To be fully objective, it's a biological man who identifies and presents as a biologucal woman. Your definition suggests a third gender. — Hanover

I believe his definition implied a tautology. "A trans man is an adult female that purposefully acts in the gendered way society expects of an adult male.' = itself

And it's not about how many people use a word to mean something in particular; it's about how powerful those who use it in that way are. — baker

That is one aspect for sure. But another aspect is the usefulness, reasonableness, and ease of use of the term. If it is reasonable, useful, and easy to change the term's meaning, people will. My point in the OP is that the term man meaning 'adult male' not only is historically the correct use, it is reasonable, useful, and easy to use. Whereas it may be that in certain contexts man can mean, 'male gender', in the general phrase of 'transgender men are men', the context of 'male gender' for man leads to unclear, illogical, and hard to use language.

Should someone call a trasman a woman or a transman, the objection isn't simply one of misuse (like if I called a spider an insect and not an arachnid), but it's one of ethical impropriety. — Hanover

The OP is not an argument of ethical impropriety as I note in my reply here to Baker. Its simply poor grammer, does not convey a clear idea, and is ultimately inferior to using man as 'adult male' for the reasons I've cited in the OP.

A man wearing a skirt does not mean they are being transgendered. It means that wearing a skirt is now gender-neutral. — Harry Hindu

A clarification. Crossing the gender line is a transgendered act. This is independent of one's own viewpoint. If one purposefully commits a transgendered act, knows and accepts that the action belongs to the gender of the opposite sex, they are purposefully being transgendered. If a person commits a transgendered act, but doesn't accept that the action belongs to a gender, then they are being gender neutral.

Gender neutral means that we stop having these expectations of the sexes as opposed to transgenderism that amplifies the expectations to the point of being sexist. — Harry Hindu

Gender is a fine line between expectations and sexism. Gender is mostly in the realm of pre-judgement, or prejudice. Healthy gender is typically a one step away from biological differences. Unhealthy gender is farther away from biological differences and is used for control. This is what we would call sexism.

So, Philosophim, is this the sort of content you were looking for? — BC

Not quite. A little too in depth for what was needed here I believe. I'm just approaching the phrasing and noting that if we define sex and gender seperately, it still doesn't make sense to say a 'transman is a man' as defining man as 'male gender' doesn't even lead to a useful sentence. This seems to be a much more in depth criticism of sex, gender, and transgender than I am intending here.

I wasn’t addressing the question of whether a trans man should be considered a man or a trans woman should be considered a woman. My comment only addressed the fact that the answers to the question are not primarily biological, but are rather social and linguistic. — T Clark

Ah, in that context I agree 100%.

The difference between man and woman is a social and linguistic one. This is evidenced by the fact that the definitions of man and woman have changed over the years. When I was young, you had to be 21 years old to be considered a man or a woman. That has been redefined so that 18-year-olds are now seen as such — T Clark

Yet what has stayed consistent is a reference to sex and age. What we consider the age range for an adult has changed, but not that we ever considered a man as 'a female'. If I read about men and women from 100 years ago, do you think, "They mean men by gender, it could just as easily be a female or male"? Of course not. The common understanding has been that 'men' are adult males.

And thus in regards to trans men, the trans modifies the discussion to mean "the gender of male", but does not claim the sex is male. Thus "trans men are men' is not true if man is being used as an indicator of sex. In the case of trans men are men in regards to gender, theres still the issue that if man is meant to be gendered, there's no way to differentiate between "Cis men are men". The only way to have a meaningful differentiation of the phrase is if 'man' by default refers to 'an adult human male' or by sex.

As "trans ideology" has developed, I have no confidence that it is a valid concept. — BC

While I do appreciate your weigh in, I'm trying to focus the discussion on the words and phrases themselves. Whether a person agrees with trans ideology or not should be irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This is an attempt to tackle the philosophical concept of stating "Transmen are men" and how we can interpret that to mean anything logical. Would you like to weigh in on that portion of the OP or counter some who are insisting that the OP is not correct?

Whether or not, I agree with your answer, in the past similar types of conclusions have led to threats of banning. — T Clark

I will have faith that a philosophy board will let people do philosophy.

The terms are as fluid as gender is supposed to be. They are a package, containing both sex and normative role. Which meaning is emphasized depends on context — hypericin

Right, but it doesn't mean two things at once in the same context. What context is it reasonable to use man as sex vs man as gender? Note my reply above where I note that 'man as gender' does not provide clear or meaningful information when used in regards to trans and cis.

I am explaining to you that the English word "man" can mean "a person whose biological sex is male" and it can mean "a person whose gender is male". — Michael

Ok, this is the first time I've seen you try to define it explicitly. So we have two definitions for the word. Then to be clear, if I state, "A trans male is an adult female by sex that acts as a gendered male," you would have to agree that in this context, this is a correct statement.

You would also agree that if I said, "Man", and meant gender only, that saying, "A trans man is a man by gender" that still leaves out the question of sex. Because we have another phrase "Cis man". "A cis man is a man by gender". Do you see that without a reference to sex, the terms trans and cis are synonyms and meaningless?

Therefore trans and cis only make sense when noting a person's gender in relation to their sex. So "Trans men are men" and "Cis men are men" cannot have man being a gender context alone if the phrases are going to make any sense or have any logical distinction between them. Thus while perhaps there can be a context in which "Man" is a referent purely to gender, it cannot be so in the case of these phrases.

That being said, I also asked you what context is needed for man to mean sex versus man to mean gender. Further, in the case in which man is used as gender, what term do we use to identity adult male by sex to differentiate 'man by sex' vs 'man by gender'?

It’s so glaringly untrue that one can only wonder why one is really saying it. — NOS4A2

I'm trying to discuss this from a logical standpoint of vocabulary, not asking for a person's motivation for wanting one or the other. I'm sure that's another philosophical discussion that could be had, but I want to focus here on the logic of the terminology and use itself. Appreciate the contribution regardless NOS.

Plenty can be lobbed your way. It's just not worth it. I have my sanity and peace of mind to preserve. — Jamal

I suppose discussions on a philosophy board can be tiring and not worth it. And when one isn't able to argue one's points effectively, and realizes they are at risk to be proven wrong, it can affect one's sanity and peace of mind. Go watch a few shows of Friends on Netflix or something today and don't worry your silly little head over matters like this.

That is a really stupid post. — Jamal

Ha ha! You do realize that the person who first insults the other person in a normal discussion is the one who has no real answer right? Thank you for confirming that you cannot counter my point and only an insult of dislike can be lobbed my way.

I'm simply assuming that if the definitions are true, can it be logically claims that a transman is a man? No.
— Philosophim

If he has XY chromosomes, yes. — Copernicus

Yes, in modern day separation of sex and gender, chromosomes indicate a person's sex. I don't think we're in overall disagreement Copernicus, but I think we're talking about two different definitions in regards to gender theory. You may want to check out gender theory before continuing so we're on the same page. I appreciate the discussion regardless!

Obviously if "man" is only about sex, trans men are not men. But this "if" is what is being debated, so you're just begging the question. — Jamal

I'm not begging the question at all. Clearly defining terms then thinking if claims using those terms lead to logical outcomes is a normal discussion. You are very free to define 'man' in another way, you'll just need to argue why it is and if that definition makes sense in normal language use. If you want to argue a specific counter to the point I've made, feel free.

The debate has been going on for years, and you have made no attempt to research it or address the arguments that defend the notion that trans women are women etc — Jamal

Now this is a proper logical fallacy called Ad Hominem. You're attacking assumptions and qualifications about my character instead of addressing the points.

See for example the idea that "man" and "woman" are cluster concepts:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/ — Jamal

Fantastic, but I am not here to debate with an entire wiki on sex and gender. Is there a specific argument you want to make that would counter what I've noted in the OP? Just because there are discussions about alternative definitions to man and woman does not mean that you can make the existential fallacy that they are correct in reference to the discussion I've started here.

Must be a pretty stupid theory coined by confused people. — Copernicus

Your opinion is your own, I'm not here to argue for or against the validity of it. I'm simply assuming that if the definitions are true, can it be logically claims that a transman is a man? No.

It doesn’t just have one meaning. It can refer to sex or it can refer to gender. This isn’t to say that it is equally likely to refer to gender as sex. — Michael

Neither does sheep. You are still avoiding the question. Please give me a clear definition of man. If it has multiple meanings, explain what context is required for it to change meaning.

No offense, but that's horsheshit. And as a radical individualist, I don't believe in community or culture. — Copernicus

You don't believe in 'following' community or culture. Obviously you believe community and culture exist. Gender according to gender theory is the cultural expectation of non-biological behavior of a sex within that culture or community. You do not have to follow or recognize the gender of that community or culture, but you should be able to recognize that communities and cultures have expectations of behavior of people within them. Expectations of behavior in regards to a person's sex are gender.

Transgender is having both male and female sexual parts in a single body (naturally or surgically). — Copernicus

There is no definition of transgender that I am aware of that uses that definition. That's normally called intersex or hermaphrodism.

SEX. Gender means Sex. — Copernicus

This is an older meaning of the term prior to gender theory. When talking about trans individuals, gender is defined as I've noted above. Transgendered individuals are not transsexual individuals. A transgendered individual acts and behaves as is expected of the opposite sex within that culture. If you have not been exposed to these definitions before, I can see how they can be confusing. If you wish to use sex and gender interchangeably to refer to sex, that's fine on a personal note. If you are communicating within the context of a transgendered individual, just understand gender is not the same as sex anymore.

And what does the word 'man' mean without those modifiers?
— Philosophim

It's an umbrella term that includes cis men and trans men. — Michael

That is not an answer. If I asked, "What is a sheep?" and you replied, "Its an umbrella term that includes black and white sheep." you would think I wasn't thinking very logically or actively avoiding the question. Define the word man without reference to modifiers please.

If a male wears a skirt, they are acting in a transgendered way.
— Philosophim

I don't agree with this view. I have individual freedom to wear what I want, unless I'm breaking laws or protocols. My gender is solely tied to my sex. — Copernicus

Gender is cultural. Meaning that if you understand the culture of a place, agree with that gendered culture, and purposefully act in a way that is against the gender of that that culture for your sex, and intentionally take the gender of the opposite sex, you are acting transgendered.

Obviously a person can believe that a man and a woman can wear a dress and it has nothing to do with their sex. However, the culture will. If you insist to the culture that wearing a dress has nothing to do with being a woman, then you are having a subjective conflict about gender. That is not transgender. Transgender is agreeing with a particular viewpoint about what non-biological behavior should be done in public by men and women, then purposefully doing behavior that is expected of the opposite sex, not yours.

Culture is a social construct. Sex/gender is not. — Copernicus

According to gender theory gender is a social construct. What definition would you like to propose for gender instead? Why is that a better definition to use than the one's I've put above?

Yes, you logically said that.
— Philosophim

No, I didn't. I said that the word "man" is used to refer to cis men and used to refer to trans men. — Michael

And what does the word 'man' mean without those modifiers? What do those modifiers mean when they're added to the base word 'man'?

No, it is not an empirical fact that when people generally use the word man, that they are thinking it is equally as likely that it is an adult human female behaving like a man.
— Philosophim

I didn't say that. — Michael

Yes, you logically said that. If 'man' was seen by the majority of people as purely a gendered term, not a reference to a person's sex, then logically a 'man' could be equally likely to be male or female. The fact that you imply that you don't do this, tells me that when you hear the term 'man', you normally think its a male. If you truly thought man was only gendered, you would not have protested my point.

How is cultural expression "gender"? I think you coined the definition yourself. — Copernicus

Good question for clarification. There is a difference between being male and female, and how one acts culturally in regards to one's sex. One simple aspect is clothing.

For example, wearing a skirt in America is expected to be worn by females, not males. If a male wears a skirt, they are acting in a transgendered way. They understand the culture views this as clothing that is expected to be worn only by females, and as a man they actively choose to wear a skirt despite knowing this.

Contrast this with Scottland where men are expected to wear kilts, which is basically a skirt. Wearing one fits the cultural expectation of a man, and if a woman actively wore a kilt prior to the 1800's where it was only men, this would be seen as transgendered within Scottland.

There is nothing inherent in being male or female that would drive a man not to wear a skirt and a woman to wear one. Why the culture went that way is not the question here, but that it can. Things that are not in reference to one's sex are public actions and things that a person can do without it being a reference to their sex. For example, "Supermarket cashier". It is non-biological actions, roles, clothing and any other non-biological action that a society judges in regards to one's sex that is gender.

A related post from 2019 ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/336888 — 180 Proof

Much appreciated!

Yes. To me,men and women are sex.

And what you designated as gender could be termed as hormonal traits. — Copernicus

Yes, they are sex differentials. I amended gender to be more clear:

Gender - A cultural expectation of non-biological behavior in regards to an individual's sex

In other words, physical and biological aspects of one's sex are not cultural expectations of behavior. They are biological realities. There is no 'hormonal trait' which leads a woman to wear a dress and a man not to. Those are cultural expectations of non-biological behavior in reference to one's sex.

Oh boy... we're differentiating sex from gender. I see. — Copernicus

That is the modern day terminology in regards to transgender issues, yes. I note the definitions in the OP, do you disagree with them?

I am simply explaining the empirical fact that your definition is inconsistent with how English speakers actually use the words. — Michael

No, it is not an empirical fact that when people generally use the word man, that they are thinking it is equally as likely that it is an adult human female behaving like a man. When you read about a man in the paper, do you think they are male, or do you think they could be male or female? You have also not given me your definition of what a man is and what a trans man is. Nor have you answered what word we would use to replace 'man' for 'adult human male'. You are not discussing, you are insisting. Meaning, you are wrong.

You can argue that one word or another shouldn't mean something, but that's not the same s arguing that it doesn't mean that thing. — Michael

I have argued both for why it is, and why it should be. All you have done is insist that it is without any reason. Maybe you do have one, but you have to bring it forward.

Because those questions have subjective answers and argumentative grounds. Biological issues are subject to experimental and empirical truths. — Copernicus

In regards to sex, yes. In regards to gender, no.

What is this question doing on a philosophy platform? It warrants a biological truth, not argumentative conclusions. — Copernicus

I disagree. Philosophy is often about unraveling statements and terms to get better clarity of definitions and what we can draw from them. "What is mind?" "What is good?" "What is knowledge?" "What is a man?" I do not see any reason why this is not a philosophical topic.

Correct, but good vocabulary should be clear, unambiguous, and logical.
— Philosophim

No natural language is clear, unambiguous, and logical. Certainly not English. Maybe check out Loglan. — Michael

I said 'good' language. Of course we can have poor and confusing language. Are you advocating that's a good thing? Might as well throw away the field of philosophy then, as one of its primary purposes is to reason through clear and logical terms and ideas.

There's nothing about language that we should do; there's just what we actually do. — Michael

We should have clear language if we want clear communication between people. If I say, "Hops congaro wit nonk tugor", that is what I spoke. But can you understand me? Did it convey the idea accurately? That's the point of language. If you cannot convey a clear idea to another person that they can logically see, your language is poor.

And what we actually[/i] do is use the word "man" to refer also to transmen. — Michael

This is a nonsense statement. This ignores the definitions I've given above and does not try to give a reason why your use of terms is logical or unambiguous. What does 'trans' refer to then? What does 'man' without the modifier refer to? A statement of insistence is not a statement of argument.

No problem. I really wasn't sure what you were after. Sorry about that — Patterner

Not a problem,

A word's meaning is determined by how its users use it. If a sufficient number of English speakers use the word "man" to refer to both trans men and cis men, fully recognising biological differences between the two, then the word "man" refers to both sex and gender. — Michael

Correct. But does it make sense to do so? First, we would still need a term that denotes that a person is male and adult. It makes more sense to create a new word to indicate a gendered adult male then repurpose a term that is used without issue.

The modifiers for cis and trans take the familiar term that refers to sex, but modify it to refer to gender. And I don't think anyone has a problem with that. We have clear vocabulary that everyone understands, and we have terms that are useful.

My question to you then is, "Why should we change the term man to mean gender instead of sex by default?"

There's no divine dictionary that dictates what words mean. — Michael

Correct, but good vocabulary should be clear, unambiguous, and logical. It seems to me that changing the term man from a sex and age reference into a gender and age reference is not necessary as we have clear vocabulary that denotes gender and sex references already, and we would then need to come up with another word to reference the age and sex of a male.

But you defined gender as a cultural expectation. This means that for gender to change, the cultural expectation needs to change, not a person's personal feelings. — Harry Hindu

Correct, gender is a culturally subjective expectation of the behavior that a person should do in regards to their sex. This differentiates from objective behavior in regards to one sex such as bodily functions. The subjective notion may be within an individual, a small group, a city, a country, or world context if possible.

For example, wearing a skirt in America is expected to be worn by females, not males. If a male wears a skirt, they are acting in a transgendered way. They understand the culture views this as clothing that is expected to be worn only by females, and as a man they actively choose to wear a skirt despite knowing this.

Contrast this with Scottland where men are expected to wear kilts, which is basically a skirt. Wearing one fits the cultural expectation of a man, and if a woman actively wore a kilt prior to the 1800's where it was only men, this would be seen as trasngendered within Scottland.

Words can mean more than one thing. — Michael

Of course, and this depends on context. I am noting that in the general context in regards to sex and gender, 'man' refers to a person's age and sex, not gender.

Sex as a species expressed reproductive role means that terms like "man" and "woman" are sexes, not genders. — Harry Hindu

Correct.

So then what would be the labels we place on different genders? — Harry Hindu

We use the modifiers trans and cis to denote gender. You can be a man, and also be a cisman or transman. "Man" denotes your sex, the modifiers denote you are talking about male gender.

I really appreciate you as a poster Patterner, but if you don't mind, I don't want to make this political or judgmental. This is about taking the terms as they are and seeing if the conclusion above is logical or illogical.

My moral value seems to be supervening on the fact I am a bearer of conscious states. — Clarendon

So I do believe that everything has inherent moral value, but some hold more value than others based on the context of the situation. A germ or bacteria can be very helpful if it cleans up toxic waste, allowing more life to live overall.

In general, its a hierarchy. Non-life, life, conscious life. This is because there is a higher amount of actual and potential existence within more life and intelligent life. Rocks simply sit there. Chemical reactions eventually burn out. But life actively attempts to extend itself beyond a base chemical interaction. Intelligent life is able to alter the world in unique and amazing ways. This is what is good.

Thus I can conclude that I am essentially a bearer of conscious states - something no physical thing seems to be. — Clarendon

This is the mistake of hubris. You are a physical being. You are one aspect of a moral universe. The most moral in most contexts, but moral within the universe as part of the universe, not as something without.

↪Philosophim Although we are essentially objects, I don't think that fact about us can be what our intrinsic moral value supervenes on, for that would then mean that every object is intrinsically morally valuable (yet our reason does not represent this to be the case). — Clarendon

Every object has inherent value in comparison to there being nothing. Meaning the core of morality is that existence is better than nothing. I argue from here that more existence is better than less existence. Existence is not only action, but potential.

Imagine that only sheep and grass existed. Eventually the sheep would breed to eat all the grass. All the sheep and grass would die. Introduce some wolves however, and the existence of sheep, grass, and wolves will go on forever.

Morality in human is about creating the most existence from our actions. Do we commit actions that build up the world, or tear it down? Do we create an environment of safety, free thought, creativity, and joy? Or do we create an environment of danger, restriction, mundanity, and fear?

Objectively, we are objects so that can't be the reason. Have you ever considered that we are inherently valuable because we are objects instead of nothing?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

No, I don't see this either.
— Philosophim

Well, you could just move forward and say why you don't see this. — Constance

My point is I don't understand how you conclude this if you read the whole thing. Again, your comment doesn't point to what I argued in the paper, so I'm not sure how you concluded what you did.

I don't read the entirety of the pages of this other thread. I never do that. I just say what I think and be done with it. — Constance

Sure, I'm not asking you to read all the other replies in that thread, just the full argument. You can understand why making a conclusion about the argument based on the intro alone would be shallow right?

Sorry, I'm not going to read all of that. I read through some, and it occurred to me that it was excessive. — Constance

Then I'm going to take your disagreements with a bit less value. If you didn't read it, you probably don't understand it.

But existence qua existence syas nothing about this. OTOH, there IS no existence qua existence; this is just an abstraction from what there, in the givenness of the world. — Constance

Correct. But it is a reasonable foundation based on the logic of the argument. If you wish to point out why the argument doesn't work, I would be happy to discuss.

one has to move toward inclusiveness, that is, including everything that IS, and this means all of what is usually excluded, human subjectivity. — Constance

Then you do not understand the argument. Existence is everything that is, including subjectivity.

constitutes a view of existence which has no place for your thesis. — Constance

I'm not sure it does. If existence is everything, including subjective thought, how does my argument not work specifically? If you're not addressing the terms and argument used, then this is a 'straw man' fallacy. In other words you've built up and assumed I am claiming one thing that I am not, then saying its wrong.

You thesis amounts to a world where divinity subsumes existence. — Constance

No, I don't see this either.

One final point, if you can't take the time to read and understand the whole argument, but instead make a snap judgement based on the intro, why would I think you have the capability to be a proper critic of it? Something to consider with other posters going forward.