You are both asking for dogma which runs the risk of invalidating and erasing transgender persons. — Questioner

I'm very confused. How is a basic default definition 'dogma'? How does the point that the unmodified words of woman and man together are sex references, invalidate and erase trans individuals? Words don't erase reality. Good words express concepts clearly. Concepts still exist despite whether you call them out or not.

I think there is a confusion of language use. Language is not used to 'shape' reality. That's manipulation. Language is used to describe reality accurately and efficiently. Any deviation from this is improper use of language. So there's no erasure going on.

Dogma is authoritative – as if only it is the truth – as if identification by others should supersede self-identification. — Questioner

No, dogma is an insistence of reality that is not backed by fact. "God is real!" is dogma. "Trans men are men" can be dogma if it is not backed by fact. Noting, "This is a box" while pointing to a factually provable box is not dogma. Noting men and women by default are sex references is not dogma if I'm correct.

Also, I fail to see how others subjectively identify you should have any bearing on how you identify yourself. I identify myself as a kind, loving, rational person who cares about people. You probably don't identify me that way. And you are not obligated to. You are allowed to identify me as you wish as an opinion.

Now if we are talking about objective identification, if you want others to accept your personal identification, it has to pass a fact check. If I identify as a dog, objectively, I am not. Others do not have to agree with subjective identifications that do not pass objective evaluation.

The experiences of transgender persons tell us that the definition of “woman” or “man” cannot be based solely on the physical body at birth. — Questioner

You're going to have to clarify what you mean by man and woman. You can say, "The experiences of transgender persons tell us that the existence of female and male gender actions cannot be based sole on the physical body at birth," and there's an argument to be considered. If you're claiming 'woman' or 'man' as a sex reference, you're objectively wrong.

I am more a skeptic than a dogmatist, encouraging open-mindedness and questioning rather than stifling them. — Questioner

How so? You don't seem very open minded to considering that man and women are sex references by default. Truly open minded individuals consider everything equally without regard to potential consequences. My observations in my communications with you is you seem to have a very dogmatic conclusion about trans people, and get very upset when an alternative is considered. You even went as far to say trans people would be erased, which is a closed minded tactic to avoid even considering the possibility that the OP is right. I've explained to you that there are trans people who agree with pretty much what I've stated in my trans related posts, and yet I have not seen you once be open to considering that. You might consider yourself open minded, but from my observations of your replies, you're not as open minded as you think.

1. A man is an adult human male.
2. A trans man is not an adult human male.
3. Therefore a trans man is not a man.

(The same pattern for "woman," and interpreting "male" biologically.)

Nobody disputes this argument's validity, but validity is not sufficient for philosophical substance in a contested debate. — Jamal

At least we agree the argument is valid.

Of course, what you have actually done is attempted to sidestep the central dispute, which is over whether or not your definition is correct. Your conclusion follows only because you have already made it inevitable by assuming the centrally contested definition. — Jamal

No Jamal. My conclusion follows because I have multiple true premises. No begging required. All you have to demonstrate to invalidate the argument is whether the default definition of man or woman is biological, or a role.

Now, had you taken the time to defend the definition, none of this would matter. Perhaps you just wanted to set things out clearly and simply, and what could be wrong with that? But the following is all you offered in defence:


Most of the world does not view man and woman by gender, but by sex, so the default goes to sex.
— Philosophim

This is where you need a good argument—where it's difficult. — Jamal

Feel free to point out where its flawed. Your judgement of whether the argument is 'good' or not is only evidenced by your ability to refute it.

This is better: you beg the question when your premises assume the truth of

the conclusion. And I think your argument does that, not explicitly but in the context of the ongoing debate. Premise 1 presupposes the conclusion by fixing the meaning of "man" in a way that already excludes trans men. The conclusion is assumed rather than argued for. — Jamal

I think you've put forth a good effort, but couldn't be more wrong here. You see, we also have to establish what 'trans X' means as well. We need the definition of X, trans X, and the conclusion of whether trans X is X. By fact the definition of X alone cannot assume the truth of the conclusion. Sorry Jamal, its impossible for this to be begging the question. You're going to have to dispute the definition of X, or trans X.

In reality, begging the question takes different forms: assuming a disputed claim, building the conclusion into a definitional premise, or stipulating a definition that can only be accepted by someone who already agrees with the conclusion. Some philosophers have made the distinction between intrinsic and dialectical question-begging. In those terms, you have done the latter. — Jamal

This sounds like you're trying to avoid disputing the definition at this point by trying to twist the clear term of question begging. Not buying it. Dispute the definition, or take another approach. Otherwise I have a logically sound argument.

If you have a particular argument against the OP, it is your job to point it out and explain why it counters the premises or conclusion of the OP. If there is a particular debate that you feel is worth pulling in to address the claims of the OP, feel free. But a general reference to unspecified arguments without any demonstrable link to the OP is something I can rationally ignore.
— Philosophim

If you just want to win, then sure. But if you want to find truth, then no, you cannot ignore the chance of attaining knowledge. I pointed you in the direction of a respected philosophical authority (the SEP), and mentioned that some thinkers regard man and woman as cluster concepts. I assumed, because you hadn't mentioned anything remotely like that, that you were unaware of all the work that has already been done in the field. — Jamal

I did read it. But I did that for my own curiosity. That doesn't invalidate my point that it was a flawed counter in any argument. Throwing a massive amount of information at someone without pointing out its specific relevance to the discussion is not a viable tactic from someone trying to find the truth. If you had simply mentioned, "Hey, here's some reading on gender. Its not an argument against what you've written here, just some information if you're curious," I can see your point. But you wanted to win the argument, not just give me knowledge. That information not existing in my argument did not mean the argument was flawed. Claiming that was your mistake.

I meant to call your statement that sex is the default into doubt, to push back against it with examples. If social position is operative in society in substantial, non-ephemeral ways—and I gave examples—then it shows there is a burden on you to support your statement that sex is the default. It does not rigorously prove that sex is not the default, but I had no intention of doing that. — Jamal

This is more interesting now because we're discussing the issue proper. The problem for you is that I did assert that sex is the default reference for man and woman. So if you can't prove that the default is something else my position holds.

The thing is, you are not merely saying, "Given my definition, trans women are not women." (Everyone agrees with this). — Jamal

Correct, because it is not my definition. It is the default definition that people assume when man or woman is unmodified in English.

You are also saying that your definition is the default, and that rival definitions, and therefore contrary conclusions, are deviations from correct usage. At this point, the masses are functioning as an authority. — Jamal

You are free any time to demonstrate that when most people see man and woman unmodified that they instantly jump to it being a role and not a sex reference. Go tell a random person on the street, "I saw a woman walking through the woods the other day." After some time then ask them, "When I said "woman" did you think adult human female or adult human male?" You and I both know the answer to this. So we can stop pretending otherwise. Free of specific context, woman and man default to a sex reference, not a role. To be clear, its the default of the unmodified term. Its not that man or woman can't mean role, they just need proper modification and context to clearly convey that.

How do you get to that? The logic surely goes like this:

Most people use "man" and "woman" to refer to sex, not gender.
Therefore "man" and "women" refer to sex, not gender.

There is a missing premise there — Jamal

Yes, this is fair criticism and I hope the discussion focusses on this rather than the above disputes. Language is a series of signs within context that indicate concepts. But they do follow default definitions within the language they are a part of. For example, black and white are colors without any modification. But we can modify default definitions to create more 'colorful' language. For example, I can call someone a 'white' man. We all understand this is a reference to race, and that a person's skin doesn't have to actually be the color white, but ethnicity or even social class. "Bob might have dark skin, but he's really a white man underneath it all."

Metaphors and similes are also tools to modify language into interesting comparisons. "Todd is just like a black man". Todd of course would be categorized as a 'white man' in reality, as he does not have any black skin or 'ethnicity'. Its a simile where we attribute behavior to ethnicity. Which is fine, but does the behavior make the ethnicity, or is it a trait that is sometimes associated with the ethnicity? Its the later.

It would then be a far cry to say by default, "Tom is black" when he is actually white by ethnicity. Even in a context, there is a default meaning for the term. We understand the default for 'black' is ethnicity, not the actions associated with the ethnicity. So if Tom, a white man, decided to apply for black scholarships, we would rightly deny Tom the ability to do so because 'white' is by default in this context ethnicity, not behavior. Do you disagree with this?

Remove the context, and the base meaning of white as a color still applies. All of this is very important, because if the default is misunderstood, everything built off of it becomes confused. If you started saying, "White unmodified can also mean the feeling of being white", it becomes very difficult to understand language without further context. "Tom is a white man" now all of the sudden becomes ambiguous. Do we mean Tom is white by ethnicity or is actually black by ethnicity and feels white? Suddenly a "White scholarship" can be applied to not be the default meaning, which was ethnicity, but has become unnecessarily ambiguous. Language is now confused, people don't know what it means anymore and thus language has become worse.

Defaults generally happen in languages to avoid ambiguity and create efficient discussion. No one wants to speak to another person saying, "A woman with x sized hips, medium breasts who feels like a male..." People just denote, "A woman" and English speakers understand 'woman' to refer to 'sex' by default. Its just an efficient word to describe a basic concept unambiguously. A "White woman" would default to an ethnic description of a woman by sex. A word that does not have a default is confused and awful in correct language, as language's goal is to accurately communicate a concept efficiently to another person. So the idea of a default for nouns is not flawed, its a real phenomenon in any good language.

The language as well can often tell us what the default is. Lets look at the etymology of the terms man and woman. First, we understand they, in context with each other, were originally sex references. Gender, the idea that males and females have sociological expectations placed upon them, needs a reference to the sex itself. "Male gender" is the sociological expectation placed on an adult human male. Eventually, people started using "Man" as a simile or metaphor. "He acts like a woman." "He's such a woman." But the simile and metaphors don't actually imply the person is 'the other thing', its an implication of traits that are often associated with the thing, in this case behavior.

You can probably see by this point in your reading why I did not go in depth on the OP. My experience is that long posts do not keep the attention span or conversation going. I have found it best to save more in depth assertions for those who are interested in exploring them. I'll continue now.

Back to simile and metaphor. Proper simile's and metaphor's do not imply the person is the default use of the simile and/or metaphor. "My brother Tom doesn't stop talking when he drives. He's such a parrot". We can glean from the context of the sentence that most likely, him being a parrot is a metaphor, not an actual driving parrot. :) The default for parrot is again, the bird. Even though we could parrot other people who use parrot in different ways. As you can see, despite the different meanings of the term parrot in the sentence, you were able to easily understand what was stated without ambiguity. That's an effective and clear sentence.

So, now back to "Trans men are men". The "Are men" is where we will focus first. Is it a metaphor? Is it a claim to be an actual parrot? We'll need to look at what a 'trans man' is first. 'Trans' generally means 'to travel across' and 'man' generally means a sex referent unmodified. But here we have a modification. Intuitively we would think, "Oh, that's a man by sex who is crossing over to the other sex." But of course the phrase was not built on common English expectations.

Instead, we actually need to add some more specificity. Man can also mean 'gender role' in particular contexts, but the context needs to be clear. So we should probably add a modifier to make that clearer. "Trans gender man". This clarifies that the 'man' in question is not a man by sex reference, but by gender reference. And since its 'trans', or crossing over, we can assume their default gender would be woman. And a default gender applies to a default sex. So the trans gender man is a woman. Just like my parrot example above, we can glean from the full sentence the accuracy of the situation. This is a woman who believes in following the sociological expectations of others about sex. She does not want to follow the role society expects of her, she wants to follow the role society expects of men again. Unlike some who would simply reject societal expectations, she embraces them for the other sex.

If the philosophical goal of language is to clearly communicate ideas accurately (and we like efficiency too), has the above accurately conveyed the situation? I would say so. There's no ambiguity. But lets look at the original phrase in question again.

"Trans men are men". What does this mean? Trans men could denote trans sexual or trans gender, so it probably needs a little clarity there. But lets assume its just gender, and there is no transitioning of sex features in any way. "Trans gender man" is a complete phrase that indicates that this is a woman who is taking on the sociological expected role of the other sex. So what's the purpose of the latter addition? If 'man' unmodified by default means 'male sex', this is obviously false.

The modifiers of men further convey the point that man, unmodified by default, refers to sex. This confusion was obviously apparent when the phrase 'trans man' defined common English expectations. For example, most people think on hearing the phrase for the first time that 'trans man' means "A man who's transitioned". There needed to be clarity about the separation of sex and gender with the terms man and woman. Thus the term 'cis' was used to modify the default term so that you would understand that man or woman in this instance refers to gender, not sex. A cis woman, is a woman who has the female gender. This is a clear and accurate sentence.

The proper tautology for accurate and unambiguous communication should be "Trans men are trans men" Or "trans men are not cis men". But "Trans men are men" is ambiguous and poorly phrased at best, or wrong at its worst. Thus the phrase is simply confusing. Assuming that someone is trying to communicate accurately and efficiently the true intentions behind the phrase, they should modify it to be more clear. "Trans men are adult human females that take on the gender role of men" No question there, but wordy. "Trans men are women" still conveys the same information accurrately and more compactly. "Trans men are the male gender" is also compact, but might want to clarify if they're using gender as the sociological meaning vs sex synonym.

As philosophers or people who study philosophy, rationally we should embrace clarity of language and thought where possible. We understand that politics, religion, and ideologies use and abuse language to manipulate and control the populace. This is in defiance of understanding the world and reality in a clear way. So if the phrase is ambiguous because people are going to default to thinking 'Trans men are men' means 'Trans men are men by sex", there shouldn't be a single problem with clarifying the phrase to be clear in its intent.

The only reason I can think that a person would be against it is if they're intending to conflate the default term with gender to avoid having to address the fact that cross gender people aren't cross sex. But you wouldn't be one of those would you? I would assume having studied philosophy for years that you would be aware of such basic deceptions and manipulations. Clarity of language and thoughts is paramount to the study, so why use unclear language? The use of language for conflation or manipulation is the antithesis of philosophy.

My apologies for giving you a mouthful of words (but not a literal mouthful, we both know that right?) but I was saving such extensive explanations for those who would address the subject more pointedly and not reactionary. Please take your time to respond, I will not view time taken to mean anything other than you are thinking about it and you'll respond when you have time.

I still don't get how that applies to the OP Frank.
— Philosophim

It doesn't appear the OP is saying anything that isn't trivially true. — frank

I didn't think so either, but apparently its not so trivial based on the discussion generated. Appreciate the input.

Yes, but they aren't saying "Sex preference". I'm not sure what the point was here Frank. That's not intended to sound sarcastic, I'm just not sure what you meant here.
— Philosophim

They were born with a certain sex. That's true. They tell you what their gender is. — frank

I still don't get how that applies to the OP Frank.

Ok. But when you go to the hospital, someone is going to fill in a blank beside the words: Gender Preference. So you're cool with that because every hospital in America is presently doing that. — frank

Yes, but they aren't saying "Sex preference". I'm not sure what the point was here Frank. That's not intended to sound sarcastic, I'm just not sure what you meant here.

You just sort of go with the flow. I can't say I'm overly proud of you for that, but I recognize your stance. — frank

This is a non-political discussion. This is about language. Politics are about getting what you want no matter what gets in your way. Philosophy is an attempt to analyze language and ideas to conclude what is most logical.

This is a language argument.
— Philosophim

I was arguing your use of the word "want" — Questioner

And I'm noting this is not an argument about 'want', but what 'is'.

Sure. That doesn't invalidate the OP.
— Philosophim

Cool. So if people change the way they talk about gender, you'll change your views. — frank

That's worded quite strangely. If it the prevailing definition of the term 'woman' became social role instead of sex, then the OP's conclusion would change. It has not as of this time.

than getting something you want.
— Philosophim

Let's first focus on this - reducing the need for authenticity to a "want." — Questioner

Let me stop you there. This is not an OP that decides anything about trans gender desires, politics, etc. This is a language argument. This is not, "What are we politically going to do about global warming." This is, "Is global warming real?"

So stay on topic with the OP please. Where is it wrong?

Conceptions of reality change. Language changes with it. — frank

Sure. That doesn't invalidate the OP.

This is disingenuous.

How the language is used will decide if it is a weapon or not used against transgender persons. — Questioner

That's ridiculous. Effective language is used to describe reality.

Let me give you an example of why effective language is more important than getting something you want. Global warming. I've heard on the right quite often that global warming isn't real. They don't have very good arguments against it, but dig further and you realize what they're really doing. They don't want to sacrifice or increase taxes, so they deny the reality of global warming. Isn't that stupid? Should you reject reality because you have an alternative goal and think the only way to achieve it is to deny reality?

What conservatives should do is simply evaluate global warming independent of politics first. Then there can be a discussion. A conservative could then say, "Yes, global warming is real, but are your solutions effective? No, we have solutions we think will be more effective."

So I ask you to ask yourself the same question. Are you arguing against clear language to get something beyond that language that you want? Or are you ok with agreeing to basic language, then deciding with that language how to get what you want? If the phrase 'Trans men are men" isn't proper language, shouldn't it be clarified? Once its clarified, you both have an area of agreement on a basic premise, then you can argue what trans men should be able to do in society.

And I gave you an example where almost all native English speakers would say, "I saw a woman walking in the woods." — Ecurb

Correct. What you didn't imply in any way is that most people would think that 'woman' in this instance was referring to a role and not a sex. Let Jamal answer Ecurb, I'm sure he'll present a good response. If you spy something he missed feel free to point it out then.

I've answered your point about it not being the default definition. We can keep talking about that, but this OP and Jamal's focus is on definitions and proper English usage. There is zero emotional considerations here. This is not about politeness, social standings, or how we ought to treat trans individuals. This is about language.

No, I am not begging the question. The assertion of a definition, and a reason why it is that definition is not a conclusion within the premises.
— Philosophim

Nonsense. The definition is changing, or has changed. — Ecurb

The claim it is the default definition is a given. Go to anyone you know and say, "A woman was walking in the woods." Wait a second. Then ask them, "Did you imagine an adult human male or an adult human female?" Of course we all know the answer is, "Adult human female". That is because man and woman by default do not refer to a role, but a sex.

This is the contested definition. To begin here is to begin too late, ignoring the substance of the philosophical debate, making your conclusion inevitable and therefore lacking any weight. — Jamal

Incorrect. If you want to have this debate and contest that definition, that's your call. First, you have to address what the OP is doing, not what you think it should be doing. I've defined men and women as used by default. Again, contest if you wish. It is not my failing for asserting a definition in an argument that you wish to contest.

The conclusion that trans women are not women follows only because the argument defines "woman" in a way that already excludes them. — Jamal

Premises which necessarily lead to a conclusion is a deductive argument. Which means that if the premises are true, the conclusion is true. So then we have both acknowledged that the argument I've made is deductive and valid. You want to debate the premises. Which is fine. But I have not lacked in the argument or used poor logic.

Thus, despite the internal validity of your argument, in the real context of the trans debate you are begging the question, because the real point you need to make to carry your view is precisely that a woman is an adult human female by sex, a man an adult human male by sex. — Jamal

No, I am not begging the question. The assertion of a definition, and a reason why it is that definition is not a conclusion within the premises. The conclusion also requires other premises in the argument. If I noted "The bible is true because God says so, and the bible is true because its Gods word", that is begging the question. The premise is the conclusion, and the premise is true because it says it is true. But I do not. If the other premises changed, then the conclusion would not be necessarily reached despite my asserted definition of man and woman.

But sometimes people want to claim that man and woman are 'roles'. What's a role? A gendered label. Most of the world does not view man and woman by gender, but by sex, so the default goes to sex.
— Philosophim

This is an empirical claim asserted without evidence, and presumes that it determines how these terms ought to be used. — Jamal

If you want more evidence on this claim, that's fine. But it is not how men and women ought to be used that is being debated, it is an assertion that this is how they are used by the majority of people. This is very different than me stating, "Because the majority of people use this word as Y, they should use that word as Y". For example, you could state, "Though the majority of people use man to mean 'adult human male', they should not. I'm simply noting a fact that this is the way the word is used by most people. So the OP is not claiming how men and women ought to be defined, its asserting how they are by default.

As it stands it's an appeal to popularity. — Jamal

How so? The majority of people use the term 'majority' to refer to 'the greater number of' right? That's a definition, not an appeal to popularity. I'm claiming a majority of people use the term women and man to refer to adult human females and males respectively by definition. Are you claiming that men and woman cannot be defined as I've noted so far? I don't think you are, so your only viable critique at this point is to claim 'the majority of people don't define men and women that way'.

And as I have said, it ignores the relevant discussions that have been going on in philosophy for years, about social kinds and role-based categories, cluster concepts and so on (I pointed you in the direction of the SEP for more detail). — Jamal

Have people in philosophy been debating that most people use the terms men and women to refer to adult human males and females? How does that apply here? Further, just because someone is debating something, doesn't mean what they are debating is important or worthwhile to address. People debate flat Earth theory, do I need to reference every single argument for flat Earth to note the Earth is not flat? Of course not.

If you have a particular argument against the OP, it is your job to point it out and explain why it counters the premises or conclusion of the OP. If there is a particular debate that you feel is worth pulling in to address the claims of the OP, feel free. But a general reference to unspecified arguments without any demonstrable link to the OP is something I can rationally ignore.

And note that a role is not just a label. It is an actual social position. Minimizing it functions to maintain the very normative hierarchy which is contested in the trans debate. I.e., ... — Jamal

Except that I'm not debating what a man and woman are if used to refer to a role. That's an entirely separate topic. I'm simply noting that most people use man and woman as adult human male and adult human female, thus that is the definition that people in general use when seeing the phrase.

Sex: fundamental, real, objective
Gender: derivative, optional, subjective

If you are to make any headway, you need to argue that this hierarchy is legitimate. — Jamal

No, it is your job to challenge my assertions. Why are they not legitimate? My job is not to predict why other people are going to have problems with my assertions. That's where you come into the discussion.

If man and woman operate socially as roles (which they obviously do in many contexts, e.g., bathrooms, marriage, dress codes, comportment expectations), then sex is not the default, but one factor among others. — Jamal

This is a counter assertion, which is good. But this is actually begging the question. If there is not only the objective reality of "Adult human male", but also "the role of an adult human male", there is a missing rational link to "Sex is not the default (majority) meaning for male and female". You see I'm not arguing that man and woman can't refer to the roles of an adult human male and female, I'm just noting that by default, the term men and women refer to sex, not gender roles.

To call it the "default" is to take sides in a debate--against the recognition of people who want recognition--without adding anything new. — Jamal

Not at all. Its an assertion of the majority use of the word. Also the desire of an individual is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You're debating something that isn't even in the picture yet. First you need to challenge me that people do not use man and woman by default to refer to adult human male and female. I will gladly add more information to defend it, but I want to hear your counter evidence first. My claim is not outside of the general norm or the traditional use of the terms. Just like someone challenged me that the world was flat, I would be more interested to see why they think its flat first before I presented in detail why its round.

Also, your points are much appreciated. I feel spoken with instead of at, and I hope I'm returning the same attitude. Thank you Jamal.

Well of course if someone else claims to be someone or something else, its a contradiction.
— Philosophim

Exactly. So my question is, are you claiming to be a "You" right now in the real world? Because if so, it's a contradiction. — bizso09

If by "You" you mean a synonym for "Philosophim", then its not a contradiction. If you mean "You" as a separate entity to "Philosophim" then its defacto a contradiction because you're saying one is actually two. That's impossible.

If I was both Alice and Bob, then it is Scenario 3, you're talking about. — bizso09

I do not see a scenario 3 in your OP. But if what I mentioned is a 'scenario 3', that's fine.

The point I want to state is that I want to affirm the existence of this fact called "You", which some people deny. — bizso09

Its your thought experiment. Make it however you want as long as its not self-contradictory. You can't have 'you' exist and not be a separate being. "You" in your scenario is an independent observer that in theory can observe other subjective experience. I have no problem with this, but this doesn't lead to a contradiction either.

The contradiction arises when someone else claims to be "You", when in fact they are not, and assuming they are honest. I'm also asserting that there is no You1, You2, etc, but only a single global "You". — bizso09

Well of course if someone else claims to be someone or something else, its a contradiction. Are you claiming scenario 1 and 2 are happening at the same time? In which case its still not a contradiction, "You" just have access to two subjective experiences at once.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no difference between the two scenarios. There are still only four people in the world, and each of them have their own respective experiences, thoughts, feelings and perceptions. Alice is still Alice, just like Bob is still Bob, in both cases. — bizso09

The difference is in who you are. You exist correct? If you exist separate from Bob in Alice in such a way that you can access Bob and Alice's subjective experience, then you are separate from them and no contradiction arises.

Philosophim Just a reminder that you forgot to respond to my post: — Jamal

I did not forget to reply to your old post, if you recall the previous post I noted I was done chatting with you because of your inappropriate approach to the discussion which you've since apologized for. I simply did what I told you I would, which was stop responding to your posts. Its been some time so we can try again. I accept your apology, and I will extend it back if I you feel I was overbearing or inappropriate in my responses.

To avoid unnecessary back and forth and a nice reset, I'm not going to address things that are not pertinent to the OP. So we won't be retreading previous points of discussion, only your current point about the OP. To your point here:

But if you want, we can draw a line under all that, because there is too much baggage in it and the result will be more petty bickering and grandstanding. — Jamal

So lets start with your main issues:

Instead, I can just ask you: do you agree that the OP assumes a definition which is the centrally contested definition in the debate over whether trans men are men etc? — Jamal

What is the definition that I am assuming? Why do you think I'm assuming it based on what's in the OP? I note by default that man and woman are used by most speakers to indicate adult human male and adult human female. This is not an assumption, this is a claim. If you have an issue with this, feel free to argue why the claim is incorrect.

Lets go slow and start with that.

But this is not scientific certainty.
— Philosophim

And your theory is? — Questioner

That we need to do more research to figure it out, and in the mean time find the best approach with what we know now.

We're still not quite certain what causes people to be gay, much less transgender.
— Philosophim

here's the thing - why is a scientific theory need to believe people when they tell us who they are? Yes, science marches on, but if I talk face-to-face with a person who shares their experience, I am going to try to understand, not judge them. — Questioner

I didn't say people didn't have gender dysphoria. Of course I seek to understand. Sometimes you understand and disagree with a person. Understanding does not mean acceptance of what you are told. Surely you understand what I'm saying but disagree.

As for 'trans gender' like a boy liking dolls, I just view that as sexist language. And I think you can decide to be, or not be sexist.
— Philosophim

You are still not getting the concept of gender identity being imprinted in the brain. — Questioner

This is not an argument or a discussion you're presenting. This is an emotional accusation. Do you want to talk with me, or at me? I used to try talking to people to persuade them that gay marriage was ok. Your hostility and approach are sounding similar to many religious zealot's approach with me.

No, transgenderism is absolutely an ideology.
— Philosophim

Not to the transgender person. — Questioner

I spent a little time and writing to flesh out why. This is not a discussion from you about what was said. This is you just saying "No".

Gender, the term in itself, is not an ideology. Its simply an assertion that people have a belief about how men and women should act in society.
— Philosophim

No, no, no, no, no. Please re-read all of my previous posts. — Questioner

I can see this isn't going to go anywhere then. You have already decided on your rightness, and there is not a discussion to be had. Very well then, let it end.

We might also say its selfish, narcissistic, deluded, and/or sexist.
— Philosophim

I feel sorry for your transgender friend you have mentioned in the past. I don't think you can be a very good friend. — Questioner

I am only commenting on this because I want you to pause. Were you a good person for saying this? Do you know the bond my friend and I have had for years? The pain he had as he confided over months and made his decision? The fact that I've supported him in his transition? No. You do not.

I invite you with a hand shake, and you bite my hand. Your sympathy is not for people, but for your own purpose. You are merely another ideologue that seeks to hurt what will not bend to your will. Its one of the worst evils we can sink to.

We've had a lively discussion in the "Gender elevated over sex is sexism" thread - thanks to the OP posted by Philosophim - I invite you to read the thread for some background. — Questioner

Hey Questioner! Your tag wasn't set up right and it didn't actually tag me. I just happened to visit the lounge and saw this. Perhaps that's best regardless as it gave you time to talk to other people. I am not important, ideas are.

My position has been that gender identity is something formed during fetal development, during the differentiation and organization of the brain during the third trimester of pregnancy. — Questioner

But this is not scientific certainty. We have to be careful, myself included, of asserting exploratory science as true and settled. We're still not quite certain what causes people to be gay, much less transgender.

What I would be glad to discuss is, "How would I view the issue if it a developmental error/genetic vs error in thinking? Let me answer your other points first, I'll come back to that if you would like me to.

People do not "decide" to become transgender - they are born that way. — Questioner

Actually, people do decide to become trans gender, if you're talking about 'transitioning'. The medical term for wanting to be the other sex so much that not being it is relatively stressful or painful is called 'gender dysphoria'. Which translates to, 'gender distress'. There are a whole host of things which can cause gender dysphoria. Social transition and medical transitions are treatments to help the individual cope with gender dysphoria. As for 'trans gender' like a boy liking dolls, I just view that as sexist language. And I think you can decide to be, or not be sexist.

There has been reference to the "trans ideology." Transgenderism is not an ideology - which we may define as a set of beliefs or ideas shaping a view of the world - but transgenderism is not about what the transgender person "believes" but rather who they are - their internal identity, processed by the brain. — Questioner

No, transgenderism is absolutely an ideology.

"a: a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
Ex: progressive/liberal/conservative ideology
b: the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
Ex: said that the election was not about ideology
c: a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideology

An ideology isn't necessarily wrong or right, but it is a group of ideas and assertions about how things are and how they should work going forward. Transgenderism is a branch of gender ideology. Gender, the term in itself, is not an ideology. Its simply an assertion that people have a belief about how men and women should act in society. This can be individual, or cultural, and is subjective.

So what is gender ideology? It doesn't just apply to trans gender people. Its any idea about what gender means for people, and how we should apply and use it in life. To my limited understanding the first pushes for gender ideology were in support of feminism. Again, it being an ideology doesn't make it right or wrong, but when it comes to transgenderism, it is very like 'the integrated assertions, theories, and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program'.

When I refer to transgender ideology, I refer to its sociopolitical aims. Would you deny that it has sociopolitical aims? It being true doesn't make it bad remember, its just noting that when transgender groups start to ask for language and laws to change, that is by definition a sociopolitical aim.

transgenderism is not about what the transgender person "believes" but rather who they are - their internal identity, processed by the brain. — Questioner

To be clear, using trans gender in the descriptive sense is not an ideology. If a person believes they have a gender that conflicts with their sex, that is an accurate description of the situation if the person is honest and unconfused. Of course, it doesn't assert that its 'correct' that a person believes that either. I could truly believe I was Napolean reincarnated, but that wouldn't make it 'correct'. You also cannot factually say gender is is not a belief, but a brain fact. We still don't have final scientific evidence of that yet. Maybe one day we will. I'll have no issue then. But until then, its a lie or embellishment from an ideological group that wants control and power. Not to knock transgender ideology in particular, its the low hanging fruit every ideology is tempted to eat.

In advancing their right to be their authentic selves, we might say the ideology that they do advance is one that respects and protects human rights. — Questioner

We might also say its selfish, narcissistic, deluded, and/or sexist. Again, you're making assumptions of morality without proving it first. "Authentic self" is normally a sexual phrase, what do you mean in this instance? If I'm brushing my teeth, am I my authentic self? Is it when I'm typing? Dreaming? What does that mean? Again, its language meant to appeal emotionally instead of rationally. Your problem, and the problem of 'ideologues' or those who pursue an ideologies success over questioning whether it should, is you already assume its basic premises are good without having done the intellectual effort to prove it actually is.

By contrast, the word ideology better reflects the anti-transgender position. — Questioner

Not so. Its just an accurate description of the situation. If an ideology is trying to assert that its more than an ideology, which is typically what ideologies that desire power do, it wants to elevate itself as a fact and above ideology. You can see the same arguments in politics too. "I don't like convervative ideology..." Conservative voter: Its not an ideology, its the truth!

Ideologies can gain power because they assert 'their truth'. You know and have the emotion of certainty and self-righteousness by your side! You know better than other people! You're more moral than other people! Time to go save the world! I am guilty of this just as well, so I'm not putting you down. I'm not above you, I'm right with you. Just another person trying to do right in life.

People opposed often have very rigid concepts of male and female, and often their opposition is tied to a resentment of having to recognize anything outside of their narrow paradigms. — Questioner

Oh, I'm quite certain some who hold any ideology of any kind are resentful of having to recognize anything outside of their ideology. How do you view me? When you think you're right, its very easy to see the other person as stupid, bigoted, ignorant, backwards, evil...'other'. But that's what we can't let happen. Philosophy teaches us to look past social pressures and the 'easy' way that makes us feel good. It asks us to work. To question our own stance even more than we question others.

The stance I hold is one after countless months of questioning and attacking it on my own. To love philosophy is to hate one's own ideas. Trust me, I've hated plenty on it. But I find despite my best attempts to bring it down, it stands tall where others fall. That is why I bring it to others. Maybe someone else will knock it down. And if not, I have something good for other people to think about.

So feel free to ask me questions. Accuse me of whatever you like if you wish. We're here in a polite discussion and I will not take offense to anything as long as its a question that I have a chance to answer and it doesn't descend into personal insults. Not that I think you will, you strike me as a rather polite and good hearted person Questioner. So ask away.

Tell that to the protesters in Iran who are being shot, arrested and tortured. Maybe (just maybe) they think that the government is acting without their "consent". — Ecurb

As I mentioned, they are trying to change the law. And as I've further mentioned, we are talking about individual consent.

Your lack of humor about the dogs and cats is telling. Do you always take yourself so seriously? — Ecurb

When I'm addressing sexism and sexist people, usually.

Your point about top hats is merely silly, as the video of Judy Garland singing "Get Happy" demonstrates (OK, it's a fedora, not a top hat, but the point remains valid). — Ecurb

"Silly" is not a rational criticism. Whether you find it silly or not is a subjective opinion and irrelevant. Its not uncommon for sexist people to want to retain sexist outlooks, and they use derision and try to invalidate the person calling them out on it instead of presenting a good argument.

You seem to be stuck on misunderstood definitions, incorrect ideas about morality, and an inability to comprehend my arguments or examples. Therefore, I will emulate Elinor Dashwood, in Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility.

"Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition." — Ecurb

This is a philosophy board. You can state an opinion and leave, but that leaves me with points and definitions that you did not rationally challenge. Therefore, you leave with me having the rational view point, you leaving with a mere opinion. There is a good reason only new people to these forums have challenged the OP on this topic. Its because its solid.

We should all examine ourselves carefully and not fall into 'moral' social pushes that have no actual rational backing behind them. I don't think you want to be a bad person, but if you're not aware that you're being manipulated by a sexist ideology when you have the chance to really think about it, you are. We cannot stick blindly to ignorance when we have an opportunity to really think about what we're doing. And all you're doing is defending a sexist viewpoint.

Again, not only consent to laws, but the homeless person is violating the consent of the home owner. When I own something and you want it, morally you have to ask me and I have to consent to give it to you.
— Philosophim

Huh? Why is the law always right? If (as I pointed out earlier) Robin Hood thinks the law is unjust. The tax collectors are violating the consent of the Saxons by collecting taxes, and Robin Hood is violating the consent of the Normans by taking the largesse back. Do the protesters in Iran "consent" to be abused by the government by dint of being born there? The notion that we all consent to obey the law is silly. — Ecurb

You consent to obey the law, or petition for the law to be changed. But until the law is changed, you consent in the social contract between an individual and government.

As I have repeated: nobody is forcing you (or anyone else) to use someone's desired pronouns. Nobody is forcing you to say "please" or "thank you". But it's good natured and mannerly to say "please", "thank you" and the preferred "him" or "her". You needn't do so, and I needn't think you are a kind, well-mannered person when you refrain. — Ecurb

Yet you are trying to convince me that its immoral not to in some manner. My point is that you have no grounds to assert this. You have provided nothing but an opinion that I should use sexist language with others.

Gender is an idea (not more prejudiced than other ideas) about how people behave and how they are perceived. If someone wants to be perceived as a "he' or a "she", it's well-mannered to comply, just as it's well mannered not to dead-name people. — Ecurb

No, it is not well mannered to follow how someone wishes to be perceived. Sometimes its actually rude to ask that a person be perceived a particular way. If a wage worker tells their boss that they should be treated as the most valuable employee despite being a lazy person who shows up late to work all the time and doesn't do their job properly, the employee is out of line and being the rude one.

Someone who asks another to participate in sexist or racist language is rude, period. I don't participate in slurs against races despite being pressured to in the past, and I'm not going to participate in sexist language despite now. Societies and cultures come and go with ideas of what is right and wrong. Sometimes society gets it right, sometimes it doesn't. This? Society is getting it wrong.

it is not sexist. Sexism suggests that one gender (sex) and the behaviors associated with it are superior to another's. We all know that women like cats, and men lie dogs (sometimes). A generalization like that is not sexist, unless (as would be utterly reasonable) we say, "Only a moron would like cats better than dogs. — Ecurb

You only have a partial understanding of sexism. Sexism is also elevating the prejudices you have about their sex, over the actual person themself. The fact you said "Women like cats" is prejudiced at best, sexist at worse. Where did you get such a crazy idea? I've known lots of women that hate cats. That's why its sexist. It asserts things about a broad sex that are not true for every member of that sex. It takes individual personality differences and tries to say "Its because you're a woman."

Now, this is not to be confused with sex expectations. For example, its expected that women will bleed once a month. That's not a social expectations, that's a biological norm. Of course, if someone stated, "You don't have a period, therefore you can't be a woman," if the person is female this is of course sexist too. Prejudice and sex expectations in themselves are not wrong, they are only wrong if they assert their truth when it does not align with reality.

A generalization like that is not sexist, unless (as would be utterly reasonable) we say, "Only a moron would like cats better than dogs. That is denying the importance of relationships, which are far closer, more intense, and more reciprocal with a dog than with a cat." Although true, that would be sexist, if we used it to suggest that our girlfriends or wives are not interested in close relationships. Also, it might lead them to dump us. — Ecurb

I don't understand why you think its utterly reasonable to claim "Only a moron would like cats better than dogs." That's just an unfounded prejudice against people who like cats. I'm not even going to comment on how you treat your girlfriends or wife.

Gender is an idea (not more prejudiced than other ideas) about how people behave and how they are perceived. — Ecurb

To be specific, and in philosophy specificity in definitions is important: Gender: The non-biological expectations that one or more people have about how a sex should express themselves in public. For example, "Men are expected to wear top hats, women are not."

I put those definitions at the start of the OP so that you know exactly what I'm talking about. In this conversation, that is gender. This is backed by gender theory. Gender is a social belief that each sex should act a particular way in public because of their sex. It is socially agreed upon prejudice. And acting upon prejudice as if its more important than the person's reality of their sex is sexist. So again, if I tell a boy, "You like dolls, and the gender of girls is they like dolls. (Society has declared this without science, just group opinion). Therefore if you like dolls, you're a girl now." that's sexist. If you disagree, explain why this specific situation is not sexist please.

So it is not rude to ask a person to use preferred pronouns. — Ecurb

Asking someone to participate in racism, sexism, or any kind of ism is rude. You have not disagreed with this. Therefore you need to explain why the above situation I mentioned is not sexist. The situation I mentioned above is saying that because the boy acts in a way society prejudices that only girls should act, he's really a girl, we should treat him like a girl, and perhaps someone would also come along and say, "They should transition their body to align with their gender".

Do you even read my posts? Your position is not viable. Here are some (of many) examples in which violating another person's consent is perfectly acceptable:

1) "I don't want to go to school today, daddy," said Billy.

"You have to go to school," said his father. "It's a law and a family rule." — Ecurb

This is a parents responsibility to manage a child who is not mentally capable to not make effective decisions about their future. We are talking about consenting adults.

2) "You were going 55mph in a 30 mph zone," said the police officer.

"I wanted to go that fast," said Philosophim.

"Tough," said the officer. "You will pay your fine, and if you don't consent you will be dragged off to prison." — Ecurb

Already covered this earlier, but I'll state it again. If you choose to live in a state, you consent to its laws. That's the basic social contract of government.

3) "I want to sleep in your house," said the homeless person. "I don't consent to leave."

"Leave right now or I will call the police and they will handcuff you and take you to prison whether you consent or not," said the home owner. — Ecurb

Again, not only consent to laws, but the homeless person is violating the consent of the home owner. When I own something and you want it, morally you have to ask me and I have to consent to give it to you.

Why is it objectively good manners?
— Philosophim

Good manners are determined by social contracts. They are designed to facilitate social interaction and to make others feel more comfortable. ON that basis, it is good manners to call people by the names they prefer, even if those are not their birth names. Similarly, it is good manners to use their preferred pronouns. — Ecurb

Good manners are not always about making others feel comfortable, but enforcing culture and power structures. I have noted it is correct to state a person's legal name if they've changed it. But pronouns? You have not given an objective reason indicating why they are beneficial to social interaction. Let me give you an example.

In the bible it states that if a man lay with another man, that is abomination. It is so, because the book says it is so. Its good for society, God, and all that. I however don't listen to what a book tells me without good reason. And I saw no good reason to view it as abomination. Back when many were in arms against gay marriage, I was for it. Because I reasoned that objectively, it hurt no one else, wasn't really anyone else's business, and two consenting adults can and should have legal recognition for long term monogamous relationships. I was persuaded by arguments, not assertions.

I'll try one more time, but unless something new is stated, we are going to have to agree to disagree and I will have held up the OP.

Gender is a prejudiced idea that a particular sex should act in a particular social way. I note that when you elevate prejudice past the person, it is sexism. If I told a little boy, "If you play with dolls, you're a girl," I would be sexist. When someone asks me, "Don't call me by the sex I am, call me by a sexist view of how people of the other sex should act," I see no reason why I should consent to using language in that way. I see the person's sex, I'm using pronouns for sex as I always have, why should I change to use sexist language?

You see, the real rudeness is asking another person to be sexist and/or use prejudicial language. "Yes, I see that you see my sex, but I'm a sexist individual who thinks that acting in a way I associate with the other sex, makes me the other sex. Would you be sexist with me?" I find that very rude. I don't care if a person transitions. But, I don't think it makes you the other sex because I'm not a sexist. You are. You have given me no reason to indicate you are not. It is not polite to be sexist, and I do not have to consent to be sexist because it makes you feel better about your sexism.

It would be the same if a black person asked me to call them the "n" word. I taught in inner city classes for a few years with minorities. That word was always forbidden from my class because I told kids we will not refer to racist language. Some kids hated me for it. "You're not cool. That's our culture." No, that's racist, and while in my class I will teach you to identify each other as human beings, not slurs and slangs involving race.

You have done nothing to indicate that you are not a sexist person asking me to participate in sexist language. Do you understand? You need to indicate why gender is not prejudice, and acting on it is not sexism. Or you need to persuade me that talking in prejudicial and sexist language is overall good for society. Kind of a "Old people curse, so you should too so they feel comfortable." I've had people try to make me curse or say things that I don't agree with many times in my life, and I've always stood my ground because I've felt its the right thing to do. Do you understand? You are not moral. I am. You are a selfish person who thinks some other stranger not even in this conversation's desire to use sexist language is more important than my rational explanations that I do not desire to use sexist language, and I have the right to not to consent to that. I rationally conclude my morality, you merely assert it with jeers and dismissals of my arguments.

So, it step up. Look at my points, and explain why the rationale is wrong. Not with jeers or appeals to social 'glue' as that's nonsense. You want my consent, you need to respect it, and respect my rational viewpoints by addressing them. If you don't, then just like the kids in my classroom, I will dismiss you as not having the intellectual capacity to know what you're doing, and will not take your words as having any validity behind them.

AS I've pointed out, your "consent" baloney is mere nonsense. — Ecurb

Let me be clear. In no uncertain terms is anyone's consent 'baloney'. Violating another person's consent is the definition of being a scummy person. It is the one commonality to every single immoral and evil act in this world. Your attempt to invalidate a person's consent is coersive and manipulative. its evil. It is one of the highest immoral positions a person can hold.

No one is "obligated" to use preferred pronouns, new names, old names, or to say anything at all (unless subpoenaed). Perhaps, however, some of us consider the good manners associated with complying with an addressee's wishes as to what name or pronoun he or she prefers a form of politeness and good manners. — Ecurb

Right, obligation means, "It is not up to the person to consent or not." If you personally consider it good manners, that is your opinion and choice. Not once have I shamed you or said your choice was incorrect for you. Do you see the difference? What you have not claimed is rationally why it is good manners for everyone else besides yourself. Why is it objectively good manners? You have not addressed the fact that to many others, you are asking them to lie. You cannot merely dismiss that with a hand wave. You don't get to tell others that preserving non-sexist language is immoral, when the opposite is more rationally considered immoral.

All judgements are "pre-judgements", because we fallible humans are never privy to all the relevant information. Therefore, complaining that using preferred gender pronouns is a form of "prejudice" is insufficient to demonstrate that it is reasonable and polite not to comply. — Ecurb

Pre-judgements are of course normal things everyone has. If a person thought, "That black person looks dangerous", its not in itself racist. If the person speaks to the black person and finds they are charming, kind, and great, but still insists, "They are dangerous because they are black," that's racist.

If a person wants to have a pre-judgement that "Only women wear dresses," that's fine. If a man puts on a dress then tells people, "I'm a woman because I wear a dress," that's sexist. Gender can only be prejudiced and sexist if acted upon. As such, asking someone to use pronouns to refer to gender is asking them to use sexist language. Its the entire focus of the OP, and I have not seen you present a single argument against its logic. Appeals to unproven politeness and dismissal of consent are not rational arguments, they are appeals to ignore rational arguments and just bend to a person's whims because you want them to.

I've already lived years of my life following a book that told me what was good because it said so. Give me good reasons, not simply assertions.

And although the energy is known to be transmitted as wave activity, the transmitted energy can only be measured as particles. This is not an issue of limited specificity, it is an issue having no understanding of the relationship between the material particle which is measured, and the immaterial wave which cannot actually be measured. — Metaphysician Undercover

Good clarity, thank you.

Note the use of “is” and "it" here — “if there is X,” “if there is something unknown.” In designating it as a something, the grammar is already treating it as a determinate entity, when the whole point of the discussion is precisely that it is not even a thing in that sense. (In fact, this is where I think Kant errs in the expression 'ding an sich', 'thing-in-itself'. I think it would be better left as simply 'the in itself'.) — Wayfarer

I get your point. I think the difference between ourselves is I see it as a known unknown. We're probably getting into the 'agree to disagree' territory. Its a fair debate, but you understand what I'm noting, I think I understand what you're noting, and that's the important thing here.

The deeper point is simply this: we are not outside reality looking in. We are participants within it. Treating the in-itself as a hidden object that either exists or does not exist already presupposes a spectator standpoint that the argument is calling into question. — Wayfarer

I think another thing here is that I believe both to be true. We are both participants, but outsiders also looking in. The 'outsiders looking in' part is a role we participate in, and in creating the model's we do we formulate terms and concepts that would themselves not exist. Let me paint a fun picture for you that we see an elephant walking around. Unknown to us, its an Eldritch horror of 6 dimensions. But since we can't experience 6 dimensions, our model is not contradicted by the 4D experiences we have with the animal, and it works objectively for us.

'The in itself' is a variation of the evil demon and the brain in a vat. It is the question of, "What is it like to be a bat?" It is the known unknowable that vexes some and creates wonderment in others. As I referenced above, I always wondered if HP Lovecraft viewed it as 'the forbidden knowledge that man was not means to understand, and would drive them mad if they did'.

To insist that “if there is an in-itself, then it must be utterly independent” is already to assume the very issue under question — namely, that reality must be a kind of thing standing over against a mind, describable in abstraction from the conditions under which anything becomes intelligible at all. — Wayfarer

I won't repeat in detail on this, just a brief mention that I think this is our main disagreement. Part of the wonder of human accomplishment isn't just knowing things, it is knowing the limits to things and logically putting together possibilities that apply to reality correctly. That's quantum mechanics and chaos theory. Its sitting on a logic puzzle and figuring out the last x,y check mark based purely on the fact that you've eliminated all other possibilities from the clues given. It is logically known only. We know where that election is, but we don't know what velocity it will travel in next. We know the limits of where a lightning bolt can land, but not exactly where it will. And sure, Jane has the walrus, but we've never seen Jane nor the Walrus.

Glad we have some points of agreement here and I appreciate the way you’ve framed this. — Wayfarer

Same. Also, you created a very well written essay and counterpoints.

Where I still want to be careful is about sliding from that logical indispensability to an ontological claim that what plays this limiting role therefore exists independently as some kind of determinate something — even if we immediately say it is unknowable or indefinable. My worry is that this quietly reintroduces the very reification the limit-concept was meant to address. — Wayfarer

This is a good point. For all we know, it could be an indeterminate 'thing/event'. That is why for me the only thing I think we can logically assert is 'independence'. It is something completely independent from us, and as such exists apart from us. It is 'the behind' of our observations. The temptation to add more knowledge claims than this is always there, but the bar is set high and rarely met by the inductions thrown at it.

I’m not saying there’s a hidden thing behind the world that we can’t access. I’m saying that the fact we’re always inside reality — participating in it rather than standing outside it — means that our ways of describing it are never final or complete. Reality keeps pushing back on our concepts and forcing revision, but that doesn’t mean there’s a separate metaphysical object called “the in-itself.” The limit shows up in the openness and corrigibility of our own understanding, not as a mysterious thing beyond it. — Wayfarer

I find it amusing that we both are using nearly identical language, but it is only a matter of perspective that separates. I find this to be a common thing in epistemology as people gaze into the 'known unknown'. I agree, when we assert 'the in itself' its not 'an object'. Its not a claim to "There's Jane in the flesh", its a claim that there is something with the quality of independence from ourselves, and that's the limit of what we can know.

So I’m not trying to remove the limit, but to interpret it differently: not as a hidden entity or substrate standing apart from us, but as a structural feature of our participation in reality — the fact that conceptual determination never closes upon itself, that experience is always constrained and corrigible without being exhaustively capturable in metaphysical predicates. — Wayfarer

Agreed. I do think there is a logical way to navigate through this uncertainty, and that logical navigation is proper deductive an inductive application. As such we can find logical models that work, but its understood that the logical models are not claims to understand independent reality 'in itself'.

And with that, I've said enough already, I need to log out for a few days to return to a writing project which is languishing for want of concentration. But thanks for those last questions and clarifications, I think the discussion has moved along. — Wayfarer

Yes, thanks as well Wayfarer! I wish you clear thoughts and limber hands.

I'll be quick on the quantum answer as I don't want to distract from your real point. The reason we measure as a wave vs an point is again a limitation of measurements. Lets go back to the waves of the ocean for example. We have no way of measuring each molecule in the wave, and even if we did, we would need a measurement system that didn't change the trajectory of the wave itself. I agree, its not all 'lumbering instruments', sometimes its just the limitation of specificity in measurement. Even then, such specificity is often impractical and unneeded. Fluid dynamics does not require us to measure the force of each atom.

Regardless, I feel that's not your true point.

What I mean is this: the “in itself” is what lies beyond our conceptual and sensory reach. It is not just unknown in practice; it is unknowable in principle insofar as any determination already brings the mind’s discriminations to bear. Even to say “it exists independently” is already to ascribe an ontological predicate to what is supposed to lie beyond all predication. — Wayfarer

Yes, I understood that was what you were going for. And it is very appealing and powerful the first time you encounter it. But what is the next step after that?

From that point of view, saying that the 'in-itself exists' is already a kind of over-specification — but saying that it does not exist is equally a mistake. Both moves bring in conceptual determinations into what is precisely not available to conceptual determination. We 'have something in mind'. That’s the sense in which 'it' is neither existent nor non-existent: not as a mysterious third thing, but because the existence / non-existence distinction itself belongs to the world as it is articulated for us. — Wayfarer

And this is the quandry. You are completely correct stating 'exists in-itself' is overspecification. But then we can't deny that it exists, and that is the 'independent' part. Independent in this case is pure independence. Undefinable, unknowable, and yet exists separate from us. From my view point, the only way we glean that things apart from us exist is the contradiction of our belief vs 'experience'. If we keep as you noted " What we actually encounter is constraint, resistance, regularity, surprise — all within experience and modelling. Independence as such is an abstraction we draw from that, not something we can meaningfully attribute to what lies beyond all possible description." we logically descend into solipsism. But we know that solipsism doesn't rationally hold in experience either.

What I'm trying to note is that the 'thing in itself' does not exist as a 'thing'. It exists as a necessary concept that leads to absurdity without it. Its the affirmative of the 'thing in itself' its the denial of it that leads to contradictions. Its a reducto ad absurdum. And that is how we know it. Not because we 'know' it, but because claims that it doesn't exist are known to lead to contradictions.

None of this breaks scientific models or the practical notion of an observer. — Wayfarer

Only if we note that the 'thing in itself' is a necessarily logical concept, and nothing more. We have to be careful here when we assert that the 'thing in itself' could not exist without an observer. The language and everything we speak in needs the 'thing in itself' as a logical necessity. Remove that necessity, and the entirety of language and observation falls apart. That's the part I'm hoping to hear your ruminations on. Is there an alternative way of us as observers even having reason without this necessary logical concept?

Bottom line: reality itself is not something we're outside of or apart from. We are participants in it, not simply observers on the outside of it. — Wayfarer

100% agree. I know I've asked a few times, and I'll stop if you want. :) But I would be keen to hear your thoughts on my knowledge paper. I think you and I would agree on much of it, but your unique passion for the way humans construct knowledge might point out something I've missed.

Do you have anything to say about the OP?

I'm not inclined to read it, now. — praxis

No worry, I'll be around when you're ready later.

Transatlantic as relating to the Atlantic. And Transpacific as relating to the Pacific. Sure, your topic is a bit more hairy (no pun intended) or complex than still bodies of water that are physically identical on the molecular level. But, at least this ONE facet of the OP (logical English phrasing) can be addressed using this much more simplified example that doesn't get people up in arms ideologically about timeless concepts such as human existence and what it means to be a (certain type) of human being. — Outlander

Yes, good point. Nice contribution.

Posting a video of cat silliness to distract a fellow debater after they requested distraction is trolling? — praxis

Of course it is. If someone tells you to steal from someone else, and you do it, is that not theft? Do you have anything to say about the OP?

The independent existent we are measuring, does not overlook the role of the observing mind.
— Philosophim

But it does! This is the basis of the major arguments about 'observer dependency' in quantum physics. — Wayfarer

We have to be very careful when analyzing quantum physics as lay people because the language is not the common philosophical or even basic English phrasing we are comfortable with. It is a mathematical phrasing.

The reason we have to take the 'observer' into account, isn't our eyeballs or consciousness. Its our measuring tools. The quantum realm is so minute that the measuring tools we use to monitor the quantum state affect the state itself. Non-quantum measurement is like rolling a ping pong ball at a bowling ball. We bounce the ping pong ball off, then measure the velocity that the ball comes back to determine how solid the bowling ball is. The ping pong ball is rolled to not affect the movement of the bowling ball.

Quantum measurement reverses this. We are essentially pitching a bowling ball at a ping pong ball. Our measurements are always going to affect the outcome. Its why you can't know the velocity and location of the quantum object at the same time.

Scientists generally have pushed back against quantum equations as it is essentially probability equations. There is a need to know the exact location and velocity of every electron circling an atom, and yet we don't have the tooling to get that. Some take affront to this, 'giving up' on non-quantum specificity. Perhaps one day our tooling will get better and we will be able to measure and calculate with greater determinency. But for now this is what we have, and we can manipulate the limited states with probability to get outcomes in theory and practical application.

Bohr stressed that we confront here an inescapable new feature of nature, to be welcomed because of the understanding it gives us.

This is Bohr's point. Its about the math and accepting our measurement limitations.

Notice this - the 'iron posts' are observations and measurements. But the shape of the R itself is a 'paper maché construction of imagination and theory'. That is what I mean by the way 'mind constructs reality'. — Wayfarer

Correct, I understand your view point. My point is that its not the mind constructing reality, its the mind observing and creating a representative that is not contradicted by reality. Removing QM for a minute, lets just talk about the idea that there exists an R, but our measurement and observation only allow us to see those points on the R. That is how we model reality to our purposes. But the R still exists as a whole.

In general, models are as good as the needs of the one creating the model. Lets say that for our purposes, we can only see the points on the R, so what do we do? We make sure the model only makes assertions about those points, and not the points we can't observe. This is what I meant earlier by noting that science takes the observer into account when constructing models of reality.

But the issue is, you can't stipulate anything about the 'independent thing' without bringing the mind to bear upon it. — Wayfarer

Barring one thing: That it is independent. Meaning you are saying it exists apart from your observation. How? Who knows really. That's the definition of true independence. It does not depend in any way on your comprehension of it. You know it can exist in a way based on your tested and confirmed model. But how does it behave apart from that model? At that point, you can glean certain qualitative logic that necessarily must be from the working model. One being, "That is independent". Meaning it exists apart from observation. How exactly? Who knows. Its the "Thing in itself" problem from Kant. And it is a fascinating topic. I like your exploration of it here. My point is that if it is not independent, what does that logically mean? Does that break our current model use, our definition of observer, and everything we comprehend? It would seem to. Maybe it doesn't, and I was curious if you had given it thought and could propose what that would be like.

I notice that you haven't actually commented on any of the philosophical arguments presented in the original post. — Wayfarer

Didn't I address your citations and give a summary? Its been a few days since we started, is there something specifically you think I've missed as I've attempted to answer all of your follow ups from that.

Scientific realism is based on conviction of the reality of the observed world, and to question it is really a difficult thing to do. — Wayfarer

Science is not based on the conviction of the reality of the observed world. Its about what hypotheses have not been falsified yet. Science does not assert what it has discovered is truth. It asserts that the models it uses have not been proven false despite repeated tests, peer review, robust debate, and application. Scientific realism that asserts what has been found is truth, is flat out false. No disagreement here. The problem is that some scientific realists also take the common science standpoint, that it is an approximation to truth. This is in general why I shy away from broad categories and focus on the specific at hand. If your beef is purely with scientific realism that asserts our models are true representations of reality, I agree with you this cannot be logically asserted.

Just to confirm, this is more of a linguistic philosophical inquiry? If so, the specific subject matter chosen seems needlessly "messy" (prone to tangential discussion/distraction/etc.), per se. — Outlander

Feel free to point out what in the OP is messy and you feel needs clarity, improvement, or should be countered. A statement is not an argument.

"Is transatlantic the Atlantic? Is transpacific the Pacific?" — Outlander

How does this relate to the OP's points?

this set of questions seems to adequately cover any philosophical space or area the OP does, yes? :chin: — Outlander

I don't think so. The topic is about gender, trans gender, and language about what man and/or woman would best logically mean in English phrasing. Feel free to point out its relevance.

Therefore, as I interpret ↪Wayfarer's intent : we humans only know how Time seems (subjectively) to us star-gazing animals, who measure Change in terms of astronomical or historical events*2. But the universe is, compared to us earthlings, near infinite. — Gnomon

But we only know this within our frame of referents as observers. You're removing an observer, than adding something an observer would include back in.

Therefore, based on the incomplete information of our native senses, and our artificial extensions, we can only know how Time appears to us (subjective observers) from our ant-like perspective. Even methodical & mathematical Science can only approximate what Time is*3 for the practical purposes of dissecting reality. — Gnomon

Correct. Wayfarer and I are in agreement on this.

Consequently, quantitative scientific-measurements-of-appearances, and qualitative philosophical-inferences-of-meaning only tell us --- "late arrivals in the long history of the universe" --- how Cosmic Change seems to us, not how it absolutely IS, beyond the scope of our measurements or meanings. — Gnomon

Right, we are observers who measure what is independent of us. My point is that we cannot be observers without the notion of something independent that we observe. Under what logic can we say that if we remove observers, what is independent of us will also cease to be? The only logical thing we can conclude is that if observers were removed, that only the observer and the things they conclude would be removed, not the independent thing they were observing. Logically, time as a qualitative concept or 'change of states' would have to be as that is independent of us. Our measurement of that independent state would vanish, but not the independent state itself by definition.

So I am with Wayfarer on the concept of a universe without an observer being something that an observer cannot observe. That doesn't require there to be a lack of observers, that's happening now elsewhere in the universe. If nothing is independent of our observation, then there is nothing independent at all, and the notion of observation changes completely.

Behave and stop distracting the thread with antics. Keep the discussion on topic and engaging with ideas instead of petty insults
— Philosophim

If ever a thread needed distraction with antics, this is the one. Twenty-six pages worth of excusing rudeness and bigotry with silly justifications based on faulty linguistics! Please! Distract me! — Ecurb

You're new Ecurb, and Banno is not being a good example of how we behave here. Stick to the topic if you wish. If you have an issue with the OP or ideas in here, feel free to present them. Trolling is not encouraged.

↪Philosophim You are under no obligation to respond. or even to read, to my posts. — Banno

Correct. But as the OP of this thread I do feel obligated to keep it on course, prevent petty insults and trolling between members on it. I'm appealing to you proving me wrong on you being a troll. The cat video is enough to prove otherwise.

Distance does not disappear if no one measures it — but “distance in meters,” embedded in a metric geometry and operationalized by instruments and conventions, does not exist independently of those frameworks. Likewise with clock time. What exists is change, passage, becoming; what we measure is an abstracted parameter extracted from it. — Wayfarer

Ok, I'm glad we're on the same page there.

The philosophical claim is simply that it does not follow from the existence of something independent to be measured that reality itself can be specified in wholly observer-independent terms. — Wayfarer

I agree with this quantitatively. Its the qualitative aspect that I'm struggling with. We acknowledge that there is something independent we are measuring, but how does the removal of our measuring remove the independent thing we are measuring? It logically can't, because its independent.

Let me imagine

That further move is a metaphysical assumption, not something licensed by the practice of measurement itself. It overlooks the role of the observing mind. — Wayfarer

And this is the part I think you're missing. Its not a metaphysical assumption without basis. The independent existent we are measuring, does not overlook the role of the observing mind. It notes that it is independent of it. Its a metaphysical assumption based on our real, predictable, and objectively confirmed understanding of measuring time. Time as a measurement cannot logically exist if there is not something that would exist independently of our measurement. That's the part I'm trying to get you to look at.

The point is that this quietly undermines the assumption that what is real independently of any observer can serve as the criterion for what truly exists. — Wayfarer

The point is that what truly exists is independent of any observer. Whether I observe change or not, it happens. Whether I observe and measure length or not it exists. Lets take the opposite. Length does not exist without an observer. How does that even work? It would rewrite the entirely of measurement and physics. Its not an assumption that change exists independently of our observation, our observed outcomes could not work without this being true. It is a truth that has to be for the framework of an observer to even work.

You can absolutely logically claim that if observers weren't there, the measurements that they invented in themselves would not exist. But you haven't proven that what is concluded inside of the framework itself, that there is change which independently exists of our measurement, isn't necessary for the framework to work. That is why it is not an assumption that if you remove the measurement, that the independent thing being measured suddenly disappears. My point is that you get into a reductio ad absurdum, because then it means the independent thing we are measuring is not independent of us, but relies on our observation.

I think there’s a deeper issue lurking here. Absent any perspective whatever, what could it even mean to say that something “exists”? — Wayfarer

True, and I like this issue. Maybe you're just jumping to it a little too quickly or using an example that doesn't quite lead there. You don't need time to think about that. It applies to any observed concept. I think logically without language or thoughts, there can be nothing to say about existence.

Everything that we use is a model or representative of something independent of ourselves. And that independence is incomprehensible minus the fact that something contradicts us outside of our will, thoughts, and beliefs that proves something is out there that isn't us. But what we can't remove is the notion that there is something independent from us as an observer. If we remove that independence as an observer, our observations no longer work. And that is why it is not a presupposition that there is something independent of our observations. Its a necessary truth for us to be observers.

I feel I'm just repeating myself at this point. I largely agree with most of your premises.

Space and time are intrinsic to that discriminative capacity. Without spatial differentiation and temporal ordering, there could be no stable objects, no persistence, no comparison, no calculation — and therefore no measurement at all. Conscious awareness and intelligibility presuppose these structuring forms. — Wayfarer

Its just the difference of one small word. "Without spatial differentiation and temporal ordering, there could be no observation of stable objects...etc. ... Conscious awareness and intelligibility require these structuring forms.

Explain it then.
— Philosophim
26 pages of your obsession with the contents of other people's underwear and the supposition that those contents dictate which toilette they must use, shows that there is not much point. — Banno

You know, after observing you for a while Banno, you're just a bit of a troll aren't you? You pretend to uphold forum standards and good philosophical standards, then flail hard when called out on it yourself.

Behave and stop distracting the thread with antics. Keep the discussion on topic and engaging with ideas instead of petty insults. If you want people to view you as someone respectable and wise, act like it.

I'll chime in another time here as I've been following the topic still and seeing if I missed something. If you wish to discuss it, that's fine. If not, I'll bow out.

The philosophical point, however, is that the act of measurement itself cannot be regarded as truly independent of the observer who performs and interprets the measurement. — Wayfarer

I don't think this has ever been controversial. This is what we've always known.

The point is that this quietly undermines the assumption that what is real independently of any observer can serve as the criterion for what truly exists. That move smuggles in a standpoint that no observer can actually occupy. It’s a subtle point — but also a modest one. It doesn't over-reach. — Wayfarer

It is an over-reach. You have to understand that the act of measurement assumes something is there independent of the measurer. There has never been the assumption that we create what we measure, only the creation of the quantitative standard of the measurement itself. So we can create seconds, minutes, or whatz its, but they all have to measure change between two states. The act of measurement itself cannot exist without there being something independent to measure. You have to tackle that first. Use length. If we don't measure length, does the distance between objects disappear? If you can't say yes, then you can't say yes to measuring time and state changes.

I think this thought process assumes a virtue that has not been earned.
— Philosophim
You entirely misunderstood the argument. No surprise there. — Banno

Explain it then. How does a person knowing or not knowing a trans individual personally indicate in any rational way that this is why they are treating the discussion abstractly? Wouldn't it make more sense that people are treating the subject abstractly because its a philosophy board?

The implication is that treating the subject abstractly is somehow wrong, when in philosophy abstract thinking is the grounds of critical thinking and can aid in conceptual understanding where personal feelings can interfere. It seems to me that whether you know a trans individual or not, that the abstract analysis of this language topic would be the better intellectual approach to the topic.

Edit: But there is a serious point here. If the folk here objecting to trans folk do not know any, then that explains why they are treating real humans in abstract terms. — Banno

I think this thought process assumes a virtue that has not been earned. Personally knowing a person or group of people does not mean you have any more ore less virtue towards them. We talk about people in abstract terms all the time. Its a philosophy board. The implication that you personally knowing a trans person makes you more moral is as true as stating that the murderer of their own child killed that child out of love.

This particular thread has stuck to language and definitions without unearned appeals to morality. It should stay that way.