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? — RogueAI

Sure. I did mention that hormones are one of the determining characteristics of sexual differences, so you haven't contradicted anything I've said.

Let me just reiterate here that we're talking about sexual differences, not gender differences if sex and gender are not the same thing.

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. — Michael

...but it would not include most trans-people as most trans have not had surgery. So you would still force a man wearing a dress into the men's bathroom.

And your proposal to have unisex bathrooms eliminates the trans-persons ability to affirm their gender by using a binary bathroom. Trans-genderism reinforces the binary gender social model and condones sexism.

So either you haven't thought about the consequences of your proposed solution, or you have an ulterior motive to actually eradicate transgenderism, not support it. Which means that you are acting like you care for the transgender movement but are actually opposed to it and are using it as a means to get men closer to women when their pants are down.

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. — Michael

If you are dedicated to pleading to an authority that leaves out the necessary data that would actually show what they are claiming then I don't see how I can help.

You're moving the goal posts and also failing to understand how translation works. Sure letters can represent a sound, but I was talking about words and sentences. One could say the reverse could be true as well.

What is the relationship between some scribble, "sand" and the sounds you make when saying the word, if not what they refer to, which is neither a sound or a scribble. "Sand" is a scribble and a sound. Sand is not.

How do you translate the scribble in one language to another if not by learning what that scribble refers to so that you can know which scribble in another language it translates to?

Think about being in the same vicinity as me and being able to see, hear, smell, and touch everything in the same vicinity as me. If I were to describe the area we are in, wouldn't it be redundant because you are already here with me experiencing the same things? Why would it be redundant if scribbles and sounds don't refer to the things in the vicinity that you can experience for yourself? If you can see I have a pet black and white cat, why would I say, "I have a pet black and white cat"? Language is used to relay information to others when their senses cannot access what it is we want them to know.

We've been over this previously, and it's a bit of a side issue, but I don't agree with your theory that words are all proper names, that all they do is refer. — Banno

The fact that you can co-opt something for a different purpose is trivial and does not mean that the original and primary use no longer exists or is useful. When communicating you are using scribbles and sounds to refer to things that are not scribbles and sounds.

I don't find this very useful, since "causal power" is not as clear a concept as "real". Indeed, I doubt that the idea of causation can be made all that clear. But there is a clear use of "real", which I've explained previously - it is used in opposition to some other term, that carries the explanatory weight - it's real, and not a counterfeit, not an illusion, and so on.

It doesn't help us if we explain one unclear idea by using another idea that is even less clear. — Banno

But is it a real counterfeit bill or a real dollar bill? Is it a real illusion or a real observation? The fact is that a counterfeit bill and illusions can make you behave as if they are "real" until you have more information as to the causes that preceded their existence. If you don't understand causation then I don't see how you can claim a difference between a counterfeit bill or a dollar bill as different processes went into creating them (causation).

Going by what you have said, counterfeit bills appear randomly without counterfeiters creating them and there would be no crime in creating counterfeit bills.

The conclusion was that for information to be used, it has to be stored somewhere first.

I agree with the first sentence. With the rest of it, you lost me a bit. — T Clark

If you understand the relationship between rationalism vs empiricism then all I am saying is that knowledge is supported by integrating both rather than treating them as a dichotomy. Beliefs are supported by only one or the other or neither.

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.

The key word here is "communication" and not "gaming". We use scribbles to communicate, not to play games - although we could play games with words and but that isn't the primary use of language.

The scribbles do not refer to the sounds of a spoken language. It is the sounds and the scribbles that refer to the same thing that is not another sound or scribble, just as the different sounds and scribbles of different languages refer to the same thing and is what makes it possible to translate languages in the first place. Because we often learn the sound before the scribble, we are actually translating the sound to the scribble when writing, but the sound refers to something else that is neither a sound or a scribble.

"Leia is my seven year old pet cat." is a string of scribbles that refers to something that is not another string of scribbles, but a living entity that both the sounds and scribbles refer to. Choosing to say it vs write it is dependent upon your intended audience, as you have explained, which is no different than choosing which language to say it in, which is dependent upon your audience.

The scribbles and sounds we use to refer to things that are not sounds and scribbles are arbitrary so we need rules for which string of scribbles/sounds refers to which things and events in the world. That is what we are agreeing on - the rules of reference.

Manage what - talking past each other? Sure.

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?

I'm thinking mutual agreement. — Patterner

Mutual agreement about how to use scribbles, or what the scribbles refer to? If the former, then what exactly are we agreeing on using the scribbles for - to accomplish what? If the latter then we use scribbles to refer to things.

Then there's Kripke's suggestion, that if we must think of essences we can think of them as the properties had by something in every possible world in which that thing exists. This has the benefit of being formalisable and reasonably clear while keeping to a minimum any metaphysical consequences.

Then you may be suggesting that we can be rid of essences by doing some sort of Bayesian analysis that allows us to conclude that tigers are real. Maybe.

But you and I might agree that essences have little to do with what is and isn't real. — Banno

For me, things are real if they possess causal power. Rocks and ideas are real because they possess causal power. You can use your ideas to change things in the world and rocks can make you feel pain when you drop one on your foot. Essences would be akin to how different things interact with each other. For instance light is either reflected or passes right through objects depending on what the atomic structure of those objects, and which wavelengths of light are reflected or absorbed is dependent upon the same atomic structure.

When we go to the Moon and Mars we find rocks and mountains. So rocks and mountains seem to be supported by what Kripke is proposing. We also have something called convergent evolution where similar traits arise in similar environments. On Earth, having eyes is very useful as the atmosphere allows visible light to pass right through it. On similar Earth-like planets with a transparent atmosphere we would expect organisms to have eyes.

Yep. Notice that reference remains intact despite the failure of each description. Hence reference is not achieved by using descriptions, nor by essences. — Banno

There is no reference if the scribbles refer to something that is not the case. One can only confirm there is a reference by making some observation about what the scribbles refer to. If there is no reference then they are just scribbles and not words. It's just that we often trust people are not lying when having a conversation with them so we don't feel a need to confirm everything that is said.

Scribbles are just scribbles unless they refer to something. What makes a scribble a word and not just a scribble?

You can draw any scribbles on this page but what makes some scribble meaningful? You might say it depends on how it is used. And I will ask, "used for what? - to accomplish what?" To use anything means you have a goal in mind. What is your goal in using some scribbles?

Although "99.9%" probably undersells things. Do ants, or trees, or ducks, or men every give birth to tigers? Has anything but a tiger ever given birth to a tiger?

Even in hybrids, the hybrid's traits are an admixture. Horses and donkeys give birth to mules, not cats and frogs, etc.

Note that this also defines what humans find "useful." If one tries to breed one's male pigs to one's female sheep, the family will starve. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sure, usefulness is dependent on what is real or true. For something to be useful means that there is some sense of truth attached to it.

I used 99.9% to represent the fact that species evolve and species cannot evolve unless the present species mutates in some way.

I think that when we speak of "essences" and "substances" we are referring to those distinct clusters of shared characteristics that occur together 99.9% of the time. Species that share some characteristics of others, or where characteristics overlap are typically the descendants of the other species, or share a common ancestor with another species.

The point made is that in order to be said to know something, it's not usually enough to have the information; one also should be able to act on that information. — Banno

The information one possesses could be memories where one used the information before and was successful in accomplishing some goal with that information, and would probably solve the present problem as well being that both circumstances are similar.

If one cannot know how to ride a bike, then how does one learn to ride a bike? Don't forget that possessing information doesn't necessarily mean ones is conscious of the information as learned information is typically stored unconsciously until needed. Once one learns to ride a bike all the movements required are handled subconsciously. But this cannot be said while learning to ride a bike as one is fully conscious of every movement and one's balance as one observes one's actions and the effect of those actions, and repeat. This is what the learning process is. Once the task is learned most of the actions are governed subconsciously allowing the mind to tend to other things.

Can you explain in virtue of what a belief would be "justified" without any reference to truth? How does logic "justify" a belief without reference to logic's relationship to truth in particular?

It seems to me that this will be difficult. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It seems to me that any proof that logic provides must be confirmed by some observation. 2 + 2 = 4 are just scribbles on a page. What do the scribbles refer to in the world to make 2 + 2 = 4 useful and true? 2 + 2 = 4 is true, but why is it true? It's because we observe and categorize similar objects into groups so that there can be more than one of some thing. If everything were unique and there were no categories then there would only ever be one of anything and 2 + 2 = 4 would be meaningless. The idea of quantities is dependent upon the idea that things share a particular "essence" or "substance" to be grouped into similar categories to then say that there is a quantity of that particular "essence" or "substance", like cows, rocks and stars.

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.

The problem is the term, "essence". What is an essence? Is it akin to a substance? What is a substance? The issue appears to be a misuse of language, or using words which have no coherent definition which makes them meaningless.

There are simply characteristics that occur together a vast majority of the time. The characteristics of tigers occur together 99.9% of the time. Female and male tigers make tiger babies, not a mixed lot of various baby species.

Just Google, "characteristics of tigers" and you will see the AI response of all the physical and behavioral characteristics of tigers. How can so many characteristics occur together 99% of the time if there isn't something real going on that is not dependent upon some agreement?

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

As has been explained many times before, the biological man who identifies as a woman doesn’t identify as having XX chromosomes, ovaries, or a vagina, so it's not clear what delusion you believe she has. — Michael

The delusion is that there is more to being a woman than having XX Chromosomes, ovaries and vagina, or that having XX Chromosomes, ovaries and vagina does not make one a woman (but then why would they be attempting to get artificial ones?). This is what I have been trying to get you to show for several pages now and you keep avoiding the question. What more is there to being a woman than having XX Chromosomes, ovaries and vagina that isn't some sexist trope? If it is a feeling, then what is the feeling? What does it feel like for you to be a man or woman? You can't even speak for yourself as to what you mean.

If so, then it stands to reason that any biological man with a female phenotype – even if artificial – ought use the women's changing room and any biological woman with a male phenotype – even if artificial – ought use the men's changing room. — Michael

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?

There are sex differences in psychology. These differences are what drive the development of gender expression and gender roles in society – expressions and roles which have absolutely nothing to do with karyotype and very little to do with phenotype. — Michael

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.

And the definition is problematic because it unnecessarily combines the act of knowing with information being true. — Jack2848

A solution would be to define what it means to be "true".

Another solution would be to dispense with the word, "true" as a descriptor of knowledge. Knowledge would be justified beliefs, and beliefs are justified by both observation AND logic. Beliefs would only be justified by one or the other, or neither. Knowledge requires confirmation from both.

The belief that god exists would not be based on logic or reason as we have never observed god and the gods as defined in many religious texts are contradictory.

There is also the distinction of the types of information that is man-made vs natural information. Man-made information, like "Superman flies" will always be justified because Superman is an idea and by thinking of Superman and his powers one is directly accessing what it means to be Superman. The same cannot be said of natural occurring phenomenon, like stars, atoms, etc.

— Michael

The issues become much clearer and easier to settle in one’s mind when one abandons the concept of gender entirely, or at least relegate it to a grammatical concept, a relic of language, rather than a statement about biology. It ends the cognitive dissonance required to support and think about these ideas clearly. — NOS4A2

Or just disperse with the notion that women should wear dresses and men should wear pants. If we did that then wearing a dress or pants would not be a form of gender expression. Many women wear pants already and still consider themselves women, so what exactly are trans-people saying when they wear a dress and high heels and claim that is a form of gender expression? Men wear earrings and have long hair and do not consider themselves women.

With this in mind, trans-genderism would actually be a man or woman doing what is expected of the other sex while maintaining that they are still the sex they were born as. A man wearing a dress and still considers himself a man would be a trans-gendered person. A man wearing a dress and believes that now makes him a woman has a delusional disorder.

I don’t think bathrooms should be divided by gender. I think bathrooms should be unisex. — Michael

Which is to say that bathrooms should be genderless. I can get behind this as this is a solution that does not affirm one's delusions that one is a man or woman when they are not.

A society where people that do not wear clothes would be genderless as well.

A society where both sexes where earrings and have long hair is one wear wearing earrings and having long hair would not be a means of affirming one's sex/gender.

Call it whatever you like. A random stranger in the same room isn’t going to be able to tell the difference between a natural and an artificial set of genitals.

A trans man who has had bottom surgery ought use the men’s changing room and a trans woman who has had bottom surgery ought use the women’s changing room.

Their chromosomes and the genitals they were born with are irrelevant. — Michael

What would one's bottom have to do with where you can change clothes? Whose the one concerned about genitalia now?

What type of bottom one has is relevant in medical and mating contexts. That is when others need to know what type of bottom one has.

Try reading it again. You’ll see that the word “psychological” was listed. — Michael

And invoking the term, "psychological" just reinforces my assertion that we are dealing with a delusional disorder. You are ignoring all the problems I posed by defining gender as a social construct. You continue to be intellectually dishonest. I have responded to each and every point you have made in your posts yet you cannot show the same respect.

I have also been asking which feelings one has that makes one a man or woman. You can't even explain what it means to be a man or woman for yourself. What feelings are you referring to when you assert you are one or the other? How am I suppose to understand what you mean when you won't explain what you mean?

How can one's feelings be gender and a social construct be gender when a trans-person's feelings is at odds with the social construct?

No I wasn’t. Many words have ambiguous meanings. Many words have multiple meanings. I’m not the one asking for some singular definition of “male gender”, just as I’m not the one claiming that there’s some singular definition of “male sex”. Language and biology and psychology and society and culture are not that simple. The world is a complex place, and is precisely why any essentialist approach to the issue is doomed to fail. — Michael

For a word to have ambiguous meanings means that it has no meaning, and that you end up talking past each other.

A word has multiple meanings only in different contexts. Each meaning of a word is specific to a certain context and the goal you are attempting to accomplish. You don't apply all meanings of the word in one context, or in different context, as that would be a category mistake.

I only suggested that we not use the words "man" and "woman" because you are having so much trouble understanding what they mean when discussing gender. Presumably we both have a clear understanding of what "bathroom" and "penis" and "vagina" mean. — Michael

Sure, when someone uses words in a way that is contradictory people will have a difficult time understanding them.

If there's full frontal public nudity then I don't think it matters whether your genitals are natural or artificial, and so a trans man with a penis should use the men's changing room and a trans woman with breasts and a vagina should use the women's changing room. — Michael

Yet you assert that a trans-woman has a vagina when what they actually have is an open wound that they have to use medical grade stents to keep open. Any misunderstanding I have is a result of your inability to define the terms you are using in a meaningful way.

Gender is the range of social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral aspects of being a man (or boy), woman (or girl), or third gender." — Michael

No wonder I couldn't find what I was looking for. I was asking about their feeling of what it means to be a man or woman. You're now talking about cultural norms which are the antithesis of personal feelings. This is exactly what I was trying to avoid in talking past each other. Can a woman still be a woman if they don't adopt the cultural expectations of the culture they are in?

How is this any different than being sexist? Isn't it sexist to claim that women should only dress in high heels and skirts?

Doesn't this mean that when someone travels to a different culture that has different aspects their gender changes?

Doesn't this mean that gender is determined by culture and not a personal feeling?

Presumably we both have a clear understanding of what "bathroom" and "penis" and "vagina" mean. — Michael

I do, but you were the one asserting that words have an unambiguous meaning, contradicting yourself again.

Start on line 1, finish on whatever line is last. — Michael

It doesn't explain what they mean when using the terms man and woman, which is why you cant point to it in the links you provided.

Essentialism is a dead-end philosophy. — Michael

Really? Define essentialism then. And what are psychologists and sociologists if words don't have an unambiguous meaning? What are you actually talking ABOUT?

So let's not use the words "man", "woman", "male", or "female" at all, and ask a single question:

Should bathrooms be divided by biological sex, by something else, or by nothing at all? — Michael

You're the one that has now called into question the meaning of words. What are bathrooms, sex, gender, male, female, woman, man, etc? It seems that we would need to define these things to even hope to answer these other questions.

where in these wiki links does it explain what one means when they claim to be a woman or man? What properties are we referring to and how do we know that being a man for me is the same for someone else? What prevents us from talking past each other when using these terms?

I've already addressed this. Trans-inclusive bathroom policies do not put cisgender women at a greater risk of rape. Trans women are not just perverts and rapists pretending to be women so that they can more easily sexually assault biological women. — Michael

I'm talking about the actual perverts, whether they be trans or not, entering women's bathrooms.

It's not co-opting terms. Transgender (and third gender) people have existed and have been talked about for thousands of years. — Michael

You're still avoiding the question as to what anyone means when using these terms. Just because something has been done for thousands of years doesn't mean it has any basis in reality.

Most of the abuse they receive is “Get out! You’re not allowed to use this bathroom you pervert!” (even though they’re not perverts and are allowed to use that bathroom), so unisex bathrooms would solve the problem entirely. — Michael

Yet I've seen women go to the mens bathroom because the line to the women's bathroom was to long and men go into the womans bathroom to assist their elderly mother and no one said a thing.

Women are uncomfortable with men in their bathroom and the threat they face is rape compared to someone calling them a name? Seriously?

And I think you would receive some pushback from trans on unisex bathrooms because they see using a man or woman's bathroom as a means of affirming their gender.

Then what are they actually saying?
— Harry Hindu

That their gender is male. — Michael

Male is a sex.

These are four different things:

1. Male sex
2. Male gender
3. Female sex
4. Female gender — Michael

This doesn't answer my question, and so far you've only provided circular answers. When you say you are a male or female, what are you referring to? What properties make one a male or female? How do we know we aren't talking past each other when using these terms?

And why would you be co-opting terms originally used to refer to sex if gender and sex and seperate? Why wouldn't gender be related to the type of job you have, or your religion? Why sex, if they are distinct?

It is a 'thought experiment' intended to impart the idea that the concept of time is inextricably linked to the subjective system of the relevant beings. Of course mountains don't perceive time or anything else for that matter. (I can see why you refer to that 'flicker fusion' idea.) — Wayfarer

Do mountains change?

Does it take time to process sensory information? Is processing sensory information a type of change?

There is change and then there is the measurement of change, which is time. The rate at which our brains process sensory information would be relative to the change occurring in other processes, so the way we perceive other change would be relative to the rate at which we process sensory information. Slowly changing processes would appears as solid, static "objects" and faster processes would appear as actual processes, and even faster processes would be blurs of motion, or possibly not perceivable at all.

If there's full frontal public nudity then I don't think it matters whether your genitals are natural or artificial, and so a trans man with a penis should use the men's changing room and a trans woman with breasts and a vagina should use the women's changing room. — Michael

But wait, I thought trans-people aren't talking about their biology. :roll: contradiction after contradiction after contradiction. It's contradictions all the way down.

I don’t think bathrooms should be divided by gender. I think bathrooms should be unisex.

But those who are argue that bathrooms should be divided by gender argue for one or more of the following:

1. Trans men are uncomfortable using the women’s bathroom and trans women are uncomfortable using the men’s bathroom
2. Trans men face greater risk of abuse using the women’s bathroom and trans women face greater risk of abuse using the men’s bathroom
3. Cis men do not face greater risk of abuse when trans men use the men’s bathroom and cis women do not face greater risk of abuse when trans women use the women’s bathroom. — Michael

And you don't see the problem with the first thing you said and the bullet points you showed? If bathrooms are unisex then "cis-people" can use any bathrooms they want as well as any gender which would place trans-people in the same spaces with the same people that you claim they would be in danger.

Besides, the evidence does not show that trans-people are more at risk from using the bathroom they prefer. You even said the statistics doesn't show that trans-people were attacked more in bathrooms than in other places, so how can you say that they are more in danger in using a particular bathroom, especially when men can use the women's bathroom if they are unisex?

The disagreement stems over whether or not "women" always means "biological women". The claim being made is that there is a distinction between sex and gender, that the terms "man" and "woman" are also used to classify gender, and that people can be women in the sense of sex but men in the sense of gender. — Michael

The way a trans-person feels is not a man or a woman. What does it feel like to be a man or a woman? We all have feelings. Which ones are the woman and man feelings? It appears you are conflating certain feelings that have nothing to do with sex with sex, which would be sexist.

When they say “I am a man” they are not saying anything about their biology. — Michael

Then what are they actually saying?

It’s interesting to consider how much we don’t know, while seeming to know a lot. Indeed what we do know is tiny compared to what we don’t. But it’s easy to remain blind to what we don’t know and just accept what we do know as what there is, or even all there is. — Punshhh

How do we know how much we don't know?

Isn't it possible to doubt what we do know even though what we do know is true? Isn't it possible to over-think things? Reality could just as easily be simpler than we think. It is our ignorance and the need to flaunt one's imaginative use of language that allows us to imagine the world as more complex than it could actually be.

When we reach some conclusion we often realize how simple it is. It is only in our ignorance that it seems complex.

But since then I have realized that both bearing and orientation can apply independently to gender as well as to sex, so in addition to the three things at the end of last paragraph, there’s three social parallels of them: your gender, your gender bearing (how you feel about how society categorizes you, are you comfortable with it or do you wish it was different and if so how), and your gender orientation (what gender you find attractive in others). — Pfhorrest

Sounds overly complicated, like you're performing mental gymnastics here.

Why are we even talking about sex in a discussion about gender if they are distinct? It seems to me that when a trans person feels uncomfortable with how society categorizes them it is when society is categorizing them by their sex, not their gender. To categorize someone by their gender would be sexist.

1. Gender and sex are distinct
2. Bathrooms ought be separated by sex, not gender
— Michael
Exactly. 1 and 2 establish that it would be off-topic to discuss bathrooms in a discussion about gender. You're making my argument for me. — Harry Hindu

No, because many disagree with (2). They will claim that bathrooms ought be separated by gender, not sex. — Michael

You're failing to provide reasoning as to why bathrooms should be divided by gender when they have been divided by sex AND sex and gender are distinct. Why would you even think that bathrooms should be divided by gender if sex and gender are distinct concepts? It's no different than asserting that bathrooms should be divided by species. Sex and species are distinct concepts, as are sex and eating ice cream, sex and astronauts, etc. Sex is distinct from a great many things, (bathrooms could just as easily be divided by those that are eating ice cream and those that aren't or by those that are astronauts and those that aren't), so why would you think bathrooms should be divided by gender rather than the great many other things sex is distinct from? What is the relationship between sex and gender that is different than the relationship between sex and being an astronaut? What is the relationship between sex and gender?

I explained it quite clearly. To say that trans women can't use women's bathrooms because they're not biologically female but that intersex people can use women's bathrooms even though they're not biologically female is special pleading. — Michael

You didn't because you keep asserting that gender and sex are distinct but make statements like this where you are grouping sex and gender together.

You are the one claiming that women's bathrooms are not exclusively for biological females. I'm asking how that does not prevent anything from using the public restroom.
— Harry Hindu

The same thing that already prevents them (or doesn’t, in those cases where a stray cat or bird enters a bathroom).

You’re not making any sense. — Michael

If we're talking about making changes to bathrooms to accommodate certain beings, then the same can be done for animals by creating entrances that enable animals to enter the public restroom more easily. You're avoiding the question as to why you would think of gender when discussing sex if they are both distinct.