I am not sure what that means?

Gender roles, gender identity, sexual behaviors and secondary sexual features, get confusing pretty quickly?

With caution and trepidation (heated reactions out there) may I mildly suggest that 58 gender options is bullshit. — Bitter Crank

I do not mean to advocate for this many gender options (and there seems to be some conflation of gender identity and sexual preference or behavior in the list). I just posted it to show where social media and political correctness have brought us. I think probably a much smaller number of categories would suffice for gender identity. I am not sure 59 categories would suffice for sexual behaviors especially if one started specifying various fetishes, BDSM and such. I think both gender identity and sexual preferences are not free conscious choices but rather have much deeper subconscious correlates (physiologic) and motivations/emotions (psychologic) if one wishes to pretend they are separate categories.

Since when does "psychological state" not include the underlying brain, mind, anatomy, neural circuity, neurotransmitters and hormones (physiology) that gives rise to it?
An appropriate scientific or medical reference would be welcome.
Since when does psychology not include the brain and mind?
The real issue here is whether such behaviors and gender roles are a matter of choice or not. I am perfectly happy to concede I do not regard them as free choices one makes voluntarily or that can be changed through therapy or counseling.

This is a mine field with respect to terminology and it is very easy to attack someone elses use of words without trying to clarify one's own position.

First off, sexual preferences (gay, straight, homosexual, lesbian) are neither a gender identification nor a physical sexual feature of the body. These individuals identify gender wise (usually) with their bodily physical sexual characteristic, there is just a sexual behavioral preference.

I do not wish to imply sexual preferences or gender identity are entirely a matter of conscious choice but instead they have to do with deep seated subconscious emotional drives and preferences.

I used the term "psychological state" as a factor in both gender identity and sexual behavioral preference and that was attacked but I have yet to see a viable alternative.

Without getting into a mind body discussion about sexual preferences and gender identity being entirely determined by neural circuits, hormones and neuro transmitters (as opposed to visible physical sexual characteristics) I still use "psychological" until someone offers a better terminology.

This is not a courtroom, it is a philosophy forum and these types of questions do not lend themselves to a simple yes or no question. I think sexual preferences or or sexual fetishes have a strong subconscious component (i.e. are not conscious choices), and there is some evidence of differences in the structure of the brain. So gender identity (much less sexual behavior) is both psychological and physical and not necessarily fixed in the manner you imply. It seems you feel you are here to win arguments and not necessarily to try to understand other points of view. The range of variation in physical sexual features is complicated enough much less peoples gender identification. Is gender identification, in your view, mental or physical, or both?

It is not that simple. I don't wish to give the impression it is solely a matter of choice, and I don't refer to "psychological state" to mean it is necessarily a conscious decision or a decision that does not have neurological correlates. I merely mean to point out that one's physical characteristics are not always concordant with one;s gender identification and that a binary model is inadequate for human behavior..

Then you must think your being Straight or Gay is a psychological state, since that could change over time, too. So, you are misusing the term "psychological state." — John Harris

I am afraid you need to expound or elaborate on that. People often change their mind (psychological state) over time, especially younger people, about their gender identification, many do not.

People's sexual identity can vary over time, so I think gender not only is not binary but it also represents a psychological state, you are free to disagree.

No, it's not dogmatic; its just a specific theistic belief. Polytheism can be dogmatic, and you're making it such by attacking my monotheistic argument. — John Harris

You seem to be saying God must be omnipotent and omniscient and that any other conception is not God. You seem to be saying also that Jesus is God in the flesh and omnipotent and that other conceptions have to be in error. If you are saying something else please elaborate otherwise I find these proclamations, although orthodox, also dogmatic.

Well many are rejecting the traditional binary sexual or gender identity categories. On facebook one has the following options.
The following are the 58 gender options identified by ABC News:

Agender
Androgyne
Androgynous
Bigender
Cis
Cisgender
Cis Female
Cis Male
Cis Man
Cis Woman
Cisgender Female
Cisgender Male
Cisgender Man
Cisgender Woman
Female to Male
FTM
Gender Fluid
Gender Nonconforming
Gender Questioning
Gender Variant
Genderqueer
Intersex
Male to Female
MTF
Neither
Neutrois
Non-binary
Other
Pangender
Trans
Trans*
Trans Female
Trans* Female
Trans Male
Trans* Male
Trans Man
Trans* Man
Trans Person
Trans* Person
Trans Woman
Trans* Woman
Transfeminine
Transgender
Transgender Female
Transgender Male
Transgender Man
Transgender Person
Transgender Woman
Transmasculine
Transsexual
Transsexual Female
Transsexual Male
Transsexual Man
Transsexual Person
Transsexual Woman
Two-Spirit

There are the physical features and/or reproductive organs one has which is not always binary (true hermaphrodites, psuedo-hermaphrodites and other variations of nature for example).

Then there is the psychological identity or sexual identification one has.
Gender could be taken to be a psychological state whereas sex could be taken to be the physical features but I don't think these terms are understood or used exclusively in that sense. The whole issue has become somewhat complicated of late.

you found us! Welcome to. And what the heck took you so long? :) — jorndoe

I was lost/wandering in the wilderness. I can attest this is the best site (posters) after some experience elsewhere.

just as examples:

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/24588/
Some students at the University of Missouri have called on administrators to remove a statue of founding father Thomas Jefferson, suggesting in a petition and during a recent protest that the campus sculpture is offensive, oppressive, and celebrates a “racist rapist.

http://thehayride.com/2017/05/take-em-nola-demands-removal-andrew-jacksons-statue

Yesterday, Take ‘Em Down NOLA held a rally at the site of the old Jefferson Davis monument. They demanded the removal of still more monuments and the names of streets to be changed. Among the monuments they demanded removed is Andrew Jackson’s monument in Jackson Square.

Take ‘Em Down NOLA’ president Malcolm Suber called for streets such as General Ogden and Jefferson Davis Parkway to be renamed and the monument to President Andrew Jackson, though unassociated with the Confederacy, to come down.

Andrew Jackson, who saved New Orleans in 1815 from British rule, is even more complex than the Confederate monuments. While he was a brilliant general and a former U.S. President, Jackson was a slave owner and he conducted what would be called today genocide against Native Americans. It is for those very reasons why Andrew Jackson is going to be replaced by Harriet Tubman on the $20. That is a move I support, by the way.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/19741/leftist-activists-demand-new-york-museum-take-down-michael-qazvini

On Monday, more than 200 SJW zealots held a protest inside the American Museum of Natural History in New York City to take down the supposedly “racist” statue of former President Theodore Roosevelt. The protest’s organizers, NYC Stands with Standing Rock and Decolonize This Place, also called for Columbus Day to be renamed Indigenous People’s Day.

I think to say there is just one God and He/she/it must be omnipotent and omniscient, is fairly dogmatic.
In any event I don't think this will be a productive conversation. Strange because I actually regard myself as a theist (and have strong religious inclinations) but who do dogmatic theists hate more than atheists? Other theists with competing religious views.

We have come from everything has a spirit, to polytheism, to monotheism. The atheists say just one more God to go. In truth I liked animism (the first) a lot more than any of the others.

"Racist or fraught figures." Now that's a very wide opening for dubious decisions. — Bitter Crank

We have minorities that are offended by Halloween, some offended by Christmas. I've been corrected so many times for saying "Merry Christmas", I switched to "happy holidays" which offended others. The safest thing seems to be say nothing at all. I little off subject but still on the subject of the excesses of Political Correctness, and the "fraught" notion of microagressions.

Well this kind of dogmatism is part of the problem with religion (in many ways especially Christianity).
In any event I, like Thomas Jefferson, admire the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus while having considerable doubts about his divinity. To many, of course, this means I am not a Christian, but I think following the teachings is more important than believing in God taking human form, and what one does in this life is more important than precisely what one believes..

Well we will see what happens, but it is another one of these issues around which there is not great consensus and the views in the South are different than the North.
I do worry about Jefferson, Washington, Jackson, Roosevelt and many others if we begin this sort of project.

I think the most convincing data is the long term data from ice cores, correlating temperature, CO2 levels and other measures over geological time. Of course some people have a problem with getting temperature from ice cores (the science is pretty sound however).

It is pretty clear temperatures and CO2 levels correlate well over the long term. It is also clear we have had a dramatic and sudden rise in the atmospheric CO2. Are we past the point of no return, in some ways yes but failure to take action will only exacerbate the problem. They are many other reasons to try decrease dependency on carbon fuels.

The glaciers and polar caps are melting, the sea level is rising, the corals are dying, the permafrost is thawing and releasing trapped CO2 and methane (a more powerful greenhouse gas), severe storms and weather events are increasing. You will never convince everybody (there are always skeptics and conspiracy theorists) but we can't wait for them.

Your perceived world is created by the interaction of your mind with the external world. Your perceived world is not the "world as it is" but rather a filtered, organized and enhanced version. The world itself does not have colors and sounds, it has EM radiation and vibrations in the air (even these are human conceptions). Instrumentation allows us to extend our senses but that is still a partial and incomplete view of "the world in itself".

This is perhaps where a little Kant (Copernican revolution) is helpful, not too much though or you will slip over into absolute idealism.

Well yes, forever is a long time and change is the one inevitable feature of reality.
There is the Acropolis in Greece and the Forum in Rome, both have been around a long time, statues and all. The Greeks and the Romans both had slaves, BTW.
I just think seeing any/all confederate monuments as just a symbol of slavery is historically incorrect and starting this kind of revisionist history trend is likely to cause more problems than it solves.

Well when it comes to religious conceptions, I think everyone is entitled to their own (assuming they are not persecuting or otherwise harming others of a different belief). I just find the problems inherent in omniscience and omnipotence so severe (regarding evil and free will) that I am happy to entertain conceptions of a somewhat lesser God. One who is persuasive and not coercive, a companion instead of a ruler, one of love not law.

I can see you are losing patience. I am sorry you feel that way.
Just so you can see the extent of the problem. I am done now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monuments_and_memorials_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

It seems to me there are many conceptions of God. In saying "I don't believe in God" one must have some concept or the other in mind. In saying "I do not believe in any conception of God" it begs the question what one does believe in regard to the nature and origins of the universe. In any event one world labels rarely do justice to anyone's thoughtful worldview.

You know if it was put to a vote and the majority voted to remove the statues, then I would not have a problem. That is not what has happened. Instead a minority has protested and some politicians have given in to their version of Political Correctness. Is this really improving race relations? Instead it seems to have inflamed passions? Do you think a vote would pass in all Southern States? I seriously doubt it. I don't think Lincoln would have a problem honoring the fallen of the South or the North.

It does sound a lot like the immovable object and the unstoppable force problem. The object which cannot be known (or infinity, a useful mathematical concept) vs. the being who knows everything (omniscience). One is a useful mathematical concept, the other a common religious conception.

When it comes down to it I don't think omniscience (or omnipotence for that matter is a useful religious conception.

The omnipotent being who can see all the suffering in the future especially if the same being is omnipotent (could change the future if it chose) immediately becomes a responsible for the problem or existence of evil ( a major traditional religious problem and prominent source of disbelief).

Better to regard G as powerful (but not all powerful) giving other entities some degree of agency. Also better have G take in the experience of the world and respond to it by offering possibilities for progress. G is persuasive but not coercive. See process theology or open theology or Whitehead (consequent and primordial nature of God, dipolar theism or best of all Charles Hartshorne's Ominpotence and Other Theological Mistakes (Omniscience is one of them). So the Omnipotent and Omniscient conceptions of God have more problems than just infinity and U.

The gettysburg battlefield where Lincoln spoke those words is filled with statues and monuments of both the south and the north. Once you begin this sort of process, where does it end?

Hi Prothero.
By all accounts Robert E. Lee was an honorable man

Take a look at this article — Cavacava

I was familiar with that article in the Atlantic before I wrote the post. I guess the point is, close scrutiny of almost any historical figure will reveal their weaknesses as well as their strengths. Biographies in early decades generally glossed over the faults but modern historians and biographies try to show these individuals in their true complexity.

Roosevelt turned away Jewish Immigrants before and during the war, and interned Asian-Americans during the war. Should we then tear down all the monuments on the mall and rename all the streets, bridges and buildings?

Jefferson's star has been in decline due to his relationship with Sally Hemmings and his treatment of her children and family.

What about the civil war battlefields and the monuments there?
Once one starts this process of revisionist history where does it stop.

The civil war (war between the states) was about much more than slavery. The southerners who fought in the war for the most part were not wealthy or slaveholders. They thought they were fighting for their state and their rights. In fact the issue of federalism and states rights are still with us today but at least the right of secession issue has been settled (except maybe in Texas).

Lincoln clearly stated has purpose in the war was not to free the slaves but to preserve the union.
It is ignorance of history to see these monuments and these individuals as emblematic of nothing but slavery. Tearing down the monuments will not erase the historical stain of slavery nor solve the problems of residual racism and segregation which are still with us today. We should not even try to erase the history of the civil war, rather we should learn the lessons it teaches.

I don't think we should go around extracting historical figures from their time and place and judging them by our contemporary moral and ethical standards. Thomas Jefferson was a slave holder, George Washington as well. Lincoln wrote some unkind things about the races living together and inequality of the races. How many Protestant Presidents said unkind things about Catholics and Jews.
Are we going to remove all of their statues and rename all the roads, bridges and buildings?

By all accounts Robert E. Lee was an honorable man and it seems his major fault was losing the war and the fact that some factions of bigots, Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists have made him their hero of sorts. The Civil War is part of our history, it basically made us a nation. Before the War people thought of themselves as Virginians or Ohioans first and as citizens of the USA second. Lee felt duty bound to follow his native state of Virginia. The issue of secession of the states was settled by the war. There were men who fought and died on both sides and both sides have the right to honor their history and their sacrifice. The war was initially not about slavery as any good history student will tell you it was about preserving the union.