Am I correct in thinking that philosophers are generally 'sitting trans out' due to the fraught nature of the conversation in universities and other institutions? — Jeremy Murray

I know you didn't ask me, but this is true of conservative or middling philosophers. Only a couple, like Stock and Lawford-Smith publish on the subject. On the other hand, there is plenty of writing about trans issues painted as entirely positive, or somehow a foregone conclusion conceptually, and then discussing things like social implications of hte 'fact of trans' or whatever. No comment on merits, but illustrating that its hard to find one side - but not hard to find the other.

Now comment on merits: Stock's papers are probably the best on the subject, imo.

I can't conceive of it being anything more than personal satisfaction of understanding difficult concepts across a lifetime.

27% of Russians support hte war.

This seems to be paranoid nonsense to me.

You think that a quote that says that there are hundreds of observed genotypes for the SRY gene, supports your claim that it's strictly binary? WTF level of gaslighting is this?

Anyway, I asked you directly for which biologist has stated your position of SRY being the singular and binary determinator of sex. Say a name or admit that none do. — Mijin

They literally do not. They discuss translocation and mutation. They do not discuss several allele variations. I presume you can quote the passages you are referring to, as I was able to do?

You can read the names of the authors. I assume. But am getting less certain of your capabilities in this regard. Luckily, you've simply whittered. So no worries mate.

Carl Sagan speculated about our universe being eternal. When does eternity begin? — ucarr

This has nothing to do with what I've said.

The fact that it is a standard symptom of schizophrenia ought give pause for thought. — apokrisis

That is perhaps the worst poisoning of the well i've seen in a long time. Well done. It's also a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of two separate concepts:

Schizophrenics are under the impression their thoughts and feelings are imported from an external consciousness.

The brain-as-receiver model says nothing about any of that, and instead, posits that thearising of consciousness at all is akin to a television receiving signals for any image whatever. Its reasonable, albeit totally fringe and unsupported.

But your response was childish and dumb.

You might ask yourself why his supporters saw him in that position. — praxis

The majority did not, but to the extend that they did it's because the saw themselves constantly attacked for having reasonable opinions and he spoke to that. Respectfully, and without insult. In fact, a democrat did a dive into his videos and found that his only examples of personal name-calling were about himself.

Again, DM me if you care to understand what you're talking about a bit better. If not, let's leave it.

There are 8 billion people in the world. If 10% of them hold the kind of antipathy to transgender people I claim, that makes almost a billion right there. And that does not take into account the fact that North American and European attitudes are likely to be more tolerant than elsewhere. There are many more conservative and traditional cultures where non-standard sexuality is punished harshly. Ugandan law, for example, along with that in some other countries, calls for the death penalty. — T Clark

Sexuality is not identity. We're just going to disagree. You have no actual basis to make your claim, and realistically neither do I - but it stands to reason that most people in the world have no concept of transness and don't have an opinion on it. Most people are simply trying to get food and shelter (or avoid terroristic threats of their general environment). Your point is taken on sexuality, and that's obviously true.

If we reduce this to the West, though (which seems reasonable in this context) my statement seems pretty much assured. That doesn't make it good, it just means pretending there's some coterie of armed militias around the US and UK looking for trans people to harass is abusive to trans people (though, again, thoughts on that type of claim anyway... Another time). It causes children to fear the world they live in for no good reason (or, no reason beyond the fears we all share).

I'll let others decide if they agree with me that your understanding is fundamentally wrong. — T Clark

LOL. Okay. It cannot be 'fundamentally' wrong. We're discussing facts, not concepts.

I wasn't trying to say this difference undermines your argument. It's just something I've been wondering about. — T Clark

As I say, fair. But I also then responded? Odd reply.

Please provide this "overwhelming evidence." As I understand it, transgender people make up about 0.3% of the population. Explain how this many people can have the catastrophic results you seem to predict. It is undeniable that the primary threat of crime and violence to women comes from straight, cisgender men. — T Clark

1. I didn't claim I had any?? Perhaps read a little closer my man;
2. I didn't make that claim, or predict anything at all;
3. Not quite. It's males. But let's run your argument anyway: because they are roughly 50% of the population, and as you note (i agree) trans women are something on the order of .3%. That isn't not an argument.

In the UK Trans identified males are fully four times more likely to incarcerated for a sex crime. Let's, for no good reason, calibrate this for 'sex work' crimes and remove 50% of the cases we're looking at. Well, that's still a 100% higher chance that a trans-identified male commits a sex crime than a non-trans male. This stands to reason due to mental aberration involved.

So it's males. Not 'cis men'. It's males. The sex predisposed to enforce their sexual desires on the opposite sex, and always, for its entire existence, has been. Wearing dresses, having long hair and pretending you're less aggressive than you really are doesn't change that. Ignoring that the fundamental determinant of these sex abuse statistics is sex is absurd, anti-reason and manipulative.

Then why bring it up? — T Clark

Because whether or not your opinion matters to me, the facts matter to the discussion. I am telling you my view and responding to a (semi-reasonable) objection based on a misunderstanding of what I've said. Ultimately, though, on that issue (emotionally abusing children) the opinion of someone convinced that men can be women is of no moment. That doens't reduce the importance of the point.

Well, that's a good position. Makes it hard to understand why you're vying to keep him in that position then throughout hte exchange

The fact that the first two posts were ridicule sucks. There's no defense for that on a forum like this.

I like the brain-as-receiver model. I can't find myself going for it but it certainly feels much more reasonable that just "it comes from thinking" which tells me nothing. Thinking itself seems a conscious act, so its tautological in some sense too.

That said, I can't find a good reason to think its true.

From this, it can be concluded that most Germans derived sadistic pleasure from carrying out the Holocaust, and this sadism became a need for them. — Linkey

No. No it can't. Most Germans were just trying to stay alive and were so fatigued by the war so far they just didn't care. The idea that 'most germans' derived sadistic pleasure is utterly insane.

a universe that has no opening — ucarr

Does not exist. So something's super-wrong in your thinking.

He thinks this is, or rather, is used to, social media. DM stands for Direct Message, so the kids today say "DM me" which means "send me a private message."

This offer is likely so as to avoid claims or accusations of being "off topic" or "spamming."

He feels you are wrong and also feels he can easily prove it. — Outlander

Correct. @praxis Outlander is right. You are wrong. There is no version of this where you can present non-chopped-up, manipulated excerpts to support some point you're making. You also seem to be stuck on a single word (which has been explained to you as not illustrating Charlie's emotional/moral position personally). That is disingenuous. So come to the DMs if you want a discussion. If not, we can drop it.

Pretty much everyone else on the planet — praxis

Your view of hte world seems to be derived from your personal wishes and not reality. The majority of the world agrees with Kirk. The majority of the world is both religious, and not predisposed to hate people based on their opinions.

The irony of this kind of statement, when the whole tangent about transgender is recreational outrage. A tiny number of people are transgender, and are disproportionately victims of crime rather than perpetrators. As I say, it's a drummed up boogieman, the moral panic of our time. — Mijin

Well yes, that is the argument. I reject it. Respectfully. I think that's okay, too.

Which one of the experts here has said that SRY is the singular, and strictly binary, determinator of sex? — Mijin

You can read the quote you quoted. But you are literally incapable of taking in information which is counter to your emotional position. Fortunately for my attitude, I have demonstrated that you are wrong. Several times. With absolutely no retort other than repeating a claim which is incorrect.

So once again your response is "nuh-uh!". — Mijin

This is so abysmally disingenuous. I have repeatedly specifically addressed this in detail. You are now lying, directly, about what has occurred in this exchange.

Good bye.

If sex and gender were not the same then why do trans seek hormone replacement therapy to exemplify the sex they are trying to identify as? — Harry Hindu

Because they are wrong (on my view, obviously but its a pretty widely-held one). It is hard to understand how you could ask this question. It requires a metaphysical leap that is simply not open to us, I think.
Either Gender and Sex are the same - in which case trans people literally do not exist, they are just deluded - or they are not the same - and trans people in fact, exist, and attempt to artificially appear as though they exemplify typical features of the opposite sex. I contend the latter is correct. Given the balance of logical considerations, it seems relatively unassailible that if "trans people" exist as some 'true' category, then it relates to gender (and explicitly, not sex). Are you wanting to say that trans people are born the wrong sex? That seems totally incoherent. In either case, the reason a male who wants to be female takes what's called 'cross-sex hormones' is to make it easier to behave the way they expect women to behave. Its all quite sexist.

This is what makes sense of the fact that trans women tend to be as aggressive as non-trans males(and represent similarly in crime stats (although, trans women are more likely to commit a sex crime than non-trans males). Because its typical of the sex (including the paratheses). They do, though, routinely repress that aggression to appear more feminine. This is pretty clearly an example of behaving in a way typical of the other sex. This is why I have always maintained that gender does not vary independent of sex (i.e genders themselves are obviously derived from clusters of typical behaviours attributed to the two sexes into clusters of "expected" behaviours rather than observed ones - though, as will be clear these rarely come very far apart) but is not sex and only requires sex as a reference point. The fact is sex is an extremely robust metric in humans, so the variance is quite low - despite it being theoretically possible to say "I'm trans" and present/behave 100% typical for your sex it is not possible to take that seriously, unless Gender is meaningless entirely.

What is upsetting is to equate these differences to differences in gender and not sex. — Harry Hindu

It is possible you have either entirely misinterpreted me.

The differences between males and females have to be exemplified in the behaviours of trans individuals to even get on the ladder of being trans. A trans person who literally does nothing to alter their sex-typical behaviour is not trans. Plain and simple. They are not 'on the other side' of anything. Their sex is still their sex, and their presentation is still their presentation. This leads to the problem that there are only really two ways "gender" can go: Either gender refers to sex. In which case , you do not have a choice. You cannot self-identify as a sex, and therefore you cannot identify into a gender either.
The other way it could go is that gender is a social construct. In this case, society tells you your gender. You also do not have a choice here.

The argument which is made to circumvent this is that gender is self-identification. Ok. If that's so, then it is literally invented and not a description of anything but a desire, or thought. That's also fine. In this case, no one is required to participate in your self-image. At all. At any time. You can request, and polite people will acquiesce but no one is required to accept your self image. You can say you're trans all you want, but if every single person who interacts with you clocks a male who is also a man, you have failed and are not trans.

o at least we agree on something. And I’ll stand behind the statistics I provided. I think they tell the story. — T Clark

They don't tell anything even remotely close to the story you're telling. Reality sits squarely with the fact that there are not billions of people who even care about this matter. Far less that care to do anything about it, and even less who care to harm trans people. The ridiculousness is patent on that side of things.

Except, of course, when the world is out to get them. — T Clark

Besides females, this is never the case. There have been small pockets of historical time and place where groups were targeted. Currently, in the West, there are none other than females who have been targeted forever. Males do not suffer opinions. And almost no one in existence has an issue with trans men (bearing in mind, barely anyone has an issue tout court - its the expectation other's have to participate).

I’ve wondered how much of that has to do with the fact you’re from New Zealand and I am from the USA — T Clark

Fair, but almost nothing hinges on this. I am capable of understanding geography and how to transcend it (i am also highly interested (in the proper sense, not just 'its interesting) in UK politics as I am a citizen and hope to return at some stage with my wife who is also British).

You might be surprised at what my substantive opinions about gender rights are, but as I noted, that is not what I’ve addressed in my posts on this thread. — T Clark

Based on this, I probably would. But based on what you've said in these comments, it doesn't seem any 'view' could fix being alarmist about the facts of what trans people 'face'.

You’re playing of the “protect the children” card is unconvincing. — T Clark

You wouldn't be convinced by overwhelming evidence that being trans is an aberration likely to lead to criminal behaviour. So, it's hard to know why you'd say this? Protecting females is more important than children, but protecting children from being convinced they're in 'the wrong body' on some cultist crap is pretty important too. They kill themselves because of this cruel joke of a metaphysical lie. They are encouraged to cut off family and other support groups and rpelace them with ideological circles of seniors who can cut them off at any time. And Sorry to say, I really do not care what you position on this specific part of hte issue is: I have seen this first had in eight separate cases in my life. Luckily, only two have ended themslves. But that's far more than enough.

Its normal discernment of an honest individual. — Philosophim

Yes, absolutely. I am coming to hte conclusion that people who think "with us or against us" just refuse to grow up. I can at least respect people like Banno who do their drive bys, don't bother to doing anything substantive, but stay out of it.

If you want to say sex and gender are different- fine, but then stop conflating sex and gender. — Harry Hindu

I do not respond well to children with fingers in their ears saying "I know you are, but what am i?". So I'll just not.

This strikes me as complete baloney. Where did you get your numbers from? I speculate the true number is in the hundreds of millions or billions worldwide. — T Clark

This is just utterly ridiculous. There are not this many people who care to have an opinion on the matter.

I contend that this ridiculous type of assumption is exactly hte cruel, unfortunate nonsense that gets pushed on impressionable young people struggling wth identity to create groups of affinity that are life-and-death. Its bollocks and its directly psychologically harming children, teens and indeed adults. When you are convinced the world is out to get you (its not - you're not that important) you will suffer. When you convince people the world is out to get them, you're cruel.

Pew surveys indicate about 35% of the people in the US consider homosexuality a sin with a similar number for transgender people. — T Clark

The best surveys I can find (which are not religious, given the stark contrast between social and religion views of plenty of believers) show that roughly the same number of people think that "Trans acceptance" (not trans people) has 'gone too far', the same say 'hasn't gone far enough' and a smaller group say its all good. PLenty of others simply run counter to your claim.

Williams Institute 2019 - 73% believe Trans people need more protection.
PRRI 2019 - 62% said they had increased support for trans rights over the past five years.

PLenty of surveys will run in weird directions when you break down an issue. Plenty of otherwise supportive allies of the trans community will get off the train at sports or prison or what have you. That is the key point to take from recent survey aggregates: general support continues to rise - but support over specific, controversial policies is finally getting authentic responses so we're seeing divides. That's to be expected, and non-controversial and has extremely little to do with trans people, but considerations after understanding the wants and needs of trans people. Given that trans identification is nose-diving this is also probably predictable and not problematic, in any case.

As I noted in the previous post, DSM in the not too distant past classified homosexuality as a mental illness — T Clark

And doctors said smoking was good for the lungs. Fuck doctors right?

As I noted, protection of rights identified in the ACLU summary strike me as reasonable for people in general, including transgender people. — T Clark

Do you mean this:

" The ACLU champions transgender people’s right to be themselves. We’re fighting discrimination in employment, housing, and public places, including restrooms. We’re working to make sure trans people get the health care they need and we're challenging obstacles to changing the gender marker on identification documents and obtaining legal name changes. We’re fighting to protect the rights and safety of transgender people in prison, jail, and detention facilities as well as the right of trans and gender nonconforming students to be treated with respect at school. Finally, we’re working to secure the rights of transgender parents."??

If so, there is nothing here that has anything specific to do with trans people. There has been nothing raised in this thread that makes anything here 'trans rights'. There is also nothing raised in this thread which can make sense of defending 'trans' as a civil rights category (but this, i understand, will never be accepted by those who wish to frame transness as somehow some natural, unaberrated and entirely healthy form of human existence). That said, all of these rights are protected in law already

The whittering hoarse-voiced lies told by TRAs (read as clear as you possible can: not trans people; only hte thing just described) to get others to pretend trans people are missing out in rights is the cruel, harmful narrative that those of us who can see the forest for the trees want to prevent reaching our vulnerable children.

I understand there is essentially no civil conversation to be had about that last part. Just wanted my cards on the table.

So if you do not believe in human rights, the OP is probably moot for you. — Philosophim

I believe they exist, but in the context I gave. There is no basis otherwise. The fact that some large group agrees (and, patently, we often dont) doesn't give me a 'right'. It comes from no where and is enforced by nothing until an authority does those things.

The inclusion of transgender rights in the list is based on a court case in 2020, so it might be considered vulnerable — T Clark

We can hope - but that's not because I don't want trans people protected from whatever boogey man is in the headlines currently - but because has been (and will continue) to be abused to decry and harm those with differing views of hte subject. Which is legitimate, as opposed to "blacks need to go" or whatever.

Kirk, and other culture warriors, profit from catering to such people. — praxis

Hmm. While I do not think Kirk ever did this - yes, that's right. So does Kamala, Seder, Maddow, Tiedrich, Reich etc.. etc.. If you want to take that line, I'll bite. But I still conclude you're absolutely wrong and simply projecting your disbelief that someone could in fact, be Charlie Kirk in good faith. That's a shame.

Oh right, Kirk and his followers think trans should exist. What reality are you living in? — praxis

Yes. They do. And he said so plenty of times. You genuinely do not know what hte fuck you're talking about. If you want to be an adult, make a claim in my DMs and I'll take you through why you're wrong about Charlie Kirk. Otherwise, this is pointless. You just make shitty claims and don't back them up.

He used the word in a strictly biblical sense. He did not use it in a moral sense. When you actually listen to what he says, it's pretty fucking hard to misinterpret him as badly as Praxis has (though, i presume he's actually never looked past chopped up clips designed by lefties to make him look as bad as their emotional state requires to avoid embarrassment).

I don’t believe one can be appropriately loving to someone whose identity one denies and considers perversion. — Tom Storm

Really? This seems to me one of hte most potent and obvious oddities of humanity. There are plenty of people whos lifestyles I think are damaging (to themselves/those around them or society at large) and I think it s perverse that they defend their life style (funnily enough, plenty of gender theory types run along these lines - I don't suggest that being interested in gender causes one to be immoral, but I do think immoral people tend to be drawn to the more liberal communities abouts). That says absolutely nothing, whatsoever, about how i feel about them as a human.

If someone comes to me, and is visibly on drugs, obviously unable to calm themselves and has a bad time - and this happens three days in a row, I lose no love but i lose patience.

For these reasons, among others, I very much (morally) hope that some weird frankenstein of those thinker's ethical positions never makes it way into the mainstream.

The issue of "condemnation" is interesting though. Leaving aside homosexuality for a moment, there is the whole idea that any notion of gluttony is "fat shaming" or perhaps "consumption shaming." To speak of licentiousness is "slut shaming," etc. There are all "personal choices," and all personal choices are relative to the individual, so long as they do not transgress the limits of liberal autonomy and infringe on others, or so the reasoning seems to go. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Hmm, i definitely agree with this and it seems to illustrate an unwillingness to be morally mature in a person who makes those claims (again, funnily, plenty of gender theory types take that exact bent to anything and everything they can possibly shoehorn a complaint into). However, it seems to me we are free to criticise other's personal choices. I am not homophobic, but if i had some deep-seated issue wit homosexuality (assuming it's not a closeted issue) I don't see why I am somehow morally suppressed from explanation or sharing of my ideas there.

they are being denied the "right to be themselves." I suppose that's a start, but the putative human "right to be oneself" is going to require a great deal of elucidation. It certainly isn't something that we find in historical enumerations of human rights. — Leontiskos

I would go further - that claim is bare nonsense. There is an extremely small, unhinged group that exist on Earth and probably number below 10m who want Trans people to stop being trans (or, alternately, existing). Even "anti-trans" activists tend not to take either of these bents. It has to do with other people and not the trans people themselves. Same thing as keeping males from female spaces. Doesn't have a lot to do with Males or their rights or anything, but protecting females.

I don’t think you’re qualified to say that. — T Clark

It is in the DSM. And, I think any reasonable adult can recognize a break with reality when they see one. You do not strike me as someone who would defend 'trans rights' on any ground such as ones coming up here. I am somewhat taken aback. Nice!

You're missing the point that I made quite clear. If a female can exhibit male-level aggression then why is it called male-level? The level of aggression between a male protecting its territory and a female protecting its young seems about the same level. So what exactly do you mean by "male-level"? Let the mental gymnastics begin! — Harry Hindu

Given your final line, do you expect a good-faith response? Or would it be more reasonable to simply not be a dickhead, and then expect to not have a dickhead respond? Consider that.

it is the level of aggression typical of males on average. This is not rocket science. This is uncontroversial, and well-known in the psychological literature.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031938496800308
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6318556/
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/711705
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-024-06859-9

I cannot conceive of how its upsetting to hear about hte typical differences in aggression between males and females. Where females exhibit heightened levels of aggressive, this is a 'more masculine' trait as compared to being less aggressive which is a seen as feminine, given the difference is typical between the two sexes on average. Conceding, as one must, that this is simply hte result of the research that's been done and not a knock-down, all-time answer to the issue - Its beyond me why this is getting your panties twisted.

This is like saying that someone saying "god does not exist" jettisons the purpose and fundamental ground of a discussion about the relationship between god and nature - a discussion that assumes a premise and you not liking any type of statement that jettisons that assumption. — Harry Hindu

You're going to need to figure out how to work language into making the connection between "God" and "nature" and "sex" and "gender" on the other, workable. This response just tells me you're happy to conflate separate concepts and just keep going as if anyone adequately discussing the issues must be wrong somehow. That seems, sorry to say, childish. Sex and gender are not hte same thing and that is the entire basis for the discussion. IGnoring this explains why you're not making much sense.

I informed you about how, for example, Kirk publicly claimed that trans people are an “abomination.”
And you wonder why some people disliked him and thought he was a bigot. It’s not a mystery if you’re willing to see the truth. — praxis

No, I don't wonder why. People are really stupid and (as it seems you are quite disposed to do) actually look for things to get upset about because it scores them social justice points. This isn't controversial or profound. This is what people have done since time immemorial and social media has simply made this the social currency of the generations below mine. That's why, in the main, the people who have a problem with Kirk 1. Don't know what the fuck he actually said or meant (your abomination example is perfect. I've already addressed it even). 2. Are genuinely wanting to find dragons to slay where there generally are none and 3. are fucking stupid. They are inexperienced, undereducated, generally socially compromised and unable to handle criticism.

Forgive me for not taking too seriously what young, inexperienced and unable-to-articulate-anything-meaningful-about-their-positions students think of Charlie Kirk.

A bigot like Kirk didn’t merely think trans are wrong or misguided as you mistakenly suggest; he consider them abominations. It's not just 'you are wrong,' but 'you should not exist.' — praxis

You genuinely seem unable to stick to reality. So I shall pass on further engagement here.

There's only so many times I can point out to you that your own cites allude to multiple genotypes of SRY (as there are multiple genotypes for any non-fatal gene), so let's just cut to the chase. — Mijin

I have now addressed that exact thing four times. You repeating your patently, demonstrable and obviously false position doesn't change it. I have provided ample evidence, with highlights ,providing that you are flat-out, dead wrong and I have provided direct, ample evidence for such. You can pretend this isn't the case if it makes you feel better, but reality will be waiting for you when you are mature enough. You asked me for certain things. I gave them to you. Your now have your fingers in your ears.

Which human biologists have claimed that human sex is a function of the SRY gene and is binary? — Mijin

All of the ones I posted, including providing quotes and explaining hte slightly nuanced technical language in a way that is easily understood by those who cannot read a biological paper except to cherry pick buzz words they think, but are wrong about, supporting their erroneous view.

my friend, you are wrong and all of the evidence is in front of you. There is no third genotype for SRY. Nothing I've posted suggests this and I['ve given you the opportunity to challenge your erroneous belief and you have absolutely and purposefully failed to even clearly read my comments let alone follow references. At this point, you are lying. That's on you. Unless you're trolling (which seems the most logical conclusion). In which case that's on me. Touche.

that fundamental purpose is hte source of the "ought"? — Banno

Yessir.

This looks to me like four (including myself) people roughly agreeing that all people, unless they give us reason otherwise, deserve respect and acquiescing to request that take no skin off our backs is polite.

But that requiring rather than requesting removes all semblance of politeness from one end of the agreement, resulting in a rescinding of politeness in the other. Usually in the form of simply not participating.

There seems nothing wrong with this.

Sorry, @Philosophim I just saw your other comment to me in the the other thread.

To expand a bit more, then, I do not htink "trans rights are human rights" makes any practical sense. Its makes semantic sense insofar as trans people are people (i.e humans). However, "trans right", if there were/are any, cannot be said to be synonymous. If a trans people has a right specific to them, it has nothing to do with other groups of humans by definition. In this way, the phrase itself is senseless. It tells us, gives us, explains or illustrates nothing whatsoever.

This might sound as if I think that's the end of it. It isn't. There are no 'trans rights'. No one can enumerate any, and no one can adequately decide to whom they would be owed. Human rights are cool, though. I am just of the camp that 'rights' are non-existent without the authority which grants them (in a backward way...restrict first, then permit). I believe 'man' and 'woman' should more than likely refer to unimportant clusters of sex-derived behaviours. Male and female should be the only categories in public policy (although, intersex would be needed for public health).

It sounds to me that this is an example of there being no general, overarching expectation of the sexes in our society as a whole and that it is only among smaller groups — Harry Hindu

I think that's right. There are local expectations which are essentially one of the organizing traits of a society. I don't personally see a problem with that, except that people tend be indoctrinated where those expectations are particularly strong. That can be a serious problem.

Aren't you a daisy! The foundation of American culture isn't some profound humanist insight that "all men are created equal" or some such. It's just pragmatism: declare all the various factions to be equal under the law, so that they won't have legal grounds to fight for supremacy to the point of destruction (and so there will be no collateral damage from those fights that someone else would need to clean up). — baker

I'm not quite sure what's going on here. Yes. That is a fundamental 'American' objective. All humans being created equal isn't profound, but its extremely important to enshrine for a wide-reaching society. I can't quite tell - this sounds like an objection? Is it?

Then read again. — baker

I have. I don't see an issue. It seems that you have a problem with those aspects of a society. I do not see why (that's not to say applications, and ways of going about it for <400m people is probably not going well...)

So you didn't up the ante and you don't have an effective policy. Hm. — baker

I can't understand how you could say this. I literally explained how to up the ante (with examples of such) and this is an effective policy. It is hte strongest, most effective social policy ever used by any group ever - and it is ubiquitous. This goes to my reply to Harry - those local expectations are enforced by this social "ante-upping" until you get public beheadings. It seems like you might genuinely be trolling here?

So what? It obviously works, even if it's done in bad faith. — baker

This doesn't butter any bread. I still can't understand what you were asking. Doing things in bad faith doesn't work.

Mindy Kaling is a source of utter drivel. That quote is patently false and I have no reason to take it seriously. I live with women. I hear their experienced. I watch media. I watch (in an observer type of way) social media. Women are encouraged at every stage of life to the detriment of men and boys. This has been fairly well established in the last 10 years. Women (females) are predisposed to anxiety.

To be honest, I'm not going to debate that issue with someone posting memes to support it. I will stick with the experiences of women I know, conveniently reflected in the statistics relevant to the questions.

Calling me a daisy just makes it seem like you have nothing..

People discussing Marx as adults is always funny to me. It's never making much sense.

I just feel there's more to this story. And your seemingly inhuman desire to ensure there isn't any, only makes it all the more intriguing. Can you not realize that? — Outlander

This strikes me as 'nu-uh'. Always funny.

That is hte exact opposite of reality and I cannot respect such a delusional take on something that is there for all to see with their eyes.

You are hateful towards Charlie, evidenced by your inability to engage with the reality of his character. You're stuck on some conclusionary belief about his character which is evidenced by nothing. You cannot present anything that could support your position. So it is dismissed.

I wasn't a fan. I am not right-wing, I am not religious and I'm not particularly concerned with constitutional issues beyond free expression (as makes sense here). I mainly watched his clips to find ways to understand how the in fuck people found it worthy their time to be so dishonest, hateful and frankly stupid as to call him things like ;'bigot', 'Nazi' etc... when he literally said absolutely nothing that they claim he said. Given there are droves of leftists having to eat their words on this, I'm pretty comfortable saying I made a good decision to step away from the hateful, death-celebrating (not you, praxis) ideology behind beliefs like yours.

Because the entire point is to get you to see them as the other sex without you realizing you're saying that. — Philosophim

I have differing views here.. but I see the issue you're raising.

Gender is incoherent when you break it down into the meaning they want you to. It truly boils down to culturally enforced stereotypes and sexism. — Philosophim

I don't think you've understood what I've said here: It is that this isn't hte case and there is a totally reasonable use for the distinction, albeit derivable from sexed expectations.

I disagree with your solution, though understand its good intention, because it only serves to allow this conflationary communication to continue — Philosophim

Once against, it explicitly reserves the two words for independent use. There is no conflation, and it clearly demarcates when one is talking about sex or gender. There is no conflation. It is not confused. It just may be not hte preferred option.

They don't want to clarify it to clearly mean gender. — Philosophim

They might not. That's a non-issue for this part of the discussion though.

According to gender theory, — Philosophim

I am not talking Gender theory, though. I am discussing solutions to the obvious problems it presents. I am not particularly interested in simply bagging on a prima facie absurd ideology. The problem you raise, I have acknowledge. I am trying to get around them so as not to have to kow to obviously incoherent policy thinking.

Just a suit. Are they wearing male clothing and slouching like men should in public? That's a man. — Philosophim

This is not my circus. I'm going ot have to ignore this type of stuff going on.. I'm not arguing about those issues. I get the distinct feeling you're not looking for solutions or coming-to-terms at all?

A female that shows"male-level" aggression is non-sensical. The simple fact that a female is exhibiting the aggression is evidence that aggression is not a male thing. — Harry Hindu

This is patently disingenuous. I said the italicised. Not the bolded(well, the inverse as makes sense given you're replying to me). They are extremely different things to claim. Females sometimes exhibit typically male levels of aggression. This is not controversial, nonsensical or any other bollocks you want to throw out. It's a psychological/sociological fact that is well-understood by behaviourists, sociologists and anthropologists. I have no further to talk about here.

If both sexes can exhibit the behavior then the behavior is not a criteria of one sex/gender or the other. — Harry Hindu

You just conflated sex and gender, entirely jettisoning the purpose and fundamental ground of the discussion. That explains a lot.

Transgenderism is like religion in many ways: It's a mass delusion and it makes people talk in non-sensical ways as they abandon all reason and logic in their discourse. — Harry Hindu

It seems perhaps you are not giving as much of the good old faith as you'd like.

It is interesting that "mind" can seem to itself to be something that it is not. Unlike a sphere drawn on paper which does not seem to itself to be a 3-D sphere, or a map which does not seem to itself to be the actual terrain. — Patterner

The mind can only be what it actually is. What is 'appears like' isn't anything. It does things. Whether there's a dualist element or not, that's the case. It isn't a 'thing' to be misinterpreted as best I can tell. You can't be deceived about what you mind. Just what it's giving you.

We can agree generally it is conisdered right not to kill people, but not just because the bible says so. We can evaluate that it is wrong to kill as killing is wrong for whatever humanitarian reasons we choose. The bible just happens to agree. — unimportant

But the Bible is an inarguable moral guide. The latter (or, 'other') is amorphous and often disagreed with (hell, often killing is justified by the Bible, but that's another matter lol).

There are not three genotypes for SRY. There are not three genotypes for SRY. There are not three genotypes for SRY. Go and ask ChatGPT (I don't want to just post a quote because you'll charge me with altering it). Go and put this prompt in "are there three genotypes for SRY". I do not require an apology. — AmadeusD

And the part where your cite disputes your conclusion is this:

"Mutations [of the SRY gene] lead to a range of disorders of sex development with varying effects on an individual's phenotype and genotype" — Mijin

This is not contrary to my position. It really does look like you cannot read a biological paper. That is no problem, but continually making it clear you cannot handle this conversation is not helping. You have not addressed anything I have come back with. You are simply repeating yourself in the face of contrary evidence. Again, ask ChatGPT. I do not require an apology. But you are exactly wrong.

And then your own cites say:

"SRY is clearly important for the development of male sex, although in rare instances a male phenotype can develop in its absence" — Mijin

I responded to this in full which you have ignored.

To clarify the first italicised line, this is clearly pointing out that males can have varying phenotype. That means physical presentation. Not sex. Has nothing to do with whether one is male or female. Having a big nose is phenotypic. This is not news. This is not affecting sex determination. — AmadeusD

This does not indicate anything other than a binary. It actually reinforces the binary, which I explained in detail. You just charged me with not reading my own citations. You aren't even reading my posts. This is perhaps the most obviious disingenuous thing you have done so far. Utterly bereft of any integrity at all. It is lying.

I have explained you that I am not talking about translocation; that's your word, not mine. I said the genotype and mentioned alleles. — Mijin

There is no third genotype. Translocation is the only "third option" for SRY and it is a location aberration. It has nothing to do with sex. Alleles don't come into this. You are wrong.

I don't understand why you don't read your own cites.
Look, I'm not your enemy here. Consider this helpful because one day you could be on a debate stage trying to defend these talking points. — Mijin

You are not doing anything, Mijin. You are flailing and repeating yourself in the face of overwhelmingly clear evidence against your position.

Sex is binary. You have no presented any possible way for that to not be the case. Taking some kind of intellectual high ground over not being capable of addressing your interlocutor's points, arguments, citations or anything else it seems, is not something i need advice on. It would be far more reasonable for me to sit you down like a child and explain that evidence is not your enemy.

He was a culture war grifter, yes. Everyone needs to make a buck or two, or 12 million. — praxis

That is hateful, given it's not true. But that's...yknow. Your opinion man.

This is still lumping biology in with gender. — Philosophim

It is explicitly not running them together. It is explicitly saying that biological tendencies are required for a 'socially constructed' gender to obtain. Otherwise, there is no such boundary line under which 'a gender' could be captured. Yes, sex and gender are different, but 'gender' is closely tied to sexual expression (i.e sexed behaviours and tendencies). You cannot tease these two apart and get anything coherent under the term 'gender'. This is why I am quite sure your use of these words is no better than current uses. They are conflatory (and, though neither of us puts much in this, also essentially means we cannot refer to trans people in a way they are comfortable with. My solution allows both: trans women are women, but female is the category any institution should be bent to care about). I am sorry if it was unclear enough to have this be missed.

Statically expecting a male to be more aggressive — Philosophim

Hm... I'm not suggesting that this is gender. I was quite purposefully separating this type of indicator from the tenuous claim that behaving that way makes you a man. It can be one of the clustered behaviours (which are biologically derived) that constitutes 'a man' without any direct recourse to biology. It is gender. Because a female who shows male-level aggression isn't trans. But a trans-man probably wants to include that in their behaviour to fit the construct's criteria.

That said, if you do not openly expect a transman to be more aggressive than a non-trans female, I can't quite see what 'construct' we are suppose to be thinking of here. Genders are constructed from biological expectations that are applied to the categories not represented by those biological expectations. A female presenting typically male behaviours could conceivable transition 'properly'. A female who is exceptionally feminine in behaviour will never been taken even vaguely seriously in their transition other htan by sycophants and TRAs.

For example, there is no biological incentive that a woman wear a dress vs pants. That's purely a social construct. If that social construct expects that only one sex should wear dress or pants, this becomes gender. — Philosophim

This also applies, as noted above, to biologically typical behaviours between sexes. If the only criteria for the construct are made-up nonsense then there is no basis for even discussing 'transition'.

You may be correct. The circles I have been around and in wish to push trans people into opposite sex spaces and be called particular pronouns. I think the community would have much less push back if they didn't care if they were denied entry into sex divided spaces or minded that people used pronouns as sex referents instead of gender referents. — Philosophim

Definitely agree and there are plenty of well-known trans people who do not think that way. Brandi Nitti, Blaire White, Debbie Hayton, Buck Angel etc..

I'm in Europe. Modern culture, and esp. American culture as its forerunner strikes me as extremely puritan and totalitarian. Sure, they encourage diversity -- but only under the condition that the differences are skin deep. — baker

See, this seems patently unrealistic to me. The entire point of the American project is to promote diversity, you're right, and the intention is that this diversity is genuine - from socialists, through to just-short-of-bigots can get along in one place without shooting each other. Apparently, that is unacceptable to some and in fact, when differences are deeper than skin, it becomes an hilarious caricature of a moral panic. This usually ends in utter destruction (BLM, Jan 6, Charlie Kirk (and surrounding issues since)). I do not think it is "American culture" doing this, but actually the proportion of activists (this, unfortunately, is what is exported via the media generally) who want to dismantle American culture and re-homogenize it under the guise of kindness. Its utterly preposterous and it seems to me an intentional scam to grab power. That said, these are opinions. Take them as such :)

What is this, if not evidence of an obsession with quantification, normativization, standardization? — baker

What's the issue, sorry?

How do you up the ante?? — baker

Enforce a policy which restricts that behaviour. Actually do something about it - exclude, remove, penalize etc... rather than just words. Eventually, it would become a criminal issue ideally (actually, it is. People just refuse to enforce these laws against certain groups for fear of being seen as the exact thing the laws are designed to stop you being).

How do you propose to defeat that? — baker

I'm unsure I understand the question properly. I agree, most people operate on that principle, but i disagree that it is genuine. Anyone who casts the first stone in this sort of context knows they are questionable and is getting out ahead of a fair assessment. I don't see any significant set of people who are doing what you suggest in good faith.

Just you look at the sexism: Women are constantly being criticized, and often told they don't look feminine enough. And this is never such a problem as when a man is told that he's not looking masculine enough. Women are expected to hate themselves by default; you can't be a good girl unless you hate yourself. But the same does not go for men. — baker

This is, to my mind, utterly preposterous to the point that it feels redundant to address it, sorry that this is quite rude. The bolded is just bare-faced falsity that might have been true 40 years ago. Women hating themselves is one of the least helpful aspects of any society we have ever known about. It is ridiculous to suggest that this is encouraged in modern Western society - particularly when women are lauded, praised and lifted up over absolutely everything and anything (unless conservative, in which case fuck you, we will make fun of your appearance and everything we claimed to be principled against). If you mean to suggest this is true in places like Russia, the Middle East and South East Asia, I could agree.

reading 'men' as 'male gender' in this case is the less clear and logical interpretation of the word. — Philosophim

That's definitely the case - and it conflates the two concepts. Untenable. We agree.

A more proper phrase would be, "Transgender men are men as gender" or some type of clarification that the 'man' in this case is not the context of 'male sex' — Philosophim

I don't understand how this is clearer or easier to carry through than my solution. Just don't use man to refer to sex. Simple. No confusion exists in this framework.

If the 'man' in question means, 'adult male sex', I agree. I do not agree that 'man' as indicating gender applies because of the biological reason. — Philosophim

That was quite unclear I'm sorry. I should have simply said 'male' but my point was to sort of the language as it's used. So "a man is generally more aggressive than a woman" could (should IMO) apply to the gender, but on the basis that heightened aggression (in terms of above a mean, or something) is a typically 'male' trait and so goes into the cluster we use to determine 'man'.

Only if the person literally lacked balls in a jeering manner would it be a biological insult. — Philosophim

Well, i disagree. It's just another way of making a biological jab at males for being less than to my mind.

If a trans person had no wants, they would have absolutely zero consideration of how other people viewed them. But they do. — Philosophim

Most do not. I think you are describing TRAs. Most trans people are not demanding anything (except to not be harassed, which is fair). This might just be differing experiences. There's also the argument that those behaving the way you describe are not trans but something like autogynephillic, sexually deviant but high-intelligence etc... that lead them to the same arguments and demands that others sexually objectify them.

When you mean you didn't take my conclusion in hand, did you not agree with it or was this merely a separate proposal? — Philosophim

Huh. The preceding comments tells me we agree, so let me try to work through how I came to that..

So the clearest and most logical use of the word 'man' in relation to the term trans man, is 'adult human male by sex', not 'by gender'. — Philosophim

I think, more discreetly, what I didn't take in hand here was that there's a logical reason to use the word this way. I think it's absolutely fine for 'man' to refer to gender (recognitiion of clustered behaviours, lets say) where male can be the biological counterpart. For me, this is the clearest and less-easily-fucked-with way of using the terms. I don't have much of a problem with how things shake out,. as long as we're not running into contradictions and redundancies (which conflating the two would do - and I think circumscribing 'man' in that way would, generally, deny a certain level of legitimacy to trans identity (although, I have thoughts there anyway...)).

To clarify, it is not clusters of biological behavior that are gender. So for example, on average men are more aggressive than women. But that's not gender. — Philosophim

Hmm. While i understand the impulse, I don't think this is quite accurate. The fact that men are, on average, more aggressive (using it as a biological term (both 'man' and 'aggressive')) is, as you say, not gender. BUT being more aggressive than the average female is one of the cluster behaviours that tends to be borne by a 'man'. The problem is that half of the ideology behind Gender Theory wants us to both take that on (cool) but also want the concept of 'man' to encompass typical female cluster behaviours. That wont work (though I assume you already see this). So I think the fact that males tend to me aggressive is a different fact from the level of aggressive one identifying as a man might represent.

So a timid man might be insulted by someone claiming, "You're not a 'real man'. In this case man alone does mean gender, not sex, as the person clearly did not change their biology. — Philosophim

I tend to think this is simply a polite way of saying "you have no balls" (the most common, and variant insult men face really - particularly from women). It strikes me a biological insult. Not too important, I wouldn't think.

The case I'm making is that linguistically, the context of 'transman are men' having 'men' mean gender isn't clear or logical. And since a transman is not a male by sex, the statement is false. — Philosophim

For slightly different reasons, I run the same track to the same station. 'transmen are men', to me, simply means the term 'man' encompasses those who identify as such. Given my first little clarification in this response, that should sit relatively comfortably in my framework. I am unsure whether I would argue this if I were given the reigns of policy. But it, socially, seems totally fine to me. I don't see a problem with using 'man' for gender and 'male' for sex with only tenuous link between the two. I posit that Trans community (and TRAs more properly) want to see the link strengthened philosophically to the point of equivalence. That seems totally linguistically and socially untenable to me. I also note that the majority of those making these arguments (the only two examples hereabouts I've seen are Mijin and Banno) tend not to even engage the meat of the matter before simply saying "Well, bigots gonna bigot" type stuff. It makes explanation impossible, and compromise objectionable in some sense.

Yes, again...phrases to 'rebrand' it. — Philosophim

These are key points. I think I view 'being trans' a bit different to you. My experiences with trans people is not that they want anything specific. My take is that (delusion or not) they truly believe that gender is something constructed internally and projected, but not by choice. Lets avoid the 'sexed brain' type arguments, as I do not take those too seriously (as our next little exchange will make clear) but even without that, if the point is that you have some inherent tendencies, and those tendencies are other than your body's sexed tendencies, that there must be a social arena for that to be expressed. I have no problem with this. Gender seems a fine way to go about it. The conflict comes when policy is affected by personal perception (similar with hate crime, digital comms restrictions etc.. "perceived x" is usually the benchmark and that is almost fascist in nature). In this way, I fully, entirely agree with the final little stab. I think that is what's happened. Its a fig leaf.

The point is to elicit an emotional response loyal to the vocabulary and phrasing to control their aims instead of clear and rational language. — Philosophim

I'm unsure whether we're agreeing - I think the point is to ensure there is no credible objection, because its posited as a metaphysical fact. If I say "No one is born in the wrong body" this is somehow scientifically ignorant. Which is, itself, not only ignorant by manipulative (as you say) and pretty dishonest. It is a fact no one is born in the wrong body. There is literally no benchmark that could possibly be used other than "God put you in the right/wrong body" that could get me there. No arguments i've heard are even worth traversing beyond genuinely listening to them and having to think "Good grief, this is a bit of a joke isn't it?".

Modern culture, especially American culture as the forerunner, appears to be obsessed with quantification, normativization, standardization. A person can only be this or that (or the other), and they have to decide right now, and this decision has to stick forever and in all contexts. — baker

Wildly, the fact that the opposite of this is the case is one of the biggest reasons I've bene intent on movinv to the US for some time. As a third party looking in, it seems to me that takes such as this come from being embedded in the extant information ecosystem present in the US (well, present if you've bought in). I could always be wrong, just thought it interesting to note my diametrically opposed view on that lol.

It seems that transgenderism and the increase of people with mental health diagnoses are actually at least in part a consequence of the urge and pressure to stereotype. — baker

Having discussed this with several psychologists (friends, to be fair) the younger generation (honestly, mine included - im 35) enjoy collecting diagnoses. Anything that makes you interesting, quirky, out-of-the-norm etc... is desirable. They are socially pressured into not being normal. This is why there has been (and I am not saying this is wide-spread necessarily, but I've seen this with my eye owns so don't even start..) genuine bigotry against being straight, white, male, cis, conservative etc.. etc.. etc...Anything "predictable" is jettisoned. Ironically, this has caused a couple of cohorts to become completely predictable in their behaviour around these issues. They all expect each other, morally, to not be 'normal'. My time at University as an older student has been really eye-opening crash-course in the inanity of social politics among those below 30. The extreme and utterly perplexing response to "trad wives" has also been indicative. This report is one of many (and there are plenty of formal policy documents in the UK, Aus and NZ at least which support this) which outline how traditional values (basically "normal shit") are forms of radical content which push young people toward the right. This wouldn't be an issue except that it is standard to assume "the right" means bad, boogeyman, bigot, racist horrible deplorable. This is utterly unacceptable in a free society. It is fascism-lite. I know this has been long-winded and tangential - I am sorry for that. It strikes me as important that the social context is on the table too. With all of the above laid out, I think its pretty clear that the encouragement (there is plenty, and some of semi-criminal - Eli Erlick i'm looking at you) of transgender identities is an attempt for people with unstable or at least, socially undesirable traits and identities to pull otehrs into the realm of slight deception they find themselves in to assure social opinion is in their favour. Mill would be rolling.

Fwiw, on some more of Philosophm's comments - I wanted to be a girl most of my life for practical reasons. I now see that I felt oppressed and abused as a male and wanted to escape. I still feel that is what society wants, but I don't care anymore. Men kill themselves at such a high rate that I refuse to allow society to push me into that basket. It hurts too much.

Transgender people and their sympathizers are mostly reacting to bullying that relates to not being a "normal person" with their moralizations and positions.
— ProtagoranSocratist

Correct. I sympathize with this greatly. Does using poor language structures in phrasing fix this? No. — Philosophim

I suggest that this is the basis for the deception. I don't think sympathy is necessarily the best move. It would be far more reasonable and sensible to simply be more demeaning of bullies. Make it easier to call people out, and easier for those 'in charge' to make a move. It shouldn't be possible for a person to make fun of you for being feminine and not being told that's wrong - if they do it again, up the ante. Don't convince someone their body is wrong. That's cruel and absurd.

This ignores that I said "carve off".

That tells you I don't take your logical conclusion in hand.

The use of 'gender' has its place and obviously describes something other than Sex. They can be totally divorced and useful, individually, when that's the case.

You raise the very good point that the use of 'man' and 'woman' is then fraught. Fine. It need not be: man and woman are 'adult' genders (akin to boy and girl) and describe cluster types of behaviour. Male and female applies to all, at any stage, and describes something non-behavioural.

The problem I see is that that requires that gender is a social construct. If gender is a social construct, you, personally, cannot choose your gender.

And I think anyone running the line that you can be born in the wrong body may not require to be taken seriously by adults.

It's really hard to respond to this. You have asked questions that you've answered yourself on the entire way through, and added in plenty of nonsensical crap besides it (i do not mean to be pejorative, but that's what's coming across). I'll do my best:

How's that? Is he smaller than others? Daintier? — Outlander

No. He's generally larger than other kids. He will be far above average in height later in life.

Does he talk with a lighter voice? — Outlander

No. I can't understand why you're trying to talk about things I haven't said.

Is he more "whimsical", enjoying things like frolicking through the flowers and uh, just being a kid? Yeah. That's called just being a kid. — Outlander

I take it you do not have and have never spent much time with kids if you think this. A common problem for those commenting on human behaviour.

He is much more 'whimsical'. And that is feminine. Quite obviously. Objecting to this just lead to my above comment..

If you think he's too "whimsical", — Outlander

I don't think he's 'too' anything. You've made up some crap to talk about again here. I'll not engage.

Can't you see those who think otherwise are slaves? — Outlander

I quite squarely don't know what hte heck you're asking here. You posited a load of crap I didn't say, intimate or agree with and then ask me questions in the face of those positions. I can't really do that my dude.

Now, if your kid was larger, they wouldn't dare. See what's going on here? The "strong" (mentally weak, or raised by the mentally weak) pick on the "weak" (physically smaller) because it's the only thing they can do to feel adequate being raised by mentally-weak subhumans who don't know how to raise children and should have no business having any. — Outlander

I didn't mention him being bullied. I actually didn't mention any of this. You seem to be extremely angry at something that wasn't said, intimated or even hinted at by inference. I quite honestly do not know hte purpose of this repsonse other than to have a bit of a rant for yourself.

My son is very feminine. He does not get on with other boys as a matter of taste. He gets on with girls. Girly girls. He prefers feminine objects, activities and all else under the sun. We are not traditional parents in the gender sense, nor is his school traditional in this sense. Humans have fundamental inherent tendencies. Pretending that isn't hte case is anti-human.

And again the conversation about sex is held mostly by men, on men's terms ... — baker

If this is a serious assertion, i take it you are commenting on life in 2010?

Yes, very clear insight there.