The delusion is that there is more to being a woman than having XX Chromosomes, ovaries and vagina. — Harry Hindu

So their delusion is in thinking that the English noun "woman" doesn't just mean "an adult human with an XX karyotype, ovaries, and a vagina"?

Well, this isn't a delusion because it's true. The English noun "woman" doesn't just mean this. It has more than one meaning. It can also refer to a non-biological gender.

And even if it were false, thinking that a word means something it doesn't hardly qualifies as a type of psychosis.

Why are we even talking about sex genitalia in a thread about gender? Again, why should it matter what sex parts one has (and to even call artificial sex parts, "sex parts" is questionable) if gender is a feeling and/or social construct? — Harry Hindu

Because people like you are claiming that things like bathrooms and changing rooms ought be divided by biological sex. So why? What is the relevant difference between biological men and biological women such that they ought get changed in different rooms? Why don't we all get changed in the same room?

Still talking about differences in sexes....

If these properties exist in both males and females then how can you say that these mental functions and behaviors are distinctions of sex rather than simply being part of the variety that exists among all humans? Also, are these mental functions and behaviors of each sex consistent across all cultures? If so, we would be talking about something biological, not cultural. — Harry Hindu

I don't understand what you're asking here.

There are observable psychological differences between the sexes. How much of this is nature and how much is nurture is still an open question, though it's likely that both play a role.

But this isn't some absolute distinction such that every biological male has one type of psychology and every biological female has the other type of psychology. There are people who fall in between, and there are biological males who share the type of psychology typical of biological females and biological females who share the type of psychology typical of biological males.

I've come to the same conclusion. Being trans does not change a person into the opposite sex. It's just a person behaving as if they're the opposite sex. — frank

What behaviors are specific to a sex? Wanting to wear a dress and high heels is specific to a certain culture. The way women are expected to dress can vary across cultures, so would not be something based in biology and sex.

So their delusion is in thinking that the English noun "woman" doesn't just mean "an adult human with an XX karyotype, ovaries, and a vagina"?

Well, this isn't a delusion because it's true. The English noun "woman" doesn't just mean this. It has more than one meaning. It can also refer to a non-biological gender. — Michael

Yet you keep referring to biology. I have already been over this and we are going in circles because you won't address what a non-biological gender is and keep brining up biology while saying that gender is not biological. You haven't addressed the questions I posed about gender being social, nor have you explained which feelings one is referring to if gender is a feeling.

But this isn't some absolute distinction such that every biological male has one type of psychology and every biological female has the other type of psychology. There are people who fall in between, and there are biological males who share the type of psychology typical of biological females and biological females who share the type of psychology typical of biological males. — Michael

Then how does one determine which psychological attributes are male or female if they occur across the sexes? Is there some study that shows the ratio in which these attributes occur with the presence of the sex parts like chromosomes and genitalia?

But, sure, in some idealised society that has no gender roles and where there is never any kind of separation or difference between biological males and biological females (outside of reproduction and reproductive health), and assuming for the sake of argument that sex differences in psychology are explained entirely by nurture and not by nature, then perhaps transgenderism wouldn't occur (although gender dysphoria might) – but we don't live in such a world. — Michael

We also don't live in a world with unisex bathrooms. Abolishing clothes, or making all clothes unisex instead of having distinctly Women's clothes and Men's clothes, would abolish transgenderism. Your goal for a unisex society would effectively be a society in which transgenderism would not exist.

Well, this isn't a delusion because it's true. The English noun "woman" doesn't just mean this. It has more than one meaning. It can also refer to a non-biological gender. — Michael

I would just like to say that I don't like using English definitions like this.
Let me explain, the English language was and is made by a person or people. While we do need specific definitions for terms, limiting the conversation through definitions just seems wrong to me. (I haven't been here the entire time so I might be off base.)
Then I was wondering about the focus on physiological attributes of certain genders. I think it had to do with appearance connecting to a sense of safety (but I may be wrong.)
There are many people who act with attributes of a different gender without transitioning. For example, and only for understanding, you have probably seen on tv somewhere gay or lesbian people acting more feminine or masculine respectively.
So gender doesn't only have to do with physiological attributes.

I explained it very clearly above.

There are sex differences in psychology.

These differences drive the development of gender expression and gender roles in society – expressions and roles which have absolutely nothing to do with karyotype and almost nothing to do with phenotype.

Almost all biological men "belong" to the same psychological/social/cultural group, and so we (also) name this psychological/social/cultural group "men".

Almost all biological women "belong" to the same psychological/social/cultural group, and so we (also) name this psychological/social/cultural group "women".

But some biological men and some biological women do not "fit" within the typical psychological/social/cultural group that members of their biological sex usually "belong" to. Some push the boundaries of one group or the other, and so identify as "gender non-conforming", some "fit" somewhere in the middle, and so identify as "non-binary", and some "fit" within the psychological/social/cultural group that is typical of the opposite biological sex, and so identify as "transgender".

It's really not that hard to understand.

What isn't the case – contrary to your continued misrepresentations – is that transgender women are "biological men who believe they are biological women" or that transgender men are "biological women who believe they are biological men".

Wanting to wear a dress and high heels is specific to a certain culture. — Harry Hindu

True.

There are sex differences in psychology. — Michael

And I am asking you how it logically follows that these distinctions qualify as sexual differences if they occur across both sexes.

As I have pointed out before, biological sex is based on a combination of five traits (chromosomes,
genitals, gonads, hormones and secondary sex characteristics). Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these. If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between.

Do these psychological differences occur with the rest of these sexual characteristics with the same ratio (99.9%)? If so, wouldn't that mean that they are actually a biological woman or man? If not, then how can you say that these differences are based on sex? Are hair color, eye color, and skin color now based on sex too? These differences occur randomly among the sexes so are not considered characteristics of one's sex.

limiting the conversation through definitions just seems wrong to me — Red Sky

It seems to me that the conversation is limited when you don't have clear definitions of what it is we are talking about. Without clear definitions we end up talking past each other. Effectively, no communication occurs.

And I am asking you how it logically follows that these distinctions qualify as sexual differences if they occur across both sexes. — Harry Hindu

Presumably because of their prevalence. If some trait is typical of 98% of biological men but only 2% of biological women then it’s an example of a sex difference, but you’re better off asking a psychologist, not me.

I’ve linked to the article, it has a list of references, so do the research if you’re unwilling to trust it at face value.

It seems to me that the conversation is limited when you don't have clear definitions of what it is we are talking about. — Harry Hindu

It's true that I am not as much 'in the thick of it' as you, I also now realize that my comment doesn't exactly fit the situation.
However, what I wanted to point out was that fitting strictly to textbook definitions and using them as a tool by following them to a T seems wrong to me. However what I previously responded to was not such a situation in this case, but it did seem like that person was trying to put their own definition to the word.

There are sex differences in psychology. — Michael

These majority of those listed seem largely circumstantial for reasons I'll soon explain.

Basically, it's a list of common stereotypes. Listed as follows:

Women: More inclined to be afraid. More inclined to be passive or submissive. More emotional (positively, along the lines of empathy, understanding, or nurturing).

Men: (obviously the opposite of the above). More assertive or aggressive. More emotional (negatively, along the lines of anger, frustration, and pride).

So, let's analyze these traits in the context of modern and semi-modern societies, shall we?

So, everybody knows a father looks at his daughter unlike the way he looks at a son. While specifics may vary there is generally one common theme and that's that the daughter is "a precious little angel that has to be protected at all cost" whereas the male is a "little me who's going to have to fight and struggle to make his way in the world." So, throughout one's entire upbringing, specifically the first 5 years of life (crucial development period) this is instilled consciously and directly as well as subconsciously and by various indirect means.

This effectively explains the majority of the psychological and behavior differences, in one swing.

But I'll do one better. Even the minor "behavioral" quirks or mannerisms people don't tend to focus on much but do generally recognize as either "feminine" or "masculine." Say, putting one's hands on one's hips in frustration, for example. Women generally have larger, wider hips than men. Therefore, it's becomes a "natural" biological inclination.

Same thing for increased muscle tone for males on average. Where the insult "limp-wristed (what have you)" comes in. A man's arm is generally more large and muscular and the male wrist is generally more self-supportive than that of their female counterpart.

These both are minor, incredibly minor in their insignificance, in and of themselves, that is. Yet they seem to be, if not main, secondary biological factors (circumstantial, mind you) that determine many behaviors or inclinations toward behaviors over others.

Without getting carried away, simply put, I'm suggesting the possibility that the majority of the differences between sexes found in the article you linked are cultural, social, and otherwise "learned." I.E. they don't really mean anything other than that's how people raise their kids so that's how they turn out. If they raised them the opposite, than they would turn out the opposite, thus meaning those differences are not really scientific or intrinsic to any sex and are simply "traditions" passed on from one generation or society to the next. Not including the mannerisms or "convenience tendencies" that conform to the actual physical differences between the sexes (ie. daintiness in one's gait, hands on one's hips, etc.).

And that's even before testosterone and estrogen come into play. Some ethnotypes (races) have generally lower or higher testosterone and estrogen than others. This is due to evolutionary factors generally linked to the terrain and climate from where they "come from." If everything is nice and peaceful, it's a calm flat verdant meadow with everything "just right there", the need for testosterone was probably lower than say, a hot jungle, or rugged mountainous terrain that required constant toil each day. Should that mean certain races are more "masculine" or "famine" than others? It certainly shouldn't. But if you base everything based on those two chemicals well, to that person, it does.

I'm suggesting the possibility that the majority of the differences between sexes found in the article you linked are cultural, social, and otherwise "learned." — Outlander

It does say as much:

Sex differences in psychology are differences in the mental functions and behaviors of the sexes and are due to a complex interplay of biological, developmental, and cultural factors.

...

Such variation may be innate, learned, or both.

...

A number of factors combine to influence the development of sex differences, including genetics and epigenetics; differences in brain structure and function; hormones, and socialization.

...

Both biological and social/environmental factors have been studied for their impact on sex differences. Separating biological from environmental effects is difficult, and advocates for biological influences generally accept that social factors are also important.

So I suppose there's likely a sort of feedback loop across the centuries, with any initial social and cultural differences between the sexes stemming from "natural" psychological differences, and then these social and cultural differences being the cause of further "nurtured" psychological differences which in turn drive further social and cultural differences.

You're getting a little speculative there.

You're getting a little speculative there. — frank

Yep.

It’s interesting to consider how and why the social and cultural differences between men and women have developed over time. I suspect things were very different in the Paleolithic.

It’s interesting to consider how and why the social and cultural differences between men and women have developed over time. I suspect things were very different in the Paleolithic. — Michael

:up:

There are sex differences in psychology.

These differences drive the development of gender expression and gender roles in society – expressions and roles which have absolutely nothing to do with karyotype and almost nothing to do with phenotype. — Michael

The article you cited leads with the following sentence:

"Sex differences in psychology are differences in the mental functions and behaviors of the sexes and are due to a complex interplay of biological, developmental, and cultural factors."

This causually relates (i.e. "due to") psychology to biology. This statement seems obvious, so I don't follow your argument that gender behavior "has absolutely nothing to do with karotype." While it's obvious some biological individuals don't conform with typical expected gender roles, the high rate of conformity certainly suggests a causual biological/gender relationship that requires the existence of certain variables (i.e. developmental and cultural factors) to disrupt.

To argue otherwise just seems to create a radical environmental influence position, stating that gender expression and biology only correlate due to social pressure and nothing else. The observable affect of testosterone alone seems to contradict this, which is a direct product of karotype, coming from the XY created testes.

Presumably because of their prevalence. If some trait is typical of 98% of biological men but only 2% of biological women then it’s an example of a sex difference, but you’re better off asking a psychologist, not me.

I’ve linked to the article, it has a list of references, so do the research if you’re unwilling to trust it at face value. — Michael

It's your argument. You're the one that needs to support it, not me. You're the one that simply accepts what your told without question.

There is some research that suggests in European populations women are twice as likely to be blonde than men, but we don't say that blonde hair and not-blonde hair are sex differences.

It's true that I am not as much 'in the thick of it' as you, I also now realize that my comment doesn't exactly fit the situation.
However, what I wanted to point out was that fitting strictly to textbook definitions and using them as a tool by following them to a T seems wrong to me. However what I previously responded to was not such a situation in this case, but it did seem like that person was trying to put their own definition to the word. — Red Sky

It's not that. Michael can't seem to decide which definition of gender he is using - the biological one or the non-biological one. He is essentially making category mistakes.

We also don't live in a world with unisex bathrooms. Abolishing clothes, or making all clothes unisex instead of having distinctly Women's clothes and Men's clothes, would abolish transgenderism. Your goal for a unisex society would effectively be a society in which transgenderism would not exist. — Harry Hindu

I didn't see any pushback on this. So are we to assume that your ulterior motive here is the eradicate transgenderism by applying unisex policies across the board and to have men physically closer to women when they have their pants down?

We separate bathrooms by sex because it is an area where we uncover our sex parts. It is obvious why we categorize urinating with sex because they use the same parts. Gender, as separate from sex and biology, does not share those same intimate relations, so would play no role in determining which bathroom you use. Your urinary parts is what separates bathrooms, not how you dress. It just seems creepy to advocate for men to be physically closer to women when their pants are down.

It’s interesting to consider how and why the social and cultural differences between men and women have developed over time. I suspect things were very different in the Paleolithic. — Michael

Which is to say that gender changes over time and cultures. So if a person travels to a different culture or to a different time, does their gender change? The "spectrum" of gender as a social construct exists as the relation between cultures and times, not particular feelings in an individual (and therefore not psychological), so changing genders would require you to move to a different culture or time, not changing your feelings. So which is it, is gender a social construct - a spectrum of societal expectations of the sexes, or is it a spectrum of various feelings an individual has?

If gender is psychological then provide some examples that are clearly psychological (which would just mean that they are biological) instead of being clearly social/cultural - like wearing a dress and high heels is.

We separate bathrooms by sex because it is an area where we uncover our sex parts. — Harry Hindu

Which is why I said it makes sense to let trans women who have had bottom surgery use the women’s bathroom and trans men who have had bottom surgery use the men’s bathroom.

So which is it, is gender a social construct - a spectrum of societal expectations of the sexes, or is it a spectrum of various feelings an individual has? — Harry Hindu

It’s both, which is why the article on gender that I directed you to says “gender is the range of social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral aspects of being a man (or boy), woman (or girl), or third gender.”

If gender is psychological then provide some examples that are clearly psychological (which would just mean that they are biological) instead of being clearly social/cultural - like wearing a dress and high heels is. — Harry Hindu

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity

It's your argument. You're the one that needs to support it, not me. — Harry Hindu

It’s not my argument. It’s what the experts in psychology and psychiatry have determined. If you think that they're wrong then the burden is on you to explain where they’ve gone wrong. I no more have to support their claims than I have to support the claims of biologists when trying to educate someone on evolution.

And this is the fundamental problem with your position. You seem to question the very existence of gender (as something distinct from biological sex) despite what the experts say and despite the existence of transgender people.

It's one thing to argue that sports teams, bathrooms, prisons, etc. ought be divided by biological sex regardless of gender identity – and as this is a political matter you're well within your rights to – but to deny that gender identity is even a thing strikes me as willful ignorance.

What I mean is that tuxedos being “men’s clothes” and dresses being “women’s clothes” is entirely a social and cultural construct and has nothing to do with a person’s DNA. And the same for other social and cultural differences between the sexes.

Certainly many psychological differences between the sexes are influenced by karyotype - to the extent that karyotype influences hormones and that nature trumps nurture - and these psychological differences may explain why certain gender roles and gender expressions are the way they are - which is what I was explaining in that comment.

It’s both, which is why the article on gender that I directed you to says “gender is the range of social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral aspects of being a man (or boy), woman (or girl), or third gender.” — Michael

Well shoot why not a fourth gender? Or a fifth. Or a sixth. Or a 12th while we're at it! This is not slippery slope fallacy, this is what people will attempt to argue for. A limit must be drawn lest mankind wander forever lost in a dystopian deluge of his own making.

Well shoot why not a fourth gender? Or a fifth. Or a sixth. Or a 12th while we're at it! This is not slippery slope fallacy, this is what people will attempt to argue for. — Outlander

Well, yes. The Bugis society recognizes five genders, and has so for at least 600 years.

A limit must be drawn lest mankind wander forever lost in a dystopian deluge of his own making. — Outlander

Why? There's no singularly correct way for society and culture to be structured. You seem to have some Western bias, thinking that it's only appropriate to group people according to biological sex and not in other ways.

Which is why I said it makes sense to let trans women who have had bottom surgery use the women’s bathroom and trans men who have had bottom surgery use the men’s bathroom. — Michael

Here we go again with conflating gender with biology, which leaves out those that have not had surgery.

It’s both, which is why the article on gender that I directed you to says “gender is the range of social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral aspects of being a man (or boy), woman (or girl), or third gender.” — Michael

But you just spoke about gender as biology (by having surgery) and now it is back to gender as non-biological. You are being inconsistent in your use of the term, "gender".

I have also asked for examples of gender as something psychological. I have already shown an example of gender as something cultural (sexist tropes). So I'm still waiting on you to provide an example of what you mean. Just tell me what you mean when you assert you are a man or woman? Why can't you do that simple thing?

It’s not my argument. It’s what the experts in psychology and psychiatry have determined. If you think that they're wrong then the burden is on you to explain where they’ve gone wrong. — Michael

I'm not even saying they're wrong. I'm asking a question about how they can they reach the conclusions they have when the evidence they provide doesn't include necessary information to reach that conclusion and is contradictory. I asked how it logically follows that these distinctions qualify as sexual differences if they occur across both sexes. This is required information and the fact that it is not included is suspicious. The fact that I cannot find the information is also suspicious - kind of like how that study that showed the negative effects of transitioning children was swept under the rug. I have shown evidence that scientists are not always truthful and can be manipulated by politics as much as anyone else, yet you keep pleading to authority when I have shown that the authority you are pleading to has not provided all the necessary information and has been caught keeping necessary information out of the public view.

And when we live in an age of disinformation propagated by the authorities on both sides of the political spectrum, why would you not at least question authority than hides necessary information to claim what they are claiming?

So their delusion is in thinking that the English noun "woman" doesn't just mean "an adult human with an XX karyotype, ovaries, and a vagina"?

Well, this isn't a delusion because it's true. The English noun "woman" doesn't just mean this. It has more than one meaning. It can also refer to a non-biological gender. — Michael

I'm sympathetic to this, but when we label someone as "man", along with a physical description of a male (genitalia, chromosomes, etc.) that label also denotes that, on average, men are stronger than women and more violent and predatory. Would you agree?

I'm sympathetic to this, but when we label someone as "man", along with a physical description of a male (genitalia, chromosomes, etc.) that label also denotes that, on average, men are stronger than women and more violent and predatory. Would you agree? — RogueAI

There is some research that suggests that on average, in European populations women are twice as likely to be blonde than men, but we don't say that blonde hair and not-blonde hair are sex differences.

Biological sex is based on a combination of five traits (chromosomes, genitals, gonads, hormones and secondary sex characteristics). Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these.

Women can be violent and predatory. So the question is, what is the threshold by which we define which characteristics are sexual differences, and which aren't? The fact that we even have a 99% ratio of different characteristics occurring naturally together must speak to what it means to be a woman or a man independent of our use of language. Everything else would be decided by one's culture.

Men being physically stronger than women isn't a cultural thing. Neither is having more testosterone, which we know affects behavior. Has there ever been a culture where men have not committed more crimes than women?

Here we go again with conflating gender with biology, which leaves out those that have not had surgery. — Harry Hindu

I’m not conflating gender with biology. I am simply pointing out that if we separate bathrooms according on one’s sex organs, as you say we should, then it makes sense to allow those with an artificial penis to use the same bathroom as those with a natural penis and to allow those with an artificial vagina to use the same bathroom as those with a natural vagina.

Included in those with artificial genitals are trans people who have had surgery, intersex people who have had surgery, and cisgender people who have had surgery after an unfortunate accident with a buzz saw.

I have also asked for examples of gender as something psychological. I have already shown an example of gender as something cultural (sexist tropes). So I'm still waiting on you to provide an example of what you mean. Just tell me what you mean when you assert you are a man or woman? Why can't you do that simple thing? — Harry Hindu

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity

I'm not even saying they're wrong. I'm asking a question about how they can they reach the conclusions they have when the evidence they provide doesn't include necessary information to reach that conclusion and is contradictory. I asked how it logically follows that these distinctions qualify as sexual differences if they occur across both sexes. This is required information and the fact that it is not included is suspicious. The fact that I cannot find the information is also suspicious - kind of like how that study that showed the negative effects of transitioning children was swept under the rug. I have shown evidence that scientists are not always truthful and can be manipulated by politics as much as anyone else, yet you keep pleading to authority when I have shown that the authority you are pleading to has not provided all the necessary information and has been caught keeping necessary information out of the public view.

And when we live in an age of disinformation propagated by the authorities on both sides of the political spectrum, why would you not at least question authority than hides necessary information to claim what they are claiming? — Harry Hindu

If you don’t trust what the experts have determined then I don’t see how I can help. As I alluded to before, I can no more prove that there are sex differences in psychology than I can prove that humans evolved via natural selection from single-celled organisms. All I can do is point you in the direction of the research. What you do with that is out of my control.