That’s fine, but I don’t think that is how gender theory nor my theory uses the terms. — Bob Ross

Correct. What I'm espousing is the definition of gender according to modern day gender theory as I understand it. It is fine to disagree with it.

Most people are sadly moved by emotion and not reason. — Bob Ross

This is an easy mentality for intelligent and learned people to fall into. I fell into this mistake once as well, so I speak from experience. We are moved by both emotion and reason. Some people are more invested emotionally, others rationally. But we all serve different purposes. I'm not sure what religion you follow, but regardless in Christianity Jesus' continual message was to not think that we are above other people because we are superior to others in our own way. Knowing about Jesus did not make his disciples better than other people, it was that they had the gift of knowing the sacrifice of forgiveness and this grace was to inspire them to spread the message despite personal hardships in doing so.

His disciples bickered over who they thought would be at Jesus right hand when he ascended to heaven. The Pharisees and Saducees, Jewish priests of their day, thought that their knowledge put them above the common people. Jesus admonished them all. In Christianity, Jesus is essentially God. And yet he washed the feet of unclean women, forgave the low and despised in society, and literally died for what are essentially bugs beneath Gods feet. That was the lesson. Might, reason, beauty, power are to be of service for each other. We cannot look down on one another because of our differences. We are all in it together under God. Whether you believe that particular religion or not, there is a powerful message of what a divine being would be like and how it views us.

What I am doing here is attempting to help people by using language that helps them avoid the conflations and sophistry meant to deceive them in gender theory: I’m trying to help them but in an oversimplified way to reach the average person. — Bob Ross

Having spoken with you over the years I am sure you have nothing but good intentions. However, this is a philosophy board and not a political one. Being simple in language is a virtue, but treating people here as simple is not. People want to be inspired by thinking about something in an enlightened way, not riled up against a perceived enemy. The enemy is not other people here, but unclear thinking captured by unwarranted assertions and unexamined assumptions.

You personally see trans people as deviant. I see trans people as people with the free choice in how to live. Others think trans people should get to change the rest of how society lives and thinks. But are we talking with each other, or at each other?

Some of the push back against you here I see as unwarranted, but some of it is warranted. Declaring without a carefully reasoned and referenced view as to why trans people are sexually deviant is an attack on a section of people, which I feel we should all be careful in doing in a thinking forum. What makes them deviant? What studies and or moral theories lead to this conclusion? Is this really the point and focus of your OP? Politics is about assertions and control. Philosophy is about questioning, exploring, and understanding. It is why I avoid politics in philosophical discussions, because I feel the two can rarely meet together properly.

Just a reminder not to get too wrapped up in passion that we forget the role of philosophy here. Careful definitions, attacks on words and not people, and listening to and addressing others concerns even if it appears they are not being charitable back.

How do you imagine a brain mechanism works to produce sexual orientation? Any hypotheses? — Joshs

There are some, but last I looked we truly don't know the full picture. Do we know that sexual orientation is biological? I believe there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate that in the majority of cases, sexual orientation is biological and not culturally enforced. Regardless, sexual orientation would be an orientation towards a sex, gender orientation would be an orientation towards a gender.

We can see this clearly in culture. If you are attracted to women, there is no biological underpinnings that women shave their arm pit hair or must dress a certain way. Yet society may frown on a person who would be attracted to those things, and the person may deny their sexual orientation for a gender orientation. A gay person forcing themselves to sleep with a woman is probably the clearest example of gender orientation vs sexual orientation. Sexually, gay people are attracted to members of the same sex. Culturally, society may frown on this and expect them to have sex with members of the opposite sex despite their sexual orientation.

I confess I did not understand the rest of your post. With what I've posted above, does this address or help you to clarify what you were trying to tell me?

You seem to be making two points . First, that the aspects of social behavior which are purely cultural and those which are due to biological factors are cleanly discernible through observation. — Joshs

No, I'm not implying they are cleanly discernible through observation. I think they require scientific reference to clearly delineate what is biological vs sociological.

Second, that practically none of what are considered feminine or masculine social behaviors in humans are related to the pre-natal effects of sex hormones on brain function. — Joshs

I don't see how you concluded that. If its known that men are taller than women biologically, it may be an uncommon surprise to see a man shorter than most women. Vice versa with a female taller than most men. This is not a cultural expectation, this is a biological one. The cultural expectation would be, "You are not a real woman unless you are shorter than most men." That has nothing to do with biology, but a subjective view of what a woman should be. There's a difference between biological expectation, and cultural expectation. You can have behaviors that are sex expected behaviors vs culturally expected behaviors.

In some areas, the expected behavior may be dominated by sex or gender. Lets look at clothing as an example of gender dominated behavior. There does not seem to be any biological reason why a man would not wear a bow in their hair, while a woman would. Make up is another clear example of gender. While a female will use makeup to enhance attractive biological features on a female, men could just as easily do the same to enhance features that are considered attractive as males. Society generally does not expect men to do this, so many don't.

Of course, a bra is a culturally accepted bit of behavior that relies on biology. A bra is used to hold breasts in place. Men can grow large and fatty pecs, yet they would be socially discouraged from wearing anything that would keep them in place. The biology in this case is having a chest area that needs to be kept in place, the social expectation is that only women wear something to keep them in place. So while breasts are sexually expected of women, the expectation that only women wear a strap to keep the pec area in a certain form is a gendered expectation.

A man should hold a door open for a lady. There is no biological reason for this. A man should give up their seat for a woman in public if there is no more room. No biological reason for this. A man should act aggressive even though they naturally aren't. That's a cultural expectation. A woman should be demure despite naturally being confrontational. Not a biological imperative.

But, if a woman is pregnant, there can be a biological reason beyond cultural expectation to let a woman have your seat. A woman in late pregnancy is in a more physically compromising position than a healthy man. It makes sense from a biological perspective to allow someone in a more compromising physical state to sit down. We would more often give this to pregnant women over men, as men are not often in physically demanding positions when standing.

Using gay men as an example, I consider examples of such sexual behaviors as having a feminine voice, throwing like a girl, gestures, postures and ways of walking which appear feminine, being predominantly sexually attracted to other males, choosing professions which tend to be more associated with women, etc. — Joshs

First, lets assume for the purposes of reasoning this through, that these are biological behaviors. These would be biological behaviors that are not normally expected by a member of the male sex. Does that mean that men cannot have these biological behaviors? Of course not. Its a sex expectation that is simply not met because this is not the norm. That doesn't mean that it is unexpected that there will be men who biologically have these behaviors without cultural intervention.

The cultural aspect would be whether society expected, as a matter of being male, to suppress their biological behavior because the cultural idea of a man should never act that way. There is no biological reason why a male should not have those behaviors. Society frowning on that is purely cultural and subjective, and a subjectivity that counters the objective reality of those men's biological nature.

A sex expectation is only that, "An expectation". It is not an assertion of what must be to define the behavior and actions of a sex. A gender expectation does not care about biology beyond the sex that is observed. A gender expectation is an assertion of a cultural norm. It is cultural prejudice, discrimination, and/or sexism, and not based on biological reality at all.

Are professions and behaviors which used to categories rigidly by gender now in the process of dissolving this rife categorical boundaries? Yes, absolutely. — Joshs

Correct, because these professions and behaviors were not constructed due to expected biological differences, but cultural gender expectations. And if there's anything we've learned over the past few decades, discrimination, prejudice and sexism are terrible things to encourage in society.

But this doesn’t mean that when a gay child says that they have known they were gay as long as they can remember, that they didn’t choose to be gay, that they didn’t learn to be gay by absorbing it from their culture that they are talking about gender as opposed to sex. — Joshs

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with gender. It is biological. It is not 'gender orientation'. It is 'sexual orientation'.

And when they say that what it means to be gay for them is much wider than simply who they are sexually attracted to, that what ‘others’ them with respect to their males peers are a wide range of ‘feminized’ behaviors they may despise and certainly have no control over, what they are referring to is predominantly sex-based rather than culture-based ‘gender’. — Joshs

First, being gay only means your sexuality is oriented primarily to members of the same sex. That's it. Though we assumed these behaviors were biological to reason through a point, an actual claim of biology would need study. Is it the case that every single gay person in existence has a biological reality that naturally makes them talk in a feminine way whereas all straight men biologically only speak in a masculine way? Because in inner city black communities, men often speak with what many other Americans would consider a feminine manner. We have to be very careful when we make claims of biology without carefully ensuring that it is not cultural. That's the conflation, the cognitive dissonance that confuses people into thinking cultural behavior is actually a sex based outcome.

What biological mechanisms make men more likely to be aggressive than women? — Joshs

I believe testosterone, sex hormones, and brain structure. This aggression is also focused in certain areas like mate seeking and physical altercations, so 'aggression' overall isn't necessarily accurate. If it helps, a better example would be overall average height differences. The point is that any points about a sex that are based on biology are sex expectations, not gender. Gender is only cultural.

Would you say it’s the same mechanisms that produce myriad social behavioral differences between males and females in other species? — Joshs

No, because in this context a man and a woman are human adult males and females.

What do you make of animal findings showing that hormonal exposure can “feminize” or “masculinize” neural circuits? — Joshs

Nothing. First, the female/male brain dichotomy is still nascent. Some papers see clear distinctions while others do not. Its obvious that the introduction of any hormone which affects brain tissue will affect the brain. Most any drug which emulates or provides hormones that pass through the blood brain barrier all effect the brain. Depression meds, opiods, psych meds, etc. all change the brain.

Animal research shows that sex hormones organize and activate the brain systems underlying many sex-typical behaviors, such as mating motivation, aggression and territorial behavior, empathy or affiliative tendencies and caregiving. — Joshs

That is biological expectation, not gender.

Some neuroimaging and postmortem studies suggest that in transgender individuals, the structure or activity of brain regions sensitive to sex hormones may more closely resemble the gender they identify with than their sex assigned at birth. — Joshs

I have checked a few of these studies. First, there's an issue of labeling a brain as masculine or feminine as I noted prior. Three factors need to be taken into account. Sexual orientation, non-transitioned brains, and post transition brains. The reason sexual orientation needs to be considered is that gay men's brains have areas of the brain that are more 'feminine' then straight men. Of course, we wouldn't say that gay men are females right? That would be homophobic.

When non-transitioned brains of gender dysphoric individuals are analyzed and compared by sexual orientation, there is no difference in the brain between a person with gender dysphoria barring a very slight statistical variation in one area of the corpus collosum. Other than that, the brains are identical. Gender dysphoric brains are not feminine brains.

Post transition, hormones affect the brain and bring more 'feminine' brain areas. But its the drugs that do it, not that the brain itself was a female brain to begin with.

Regardless, all of this is biology, not gender.

aren’t you contradicting yourself when you assert that...
)It is cognitive dissonace for factions within the trans activist community to argue that ‘gender is sex' while also redefining the term to allow 'not sex' into it as well. Why is it cognitive dissonance when trans activists claim that both biological and social factors are involved in sexually-related social behavior but not when you make the same claim? — Joshs

No, because that's not what I claimed. I claimed that gender is a non-biological cultural expectation of a person's behavior in relation to their sex. Biological factors that affect behavior are not gender, period. The cognitive dissonance is defining the term gender from a synonym of sex into something completely divorced from biology, but then implying that in cases where it is convenient to them, that it somehow also applies to biology.

So yes, I agree that biological and social factors go into a person's behavior in relation to their sex. Biological patterns of behavior are sex behaviors, not gender behaviors. Social factors are gender behaviors, not sex behaviors.

I think, and correct me if I am misunderstanding, you are viewing gender and sex as distinct — Bob Ross

This is what gender ideology believes. In any modern day conversation about gender and regarding 'trans gender', the definition of sex and gender as written are completely separated.

I am purposefully retaining an equality between sex and gender to avoid ideological and political confusions and agendas. — Bob Ross

And that is an argument you can make. I'm simply noting that even if it were rationally a better decision, the genie has been let out of the bottle at this point and gender has also split off in these contexts as a cultural expectation of non-biological behavior for a sex. To insist we do not use this term of gender is to argue against a tsunami that it shouldn't crash on the land. The only thing to be done at this point is to establish the definition and context clearly. Meaning that if a conversation about gender is implying it in a cultural sense, it must be immediately exposed and countered if the term is switched to be synonymous with sex to avoid an equivalency fallacy.

In other words, there is nothing wrong with having different definitions for terms as long as that underlying meaning is clearly defined and unambiguous in its context.

I think under your view, and correct me if I am wrong, human beings are just a collection of organic parts; and so sex is purely the collection of organs and organic parts functioning together to provide some specific procreative role (e.g., maleness or femaleness). At this point, if we stipulate gender is equal to sex then you end up with essentially my view with respect to everything that truly matters for the political side of things; but under your view I would imagine gender is not identical to sex. — Bob Ross

Correct. And I am not saying there is anything wrong with taking the historical view of gender as equal to sex. I still think it can be used that way as long as everyone agrees on that definition in context. I am simply noting that there is a definition of gender that is not the same as sex, nor can ever be conflated with sex.

Gender, as far as I cant tell in your view, is the social expectations of a person with a particular sex—is that right? If so, then this is the meat of our disagreement; because I would say that, if I were to conceptually distinguish gender and sex, gender is the social expression of sex. — Bob Ross

Lets look at the terms side by side. You have gender as equal to sex, which is fine in many contexts. In the context I'm noting gender is completely separate from sex. So how would I define social expression of sex in the context of the terms being divided?

Sex - Expected social behavior based on biology. It is statistically more likely for men to be aggressive.
Gender - Expecting a man to be aggressive and thinking, "You're not a man if you're not aggressive" even though it is a statistical reality that there will always be men who are less aggressive than women on average. The expectation is not based on biological likelihood, but cultural prejudice and expectations despite biological reality.

I think true gender, if they be conceptually separable, is always properly connected back to biology; otherwise, like I noted before, it explodes into triviality, prejudice, and irrationality. — Bob Ross

In the definition above, anything connected back to biology is simply a biological association that naturally occurs. Gender is merely a separate decision of culture. Is that trivial, prejudice and irrational? I wouldn't argue that it isn't. :) However, for some culture is important. There is no biological reason for a woman to wear a dress or ribbons in their hair for example. Some people might be bothered by the fact of a man taking on culturally associated feminine clothing. Is that trivial? I think so, but I would be interested to hear other's take on it.

in your view ‘sex’ is just a collection of parts operating towards some procreative role and, consequently, there is no embodied essence of being a male or female; as each person is male or female only insofar as they sufficiently have enough of those parts and organic functions to count as one or the other. Technically, under this view, if you swap out enough sex-related parts of a human then you could achieve a sex change. — Bob Ross

Correct. If you could switch the reproductive organs in two bodies, then according to the definition of sex in biology, this would be an actual sex change. There are some animals that change sex in nature, and the primary definition of that sex change is a change in functional reproductive purpose. Of course, there would still be the DNA difference, bone structure, etc., and this would not be a natural change, so I doubt society would equate it to a 'natural male or female'. Currently the technology isn't there yet to have a serious debate about a sex change 'actually changing a person's sex'.

As for the embodied essence of male or female, its literally based on bodies. Take a sample of 100,000 men and you can get a predictable statistical analysis of the human male body. Height, voice, weight, etc. will fall into statistical norms and outliers. These expectations are not gender as I'm noting, they are simply biological realities of being the bodied sex you are.

Under my view, on the contrary, human beings have a real essence embodied in themselves. This ‘code of what it is to be a human male or female’ is not identical to DNA: it is really there in their soul, which is the form, the simple ‘I’, the unity, which guides their biological development. — Bob Ross

I understand the idea and I cannot say you are right or wrong. Only that I do not believe in a soul, so cannot hold this view.

Of course, I recognize that one could make an apolitical (virtual) distinction between sex and gender and note that sex is what really matters: I don’t have major issues with that. — Bob Ross

If gender and sex are separate as defined, then there is absolutely zero rational connection between one's gender having any justification for being in cross sex spaces.

You control what the average person believes by controlling the linguistics they have at their disposal. For people like me who want to conserve the meaning of marriage and do not support gay marriage, it naturally seems like a rhetorical attack to try to morph the term ‘marriage’ to include other types. Of course, if someone agrees with the political agenda of giving people a wide range of marriage types, then by all means they should morph the terms. — Bob Ross

True, you do control what the average person is allowed to think about by controlling the linguistics that they have at their disposal. But does that justify control from a religious viewpoint to a secular declaration of marriage? I would argue linguistic limitations to control thoughts is wrong no matter who is in control. The purpose of language is to give clear definitive thoughts for the purposes of communication. Any use of words which deviates from that is definitely open to criticism, but I think the definition of words themselves as a means of control is wrong.

My philosophy here is politically motivated, just to clarify. — Bob Ross

That's perfectly fair and your right. I bow out of political discussions as I'm more interested in the philosophical understanding of words and terms, not means of control. Further, I enjoy discussing with people of all political persuasions, and am much more interested in their reasoning than their politics.

Fantastic discussion as always Bob! We may be taking different viewpoints on some of this, but I do understand where you are coming from. Your political views are your own and I am fine with whatever they are.

Do you think the Doomsday cult scenario in which cultists simply 'double down' on a reinterpretation of their initial beliefs is avoidable simply with greater clarity of thought and language? — Jeremy Murray

You cannot persuade a single person to come to a conclusion they do not want to. What you can provide them is an opportunity to come to a conclusion that has clear definitions, ideas, and conclusions. This provides a reasonable and socially acceptable off ramp from where they are now. But, if one does not value this over other benefits that being where they are provides them, they will choose not to leave.

Religions are a great example of group think because most people are not in the religion for clear and rational language. They are there for moral guidance, group and cultural cohesion, and internal desires of how they want the world to be. Rational language alone will not persuade most people out of a religion because they lose so much more than they think they would gain. Usually if you want someone to leave an ideology, its a multi-pronged approach. You not only need clear rational arguments why such an ideology is wrong, but you need clear emotional and social benefits provided to the individual that are more than what the ideological group provides.

This of course does not mean we don't provide rational arguments. Some people may be on the fence emotionally and culturally, and rational clarity provides the last impetus to leave. Especially in terms of moral issues which are often used to control people effectively. A clear and rational argument that demonstrates one is not immoral for leaving is very powerful. If I pointed out to you that leaving your friend behind was for the best, but you ultimately thought it was immoral to do so, you likely wouldn't leave your friend. If it can be clearly shown that leaving your friend is for the best, and its not immoral and possibly morally superior to choose so, you're much more likely to act on it.

Trans ideology has been so effective because it has set itself as a moral one without truly justifying that it is actually moral. It scooped up society with its first to market insistence, backed by a top down push from businesses and government that 'it was so'. But of course to enforce any ideology that does not wish to be questioned, you must silence speech over it. For a while you could not say, "Trans gender women are not women" without being banned, cancelled, or fired. Anyone who has studied rights realizes that this is abjectly immoral. And yet because of the top down push, people were pressured into excusing this abuse of free speech by claiming "Its moral to do so". Legislated and forced moral assertations are the tools of people who want to fight against actual moral outcomes and assert control.

That is not to say that some aspects of transgender ideology are not actually moral. Any good measure of control and manipulation understands that there should be some truth to what one is pushing. Should an adult have the bodily autonomy and right to transition? Absolutely. Just like there are usually good things taken in isolation in any ideology. But what is important is to analyze what an ideology is saying rationally as much as possible without appeal to emotions to be free from the manipulative and prosthelytizing pressures that ideologies put forth.

Have you or anyone read "Mistakes Were Made, but Not by Me"? — Jeremy Murray

Pride in not being wrong is a fantastic motivator that rational argumentation will often fail against. Only if such a person can be convinced that switching is truly the superior intellectual solution, and they can be excused by believing they came to their original conclusion to outside circumstances that 'anyone' would fall to, will they be likely to switch.

I am more familiar with progressive rather than conservative thought, given that I live in downtown Toronto and taught high school, but reading "Mistakes" helped me understand why progressive people continue to insist on arguments that appear to be suffering from credibility issues. — Jeremy Murray

I do not believe this is a liberal vs conservative issue. This is a people issue. Politics on either side effectively use what they can to manipulate and convince people that 'their' side is the correct one. The question really is whether it also happens to be that it is more rational to pick one side or the other.

Hello again Bob! An interesting take on the gender/sex division issue. I'll analyze it the best I can.

Gender theory views 'sex' as 'the biological characteristics of a being that defines its procreative role in the species', whereas 'gender' is 'the socially constructed roles, identities, and expressions of people'. — Bob Ross

Correct. Just adding that the key difference is 'biological expectation' vs 'cultural expectation'. Meaning that if there is a biologically statistical likelihood that men are taller than women, its not a gender expectation that you see most men being taller than women, that's a biological expectation. Gender would be if someone always expected every man to be taller than women or they aren't 'a real man'. That's not based on biological fact of a man as an adult human male, but a cultural slang idea of what a man is.

The problems with this theory are as follows:

1. The divorcing of sex and gender renders gender as merely a personality type that someone could assume, which is an ahistorical account of gender. — Bob Ross

I think this can be a criticism against changing a word's meaning, but alone it lacks any bite. Words change meaning all the time. Lets look at the term 'marriage'. 'Marriage' used to imply, and still largely does, the unity between an adult human male and female. The gay community wanted to be able to marry, but same sex. I remember there being a bit of a backlash to re-using the term marriage.

So, what ended up happening? We added an adjective to marriage to clarify what type of marriage it is. "Gay" or "Same sex" marriage are how we use the term because the historical context implies its between a man and a woman by default. Considering the transgender movement took notes from the gay equality movement, I think this is important to identify.

In reusing the term marriage, the core underlying desire was recognition of a monogamous long-term sexual relationship and partnership that would be recognized as having the same legal and civil rights as opposite sex relationships. So, lets look at the repurposing of gender.

The repurposing of gender is to let people have the same legal and civil rights as those of the opposite sex. Of course people thought of 'gender as sex', so the adjective 'trans' was added. People thought, "Oh, these are trans sexuals who are using the term gender as sex." Well if gay marriage worked why wouldn't trans gender (sexual) work as well?

If that was all the trans community strategy was, perhaps they would not have run into too many issues. Or maybe they would, because people would just keep using the term trans sexual interchangeably. For certain reasons which I do not want to go into in this thread, the strategy was to hide the term trans sexual completely. But if 'gender' means 'sex', how can you do that?

Simple. Reinvent the term 'gender' to mean something different from sex. Of course, if it is different from sex, then why should someone who is trans gender get the same legal and civil rights as someone of a different sex? Honestly, there is no reason. But it was never intended to be an honest switch. It was intended to hide the use of trans sexual and expand the legal and civil rights of cross sex identity to those who could not afford it or were willing to go through the surgery. Not only would this allow simply having the desire to be in cross sex spaces be enough to get those legal and civil rights to be there, it would expand the amount of people who you could use to get these changes pushed in society.

2. The very social norms, roles, identities, and expressions involved in gender that are studied in gender studies are historically the symbolic upshot of sex...If they are truly divorced, then the study collapses into a study of the indefinite personality types of people could express and the roles associated with them. — Bob Ross

Correct. But the trans activist community actually doesn't want them truly divorced. They want to rely on that cultural context that leaves that unconscious neuron connection to 'gender is sex' while also redefining the term to allow 'not sex' into it as well. This creates cognitive dissonance which is a very persuasive tool if you can get a person to accept it.

There was a psychologist named Leon Festinger who came up with a theory of cognitive dissonance.

"Festinger’s interest in cognitive dissonance arose from his observations of a doomsday cult, which believed that the world would end on a specific date. When the prophecy failed to come true, the cult members did not abandon their beliefs. Instead, they reinterpreted the situation, claiming that their faith had saved the world. This phenomenon intrigued Festinger and led him to further develop the theory of cognitive dissonance, showing how individuals often reshape their beliefs or perceptions to reduce tension and maintain psychological comfort."

"Cognitive dissonance plays a significant role in shaping political beliefs and the way people engage with information. For instance, if a person holds a strong political stance and is confronted with information that contradicts their views, they may experience dissonance. Rather than change their beliefs, individuals may engage in selective exposure, avoiding contradictory information, or seek out sources that align with their views. This behavior, known as confirmation bias, helps reduce the discomfort caused by conflicting information."

"One of the most powerful uses of cognitive dissonance is in persuasion. When people are presented with information that creates dissonance between their current beliefs and the new information, they may adjust their attitudes to reduce the discomfort. For example, public health campaigns often use dissonance-inducing techniques to encourage people to quit smoking, adopt healthier eating habits, or wear seat belts.
https://psychology.town/general/cognitive-dissonance-attitudes-behaviors/

One of the tools that a person can use to generate cognitive dissonance is morality. From both my personal and historical experience, few things generate passion and rationalization more than a question or 'attack' on one's virtue and moral outlook and reputation. Its they key to any religion's success. "God is good". A tautology that equates God as being good, so one should not doubt or question God. "Trans gender rights are human rights". Another tautology that equates the desires of trans activists to innately being good, so do not dare question or doubt what they ask.

When conjoined with liberal agendas, it becomes incredibly problematic because it is used to forward the view that we should scrap treating people based off of their nature and instead swap it for treating them based off of their personality type — Bob Ross

Correct, although I would personally avoid the term 'iiberal' because I most people will equate that as a political issue instead of the philosophical classification you are using. This is an underlying attempt by a small faction to persuade society to accept them through deceptive and conflationary language.

Because if we are to use this definition of gender is written, the obvious conclusion is: "If gender is purely cultural, then you do not have a viable reason to be in cross sex spaces. Gender and sex are different." But trans activists do not want this. What they want is access to cross sex spaces and to be seen as the opposite sex by the public. Obviously this is impossible without the use of cognitive dissonance that 'gender as social construct' can generate in the population.

A gravitational expression of gender is any expression that a healthy member of that gender would gravitate towards (e.g., males gravitating towards being providers and protectors); and a symbolic expression of gender is any expression which represents some idea legitimately connected to the gender-at-hand (e.g., the mars symbol representing maleness). — Bob Ross

I would caution that this still serves as a means to continue the conflationary use of the term gender for equivalence fallacies between biology and culture. When we say "healthy" this should only mean biological. And unless there is biological evidence of males statistically being providers and protectors cross culture, this would be a purely cultural construct. We do not need the terms gravitational or symbolic, we simply need the division of 'sex' expectation vs 'gender' expectation. Men statistically likely to be taller than women vs "If a man is not taller than a woman, he's not a real man". The cat is out of the bag in using the term gender as 'cultural construct', so its best to be laser like in the definition of gender to avoid any attempts at conflation with sex.

Both types of gender expression are grounded ontologically in the sex (gender) inscribed in the nature (essence) of the given substance; and, consequently, express something objective (stance-independent). — Bob Ross

Gender as a cultural construct can never be objective. We can objectively note, "This is the cultural's gender expecation for a man," but it is not determined by some innate biological reality. It is instead purely a construct of subjective opinion which can vary from person, to group, to the entire culture.

The objective reality is sex, and our personal subjective opinions in how a sex should act in relation to the fact of their sex is gender. In no way shape or form, should the term gender as defined be taken as anything more than a personal and cultural opinion, prejudice, or sexism.

it is a social and/or psychological expression akin to a personality type. — Bob Ross

Correct, gender is a personality type of an individual that a person subjectively expects a member of that particular sex to have. That's all it is.

Of course, this means that we have to bring back a clear and inoffensive word that trans activists have tried to hide to ensure their conflation and cognitive dissonance would be successful. "Trans sexual". Trans gender is a subjective action of someone's personality. Trans sexual is someone who actively attempts to change their biology to match the opposite sex as closely as possible. Trans sexuals are the only one's who have any possible argument of asking for access to cross sex spaces.

Of course, using the term trans sexual destroys the dissonance and lays bare what is truly being asked. This eliminates a lot of people from the ability to access those cross sex spaces who desire to do so for their own pleasure. They don't really like that, so I would expect resistance. But once someone has had their eyes cleared and has a way out of cognitive dissonance that does put their moral viewpoint at risk, the clear and definitive language gives them the off ramp that they need.

We ask difficult questions and discover, to our dismay, that we may have to live with many of those questions, rather than claim definitive answers. What could be the purpose of such an activity? At the risk of sounding mystical, I would say that the "love of wisdom" enters at this point. — J

To my point earlier, sometimes you encounter incredibly difficult questions with no apparent answers. That's pressure to stop thinking about it. The philosopher insists on thinking about it anyway.

Is true wisdom the ability to propound a series of answers to hard questions? Perhaps, rather, it's the realization of limits, a simultaneous embracing of rational inquiry and a willingness to know when to stop, and seek other means. — J

I think this is a fine assessment. Sometimes the point of asking the question is not to find an answer, but to realize the answer you thought you had wasn't it. Thus it can help you experiment and be willing to try new avenues to solve a problem.

Do you find that professional philosophers (people who have a formal degree in philosophy and who are payed for producing philosophical texts) are sympathetic to your view expressed above? — baker

I cannot speak for professional philosophers. If it helps, I do have a formal degree in philosophy and can speak for me. :)

Notice how in traditional culture, but also in many situations in modern culture, asking questions is the domain of the person who holds the higher status. — baker

True, but philosophy transcends this. To ask questions when there is pressure not to is the point. To be a lowly worm and ask a question of the divine is to understand the value and purpose of philosophy.

For me philosophy goes wrong when it urges upon us a criterion of rationality, a norm for right action, a project of enquiry, that has been arrived at without due consideration for the complexities and frailties of human nature. — Chisholm

And this is a correct philosophical response. One should always feel free to ask 'Why?" and point out problems with assumptions. Perhaps there are good reasons for these approaches, but perhaps not. Nothing should ever be beyond question as long as one is trying to find an that aligns with reality.

Which is why I say that philosophy is and should be the domain of the leisurely elites. — baker

I think a better clarification is 'Some philosophical concepts are for people with niche contexts and/or interests". Philosophy is open for the poorest and most stressed among us. What is examined will be more pertinent to one's situation. "Why am I loyal to this job? Is job loyalty something I should hold over finding another job with a 2$ raise?" Not a complex question, but a re-examining of the situation that one is in and a questioning of the things taken for granted that got you there matter. Will such a person be interested in debating Hume? Almost certainly not. Does the person need to freely think despite the pressures around them not to? Yes.

Never stop questioning? Maybe have a reason to question, first. — Ciceronianus

Of course. But if you have a reason to question, do so despite the pressure around you not to.

These type of thinking is not an everyday activity that everyone cares for. — L'éléphant

Correct. Just like not everyone does math or science, or other activities that have reasons for people doing them. Yet we can still evaluate the purpose and value of doing those things properly.

True enough: although I suspect purpose may be plural. I doubt it could ever be one thing. — Tom Storm

A fantastic philosophical response. :)

Does it matter? When people say they aren’t interested in philosophy to those who aspire to be, there’s a tendency to hold them in mild contempt, or at least to consider them somehow inferior. I suspect, however, that having no interest in philosophy can be a perfectly legitimate way of being. It may simply be dispositional, and I wouldn’t want to live in a world where philosophy must appeal to everyone, and those who aren’t interested are somehow suspect and intrinsically plebeian. — Tom Storm

I don't think I ever implied that the purpose of philosophy is to play social status games. I'm also not claiming that everyone should approach or be a philosopher. I'm merely pointing out the purpose. Can you not be a plumber but understand the purpose and value of understanding plumbing? Of course. Does everyone need to understand or partake in plumbing? Of course not.

In so far as 'thinking' helps one to thrive over above one's mere survival, I agree. — 180 Proof

A fair clarification.

Then what is gender as an expectation of the sexes, if not discrimination? — Harry Hindu

According to the definition of gender, that's all it really is. Its simply culturally accepted prejudice and/or sexism.

She is not making a statement about sex or gender. She is merely trying to be comfortable. So yes, it isn't universal now, even though it used to be, and what will happen is that we become separated as different groups use the terms how they want and stop communicating with anyone else that sees them differently. — Harry Hindu

Also correct. Because the point is to use the term 'gender' as a rationalization and rebranding of transsexualism. Its the reuse of common language to conflate and confuse people into thinking that gender bending, which is normal, can justify a transsexual as also normal who should be allowed into cross sex spaces in society.

Its quite brilliant really. They piggy-backed off of the good will shown to gays (which they deserve both morally and rationally), and appealed to people's good nature in an attempt to get people to see them as normal too. The difference is that the transsexuals behind all of this used deception because they believed honesty wouldn't get them what they wanted. Cross sex space access. Its been the entire focal point of the trans activist community.

Looking at the history, the denial of access to cross sex spaces is where the anger, revolt, and cancelling of people always pivots around. Look at JK Rowling. She wrote an immensely supportive letter to the trans community, but drew a line in the sand that being a transsexual doesn't give you a right to be in cross sex spaces. Pronouns are used by people to describe the sex of an individual, and the trans activist community insisted it be 'gender'. Of course they know that pronouns refer to sex for people. Its all a plan to get you to say it to convince you that 'they are the other sex' without you realizing you agreed to it. Because once you realize that's what they want, the only logical conclusion is to say, "But you aren't actually the other sex, you don't belong in cross sex spaces."

To me, the transgender issue is a fascinating use of words and terms to manipulate a population. It mirrors a secular religion in many ways, as well as a political entity. Philosophers should be pouring over these definitions and reasons to really see what works here, but they successfully cowed people to not think about it because they first painted it as a moral issue that should not be questioned or debated. It is a secular religion, and even many atheists fell to its message. History will likely look back and say, "How could people be so stupid back then?" like we always see in history when people fall for objectively stupid ideologies and outlooks. But we aren't stupid. Its just a reminder that you always have to be diligent with word use and rational thought despite the pressures not to. Especially for social conformity and cultural claims of virtue, the temptation and pressure to conform and not think about it is powerful.

It is explicitly not running them together. It is explicitly saying that biological tendencies are required for a 'socially constructed' gender to obtain. Otherwise, there is no such boundary line under which 'a gender' could be captured. — AmadeusD

According to many on the gender side of the discussion, it is correct that there is no boundary line under which gender can be captured. Keep going with them and they'll start to say how even 'sex' doesn't have any boundaries either. Because the entire point is to get you to see them as the other sex without you realizing you're saying that.

Yes, sex and gender are different, but 'gender' is closely tied to sexual expression (i.e sexed behaviours and tendencies). You cannot tease these two apart and get anything coherent under the term 'gender'. — AmadeusD

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

They are conflatory (and, though neither of us puts much in this, also essentially means we cannot refer to trans people in a way they are comfortable with. My solution allows both: trans women are women, but female is the category any institution should be bent to care about). I am sorry if it was unclear enough to have this be missed. — AmadeusD

No apology needed. One of the main issues with gender ideology is its incoherent and unclear vocabulary. This is intentional, as it is meant to be conflationary. I did give plenty of people a chance to clear up any ambiguity who tend to support the ideology, and almost without fail they double down on it or reject clear distinctions. That's because its not about clear vocabulary or distinctions. Its a tool to rationalize, not a tool of rationality.

I disagree with your solution, though understand its good intention, because it only serves to allow this conflationary communication to continue. The only reason trans individuals want the phrase 'trans men are men' is because they really want to hear the idea that now they're actually the other sex. That's it. They don't want to clarify it to clearly mean gender. Its a deception that asks a person to have poor grammer, poor thinking, and is used by them to argue why they deserve to be in opposite sex spaces. Imo, its not only poor grammer, its a lie with wiggle room.

That said, if you do not openly expect a transman to be more aggressive than a non-trans female, I can't quite see what 'construct' we are suppose to be thinking of here. Genders are constructed from biological expectations that are applied to the categories not represented by those biological expectations. — AmadeusD

And this is where the confusion lies. According to gender theory, gender is not constructed from biological expectations. It is purely cultural expectations. So prejudice, stereotypes, and sexism not based on biology, but culture alone. Think of someone wearing a suit. You make cultural expectations of that person because of that suit by observation alone. You think, "A person in a suit would never jump." The person jumps. They have defied your 'suit expectation'. That's gender in gender theory. It is a suit that you put on and take off like any other clothing. And you expect that when you are wearing that clothing, that other people will treat you as you personally feel someone should be treated while wearing that clothing.

Yes, gender when fully defined and understood is essentially the way a child views the world.

That said, if you do not openly expect a transman to be more aggressive than a non-trans female, I can't quite see what 'construct' we are suppose to be thinking of here. — AmadeusD

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

A female who is exceptionally feminine in behaviour will never been taken even vaguely seriously in their transition other htan by sycophants and TRAs. — AmadeusD

It doesn't matter. She's just a feminine behaving man because she's wearing male clothing. Don't be a bigot. ;)

If the only criteria for the construct are made-up nonsense then there is no basis for even discussing 'transition'. — AmadeusD

Correct! Because gender was simply a rationalizing tool to justify transsexualism. Transitioning your body to align with your 'gender identity' was always word salad gibberish to avoid the word 'transsexual'. Its a repackaging of transsexualism to be a more hip, modern, and virtue signaling identity so that way we can get you to agree with us having those surgeries funded by the medical community and hope we won't be seen as strange anymore.

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

Correct. They're speaking to the truth of transsexualism as the mental health issue that it is. They don't want special treatment, they just want to be a part of society without bothering other people. I have massive respect for these individuals and hope that the loud trans activists who want special treatment don't ruin the peace and accepted place in society that many honest transsexual already have.

Let’s say it is purely social though and that what we expect a sex to behave like is purely based off of unrelated factors to their nature. Then the view does succeed in divorcing them, but now it falls into superficiality. — Bob Ross

Agreed. I view gender as socially enforced/acceptable prejudice and sexism.

This is why, going back to my point about the political tension, the important aspect of gender theory is not itself but, rather, what it is being developed for: it is being used to peddle treating people in the sense of gender as if it is in the sense of sex. — Bob Ross

Agreed. I mentioned to another poster here that the game is to get you to say a trans person is the other sex without having you think you're saying a trans person is the other sex. I find it beautifully twisted and deceptive.

And that was part of the experiment. Unveil the deception a bit. Force someone to come to the table and talk about it as if we took the distinction seriously and see if they agreed. So far, no one really has. Just a few individuals fooled into thinking it is virtuous to get people to play the game. I may post another thread later about whether transgender rights are really rights. A little tied up this week though and I would like some more time to address it properly.

Long time no see, Philosophim! I hope you are doing well. — Bob Ross

You as well Bob! I hope life has been treating you well.

I know you are stipulating this definition for the sake of the OP, but it is worth mentioning that this precludes the main usage of the word throughout history. Gender has always been the upshot of biology (nature). With gender theory, we see a new development of trying to cleanly separate the two so that people that claim to be a woman or man without committing themselves to the absurdity of claiming to be biologically one when they are not. — Bob Ross

True. But having been in the community for a while and seeing their desire to cleave it, I'm willing to do so and see if certain things they say make any sense even after this is given. I have no issue with new terms or approaches, but are the statements involved in these approaches valid?

If by ‘woman’ and ‘man’ you are referring to merely a set of social cues and behaviors that at person gives off that are typically associated with the given sex (of man or woman), then why semantically refer to these ‘genders’ as men and women? It seems like a blatant equivocation that muddies the waters—don’t you think? — Bob Ross

100% Part of the approach here is to demonstrate the poor grammar involved in this attempt. If someone actually felt that gender was completely divorced from sex, I would likely see an argument somewhere saying, "You're right, we need to be more specific," or trying to justify the grammer. The only reply I've seen so far is, "Well people talk this way now, and we shouldn't debate what words should mean."

I mean, if it really is the case that being a ‘man by gender’ is completely separable from being a ‘man by sex’ and this is a new distinction one is making (that has very little historical precedent), then why not call it ‘being a loto’ or some other word that isn’t deeply entrenched in biology? — Bob Ross

Agreed.

I think that is what the ‘is a transwoman a woman’ political debate comes down to: conservatives do not want to reuse the biologically entrenched words to refer to something totally different, whereas liberals want to use it so they can piggy-back off of the various ways we deal with sex in terms of gender instead (like bathroom assignments). — Bob Ross

Sounds fair to me, though I would be willing to listen to anyone who has a different opinion.

Darkneos, your question has been asked countless times over the years.

"Will the calculator make people dumber?" "You can replace 10 accountants with with calculator. If people don't need to add and subtract by pencil anymore, do we need people learning math at all?"

"Will farming machinery ruin the agriculture sector? What will people do for jobs?"

"Phones are the dumbing of America. Did you know people don't even memorize phone numbers anymore? They're ruining their ability to memorize."

Same questions, different era. The answer is always the same. Technology almost always improves the capabilities of humanity and quality of life. Now is there a period of training readjustment? Yes. Is there a period of finding out the negative aspects of the tool as well as the positive? Yes. Is there always fear? Yes.

But take heart, these questions have repeated for centuries over humanities lifetime. We always adapt, we always grow stronger, and its always a better world for having new technology.

If gender was actually the "expectation" (actually definition) that what you wear makes you a man or woman then there would be no surprises. — Harry Hindu

Right. Gender comes from and is defined by sex. Sex does not come from nor is defined by gender.

"the terms man and woman indicate a person's age and sex, not gender" and this is factually incorrect. The terms are sometimes used to indicate a person's age and sex and sometimes used to indicate a person's gender. — Michael

And I have never denied that. The argument has been noting that the issue is that the phrase 'trans men are men' implies 'man as sex' and is both grammatically incorrect and less logical to have the unmodified man be read 'as gender'. If you would like to give a reason why you think it should be read 'as gender' I welcome that discussion.

Whether or not you think they should be used this way, and whether or not I think the word "slay" should be used to mean "impressive", is irrelevant to the factual matter of how English-speaking people actually use these words. — Michael

You are referencing slang which is terminology restricted to a context or group of people. Slang is not the general usage or meaning of the word. If I start using the term 'pizza' for apples as a formal word, this does not suddenly make my use of the term pizza correct in the English language.

Again, an assertion that 'some people (at least one) use it this way' is not an argument that it should be used that way if the intent is clear and unambiguous language that fits within what people generally would expect within the language structures.

There is only one thing that matter in philosophy: The argument. Not who said it. Not credentials. Not the feelings of the person. The argument. If AI can present a argument that is 100% factually correct, it is used well. If not, it is used poorly. It doesn't matter if you have a tool. All that matters is the argument.

To paraphrase Captain Barbossa, they're more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules. And, once again, natural languages just aren't the perfectly logical, consistent, and unambiguous things you seem to want them to be. — Michael

That's not what I said. I said that the idea that because language can evolve a certain way, doesn't mean it should. If English evolved rapidly into an ambiguous and locally defined set of terms and meanings in each state, we would have a difficult time talking to one another at all. Just because something can occur, doesn't mean its the best outcome for what language's purpose is.

Get enough people using a word in a different-than-normal way and its meaning changes. That's how languages evolve. — Michael

Of course, I never denied this, nor does this address my point. What I'm noting is that there are more beneficial and less beneficial ways for language to evolve. Its a constant balance between clarity of communication, efficiency in effort, and applicability to a wider audience. Thus, it is not foolish to debate whether words should mean something.

It's foolish to argue that words should or shouldn't mean something, or to deny the empirical fact that they are used to mean certain things. — Michael

No, it is not foolish at all. That's the entire point of English class. Present participles, conjuctive disjunctions (What are you functions?) are all a means to ensure that we have stable rules and approaches to grammar and communication. Because the entire purpose of language is to clearly communicate a concept in a way that can be easily understood by other parties in the language without debate.

And of course people will deny that words mean certain things. If I started calling the Big Bang God and told you, "You believe in God", you would have an issue. It is quite reasonable to debate why we should or should use certain language and meanings for those words. If I said "subjectivity" was actually the same definition as 'objectivity', there would be a lot of people on these forums telling me, "No, you're wrong".

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

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

The issue is that man is used both to indicate sex and gender depending on context. In this context its more grammatically sensible to read man as referring to sex when its alone and unmodified by the trans adjective. Since this is historically the way man has been read when unmodified, and it makes cis and trans modifiers, and we know the need for transgender people to conflate with sex where possible, we clearly point out the difference and no one should have an issue.

So "a man is generally more aggressive than a woman" could (should IMO) apply to the gender, but on the basis that heightened aggression (in terms of above a mean, or something) is a typically 'male' trait and so goes into the cluster we use to determine 'man'. — AmadeusD

This is still lumping biology in with gender. Gender as clearly defined is purely a social construct, a prejudice or expectation that someone with a particular biology should act a certain way purely based on culture, not biology. Statically expecting a male to be more aggressive than a female because of biology is not gender, that's simply ascertaining a likelihood of secondary sex traits. To be gender, it must not involve biology. For example, there is no biological incentive that a woman wear a dress vs pants. That's purely a social construct. If that social construct expects that only one sex should wear dress or pants, this becomes gender.

Most do not. I think you are describing TRAs. Most trans people are not demanding anything (except to not be harassed, which is fair). — AmadeusD

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

Would you not hold a door open for an elderly man? Being sweet has nothing to do with gender. Any sex can be sweet, or nice. What you are describing are simply human behaviors, not gendered behaviors — Harry Hindu

Notice I did not explicitly say "to get people to hold the door for me". If you're being honest when you see a woman vs a man, you do have a different initial impression and treatment of them. Some of this is likely biological, but part of it is also culture. A person who is dressing in a way to emphasize their sex may be desiring these other smaller interactions they see others doing (or they do themselves) like being gentler with their voice, not talking about sports, etc. It is not one specific objective action they desire, but a collective subjective treatment that they see.

The first part makes no sense. The immorality is in fooling another about your sexual identity which does not allow others to realize their own identities as either gay or straight. — Harry Hindu

Again, you're only emphasizing encounters of sexuality, not mere differences of sex expectation. In most general cases non-sexual gender treatment is mostly harmless. As you noted, most gender treatment should be equalized to people as a whole, and not merely given to one sex or the other. That is an ideal, but often not a real. In these cases, if someone mistakes a transgender person for the opposite sex in a quick public encounter, no one is wiser or cares. I do not view this as immoral, as the person may very well feel better and happier presenting as such for themself.

In the case of situations that impact the other person directly, like direct sexual interest, a trans individual should immediately let the other person know that they are in fact trans. To not do so would be sexual abuse.

I think, more discreetly, what I didn't take in hand here was that there's a logical reason to use the word this way. I think it's absolutely fine for 'man' to refer to gender (recognitiion of clustered behaviours, lets say) where male can be the biological counterpart. — AmadeusD

To be clear, I have nothing against man meaning gender or man meaning sex based on context. My argument is that in the context of 'transgender men are men', reading 'men' as 'male gender' in this case is the less clear and logical interpretation of the word.

For one, 'transgender men' has already modified the term 'man' to indicate we're talking about gender. To mention 'man' alone is a pointless tautology if it 'man' means 'male gender' in this case. Add in the sentence, "Cis men are men" and this seems to be an unclear synonym between trans and cis. Trans and cis are supposed to refer to gender, but the only way they make sense here is if they refer to gender in relation to sex. Otherwise why bother saying it?

A more proper phrase would be, "Transgender men are men as gender" or some type of clarification that the 'man' in this case is not the context of 'male sex'. To insist on the previous phrasing is simply poor grammar.

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

Hmm. While i understand the impulse, I don't think this is quite accurate. The fact that men are, on average, more aggressive (using it as a biological term (both 'man' and 'aggressive')) is, as you say, not gender. BUT being more aggressive than the average female is one of the cluster behaviours that tends to be borne by a 'man'. — AmadeusD

If the 'man' in question means, 'adult male sex', I agree. I do not agree that 'man' as indicating gender applies because of the biological reason. To be clear, "expecting" a man to be more aggressive when they are not, and claiming that they need to be more aggressive within the culture as a choice, is a gendered view of 'man'. A man naturally being more aggressive than a woman is a perfectly normal statistical outcome. A man being less aggressive than most woman is also completely normal. The
expectation that a biologically non-aggressive man should be more aggressive in their actions is a gender expectation.

I posit that Trans community (and TRAs more properly) want to see the link strengthened philosophically to the point of equivalence. — AmadeusD

Absolutely. Its like watching a child lie badly and think they've fooled everyone. And watching someone hear correct pronouns and think they've passed as the opposite sex vs the obvious pity or fear of offending that the majority of people fear is embarrassing to watch personally.

I tend to think this is simply a polite way of saying "you have no balls" (the most common, and variant insult men face really - particularly from women). It strikes me a biological insult. — AmadeusD

Its a gendered insult because that person has not risen to the social expectations put upon a person who is male. Only if the person literally lacked balls in a jeering manner would it be a biological insult.

These are key points. I think I view 'being trans' a bit different to you. My experiences with trans people is not that they want anything specific. — AmadeusD

The 'want' that I'm referring to in this instance is a response from other people that treats them as if they are the opposite sex with the gender expectations that come with that. It may be that this want comes form wanting to avoid the expectations of their own sex. If a trans person had no wants, they would have absolutely zero consideration of how other people viewed them. But they do.

I wanted to be a girl most of my life for practical reasons. I now see that I felt oppressed and abused as a male and wanted to escape. I still feel that is what society wants, but I don't care anymore. — AmadeusD

I have a very dear friend who has been in the process of transitioning for the past few years. His reason is primarily sexual. He has had terrible luck with women all of his life and felt there is something wrong with him. He began to become obsessed with lesbian romances and fan fiction, writing porn stories about female characters. It came to the point where he no longer could envision himself as a male with a woman, but only a woman as a woman. Especially before he got on his pre-estrogen medicine which lowers his physical sex drive, he was also fairly sexually inappropriate with it.

We have talked about it but he goes into complete rage denial mode when I point out the obvious sexual reasons he's already confessed to me. His choice of course. He's as the age where he's not likely going to find an attractive woman (he's obssessed with younger women still) much less marry. Considering the loneliness has only been an oppressive despair and oppression for him, this at least gives him a sexual outlet to get past that. And for him, it might be the best call. It was like watching a captive parrot in heat as he would breath in through his mouth and lustfully talk about lesbian relationships.

At least with his sex drive lowered he doesn't have the intense need driving him, now its more the romantic and ideological side. His sex drive is still existent, its just reduced in the intensity that only an agonizingly sexually deprived male can have. I appreciate you sharing your experiences.

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

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

If someone were to tell me that they were a man, yet looked like a woman, or whatever, i wouldn't be like "oh, so i don't believe you. You must must be a man because i say so." — ProtagoranSocratist

It depends. One of the things that people have to check when conversing with someone else is whether their words are

1. Clear definitions that we both agree on and understand
2. The other person is being honest in what they tell us

Lets say in this case there is a transman who believes they are a man. Further, they believe 'man' unmodified means, 'adult male gender'. There is nothing innately wrong with this if the person they are conversing with also agrees that man unmodified means 'adult male gender'.

However, in the context of the above statement it is more logical and historically accurate for a person to interpret the statement of 'man' alone as referring to 'male sex'. Now if a person is trying to avoid bullying or disrespect, they should avoid poor grammar and unclear communication. These tend to engender disrespect and lower social status as either uneducated or unintelligent.

Thus, the phrase, 'trans men are men' should not be used in broader society. A simple adendum to the statement 'trans men are men as gendered' or some variation that avoids confusion and clearly conveys the intent unambiguously, the phrase wouldn't be as much of an issue. This assumes of course that the issue is grammar and not the intent to use the term 'man's' double meaning to squeeze in the idea that 'a trans man is a man by sex'. Because this is a tactic of dishonest people, which also does not engender good will if that's what one is trying to do.

Apparently, males/females are supposed to think a certain way and act a certain way. The "gender" question is extremely confusing, and these "roles" you mention largely do not exist. — ProtagoranSocratist

One way to make it less confusing is that gender is a group subjective opinion about non-biological behavior in relation to your sex. "Are you man enough?" In this case man refers to gender, or the expectation that as a male you must act in a certain way or be seen as failing in your sex. The expecation of an adult male may very from person to person, group to group, city to city, onto the world. It is a purely subjective opinion that is culturally sanctioned prejudice and sexism among the group.

Some people learn not to let the opinions of other bother them. Some crave the opinions of others, or may even crave the gendered expectation of the other sex. As such, they take on these gendered expectations for themselves in hope of getting this treatment and expectation from other people. Finally some crave to have the actual opposite sex, and use gender as a mask and part to get the culture to view them as the other sex.

the transgender people seem to just want people to accept their story as true, since we tend to accept a lot of narratives as true — ProtagoranSocratist

I have no problem accepting a story as true as long as the two points I flagged above pass. Are they being clear in their communication, and is there evidence to trust they are being honest with us? I would say most good people will accept a person's story if these two things align. If the trans community wishes to be accepted, they would much better be served dropping the poorly worded 'trans men are men' slogan and adjusting it to more clearly communicate to others what they mean.

"Is" "is" "is". Don't you get tired of that? — ProtagoranSocratist

This 'is' a statement that the transgender community insists is true, so I think its a viable thing to look at linguistically.

I have never needed anyone to tell me what i am. — ProtagoranSocratist

Technically you had to have people tell you that you're a human being, or at least learn it from somewhere. The OP is pertinent to telling other people who you are.

I am a man, but my avatar is a woman. Does that offend you? Does that make me transexual? — ProtagoranSocratist

The OP does not have any moral judgement on personal identification. It is a critique to note that the statement, "Transgender men are men" is an unclear and poorly phrased sentence if 'men' is intended to represent 'male gender' and not the default of 'male sex'. "Transgender men are men by gender" is the correct way to communicate the idea with clarity.

She is simply there to buy some groceries and not making a statement about her sexual identity, but about her sexual motivations, or lack thereof. — Harry Hindu

It doesn't always have to be about sexual attraction, but other indicators like wanting to be viewed as 'sweet' and having doors held open for you, etc. A large amount of gendering is about sexuality, but there is plenty of gendering that also has nothing to do with sexuality, and a person can be transgender because they want those non-sexual expectations that come with it.

Is it moral to fool another of your sex in the context of seeking a mate that fits the other's sexual preferences? — Harry Hindu

That's a fairly loaded question. If one is attempting to be perceived as the opposite sex purely for their own purposes, and but does not hide the fact when they would benefit from a sexual interaction, this is not immoral. If they hide the fact for the benefit of a sexual interaction they know an individual would not give to them if the other person was aware of their natal sex, then yes this is deceiving another person into doing something they wouldn't do if they saw the truth of the matter for personal gain. That would be immoral.

How do you delete a comment? — Copernicus

I'm not sure you can. You can edit it though and change what it said.

But that's highly biased, based on an idealization of a very particular category of women. Statistically, it seems few women get that kind of sexualized attraction you mention above that these men are seeking. — baker

I never implied it wasn't highly biased. I'm just noting what is. And many in the femboy community receive plenty of sexual adoration online and in their isolated communities. For them, they get what they want.

Why would anyone go to such lengths just to be -- ordinary??
Why would anyone go from being an ordinary guy to looking like an ordinary gal? — baker

I believe that is a question for those that have the mental health condition. I'm out of time for now, but off the top of my head:

1. To avoid societal expectations of their sex
2. To be more comfortable with being gay
3. "Grass is greener" mentality
4. Confusion about sex, gender, and stereotypes
5. Actual mental illness
6. Sexual desire.

Secondary sex characteristics absolutely have to with hormones. The longer the body is dominated by T the more it will masculinize and the longer it is dominated by E the more the body will feminize to the point of heterosexual attraction. — Forgottenticket

Incorrect. This can happen, but this is most likely due to attraction that already exists. AGP is an autosexual orientation that can be gratified by men seeing the AGP as female. This is well documented. For a modern summation of this check out Phil Illy's book "Autoheterosexual" online, as well as his interviews with confessed AGPs. I do not judge AGPs, and I advise getting to know about them first.

The other side is that many trans individuals are actually gay or lesbian and use transsexualism as a way to cope with the cognitive dissonance of liking the same sex. Studies on pre-pubescent children who exhibit gender dysphoria are found 70-80% of the time to end up identifying as gay and bisexual by age 18 if not medication or transition measures are given.

That is what puberty does to you and why puberty blockers are given to buy time for the teen to make a decision. — Forgottenticket

No, hormones still don't change your sex. They can change your secondary sex development, which to me is quite frankly disgusting and pedophilic to push on kids. Kids should not be sexualized period, and such decisions should never be pushed on a minor. My apologies for my more emotional response here, I can break down further in a more detailed post about why if you are interested later.

Transgender is obviously more scalable than transsexualism which doesn't roll of the tongue at all so that term is used. — Forgottenticket

No, transsexualism was familiar to people and had a certain emotional connotation to it. The trans activist community has attempted to eliminate the word to 'rebrand' and disguise what they are trying to do, which is change sex. Its thought control by denying an objectively innoffensive word that describes what is happening.

Transgender - someone who wants to take on the gender of the opposite sex.
Transsexual - someone who alters their body in an attempt to change it to be or more resemble the other sex.

See gender affirming surgery replacing sexual reassignment surgery — Forgottenticket

Right, if you study the history this was done to rebrand transsexualism. This was to get sexual identity disorder out of the mental illness category, and allow medical insurance to treat the issue. It does not eliminate the reality that this is transsexualism.

↪Philosophim In other words, trans people are not identifying as a gender. They are identifying as the opposite sex and the difference is the level of detail one wants to obtain. — Harry Hindu

In my experience actually being in the community (I am not LGBTQ, I just visited to see things for myself) yes. For the one's that transition, that is what they truly want. The language is all to obscure this fact. We are of course getting a more inbetween version which is typically a highly sexualized and cosmetic version of body alteration too.

Femboys for example don't want to change their sex, but want to have people view them in the visually sexualized way they look at women. For these individuals, I think the definition of transgenderism as intended fits quite well. Its not an entire encapsulation of the opposite sex's gender, but a selective desire to (sexual in this case, but not all cases) get a particular reaction from people that they see society giving the opposite sex.

For example, men in Western society are not given the allowed public sexual expression that women are. Sexy or even mildly sexually stimulating clothing and behavior are often encouraged, where as in men it is often discouraged. To escape this, some men want to be seen as women or emulate the way women sexually express because they think they'll get more attention from society in a positive way, and they may not know how to do so within the 'male gender' expectations of the people they are around. For them they are happy being male, they just want the gender acceptance of sexual expression and attention that they see women have.

in assuming that society is defining a woman as someone with not just the biological characteristics, but the expectations as well. But society is not saying that (and people that use language in this way are misusing it) wearing a dress makes you a woman. Society is saying because you are a woman, you wear a dress. — Harry Hindu

Correct. I believe most transsexuals know this. Transgender is a convenient way to justify their need to be seen as the other sex both for themselves, and a tool to attempt to persuade society. It is all about that need, and they are willing to do whatever it takes, even if its dishonest language, to have that need fulfilled. I believe letting this happen is actually harmful to transsexuals. They need to accept the reality they cannot be the other sex as the technology isn't there yet. They need to be ok with everyone not accepting them as the opposite sex, and that they shouldn't be trying to trick or cajole society into this desire. It is at its core, immoral.

Trans exists and is popular because exogenous (bio-identical) hormones exist and you can artificially induce intersex conditions. — Forgottenticket

To be clear, this is transsexualism. There are the terms transgender and transsexual, and 'trans' shortens to make it unclear which you are referring to. Which of course is the goal of the activist community to make you say, "You're the other other sex" without you realizing you're saying, "You're the other sex".

This leads me to ask, what kind of expectations are we talking about here? Are people jailed for wearing clothing inappropriate to one's sex? If not, is it fair to say that society has any expectations of the sexes? What is an expectation that isn't enforced? — Harry Hindu

A fantastic question that likely requires its own topic. Why does society enforce prejudice and stereotypes when it comes to sex? I imagine its a combination of many things from sexual dimorphism emphasis, power dynamics, and sexuality. There is a thin wall between biologicaly expectations of a sex vs gender expectations of a sex as well. We are very willing to accept biological expectations, and perhaps its easy to cross over into sociological expectations because of it.

As I pointed out - transgenderism's existence depends on a society having sexist expectations. If there are no more expectations then there is no gender (based on your own definition of gender as societal expectations of the sexes). — Harry Hindu

100% agree. But that is not the society we live in.

If everyone crosses the gender divide then that means the society is gender neutral and that there is no such thing as gender as everyone in the society wears what they want regardless of their sex, and there are no expectations of society for people to act differently because of their sex. — Harry Hindu

Society in general is a combination of individuals who have varying degrees of discomfort with crossing gender divides in public. Small and/or temporary crossings can be disliked or even seen as amusing and not typically the label of 'transgender'. Transgender comes about when a person understands the societal gender for men and women, and decides to actively cross that boundary in hopes of being treated by society as they see them treat the other sex. Its of course an incredibly naive task, and no one is obligated to do so in any way. That is the argument for then wanting to change their sex through hormones and body modification. They want to be treated like the other sex by society, so changing their body will hopefully do so.

Sure, but the former precisely is what she is being asked. She is being asked what her credence about the coin will be on that occasion, and not what the proportion of such occasions are that are T-occasions. — Pierre-Normand

I would say she is being asked what the odds are of it being a day in which a T side vs a H side coins is flipped. If she's only being asked what the percent chance of the coin ended up being at, the answer is always 50/50. The odds of the coin flip result don't change whether its 1 or 1,000,000 days. What changes is from the result of that coin flip, and that is the pertinent data that is important to get an accurate answer.

This is very similar to the old Monty Hall problem. You know the three doors, make a guess, then you get to make another guess do you stay or change?

On the first guess, its always a 1/3 shot of getting the door wrong. But it can also be seen as a 2/3 chance of getting the door wrong. When given another chance, you simply look at your first set of odds and realize you were more likely than not wrong, so you change your answer. The result matches the odds.

Same with the situation here. Run this experiment 100 times and have the person guess heads 50 times, then tails 50 times. The person who guesses tails every time 50 times will be right 2/3rds of the time more than the first. Since outcomes ultimately determine if we are correct in our odds, we can be confident that 1/2 odds is incorrect.

By the way, very nice discussion! I appreciate your insight and challenging me to view things I might not have considered.

But Sleeping Beauty isn't being asked about specific kinds of outcomes explicitly. Rather she is being asked about her credence regarding the current state of the coin. She can reason that the current state of the coin is Tails if and only if she is currently experiencing a T-awakening and hence that the current state of the coin is twice as likely to be Tails than it is to be Heads. But she can also reason that the current state of the coin is Tails if and only if she is currently experiencing a T-run and hence that the current state of the coin is equally as likely to be Tails than it is to be Heads. — Pierre-Normand

She can reason that its equally likely that the result of the coin flip is 50/50, but that doesn't mean its likely that the day she is awake is 50/50. Lets flip it on its head and note how the likelihood that she would be wrong.

If she always guesses heads, she's wrong twice if its tails. If she always guesses tails, she's only wrong once. Thus, she is twice as likely to be wrong if she guesses heads on any particular day woken up, and twice as likely to guess correctly if she guesses tails. If the total odds of guessing correctly were 50/50, then she would have an equal chance of guessing correctly. She does not.

We can see this by extending the days out. Lets say that if its heads, she's woken up one day. If its tails she's woken up 10 days. Again, its better odds to guess tails, despite the outcome of the coin being equal as mentioned above.

As I've been noting, because the probable outcome of the coin is the same, you can effectively remove the probable outcome of the coin from the equation. r = r can be divided out. Lets change up the odds of the coin flip, and it changes the our guess.

Going back to the original setup, lets Say that its twice as likely that the coin lands on heads. Now the probability of the coin becomes essential to the outcome of the follow up outcomes.

So its two times more likely that its heads, but only one day. 1 times as likely for two days. This appears to equate to 50/50 when considering what day is randomly picked out of the outcomes.

Now, there is absolutely zero doubt that in the original case it is not a 50/50 outcome. However, I do doubt if it ends up being 2/3rds. There may be some multiplicative statistical shenanigans needed here that I'm not aware of that is being disguised by making the heads/tails outcome equal and eliminating it as a consideration. Perhaps the imaginary case I made above would be more revealing of any special case. Thus I may be wrong that 2/3rds is the answer, but there is no question that 1/2 is wrong.

It all comes down to whether gender is seen as a biological given or not. — Jack Cummins

Gender by the modern day definition is not a biological given. It is a set of social expectations how one acts non-biologically in relation to one's biology. For example, if boys were supposed to wear pink and girls were supposed to wear blue. There is nothing biological about that besides a cultural reference to one's sex. So things like 'males are generally more aggressive' is a biological outcome. Its not a cultural expectation. The expectation would be that a man be more aggresive than most woman, a man comes along who in a normal statistically reasonable outcome, is not, and is lambasted for being 'weak'. There is nothing innate in biology that ensure all men are 'strong', so therfore its a cultural expectation, not a biological reality that being born a man makes you strong.

In gender rulings, the problem may be that everything is reduced to how a person is assigned to a gender at birth. — Jack Cummins

No one is officially assigned a gender. Your sex is identified, and the people around you have culturally accepted levels of prejudice in how you should act apart from your biology in relation to your sex.

This may be why non-binary identities are being adopted, in order to overcome clear disturbances.. — Jack Cummins

I'm very open to considering all angles, but I have never heard a single person be able to identify what non-binary means in any coherent way.

However, identity is complex and individuals may identify differently from assigned and biological sex. — Jack Cummins

Its not. It was made complex by transsexuals trying to sneak in a more societally acceptable term they could use to justify what they do. Gender at its clearly defined core, is socially acceptable prejudice and potentially sexism in how a person should behave non-biologically in relation to their biological sex. Gender identity is simply deciding what prejudices and sexist expectations you have for yourself.

So, now you are back to treating experimental runs rather than awakening runs as the "outcomes". This sort of ambiguity indeed is the root cause of the misunderstanding that befalls Halfers and Thirders in their dispute. — Pierre-Normand

I'm not seeing the ambiguity here, but maybe I'm not communicating clearly. There are two outcomes based on context.

1 Outcome of the coin
2. Outcome from the result of the coin

The outcome from the coin is always 50/50. Because of this, you can ignore the outcome and simply say, "Its equally likely that the result of one coin flip will happen as the other result"

When we look at all the outcomes from the result of the coin, we see that if its tails, there are two days, and only 1 day if heads. So if you don't know which day it is, (previous days can be removed as we 'forget') then it is a 1/3 chance that your day is a heads, and 2/3rd chance that your day is a tails. Is it equally likely that a heads or a tails was flipped in isolation from the days? Yes. But since we have different outcomes from the flip itself, we have to take them all in consideration and realize that if either side is equally likely to occur, it is a much better odds to say that its heads because the consequence of it being heads makes it twice as likely you awake two days.

One more way to think about it is you have a hat that you could either reach in one time, or two times. Each is equally likely to occur. You forget how many times you've reached into the hat. Is it more likely that you're on an outcome where you reach in two times, or one time? Obviously its two times.

The issue with her remembering or not is that if, as part of the protocol, she could remember her Monday awakening when the coin landed tails and she is being awakened again on Tuesday, she would be able to deduce that the coin landed Tails with certainty and, when she couldn't remember it, she could deduce with certainty that "today" is Monday — Pierre-Normand

Correct. My point was that its just used as a word problem way of saying, "We have 3 outcomes we reach into a hat and pull from"

Your argument in favor of the Thirder credence that the coin landed Tails (2/3) relies on labeling the awakening episodes "the outcomes". But what is it that prevents Halfers from labelling the experimental runs "the outcomes" instead? — Pierre-Normand

Because there are two different outcomes. One with one day, and one with two days. If you pick any day and have no clue if its a day that resulted from a heads or tails outcome, its a 2/3rds chance its the tails outcome. The heads and tails is also irrelevant. The math is, "Its as equally likely that we could have a series of one day or two day back to back in this week. If you pick a day and you don't know the outcome or the day, what's the odds its a tails day vs a heads day?"

The odds of whether its head or tails is irrelevant since they are the same and can be effectively removed from the problem.