Human Rights are a social construct. We are not born with legal documents that are backed up by some higher power. This is something that is so blatantly obvious that people miss it and construe our creation of Human Rights as something we have always possessed. — I like sushi

They are a social construct solved through reason and practice, not bias or feelings. Whether you value human rights or not, there are clearly defined human rights like 'the right to defend oneself'. The OP is simply checking to see if the claim to all trans gender rights actually fit in with human rights.

My view of this issue is untheorized and based on my experience knowing and working with numerous trans people, both men and women. I support most trans rights on the grounds of solidarity and the need to minimize harm and stigma. — Tom Storm

And I'm glad to to hear that. I agree that trans gender people should have the right to not be harmed for the way they live their lives, and that we should eliminate unwarranted stigma where possible.

I’m not aligned with or aware of every activist claim, and I also recognize that trans people vary in their thinking. — Tom Storm

And that is also fine. I'm sure there are plenty of trans gendered individuals who would not agree with some of the list I've posted above. The reason for the list is these are generally things that are being pushed by those who try to get media and political attention. In other words, the one's trying to convince other people that these are true human rights. As such, I feel it is a warranted philosophical enterprise to ask whether their claims of them being human rights, actually match human rights. If you read the OP, I agree with about half of them. The point was not to minimize that trans individuals should have human rights like everyone else, but it was to temper the idea that just because a group may be correct in some of their requests, it does not mean we shouldn't carefully examine their other requests and possibly find fault.

but it would be a mistake to assume activism shapes all trans identities. And I know you haven’t said that. — Tom Storm

I appreciate that. No, my first belief is that trans gender identity can be a choice, but it can also be something innate to the person. I also believe that people have a right to make that choice. My studies hint more that it is really trans sexual identities that are inborn, which often get lumped in with trans gender identities. But I don't want to make that the focus of this topic as that seems more scientific than philosophical. To your point, just because there is a sect of trans gender people trying to push for these as rights, doesn't mean private trans gender individuals do not agree with them. If there was a competing segment of the trans community that was actively in opposition to the pushes I am citing, I could address them as well. But to my knowledge there is no powerful counter movement within the community that is debating these rights claims as currently presented.

I broadly support all five rights you mentioned, except where specific circumstances make their application genuinely problematic. — Tom Storm

My main contention is really with points 3 and 4 essentially are that gender identity should be recognized over sex identity by legal enforcement. To be clear, I am talking about trans gender individuals, not trans sexual individuals. The trans gender argument is that if a member of one sex expresses they are a gender of the other sex, they should be allowed in cross sex spaces, and they should legally have pronouns refer to their gender instead of sex. This means a perfectly healthy and unaltered biological male should be able to enter into a female space like a changing room. England actually did this for several years until the Supreme Court ruled that a recognition of gender was not the same as a recognition of sex. Many in the trans gender community are fighting to get this overruled as they believe it is a right that gender identity supercede sex identity.

I will not repost the reasons behind while I think this is wrong as that's in the OP, but I do not believe this particular trans gender right is not actually a human right.

To be clear, it is not a human right that others agree to our own subjective viewpoints about ourselves. That is not to say that a person cannot view themselves as they wish, or express themselves as they wish equitably under the spirit of public health and decency. If a person wishes to transition, I see no reason why that wouldn't be within their full rights as a human being. Its the fact that activists believe it is a human right that others refer to their gender over their sex that seems to be a violation of the right to free speech and thought.

My main reservation concerns medical treatment for minors — Tom Storm

I responded earlier to RogueAI I believe with a better breakdown on minor health care. Its about what you would expect. Consent must be acquired which largely rests on the parents, and there must be unquestionable medical backing behind it. I can get into details if you would like, but current medical research does not support puberty blockers or any form of medical transition for minors. Activists often believe this is a right despite the medical evidence, which is again why there is a need to critically examine such claims.

Having worked with and known trans people, I’ve seen the distress caused by denying recognition or access to care. That distress may be “subjective,” but it is real and morally relevant, I woudl hold that reducing it is part of our responsibility to respect human dignity and autonomy. — Tom Storm

Correct. The encompassing medical phrase for this is 'gender dysphoria'. However, gender dysphoria could equally be called 'sex dysphoria'. It depends on the context of the distress. If a person is unhappy with the gender they express, and not their sex, its gender dysphoria. If a person is unhappy with their sex, and not the gender they express, that's sex dyphoria. The first case is a trans gendered individual. The second is a trans sexual individual. The community has either ignorantly or intentionally decided to stop using the term 'sex' where possible, which causes a lot of confusion about what a person's actual issue is.

And yes, both dysphorias are real. Treatment should be given if possible to help with the issue. From my understanding, there is no cure. It is therefore what is considered a mental health issue (like depression, not a mental illness like schizophrenia), and needs both therapy and sometime medication to treat. And to be clear, its not the fact that someone desires to be the other sex or gender that is the mental health issue, its the distress of not being able to do so that causes unnecessary stress and behavioral problems in life. Many people have fantasies and dalliences in gender or cross sex play and do not have a chronic distress issue over the fact it is part of them, and not a centralized identity to the exclusion of other healthy parts of themselves.

Gender theory isn't relevant to my take on trans. My view is pragmatic. People have always identified and alwasy will identity as a gender different to mainstream expectation — Tom Storm

The problem is, is that we need clarification in terms if we're not going to use gender theory. Do you mean gender as a sex synonym, a cultural expectation, a sex expectation, or a blend of both? Because unclear terminology gets us into a mess of not understanding what the issue is. People distrust and often hate what they don't understand. Its imperative that we have clear, unambiguous communication if we want culture and law to properly address the issue, much less a discussion here.

We don’t need a metaphysical theory of gender to defend trans rights. What matters is whether our practices reduce suffering and allow people to live freely and without humiliation. — Tom Storm

If you can't clearly identify what is causing the suffering, you can't clearly treat it. If you can't clearly convey what is wrong with you when you're behaving in a manner most people would find strange, you will never live freely without humiliation with a culture. Compassion and empathy are paramount, but it must be combined with clear identification, rational thought, and respect of all individuals involved, not just the aggrieved.

Moral progress depends on empathy and persuasion, not on appeals to absolute truth. I'd take the view that a decent society lets people define themselves without fear and measures dignity by the freedom to live honestly, not by an obedience to inherited categories. — Tom Storm

In my experience, this is an ideal that is violated by the real. If everyone had good intentions and full rational faculties, you would be correct. Unfortunately, while I do believe it is a minority, there are enough individuals who do not have good intention or full rational faculties. This is not targeting trans gendered specifically, but the entire human race. While an overreliance on rigid and out dated categories is bad, doing away with categories and truth requirements ends just as badly for everyone involved. Both situations give bad actors the freedom to cause havoc.

Now, before anyone says, “But what if someone wants to identify as an air-conditioning manifold?” — Tom Storm

Please, I would never insult you with such a Reddit argument. :) Its trivial to note that such a comparison misses the point entirely. Perhaps some who bring up discussion about trans gender issues are motivated purely by their feelings on the matter. I hope that I am someone you can trust will give the topic an actual intelligent look and discussion over it instead of shallow diatribes. I appreciate your post.

One is a term that hasn't existed in the zeitgeist of any human civilization (at least modern Western society) until recently. Whereas, "human" is a biological and absolute constant. In simple terms, one changes, basically came into existence recently, and otherwise has no consensus agreeing solid and strict definition. — Outlander

Ah, I see what you're saying now. If you'll notice in the OP I take the time to set up all the definitions so that way the reader knows what everything means starting out. Please feel free to disagree with any of the definitions and propose your own as a starting point.

From my viewpoint, though gender may be new to the average person, it is a term that is used in the trans gender activist community, and we must understand how they use it when they are asking rights by gender. If you disagree with the word use entirely, then that is your right and our conversation is at an end. This is an attempt to clearly define what representatives of the trans gender community are asking for in terms of trans rights, and whether everything they are asking for is also a human right.

I am getting the feeling that most people on this board have very little understanding or familiarity with trans gender viewpoints, culture, and activism. I've been studying them for the last two years, so I admit my awareness of the subject is painted by that. It appears I am unlikely to have a good conversation on these boards as people appear very in the dark or have a very limited take on the issue. That's ok, philosophy has not been in sync with the culture for some time now, and its not surprising that a modern day philosophical issue like this is not being properly tackled here. I'll likely go to another forum and post there for people who are interested in thinking about this.

I read your OP twice and I stand by behind my main criticism. — T Clark

Fair enough, I'll believe that you have. But I'm not seeing you provide anything that is countering my criticism either.

The source you use to generate your list of human rights left out the most important parts of the ACLU list in a way that undermined possible contrary arguments. — T Clark

And I have invited you to go into more detail on these specific parts of the list. I've asked you to introduce them to the discussion, pointing out why these are necessary to our discussion of trans rights as human rights, and showing how their introduction could contradict my statements. I have undermined nothing in asking you to do this.

I have no objection to this subject for discussion, I just think your OP was a set up job. — T Clark

And I have no objection to you thinking it was, but I see no evidence from you that would support that suspicion. Another time TClark, enjoy the rest of your weekend.

So, let's try to get back on track here. And the best way to do so is with cold hard facts. Hypochondria, affects 5% of all persons. — Outlander

I don't see how this addresses the OP or gets the topic back on track.

It's like you're purposely trying to ignore reality by not understanding these facts thereof, OP. — Outlander

I fail to see how these statements you've made have anything to do with what I've written.

Again, we haven't truly framed the topic here. — Outlander

I believe I have clearly framed the topic "Are trans gender rights human rights?" Some are, some aren't. Do you agree or disagree with these assessments?

We have your ignorant and silly understanding of what transgender is, which while may be shared by the world, remains silly and ignorant. Until you can admit that, OP. This topic, rather your contribution toward it, will remain little more than a circus. — Outlander

If you disagree with the definition of what trans gender is, feel free to frame it. Then feel free to examine what people who are trans gender claim are rights, then tell me whether you think they are human rights. I can't admit to anything when you have provided nothing for me to admit to.

The saying is "Transgender rights are human rights." I'm willing to be extremely pedantic in explaining that the correct wording is "civil rights." I think the difference is important, but I won't clutter up your thread unless you beg me. — T Clark

No, the title, intro, and common saying is 'Trans rights are human rights". Its a a common refrain from trans allies and activists. Here, I even wrote it in the OP.

“Trans gender rights are human rights”. An often heard tautological statement, but is every request that the trans community makes a ‘human right’? — Philosophim

See, that's what we call an introduction that sets the stage for the main topic of the discussion. I'm showing you this because you were trying to be pedantic, but failed. So let me demonstrate what being pedantic is so you can do better next time. Being pedantic is me pointing to the explicit wording, telling you to read the explicit wording, then pointing out the main idea in the first sentence. And I suppose too that I should point out I never once mention or address "Civil Right" in the entire OP, so that's a pretty good indicator that the correct wording for the topic was "human rights".

My response was harsh because I think your OP is misleading in a way I interpreted as for rhetorical effect. — T Clark

No, your response was harsh because you were pissed at the topic and didn't handle it intelligently or maturely. I did not see your intention as harsh, it just came across like you hadn't read the OP and went on a side straw man by quoting another source which was seemingly mostly addressed in the OP. I mean, that happens often in posts, and I gave you a chance to join the conversation properly after you cooled off. Are you cooled off yet to actually comment on the OP itself, or are you now going to be pissed that I gave you an example of what being pedantic actually is? If you can fix your attitude, water under the bridge. If you can't, I get to be amused at how you angrily mess up the next response. Either way a win for me, but it would be a win for us both if you chose the former.

For me, the most fundamental provisions of the ACLU's description are "fighting discrimination in employment, housing, and public places." — T Clark

I addressed one of the contentious points of employment specifically, and point 3 where I noted "Equality of service" should easily apply to housing and public places. This was already a long post which apparently most people didn't bother reading (not just you), so I tried to condense it to important ideas that could be applied to specifics if needed. A 'top 5' list condenses better, gives points to specifically address, and let me cover demands that both fit human rights, and do not fit human rights. In reading the OP, you see that I noted that out of the 5 points, about half I would consider human rights. But please, and in all seriousness, if you think I've missed something about a trans rights request being a human right that you want to address, bring it up specifically. Add reasoning as to why its a human right, and why my reasoning has missed this, doesn't cover it, or seems to go against it. This was always intended to be a discussion, not a status measuring contest.

These form the basis for many of the other rights identified but your listing did not include them at all. — T Clark

This is a fine claim, but please detail what the trans community is insisting are human rights that I missed specifically. Is it the idea that trans people should be allowed to purchase homes, be in public, and be employed? As I noted before, equality of service is a human right which they should be entitled to. Am I missing something more that would change what I concluded about the rights I mentioned in the OP?

such discrimination is prohibited by various civil rights acts and court cases — T Clark

Again, and not to be pedantic this time, the topic is about human rights, not civil rights. Civil rights are rights written into government law. Human rights are natural rights that exist despite law. So I'm not critiquing what has already been passed into law, but am looking at trans rights demands that are claimed to also be human rights which are natural rights outside of law.

Beautifully stated.

The thread is about civil rights, not specific policies or practices. It is reasonable to consider adequate medical care a civil right. What adequate care for transgender people includes is not the subject of this thread and I’m not interested in expressing an opinion. — T Clark

Technically its about human rights, but you are 100% correct that this is off topic. The OP addresses health care as

First, I am aware that health care is often not considered a personal or group right, and could be open to debate. To avoid losing focus, we will assume that the transgender community is not asking for anything more than the equal opportunities in access and ability to pay for healthcare that other people have in the country they reside in. The right to equal opportunity of service in what is offered in one’s country is a human right, so this also fits. — Philosophim

So RougeAI, lets stick to the OP please and not specifically call out other members on something off topic. TClark, if you would like to continue the discussion about the OP feel free, but you do not have defend yourself from off topic points in this thread.

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

My apologies for getting back late to you on this. I am curious about your view points on another thread I started analyzing which trans gender rights claims are human rights. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16233/are-trans-gender-rights-human-rights/p1 then

I appreciate you sharing the story.

I have some doubts about the legitimacy of some transsexual / transgender claims and demands, as do others. — BC

The OP goes through several of them and states whether they can be classified as human rights. Would you like to agree or disagree with any of them?

A "right" which isn't a legal right (i.e. enforceable and subject to protection under the law, the violation of which is compensable) is nothing more than something which it's maintained should be a legal right, or should be considered as a legal right although it isn't one (which I think makes no sense). — Ciceronianus

A human right is not a legal right. But our legal rights should support human rights. The purpose of the OP is to ascertain whether the rights that the trans community wants are human rights, or not human rights. Based on the OP's breakdown, what do you think?

Wow! What a HORRIBLY irrelevant and convoluted mess! Where do you get the idea I have seen anything like that in my life? "Oh! Gold chain, me stupid, i'll kill person with gold chain in alleyway because we alone and nobody catch me! Me shmeagal, i want ring!" — ProtagoranSocratist

This is an example of a thought experiment to give a more explicit example out an abstract notion. If you're not going to take the conversation seriously, I'm not going to take your points seriously either.

Also, I'm pretty sure you are making up this "rights as part of morality algebra" stuff as well. — ProtagoranSocratist

Yes, I created the example as a means of viewing rights as a general abstract vs specific situation. If the analogy didn't make sense, just point it out. Not everything I try works. :)

The constitution (which is where all rights are derived under american law...) — ProtagoranSocratist

What you're talking about is a political right in "The bill of Rights" The constitution did not create human rights. Philosophers and thinkers have discussed human rights for centuries. The bill of rights was an attempt to enshrine political protections against an overbearing federal government.

I don't mind further discussing the issue but more focus on issues and less focus on mockery please.

but earlier you said that people don't have to do anything, so fallowing from that logic, how would rights make any sense on a practical day-to-day basis? Are you saying that rights are only higher ideals that we can imperfectly conform to? — ProtagoranSocratist

Lets pull it out of the abstract and look at your own life. Lets say you stumble upon a person in a lone allyway. They mean you no harm but you notice they have a gold chain around their neck. Looking around, you realize you could get away with stealing it, the other person does not suspect you have a knife, and you could quickly end it. Do you need a law to tell you that murdering them for their gold chain is wrong? Or have you thought through it any particular time and concluded "That would be wrong".?

Rights are the algebra of ethics. X + 1 = 2 "Stealing from another innocent person is wrong" is the circumstance, the number, while the abstract is something like "X is the right way to treat a person". X is where we put the rights like "Letting them speak their mind, respecting property, not murdering them". We can of course go about our lives without thinking at all about what or why we do things, but if you've thought about them at all, you've essentially been considering rights.

Rights are therefore a form of morality. There is an idea that we should or should not treat people in fundamental ways. This does not require a law, it only requires a mind.

So then, what do we as a society decide to do about trans children desiring mastectomies? Should doctors be allowed to do it at all or should it be off limits until the person is an adult? This seems like a human rights issue that's unique to trans individuals, no? — RogueAI

Correct. I addressed the idea of medical care as a right in the OP. For this we can detail further. There are two situations in which a person can decide to modify their body. Cosmetic purposes, and medical purposes. A cosmetic purpose is because one desires to change their body to be a certain way. A medical purpose is to correct or cure an issue.

An example is breast implants surgery vs breast reconstruction surgery. The first is a cosmetic desire, the second is a medical correction due to damage. In general, cosmetic procedures are funded by the individual and are entirely the free choice of the individual. Medical procedures sometimes have funding by the state and can be freely chosen or rejected by the individual in question. However, an individual cannot request a medical procedure freely. They must ask a professional to diagnose if the treatment is one that would solve the issue.

In the case of cosmetic choices, in general we don't allow an individual to choose large alterations to their body without a term called 'consent'. Consent is only able to be given by people who society has established have the mental capability, knowledge, and awareness of the consequences to make a choice. A 14 year old asking to remove their breasts does not have the ability to give consent.

However, in the case of medical care, some procedures or treatments may be offered to minorities if there is ample medical evidence that it would likely treat a problem. If, note I say if, the medical community had clear science to demonstrate that removing the breasts of a 14 year old child would cause a greater benefit to the person than the harm of leaving them, there is justification in offering such a treatment. Even then, generally the child would not have the ability to consent, but the parents.

I can go into why the current medical evidence is strongly against transition surgeries and hormone treatment, but that may not be needed if the above points adequately answers the question. The point is, if it is the case that breast removal is a scientifically recommended treatment that cures the patient of an even more harmful ill, then it is a viable treatment to offer for parents to consent to. Any cosmetic treatment is beyond both the parent's and child's ability to consent.

You can go on communicating how you'd like to, yet i would said "this website phrases transgender and transexual rights as such", and then discussing the rights exactly on the websites terms. Being clear and direct makes things easier to read. — ProtagoranSocratist

Then my mistake, I'll try to be more clear next time.
..

In this context, one would argue that with cruel and unusual punishments, that the cruelty itself sets a poor example and is morally wrong. If people accept that premise, wouldn't it then be easy to argue that any prison sentence whatsoever is cruel punishment? There's no "everyone agrees", yet "cruel punishment" is redundant because punishment is supposed to be cruel instead of rewarding. — ProtagoranSocratist

Generally punishment as an ideal's purpose is to protect innocent people and reform those who do wrong. That is why punishment is supposed to fit the crime. Some punishments are fines. Others have light sentencing. If I stole a penny from a person, going to jail for 50 years wouldn't really protect innocent people from harm, nor would it give a chance for the person to reform. Thus we would call that 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Essentially cruelty is punishment designed merely to hurt another person without any desire to reform or protect others.

So wouldn't you then agree with me when i say that rights are totally meaningless outside of their usage within a legal framework? — ProtagoranSocratist

Not at all. Rights are the framework upon which we should want laws written. Even in a society without some authority figure over your head, rationally we would want to treat each other with the respect that we believe each person should be given for merely being a person. Laws are simply an authorized way to enforce behavior. Rights are a rational conclusion of what behavior we believe is appropriate towards others in the world.

All humans have a right to live and pursue happiness.
Trans humans are humans.
Therefore, trans humans have a right to live and pursue happiness. — Moliere

Agreed, no argument against that here.

It's only because people see trans people as freaks that this sad line of questioning seems plausible to anyone. — Moliere

Perhaps others see trans individuals as freaks, from my point its looking at what they are asking for as rights and verifying that everything they are asking for is a human right. The OP goes through and agrees that some of these things are rights, while others of these are not human rights. Were there any you agreed or disagreed with?

It's especially odd given that most of the time this line of questioning is from a cis perspective: as in, the answer will have no effect on the life of the asker. But it will effect trans people. — Moliere

Given that the examination is about human rights, and human rights affect all people including trans people, I'm not sure what's being missed in the OP. If you would like to point out the missed perspective, it would be helpful to the discussion.

↪T Clark I don't think it's a good idea to do mastectomies on 14 year olds. Do you? — RogueAI

RogueAI, can we say on topic please? What do you think about the OP's claims on the trans gender rights listed?

I'm really sick of this over-use of "they" i am seeing in talks about transgendered people here. It's very similar to how people in the U.S. talking about "the liberal agenda". Conflating a bunch of different things so they seem unified doesn't help clarify a philosophical discussion. Maybe you could use sources: tell me where "the transgendered people" are united in their demands. Give us a more concrete "they" rather than a nebulous one. — ProtagoranSocratist

Fair question. I posted a link in the OP, and TClark posted a link to generally what the transgender community is asking for in terms of rights. I am not talking about an individual, but the spokespeople who are asking for trans rights as laws that are documented and well known. That is why I put this under the political category and not ethics. Can an individual trans gendered person have a different view on what they want? Absolutely. But this is addressing the people pushing for lawful change who are claiming this is what all trans gender people deserve.

what if "rights" themselves are not valid? If you're not willing to be more critical of rights, then i don't think you will get very far in this discussion, as the government wants rights to be inviolable, but all the evidence points to this not being the case — ProtagoranSocratist

Of course, rights are open for discussion.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

These are seen as "rights", that the legal system shall not do any of these things in reference to rulings in a criminal trial. However, a lot of people are in disagreement about what constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment. — ProtagoranSocratist

Correct. But a question for you. Does everyone agree that if that bar is agreed upon, a person should not be administered cruel and unusual punishment? I would say yes. So at that point we're not arguing that cruel and unusual punishment should not be permitted to people, just the level that entails. Generally we can agree on that level using different measures such as science, and where absent, a democratic vote that can be changed over time as new information comes in.

So if rights only apply in specific circumstances, and state authorities have the liberty to disagree about who has rights to what, how can rights be viewed as valid or meaningful in a philosophical sense? It seems to me they are only a legal mechanism, and nobody whatsoever is guaranteed rights. — ProtagoranSocratist

Legal rights are not gauranteed. Nothing is. Human rights are reasoned ideals that we should all aspire to uphold. You can have a country that denies human rights, or have a country that has human rights. Which is preferable and more prosperous to its people? Are governments formed to enhance people's lives, or control them for the ends of a few individuals?

In a rights based society, the government ultimately should answer to and serve the people it governs. Thus it is up to the citizens to uphold rights through laws and culture. Does a country and its citizens have to do this? No. People don't have to do anything. But is it a rational approach to ensuring a prosperous society with opportunity? Yes.

i think you are making this one way too complicated: transgendered people are people, so if we are to talk about "human rights", than transgendered rights must also be human rights. — ProtagoranSocratist

If the rights they are asking for fit in and do not contradict human rights, then yes, they are. But in the OP its clear that some of the things being asked as rights conflict with human rights. Therefore these are not human rights.

However, I'm confused how anyone can have "a right", because wouldn't that entail an ability to do something without anyone else's capability to take away that ability? — ProtagoranSocratist

That is the general underpinning of rights. Rights are fundamental to being alive. At the most basic level, the right to life. The government should not have the power to simply say, "We're going to bomb your house for fun." People don't have the right to just kill you in the street whenever they like.

People are always talking about "the right to free speech", but people only have this right on the surface: the supreme court of the united states has decided repeatedly that speech is not an inviolable right, but only grants you a right if it feels appropriate and relevant to some legal case either you or another party brought to court. — ProtagoranSocratist

I think a more clear example is that rights often come into conflict based on context. Rights are generally contextual, not absolute. Yes, you have the right to life unless you are trying to murder another human being. Yes you have the right to free speech unless that speech is attempting to violate someone's right to privacy like breaking into your house to give them a piece of your mind.

The above rights I've examined are within the context of trans gendered individuals claim that the requests they are making are human rights, which are generally based on the context of one individual not trying to violate the rights of another, or the agreed upon standard outcome when certain human rights do conflict.

None of these resemble the questions referred to in the OP. They are, instead, questions which may be asked by most anyone most anywhere, e.g. at a Thanksgiving dinner. — Ciceronianus

You may very well come from an enlightened family where such questions are common. In many families such questions are off limits, yelled at, and discouraged. It sounds like you have not had a situation in which you've wanted to ask a question that the people around you don't want you to ask. So of course you may not be able to understand that situation.

If you disagree with my examples, do you agree or disagree with my message? If so, why?

90%+ of people alive today would not be alive, nor have ever reproduced, were it not for violence — Outlander

Outlander I'm not seeing this as relevant to the OP. I appreciate your contribution, but unless it ties into the OP in some way, this is off topic.

In short, yes, vulnerable people have every right you have, and much more. — Outlander

Of course! But are the trans gender rights that trans gender people are asking for concurrent with human rights?

I think it’s a better summary than the claptrap baloney you’ve put together. — T Clark

I didn't think the site I referenced was claptrap. That being said, I asked for and welcome alternatives. We can discuss nicely.

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

Beyond transgender parents I don't think this includes anything I didn't address in the OP. Did you read it in full TClark? Which specific points that I've made do you disagree with?

I think that the questions mentioned in the OP are so abstract that the claim there is "enormous pressure" not to ask them isn't credible. They lack context--like so much else in philosophy. Imagine enormous pressure being applied to prevent consideration of what it means to know something, or what it means to exist. — Ciceronianus

A little bit of a dive into history can show this. In many totalitarian societies on is not allowed to question the effectiveness of their government. In many religions certain questions can be considered blasphemous or sacrilegious. Cultural questions of 'Should women have the right to vote" have been seen as inconvenient, pointless, and should be silenced. Even in local cultures like family or friends, "Why do we play video games all day?" can be greeted with a "Because they're fun, shut up and press start."

People in general fall into patterns of thought and process, and generally it is inconvenient to question or deviate from these common things. Philosophy is often the discomfort of questioning the things 'we've always done that way', and might be ignored or ridiculed by others for taking the time to do so. And yet this need to question assumptions and processes is how we grow as people. How we find the nicks in our assumed logic and build better foundations of thought going forward.

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.