production organs doesn't make you the opposite sex. If you're a male, you're now a male with low testosterone and higher levels of estrogen. If you get surgery to cut your breast tissue out, you're a woman with missing breast tissue.

A male Eunich, is still a male. A woman in a suit is still a woman. A man who paints their nails is a man who paints their nails. This is clear and universal no matter what one's gender intentions are. I think that makes the issue clear and unambiguous while avoiding sexism. If you see a problem with this, what's the problem in your view?

" Tying lifestyle with sex or race is the definition of sexism and racism." As for this, it is really just bluster. — unenlightened

This is not bluster. This is very real. If you say, "Because you're black, you have to like basketball," that's racism. If you say, "Because you're black, you probably like basketball," that's prejudice. If you say, "Because you're a woman, you paint your nails," is sexism. "Because you're a woman, you probably paint your nails," is prejudice. Tying expected culture with the physical attributes of a person is the source of prejudice and isms.

If one notices for example that black men are hugely over represented in the prison population, that might be because of lifestyle being associated with race, or it might be because of a racist culture. — unenlightened

But does that mean that going to prison means you're black? Or that if you're black, we should say, "You're probably been, or are going to prison one day?" In the case of a fact, that more people who are black go to prison, it is important that we understand it is either culture, or other people's culture that have put them there. We don't say, "It is an aspect of being born black that causes you to commit more crimes." right?

Women spend more time, money and effort on their appearance than men on average. This is a trivial social observation, not sexism. — unenlightened

If its a social observation, its likely prejudice. But lets avoid that. Lets say we have actual facts that women spend more on their appearance than average. Is that across all cultures? Is that the destiny of a woman's DNA that this be? If I'm a woman who spends less on my appearance than most men, does that mean suddenly I'm not a woman anymore? My sister never paints her nails, wears minimal make up, and doesn't wear dresses. She's married to a man and has two kids. Is my sister not a woman? Is she a gay man who had children with her gay lover? While this might seem silly, I have seen gender/sex discussions devolve into such nonsense. My sister is a woman by her DNA, not her expressed culture or actions.

Sex is not an identity. Sex is an embodiment.
— Philosophim

Again you use your definition to prove other definitions and conceptions wrong. You know that is illegitimate argument. — unenlightened

No, because I've clearly separated culture and expectations associated with someone who has a particular body. And what is male and female based off of? What are we crossing? The sexual aspects of bodies. Gender is the cultural expectations we heap upon those different bodies. That's why its 'trans' gender. Trans means to move. You are moving from a gender expected of a female, to the gender expected of a male. You are not becoming male in body. That would be transex. Isn't that clear and unambiguous? What's wrong with it being clear and unambiguous?

Bodies can be modified, and this I suspect is what motivates you to retreat to genes as the last refuge of immutability. — unenlightened

No, its not modification. Its that there can be variety in sexual expression. A man can have extremely low testosterone. A woman can have abnormally high testosterone. That doesn't change their sex. Whether you modify aspects of your body, or the phenotype of your body is naturally 'abnormal', it doesn't change your sex. If I put blackface on am I black? No different than putting whiteface on doesn't make me white.

The story of mankind, and in particular of the scientific revolution is very much one of liberation from the immutability of nature. And every stage has suffered resistance from the old guard. — unenlightened

I have no problem with modification. You seem to be attributing things beyond my argument. If transex people wish to modify their body, I have no problem with this. I believe people should be free to do what they want to do in life. There are people who also want to cut their arm off. If after a discussion they still want to, let them. You seem to have a problem with me trying to make the language between gender and sex more clear. Why? What advantage is there in keeping them ambiguous and confusing? That's not advancement.

Eunuchs go back a long way before genetics were dreamed of, and the technique of controlling and modifying sex has been applied to humans and domesticated animals since antiquity. These were and still are seen as sexual modifications - one does not hear much about the gender identity of geldings. — unenlightened

Of course. But they're still male eunichs. We're taking males and making sure they can't reproduce. They don't magically turn into women.

In animal husbandry, sex is a function, and one to be controlled, not at all immutable. Not penis, but functioning balls define the male. — unenlightened

"Primary sex determination is the determination of the gonads. In mammals, primary sex determination is strictly chromosomal and is not usually influenced by the environment. In most cases, the female is XX and the male is XY. Every individual must have at least one X chromosome."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9967/#:~:text=Primary%20sex%20determination%20is%20the,at%20least%20one%20X%20chromosome.

In otherwords, its a male without balls. And of course this would be identified as such. A male without balls cannot be milked or birth. They don't say, "Its a female cow that can't be milked or give birth."

These are perfectly understandable usages that reflect the complexity of life rather better in my opinion than a rigid definition can manage. — unenlightened

As you can see, they don't. I have a very important question for you. Why the resistance to clearer definitions and language? Why the resistance between the division of sex as embodied, and gender as culture? What advantage does that give? Doesn't it seem dishonest to coach your words in ambiguity as if you're hiding something? Honesty is straight forwards and unambiguous. So lets have some honesty.

Foucault was and remains risible — AmadeusD

He must remain risible for you in order for you to maintain your way of understanding the basis of scientific fact.