Well, it's culturally dependent — Baden

100%. If there were no cultural issues then there would be no issues in men and women sharing spaces. However, there are issues.

However, if a trans man wishes to use the female restroom they would be allowed as they are female. — Malcolm Parry

That means your objection is not based on what someone looks like or what physical bits they have. And, if so, what does it matter whether trans women pass for women?

However, there are issues. — Malcolm Parry

There clearly are issues and it's up to you as a society to work them out to your preference. But any rational social policy should be logically consistent with itself at least. It's not logically consistent to base a policy of disbarring people from women's spaces on women being disturbed by the physical presence of men and then base entry to those spaces not on physical characteristics defining such presence but ultimately on something that can be entirely unseen like chromosomes.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

How (philosophically) does a male (if there is such a thing since it’s a spectrum) become a woman? It isn’t how they dress, what they do for a job, what they watch/consume etc. so what is it?

Have you details of a person who is both male and female?

It's not logically consistent to base a policy of disbarring people from women's spaces on women being disturbed by the physical presence of men and then base entry to those spaces not on physical characteristics defining such presence but ultimately on something that can be entirely unseen like chromosomes. — Baden

It would be based on physical characteristics in the vast vast majority of the time. It is obvious who is male and female unless a lot of money is spent on synthetic hormones and surgery. I would speculate it would be still possible to give the correct sex of the person.
If there are a few anomalies then so be it.

Let's leave it there then. Thank you for the chat.

Have you details of a person who is both male and female? — Malcolm Parry

In the most extreme case there's ovotesticular syndrome, where someone has both ovarian and testicular tissue, and can be caused by 46,XX/46,XY chimerism.

It’s an interesting subject.

But they are either male or female. They aren’t both.

But they are either male or female. They aren’t both. — Malcolm Parry

Then which are they? And what about them determines this?

So you're saying it's a human right, not yet a civil right. — frank

Well, depending on what school of thought you choose to subscribe to (which is a civil right in and of itself, right to choose how one governs one's life choices ie. religion) "rights" are merely social constructs. Basically, as much as I would wish otherwise, no divine power is going to incinerate you if you intentionally violate another person's sense of well-being, safety, or dignity. Society has mechanisms (law enforcement, court systems, etc.) that do their best to do so (proactively via enforcement and retroactively via pressing charges), and little else. That's all we really have to work with here.

Bearing that in mind, we have social expectations, norms, and ideals. More pertinently, codified laws that the public largely agrees with as either necessary or that are socially advantageous in nature.

Harassment is a good example. You have a right to insult someone and degrade them with your words and (legal) actions. But in focused continuity, day in and day out, that amounts to the charge of stalking, defamation, slander, etc. There's a reason for these things, and I'm sure you understand what those are.

Legally, I can walk around an entire city all day everyday saying "You're going to die!" to every person I meet. I can do so without technically and legally committing any crime. After all, biology states, yes, all human persons will die at some point. That's not a threat. It's a fact. But there's a reason we discourage people from doing that and perhaps punish those who do. Because it's just not right. Yet, ironically, it is their right to do so if they wish.

To circle back, it's a social expectation, no different than the idea that a child should be able to safely reach adulthood where they can make their own choices before being put into unsafe, dangerous, or cruel situations. Or that a man has a right to work so as to feed himself without undue burden or hazard.

Legally, I can walk up to a small child with his family and say something like "I could kill you, your dad, and your mom in one punch each and there wouldn't be a thing you could do to stop me" and laugh in all their faces as the kid cries and whoever they're with considers committing a violent crime against me that in return I would be able to lethally defend myself against and walk out of court scot-free after doing so. Technically, I didn't commit a crime. Did I? I spoke a true fact (hypothetically, in this situation) and it was my "right" to do so. Point being, not all laws have to be intrinsically derived of some "universal human right" to be necessary and desired.

No, like Sir Baden said, apparently (and in my opinion unfortunately) gender-separated places of defecation and the like are not "biologically natural", or whatever he said. I would like him to cite that as well but moving on. As society progresses, so should our laws and understanding of what makes society a place people would willingly defend with their life and blood vs. that which isn't and perhaps we would fight against to destroy so a better one can take root. We either go backwards or we go forwards, and without rules and standards, the direction is quite clear. It's very simple.

Men with ovotesticular DSD have azoospermia and usually display a Sertoli-cell only pattern on histological examination of the testes. Therefore, fertility is very unlikely, even with assisted reproductive techniques. Leydig cell function tends to decrease over time, and testosterone suppletion is necessary in most adult men. Normal menstrual cycles, and possibly fertility, have been observed in some women with ovotesticular DSD and conserved ovarian tissue and a uterus; however, many women develop oligo- or amenorrhea and families should be counseled about the likelihood of infertility (Boucekkine et al., 1994; Verkauskas et al., 2007). Although historically most individuals with ovotesticular DSD have been raised as females, scarce data on psychosexual function suggest an equal or even better outcome in males (Verkauskas et al., 2007).

That doesn't answer the question.

Given that some human has ovotesticular syndrome caused by 46,XX/46,XY chimerism, what is the biological feature that either makes them a male or makes them a female? Of particular relevance are those with bilateral ovotestis and/or streak gonads, as well as ambiguous genitalia.

I get you in terms of the U.S., but I'm trying to work out on what one could consistently base an objection when biological sex and gender have no necessary connection because they are based on different categories of reality and gender is technologically mutable — Baden

I don't think a social construct has to have some "consistent base" other than community buy-in. If people require a person to have male biological sex in order to be a "real man" then biology is part of their gender construct. Their attitudes don't have to be logical.

Does it mean that objectors want anyone regardless of their biological sex to get arrested if they look too masculine? That, as I said, is inconsistent with wanting to protect biological women from encroaches on their space by biological men because it discriminates on a level, the physical, that now has no necessary connection to the biological in practice and so the objection could be applied to biological women as well as biological men. — Baden

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Given that some human has ovotesticular syndrome caused by 46,XX/46,XY chimerism, what is the biological feature that either makes them a male or makes them a female? Of particular relevance are those with bilateral ovotestis and/or streak gonads, as well as ambiguous genitalia. — Michael

Actually that was interesting to research. I will no longer state all individuals are either male or female. Some are mosaic 46,XX/46 XY

500 affected individuals have been reported to date.

What do you want society to do about it? If you have answers i’m in full support. — Malcolm Parry

To be proactive about the attention paid to it, provide resources on all age levels or demographics to bring awareness to it, and crack down on societal stereotyping or cultural narratives which breed what feminists call a 'rape culture'.

Some of this has already been done including studies such these I googled rather quickly. A community sampling of rapists and the guiding factors involved in why they did what they did. Here is an article discussing how people are targeted and what environmental factors involve themselves in it. I'm sure there is already a plethora more of such information which has been conducted and refined over the last twenty years. If we are talking public policy it's best to know thy enemy and these resources inherently provide that.

Obviously, this should already be if not already is a part of most educational courses in High School or College. However, I can't attest to their efficacy. That would involve others investigating the 'successfulness' in these on paper forced courses which freshman have to go through when entering these new life domains.

However, what may be missing or lacking is wider public outreach beyond the initial years if not the improvement of programs geared towards certain businesses or government positions. DEI is the new buzzword for such approaches which could cover this on College campuses and beyond but has been supposedly either gutted or removed altogether. @Harry Hindu celebrates this. . . and then he adds nothing to replace it or advocate for an improvement of it's material. Perhaps I'm wrong but he hasn't been rather vocal on this topic matter and seems to just burn all bridges thinking its better we just swim.

Of a few articles that I read over they seem to note that there is a presence of anti-social mental issues among these offenders but not all of them particularly suffer from this and its not a one fits all diagnosis. Some are fairly similar to you or your neighbor until compounding actions or environmental factors impact a rash horrendous decision. Part of this being possible misconceptions about sexual worth and what women 'owe this person'. For this reason I suspect approaches already taken to mitigate against homegrown terrorists should suit us as well.

Never understood where the leap came for gender to describe societal differences between the sexes to people wanting society to validate their right to pick a gender. Very dismissive of women and their status in society. Women fought long and hard to get the rights and respect they now have. — Malcolm Parry

Well. . . you know what's weird. Feminists are not unaware of the seemingly contradictory manner in which they both advocate for better representation. . . while also attempting to subdue and remove gender stereotypes.

If you emphasize womanhood you also whole sale will import in a number of cultural/societal biases about what a women should do or how they should conduct themselves, etc. However, if you don't do this and attempt to heavily blur the line to the point that all you consider is biological differences then there isn't much of a connecting tissue and it becomes more nebulous what the group is meant to stand for. Am I supposed to band with you ONLY because of what I have between my legs and nothing else? If I band with you because of societal expectations A, B, and C what if I don't hold to those or in matter of fact I contradict them?

If you desire for gender equality or equity but not necessarily gender neutrality then you have to admit both explicitly or implicitly that guiding lines towards specific gender roles will be created. They may even be given moral, religious, or societal support and therefore advocating for enforcing an in/out group mentality inevitably. Which come back to bite us as regards gender equality as its not within law but in terms of social engineering that suddenly we implicitly seem to create our own 'desirable' and 'un-desirable' traits.

So it seems the discussion here also concerns among the rape issue. . . gender neutrality, equality, and equity. Your opinions on the matter only seem to support the notion that we are inherently not ready as a society for gender neutrality even though we are moving in that direction.

A social construct is a concept, idea, or category that is created and maintained by a society or group through shared beliefs and practices, rather than being inherent or naturally occurring. A social construct as something created and maintained by society would be the antithesis of a personal feeling. To change gender, we would have to change society, not an individual's body parts or clothing. — Harry Hindu

There are two sides to this. . . social expectations. . . and personal gender expression.

The social construct was created as a means of distinguishing between the sexes in a society that covers their bodies with clothing. Clothing evolved as a way of flaunting one's sex and resources, the same way peacocks use their tails. So wearing a dress does not make one a woman. It is meant to display the fact that one is already a woman and the dress is means of representing that fact when the dress covers up the fact. — Harry Hindu

Same with varieties of other clothing, physical effects, and even biological changes as minor as pierced ears to plastic surgery.

Go figure, there is a tremendous variety of what people can or already do in flaunting their gender expression for a variety of not entirely exclusive reasons.

I could be wrong, but I highly doubt that - after seeing the photos of those trans-men and/or meeting them in person - any significant number of folks would want trans-men using women's bathrooms. As far as I'm concerned? People should use the bathroom that matches their gender identity - but that's just my opinion.

So it seems the discussion here also concerns among the rape issue. . . gender neutrality, equality, and equity. Your opinions on the matter only seem to support the notion that we are inherently not ready as a society for gender neutrality even though we are moving in that direction. — substantivalism

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. Any actions that prevent anti social, coercive and violent behaviour are to be welcomed and encouraged. However, we have to deal with society we live in and its cultural norms. These norms can change dramatically very swiftly. 20th century was such a time.
Who we are is dependent upon many factors and I think social factors and the “village” are a dominant influence. I’m in UK and whilst it has changed a lot there are still some strong strands of thought and behaviour running through society.
In UK most people can say, do, dress how they like. It is wonderful. There are pockets where this may not be the case but on the whole we are an okay tolerant bunch. So men and women are free to pursue their lives as they wish.
However, there are some areas where women are at a disadvantage and there needs to be some measures put in place to allow women to live a full life.
Sport is obvious and I cannot see how anyone can object to women being allowed to compete exclusively with other women.
Also, places where woman are vulnerable and uncomfortable (in our culture) changing rooms, bathrooms, refuges, lesbian dating sites etc and men need excluding.
Society in uk is pretty good at allowing women to prosper and lead full lives (there are challenges) but society should still allow for personal choice. Most of my mates are blokes and I drink pints. My choice is not gender neutral. It is changing, the youngsters are much less rigid in friendships and that is great but until society has eradicated the problems women face they need certain parts of society to be male free.
I cannot see what is controversial or inconsistent with my stance.
A man can be a trans woman but they are still male. They can do anything a woman can because women can do anything they wish. However, they are men and should be excluded from women’s exclusive places for the reasons I’ve outlined.
We are living in a time where access to knowledge, comfort and a world of exciting possibilities but happiness seems to elude so many people. Philosophy should have the answers but no one wants to listen.

It's not clear to me what delusion you believe they have. We've already established that trans men don't believe that they were born with a penis or XY chromosomes, so it can't be that.

And neither the DSM nor the ICD classify gender dysphoria/incongruence as a type of psychosis, and unless you're a qualified psychiatrist you're in no position to question the professionals – or at the very least I have no good reason to believe you over them. — Michael

They believe they are man when they are a woman. That is the delusion.

Pleading to authority is a logical fallacy.

I asked what makes sex so special in that someone can identify as the opposite sex, but if someone identifies as a cat or an alien, then that qualifies as a type of delusional disorder but the former does not. This goes back to my argument of inconsistency where you are accepting some extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence yet reject other extraordinary claims with no evidence. You are cherry-picking the validity of extraordinary claims for political purposes.

Also, science and medicine can be influenced by politics. Receiving grants is dependent upon your studies aligning with the current government. Plastic surgeons are happy to support trans-gender surgery for obvious reasons. The way I see it is that the plastic surgeons are taking over the jobs of the psychologists in this area.

There is the case where a tax-payer funded study on the effects of puberty blockers that went unpublished for fear it might be "weaponized" by their political opponents. What else is being hidden? This is why it is imperative that political parties be abolished.

This argument stems from a misunderstanding of what science is in that scientific knowledge in not written in stone and is meant to be challenged with logical alternatives and arguments.

Never understood where the leap came for gender to describe societal differences between the sexes to people wanting society to validate their right to pick a gender. Very dismissive of women and their status in society. Women fought long and hard to get the rights and respect they now have. — Malcolm Parry

I'd be willing to bet a year's salary that if men started advocating for shared public bathrooms 30-40 years ago, before all this trans-gender ideology started, the left would be screaming and yelling about protecting women's rights and safe spaces.

Harry Hindu celebrates this. . . and then he adds nothing to replace it or advocate for an improvement of it's material. Perhaps I'm wrong but he hasn't been rather vocal on this topic matter and seems to just burn all bridges thinking its better we just swim. — substantivalism

You don't know shit about what I think because you don't actually read my posts. I already told you that I have talked about long-term solutions for society in other recent political threads on this forum and then provided an immediate solution, which you ignored, so stop trying to link my name to shit I haven't said or implied.

They believe they are man when they are a woman. That is the delusion. — Harry Hindu

You appear to be equivocating.

Here are two plausible interpretations of your claim:

1. They believe they are biologically male when they are biologically female. That is the delusion.
2. They believe they are non-biologically male when they are biologically female. That is the delusion.

If you mean (1) then your claim is false because they do not believe that they are biologically male.

If you mean (2) then your conclusion is a non sequitur.

Pleading to authority is a logical fallacy. — Harry Hindu

It's not a logical fallacy to defer to what mathematicians say about mathematics, to what physicists say about physics, or to what psychiatrists say about psychiatry.

Psychiatrists do not classify gender incongruence as a psychosis. Unless you have studied psychiatry you are not qualified to have an informed opinion.

People should use the bathroom that matches their gender identity - but that's just my opinion. — EricH

:up:

If I may throw my own opinion out there, I do believe that Gender Identity and what you are assigned at birth are not the same thing. Gender is not only about organs, but also about how you express and present yourself to others. A lot of people here are using fancy logic trains and confusing messages to convert their point, but I will be clear with mine: If someone tells me their gender, I will refer to them in that gender. We're arguing over what the definition of gender is, and there is no "scientific" way to solve that. You can say it's what you were assigned at birth, or that it's whatever you say it is now, and there is no "evidence" or "proof" that one way is better. It's wholly based on opinion. My choice is the one that is the most respectful to the individual in question. There's no reason to insult, hurt, or annoy others because your opinion on what gender is doesn't line up with theirs. They're not denying what they were born as, simply stating what they are now. And it would be stupid to offend them because of you're opinion. Correcting someone who is factually wrong is one thing, but berating someone and trying to force your interpretation of the word "gender" upon them is small-minded and stupid. Anyways, this is my first contribution here, hope it goes over well :D

Psychiatrists do not classify gender incongruence as a psychosis. Unless you have studied psychiatry you are not qualified to have an informed opinion. — Michael

There's a growing number of detransitioners who say that transitioning was an attempt to cope with trauma. It's very common for detransitioners to claim it was too easy to access gender affirming care, and that people should be carefully screened and councilled, especially if they already have mental health issues.

These issues should be addressed without the aggressive activist commotion.

Gender is not only about organs, but also about how you express and present yourself to others. — Wolfy48

Welcome to the forum. This is something I would like to question you about. What, or rather who, dictates that how one expresses themself or presents themselves to others must be contingent or follow some formulae or set of expectations? Where is this "grand consortium of social interaction" I can visit to better understand how I can better be a male (or female)?

I suppose, specifically, what are the list of "traits", characteristics, or "mannerisms" that "encapsulate" or otherwise define "male expression" and "female expression", respectively. Do you agree with the traditional or stereotypical assortment (ie. male: brashness, boldness. aggression/dominance?; female: whimsy, "daintiness", passivity/submission?) or something else?

Who's to say in some fictional village the female inhabitants just so happened to have evolved larger and more "aggressive" than the male inhabitants who together in turn resemble a living antithesis of modern gender norms (ie. the females are larger, louder, more violent, let's say and the males are smaller, quiter, and more obedient or otherwise on average are submissive to the females). What about that sort of scenario?

Point being, it seems like you're referring to social constructs (that sure, obviously are derived from *circumstantial* biological norms) that still, can vary or change wildly depending on many circumstances. Meaning, just because things happen to be a certain way for most people in most situations, that's just how evolution (or whatever else you believe) happened to have turned out on this one planet this one time. Is that really reliable simply because it's all we know? Ignorance is not knowledge, now is it?

(no pressure. seriously welcome to the forum, this is just, as you can imagine, a highly impassioned, and at times, personal debate for many. Remember: In philosophy we savagely attack ideas, not the persons who hold them. Though sometimes, as you might tell, the lines can get a bit fuzzy during certain types of subject matter. :razz: )

I do believe that Gender Identity and what you are assigned at birth are not the same thing — Wolfy48

How does gender identity manifest itself? A man (biologically) feels his gender is female. What does that mean?

"How does gender identity manifest itself? A man (biologically) feels his gender is female. What does that mean?" --

I simply mean Gender Identity in the sense of how one views and portrays oneself. And that in of itself depends on how an individual views gender. For example, someone may view their own gender as female, so they dress and act in a way that they see as more feminine, trying to express their identity as female. Gender Identity (idk why I keep capitalising it) manifests itself through how an individual views gender, and how they ascribe gender to themselves.

"What, or rather who, dictates that how one expresses themself or presents themselves to others must be contingent or follow some formulae or set of expectations[?]" --

I'd argue that no one dictates it, and that there is no specific formula. Gender identity and expression is entirely relevant on one's own experiences. One part of the world may view "girly" completely differently than another part, and hence someone who expresses themselves as "female" would express themselves differently based on what their culture is like. Basically, gender identity is how an individual understands gender, and where they place themselves in that understanding.

"Do you agree with the traditional or stereotypical assortment (ie. male: brashness, boldness. aggression/dominance?; female: whimsy, "daintiness", passivity/submission?) or something else?"
--

There is something to be said for the effects of testosterone, and what that has done for society's view of what "male" means, but there have always been exceptions to the stereotypes, and I think everyone is free to interpret gender as they please.

"Who's to say in some fictional village the female inhabitants just so happened to have evolved larger and more "aggressive" than the male inhabitants who together in turn resemble a living antithesis of modern gender norms (ie. the females are larger, louder, more violent, let's say and the males are smaller, quiter, and more obedient or otherwise on average are submissive to the females). What about that sort of scenario?" --

This is exactly my point! In this kind of society, someone who portrays themselves as female might act more aggressive, louder, and those who express as male may be more submissive. Of course, stereotypes and gender may not be the same to all people, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some outliers portraying themselves as submissive females or dominant males (or something else entirely).

"Point being, it seems like you're referring to social constructs (that sure, obviously are derived from *circumstantial* biological norms) that still, can vary or change wildly depending on many circumstances." --

Yes. I believe that you are allowed to interpret gender in anyway you want, but that is typically shaped by how you grew up and the culture you were raised around. Perspective is shaped by experience, and that's why people who express themselves as male or female (or something else) tend to do so by portraying the stereotypical "traits" that are associated with the gender they identify with. It's simply what their view of being that gender means.

" Is that really reliable simply because it's all we know? Ignorance is not knowledge, now is it?"
--

Not at all! That's what's beautiful about the world, in my opinion, that there is no "Right" answer, no way to ever truly know something. I'd argue that ignorance has to be knowledge, or else we know nothing. Science can't answer the questions of purpose, meaning, and morality. Science is simply us trying to understand the world we live in. Science is facts, and it is completely up to us to interpret those facts. You say that societal gender constructs are unreliable because they are how evolution randomly happened, and therefore are random, but can you say for sure that a divine hand did not guide said evolution? Can you say for sure that anything else could have happened? And even if something else could have happened, should we really include "what-ifs?" in our interpretation of the real world? Society and humanity have developed as they have, perhaps for a reason, perhaps by chance, but I say we should accept it as it is. There is no way to say whether these gender constructs are reliable or not, but they certainly do exist, and certainly need to be addressed in any interpretation of gender identity and expression.

"In philosophy we savagely attack ideas, not the persons who hold them."
--

I know! Don't worry, I don't hold any ill-intent towards anyone just for having a different opinion than I. Everyone is allowed to interpret anything in their own way, and while I may disagree with it, there's typically no way to prove who is right when it comes to interpretation and opinion. :D

so they dress and act in a way that they see as more feminine — Wolfy48

Surely that is an extremely outdated view of what it is to be a woman. How does gender identity women dress and act? Is a woman who likes masculine pursuits and clothes a different gender even if she thinks her gender is female?
I find the concept extremely odd and old fashioned.

"Surely that is an extremely outdated view of what it is to be a woman. How does gender identity women dress and act?" --

Not really? I'm fairly confident that the majority of the populace believes in "boys" and "girls" clothing. And I am also fairly confident that most people, when thinking of a female or male, imagine them wearing that clothing. Most people who identify as a different gender than what they were born as dress that way as well, I feel, as it gives them a sense of validation in their own eyes. Not outdated at all.

"Is a woman who likes masculine pursuits and clothes a different gender even if she thinks her gender is female?" --

Nope! Again, Gender is based on how an individual interprets gender, and their gender identity is based on how they place themselves in terms of gender. I'm only saying that people typically seek to express their gender by wearing clothes typically ascribed to that gender. Others just like to wear clothes of the other gender, or simply don't care what they wear. Clothes do not impact gender, but gender can impact how you choose to express yourself.