If someone says they are gay or transgender we have to have a really good reason to frame them as suffering from some form of mental disorder > which is a separate item to transgenderism or sexual orientation as far as we currently understand these phenomena. — I like sushi

I want to be clear that the desire to be the other sex is not a disorder. Being trans gender is not a disorder. It is when that desire starts disrupting your life to the point you cannot function normally that you have gender dysphoria. Yes, some people talk about it like teenagers talk about 'my OCD' in a slang way, but diagnosed gender dysphoria sucks.

It is not the desire to be another sex that is the disorder, it is when it consumes your life. Just like you can be depressed at times and not need medication, you can have gender dysphoric moments and manage it fine in your life. Transition is not a way of life. It is a medically prescribed coping mechanism for chronic gender dysphoria that does not respond to any other methods or medication. In my experience, these are usually not trans gender individuals, these are trans sexuals that desire the body and recognition of being the other sex. That is why it is covered by insurance. It is not a normal or natural thing for anyone to do. It is a treatment for an inability to regulate oneself normally anymore.

Are there people who want to make it a life style? Yes. I don't mind personally as long as they don't make insurance pay for it. Insurance is for treatment, not cosmetic alteration of the body for one's own pleasure. I would argue that if you have a desire to alter your body its a disorder of a different kind, but not gender dysphoria.

Maybe many people here do not appreciate that this century people will very likely be able to literally switch their bodies from male to female. — I like sushi

Could be. Stem cell research could come along finally and we could eventually change someone's sex. In science a species is considered to have changed their sex if they can serve the reproductive role of the other. So a male would shift to producing eggs which can be fertilized and hatched. A female would produce sperm to fertilize other eggs. But again, this is really trans sexuals we are talking about. Plenty of trans gender individuals have no desire to change their body. Nice contribution!

What happened to your claim that words don't have essential meaning Banno?
— Philosophim
That meanings need not be essential does not imply that words do not have any meaning. — Banno

He gave you meaning. You claimed it was conflationary. Why? How could on meaning of the term have any primacy over another meaning Banno? :)

He said:
The majority of trans people are not victims of anything but the unfortunate situation of having a mental illness.
— AmadeusD
Looks pretty clear. Most trans people have a mental illness.

You might consider what it is you are defending. — Banno

I was quoting your reply to Outlander not AmadeusD. Try to review your cited quote next time to avoid mistakes like that. You called the person in for his opinion than contradicted your own viewpoints you made earlier to slight him. Do you see why I'm not seriously debating further with you? Your bored Banno and I can take your lumps, but please don't invite people into the thread then mock them for their answer.

So you are happy to conflate transgender with gender dysphoria. — Banno

What happened to your claim that words don't have essential meaning Banno?

Transgender can mean:

Trans gender, like defined in the OP
A person who has transitioned
A person thinking of transitioning
A person with gender dysphoria

Right? He can't possibly be conflating anything then. I would think you would defend him.

If there is something that you think I've yet to respond to, set it out. — Banno

No, I think you and I are done talking about this situation. You have not been discussing that topic in a good faith or honest manner from my viewpoint. We resolved that point a while back, then you pretended it didn't exist, were disrespectful to me and our discussion and misrepresented my points and conclusions. To my view, I have not misrepresented your conclusions. You still insist that I am taking an essentialist view or 'rigid designator'. I've been over this enough times with you. I have other things to do.

I'm sorry, I found that post too long and meandering to follow. If there was a core point, it escaped me. — Banno

Not everyone has the mind for these things, that's ok.

We are engaged, I hope, in something approaching a rational discourse. — Banno

You were. You did not end that way. I don't feel you are now either.

But this does not justify treating all trans women as deceptive or illegitimate. — Banno

And this is evidence why. I never claimed this. If you express the inability to comprehend my points, then pull something I've never said and attack it, this is the evidence of someone who is floundering. Perhaps another day and topic Banno.

The majority of trans people are not victims of anything but the unfortunate situation of having a mental illness.
— AmadeusD

I'd like to see a direct response to this from Philosophim, @I like sushi, @Outlander, @ProtagoranSocratist, and @Jamal as well as @Janus. — Banno

This is an overreaction Banno. There is a fine line between mental illness and mental health issue. Technically gender dysphoria, which is what is what transition seeks to treat, is no longer classified under 'mental illness' in the DSM V. Its now a mental health condition like depression. We need to really be careful that we're not using 'prejudices' in a boy who cried wolf scenario or a cudgel in an attempt to silence honest discussion.

I notice you didn't comment on any of his points directly. That's what I'm talking about. We need to be talking, not accusing unnecessarily. Your approach is the approach to something minor like this in a general forum is that of the totalitarian Banno, not a man of free thought.

The idea that the problem is the boxes themselves doesn’t describe the experience of a lot of binary trans people, for whom the issue isn’t “why do we have categories at all?” but “why am I being put in the wrong one?” — Jamal

Because they are mistaking that people categorize by gender over sex. Its the reverse. Most people categorize by sex, then have an expectation of how you'll act by your sex. To be clear, I'm talking about trans gender individuals, not trans sexuals.

As we know, the situation for many trans men and trans women is that they seek recognition according to the common gender binary. This is crucial to their dignity, safety, mental health and day-to-day life. — Jamal

I believe we do a terrible disservice to trans people by agreeing to this. The lessons of sexism should have taught us that the reality of our bodies should not be violated by the expectation of how we use those bodies. "Women shouldn't work" has nothing to do with the reality of their body. That was gender. When Mike gets picked on by his team members for not being man enough because he likes ballet, that's gender over the reality of his sex.

In each case I would take the individual in question and state, "How someone expects you to act based on your sex, does not change your sex or bodily capabilities."

As a man, you can like ballet despite the gender expectation that you don't. As a woman, what in your DNA says you can't have a job outside of the kitchen? You are your body, and you are not obligated in any way to follow the expectations of what you should do with that body based on your sex.

The mental distress is in being rejected by people because you don't fit in with their prejudice and sexism towards your body. I would never tell a woman, "Well, since they're angry at you for working, stop working and cook in the kitchen." I would never tell a man, "Since they make fun of you for liking ballet, stop liking ballet." If someone is having issues because they do not align with prejudice and sexist expectations of them, the last thing we should be telling people is they should align with those expectations.

Instead we should stop giving any credence to people's prejudice and sexism, or gendered outlooks. Men can wear dresses, lipstick, be flighty, and talking a high voice. The point is to get society to accept that. Not to double down on sexism and say, "Well since you like those things, we're going to say you're a woman now." I genuinely find this idea to be a doubling down on sexism and prejudice an incredible mistreatment of trans gendered individuals. We don't tell people they aren't their body because they don't fit the social expectations of what others think they should do with it. We can absolutely say that you are acting in the gendered expectation of the opposite sex, but to jump to the idea that it makes you the opposite sex or gender? That's ridiculous. It just means you're your own person and shouldn't care what people expect from you.

To be clear once again, this does not apply to trans sexuals, which people often conflate with trans gendered individuals. You can be both a trans gendered and trans sexual individual, but it is not necessary at all that you be both.

That’s not a criticism of anyone; it just shows that “trans people” don't speak as one. — Jamal

Exactly. There are trans gender people who agree with my OP and much of what I've stated here. Its important that we have views that are not motivated by gender bias, but seek a way out of the bias that gender upholds.

I don't see any reason to do so, and indeed given that doing so would offend many of my friends, — Banno

The broader debate is over at this point, and I have kept out anything emotional or personal as I find these things inhibit free thought. To explain, first we discuss rationally while throwing emotions by the wayside. After we reach a rational conclusion, we reintroduce emotions. It is not that emotions, friends, family, and values of togetherness are not important. I have just observed in myself and in others that they prevent free thought. If you cannot freely consider the rational possibility that killing a puppy for fun is morally acceptable because of emotions, you're not going to come to a rational conclusion, but an emotional one. We should be against killing a puppy for fun both rationally and emotionally, and we must not fear that throwing emotions away will reveal that we cannot rationally support it.

While it may seem cruel, it is essential. I have found that examining things without emotional restrictions first helps me understand my emotions better when I add them back in. So I will do this now with the emotional appeal of why what I am proposing to think about is not prejudiced, about exclusion, or some attack on trans people to hurt them. I am doing this because I see in the world that trans people are losing good will in the world and more and more people outside of the community are starting to think they're mentally ill despite the push from doctors and upper society.

One of the issues that people are angry at is the conflationary language. "But some gender paper says...", they don't care Banno. They don't see it as relevant or important. And no, they're not stupid or bigoted. They see men trying to get into female spaces, and its pissing them off. The idea that they are being accused of bigotry because they say, "No, trans men aren't men", because they're using man as a sex reference, isn't persuading them to supporting the transgender side. And no, these are not people who 'never would have supported trans issues anyway'. This is even driving away people who initially supported the movement. Its making the trans community seem insane and controlling. When you have a people that are already seen as mentally ill, the last thing you want to do is have them support and spout irrational thoughts and phrases that only add fuel to that fire.

I think the trans community has trapped themselves in stranglehold by insisting 'trans men are men' and there is no debate, clarification, discussion, and you're a meany head if you think otherwise. The trans community needs to think, adapt, and survive. They need to start coming out of 'but my feelings' mode, and start thinking a little harder before its too late. A battle over a poorly worded phrase that creates contention in the culture is a foolish fight. Trans people should be working on how to integrate into culture and society by decreasing points of conflict. And rationally, there is absolutely nothing wrong with clarifying the phrase to mean, "Trans men are adult human females who take on the gendered role of adult human men". From my point it can be simplified even further to "Trans men are gendered men."

But baby steps because as far as I know, the only reason the community holds onto the initial phrase is because of a sort of religious ideology. Breaking it is blasphemy with the speaker being a trans apostate. This is wrong. I was hoping in the conversation here that when I got to the clarification question, that someone would give me a rational reason why clarifying was wrong. They did not. Which only confirms my observation. The attachment to the phrase is not a rational one, but an ideological one. Holding onto such things tightly is like a person who reaches into a vending machine to grab a candy bar, but cannot pull their hand out while their fist is closed. They need to start letting go.

By the way, there are trans individuals who agree with me entirely. If your interaction with others requires irrationality, they are not going to respect you. They might follow along for small interactions, but they're going to think you're crazy and look down on you. And a movement should not rely on conflationary language, an insistence that the broader culture should change how they use basic language because of feelings, or hold onto poorly worded phrases. The trans community will in my mind receive much more support if people come away interacting with them as people who understand the broader culture, speak rationally and inclusively, and have tight rational arguments that hold up on close analysis.

Finally to your friends. Offend them. Then you will find out who your friends really are. Once upon a time I was a Christian Banno. One of the good ones. I didn't use the book to discriminate, but volunteered to help people of all stripes in need. To this day I genuinely don't care what type of individual or background you have. I will treat thieves and murderers like people. But I have always been resistant to irrationality in ideologies. I took it upon myself to investigate Christianity because I wanted to demonstrate it was rational and true, and specifically went to atheists to discuss. Other people around me told me, "You can't help them," which I thought was against the message of the religion.

It is only by thinking rationally about things that I was a good Christian to begin with. And eventually I concluded decades ago that unfortunately there wasn't enough evidence there to support Christianity or even the idea of a God. The phrase, "I don't believe Christianity is real" offended many people around me. Was I intending to hurt them? No. Did I tell them their religion was a farce, they should die, have their rights to worship removed? Of course not. But many were afraid just like you are. They let emotions cloud their minds, and some no longer wanted to speak with me anymore. Would I ever compromise my logical thinking because I was afraid of not being liked by other people. Not in a million years.

The trans community can keep its internal belief systems and phrases within its own community. Everyone has the right to a belief system. But if it is going to persuade people that it isn't a cult or secular religion, its going to need to step its game up. It cannot rely on the idea that disagreement means bigotry. It is not a 'sin' to question. And emotional attachments to phrases that objectively are interpreted in ways that are not intended by society is not going to change societies interpretations. Much better to recognize pain points in communication and adjust to be more clear to get people to agree with you.

I think this is not the way to go at all. We can say we ought not needlessly conflate language. That is at the heart of what is being said here. — I like sushi

Thank you. That was the conclusion of this discussion.

This is precisely what is being contended. Conventions of language in the future MAY lead to people assuming 'woman' means practically anything in terms of gender and they may prioritse this over everything else. Then the word would likely become redundant or be converted into some form of trivial greeting like 'Hi woman!'. — I like sushi

Correct. I've said as much several times through this discussion.

If you wish for the use of language others do too. This is perfectly normal. I just do not see, in this particular case, the use. In fact, I see the opposite. I have no issue with saying 'trans gender women are women' in the context of gender. It is farcical to suggest that 'woman in the woods' vould rightly mean a trans woman. I think you will find the correct phrasing woudl be 'a trans woman in the woods'. The confusing point in amongst all of this is that I may very well see a trans woman in the woods and say I saw a woman. The very same could be said of many other items where I seea reflection and believe it is the actual item. — I like sushi

Correct. And this is one of a few arguments as to why 'woman/man' unmodified is interpreted to reference sex and not gender.

I am starting to understand the OPs frustration here now. It is far more complicated than it first appears. — I like sushi

Thank you. My frustration isn't even necessarily that Banno disagrees with this point. I even noted previously in our discussion that while I personally would think most people would agree that "Woman in the woods" was a reference to sex and not gender, I had no proof. And so I told Banno we could agree to disagree here as without proof, the conversation could not really continue along that line.

My frustration is that after what I felt was one of the better discussions I've had on these boards, Banno started to play dumb. It was because we got to a point in the discussion where I believe he was afraid of continuing, likely because he knew that rationally he might be forced to say something he personally didn't agree with. I didn't belittle him for it, but I did inform him implicitly and without threat or insult that if he did not continue to put forth effort or answer the final question where we ended, that my point would stand and the conversation would be over.

He knows I've also made more arguments than this particular example, but he's still pretending I didn't because again, he's afraid of the conclusion this leads to and doesn't have any other way of resolving that. Fear leads to anger, Yoda stuff, and then an attempt to use underhanded tactics by insulting the other person and implying they did not give any arguments or bring a genuine thoughtful engagement to the discussion. That's what I'm frustrated by. Banno is an intelligent person, but he stopped acting like it.

Anyway, you have the right idea here. My overall point is the language as it is today in historical, linguistic rules, and even normative use imply that woman/man unmodified by adjectives means a sex reference. As such, "Trans men are men" as of today and without any other context as implying that trans men are adult human men. This is an ambiguity that needs to be resolved, and if you step outside of the philosophical circle, obvious. The debate rages repeatedly over social media and in talks with other people. It is creating anger, division, and a resentment towards trans individuals that they do not deserve. All because of a desire to hold onto a poorly constructed phrase. But I will replay to Banno more on this shortly as I think he cares about this aspect more than the language discussion.

A.
I never 'slipped' back into anything.
— Philosophim
See ↪here, were I show you agreeing with the line of discussion then insisting on the primacy of one definition. — Banno

See in the OP

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

More details and arguments were added to explain why the default would be most rationally read "man/woman" unmodified as referencing sex. I never revoked that so it wasn't a slip back in.

B. You seemed to think polysemous meant ambiguous. It doesn't. It remains for you to show the ambiguity of "woman" and it's relevance. — Banno

This is word play to avoid answering the question. There can be ambiguity over polysemous words used in a phrase correct? If the term was NOT Polysemous then you would have an argument that it (implicit meaning, the phrase) is not ambiguous. All you have done is use a more advanced word when we already agree that the term woman can have multiple meanings based on context. This is not an argument against the phrase being ambiguous, just a fancy word. — Philosophim

Polysemy (/pəˈlɪsɪmi/ or /ˈpɒlɪˌsiːmi/;[1][2] from Ancient Greek πολύ- (polý-) 'many' and σῆμα (sêma) 'sign') is the capacity for a sign (e.g. a symbol, morpheme, word, or phrase) to have multiple related meanings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy

Basically you argued because the word woman can have multiple meanings in a sentence, the phrase couldn't be ambiguous. That's so poor of an argument I could only conclude you were hoping a fancy word would make me think the argument was more intelligent than it was.

C. I am not able to address your "points about it being ambiguous in regards to English phrasing and culture" until you present them. — Banno

My response:

Choosing to redefine it biologically is a deliberate, prescriptive move — not a clarification required by ordinary usage.
— Banno

No, choosing to note the difference between biology and gender is a clear clarification of the term so that the user resolves the ambiguity between sex and gender intentions in the phrase. — Philosophim

Banno, the entire debate is about the question of whether it is more rational and normative to interpret the phrase as referring to sex or gender. You played dumb because I asked the question, "What's wrong with clarifying the phrase to avoid the ambiguity?" You retreated to playing dumb because you didn't want to answer the question. I'm not going to take you seriously when you're playing dumb to avoid a question. And I'm going to claim I won the point that rationally we should clarify the phrase because you never answered it.

"Trans men are adult human females that take on the gender of adult human males" is also, in context, true, falsifying your original claim. — Banno

No, that didn't falsify my original claim at all. I noted it was more rational for woman/man to be interpreted as referencing sex. I noted that the phrase "Trans men are men" by English would be interpreted without context to mean, "Trans men are adult human men." Therefore it would be better to reduce this ambiguity by properly stating the phrase as you noted. My original claim remains true because I noted "Trans men are adult human men" is false.

It also in turn presumes that there is a single identifiable gender role adopted by adult human males. — Banno

Not at all. It means the reference to gender in regards to males can be stated. In no way does it define what that gender is for males by the individual, culture, or human race. Gender is a social construct, meaning it is subjective and malleable. Meaning one person could view that men wear top hats, women don't. Another person can say women wear top hats, and men don't. Each has their own personal gendered view of what men should do.

There's a rhetorical strategy here, repeated several times, of insisting that folk who critique you are being disrespectful. It failed when used towards Jamal and it fails here. — Banno

Let see, what did you JUST post...?

That's a pattern that has been seen many times here - were a careful philosophical analysis is rejected because it doesn't fit a particular prejudice. It's a refusal to follow the argument where it leads, and accept the outcome. Sad, but ubiquitous. — Banno

"Sad". Was that intended to be respectful Banno? Or was Jamals accusation that my original post is prejudiced, without any reason mind you, respectful? I upheld my side of the argument at the end while you gave up. Then you tried presenting it as if you won while disparaging me? That's pathetic Banno. I'm most upset because I thought we had a good conversation up to this point. We didn't agree on everything, but we didn't try to play dumb games like this.

Philosophim, put briefly, you have agreed that the OP is flawed, that there are indeed ways in which "A trans woman is a woman" is true, but insisted that one definition has primacy, because it is more "rational", without having given an adequate explanation of what that rationality amounts to. — Banno

Again, this is playing dumb. I've mentioned English, 'cis' and 'trans', and the fact that if you ask a person "Imagine a woman in the woods" then after ask, "Did you envision an adult human female or an adult human male," they'll say, "Adult human female". I've addressed all of this already. If you don't agree that's fine, but that doesn't prove that my statements were wrong.

I've already covered all this, we've already discussed all of this, and you failed to present a coherent argument when it came time to argue against the ambiguity of the term and why we shouldn't just clarify the phrase. I'm about done at this point. All of that discussion and either you remember none of it, or just glossed over it because you want a particular outcome that you didn't earn. I think I've had enough of this drama and this is no longer about debating, but about debating what was said. I'm not interested in this beyond an initial defending of my name. Enjoy the last word, but I am done with this discussion with you now.

Then, when the conclusion was reached that there are ways of understanding "Trans women are women" that are true, Philosophim slipped back to insisting that there is a preferred definition of "woman", maintaining that the word is ambiguous rather than polysemous while refusing to justify that claim. — Banno

A. I never 'slipped' back into anything. That was the statement from the OP on. I just gave more reasons why it was rational for people to assume that 'woman/man' is read as a sex reference, both from a stand point of English, and the ambiguity of the statement itself. I did not see you counter this point effectively at all Banno.

B. I said the phrase was ambiguous, and that your point that the term was polysemous (has multiple meanings) was not a counter that the phrase was not ambiguous. Did you think using a fancy word made the argument any less ineffective than it was? Isn't one of the key possibilities of an ambiguous phrase is that it can have 'multiple meanings"? I'm not sure why you thought this was a good argument.

C. You not only did not address my points about it being ambiguous in regards to English phrasing and culture, you also refused to answer a very simple question: "What's wrong with changing the phrase to be more clear?" You and I both know why. "Trans men are adult human females that take on the gender of adult human males." has no ambiguity, is perfectly clear, and no rational argument against it. You didn't answer, because you knew the only reason you could be against it is that you wanted to avoid the clear distinction between sex and gender.

That's a pattern that has been seen many times here - were a careful philosophical analysis is rejected because it doesn't fit a particular prejudice. It's a refusal to follow the argument where it leads, and accept the outcome. Sad, but ubiquitous. — Banno

You're talking to yourself in the mirror here Banno. I never disrespected you in the discussion despite our different conclusions in the end. But there is a fairly iron rule in debate. The first to insult instead of carefully lay out their argument is the one who lost the debate. Its because you have nothing at that point to counter the other person.

I'm sorry, but you failed to make that case that the phrase, "Trans men are men" was not ambiguous in English, or that woman/man unmodified were more likely to be read as referring to gender than sex. You gave up, which is why I won that point. I'm pretty sure that's why Jamal showed up. Because we can't possibly come to a conclusion that a slogan that is purposefully phrased to be conflationary with sex, have its intentions clearly spelled out. It must be that anyone who criticizes the phrase "Trans men are men" in any way can't demonstrate it rationally. If they did, that would destroy the poor idea that this phrase holds any special meaning or needs to be upheld in any way in the broader culture. Or maybe there's another reason. I wouldn't know because you didn't answer.

It's idiotic to assert or believe (1). — Michael

Michael if your best counter argument is calling people idiots and you still won't answer, "The question", there's really nothing you're contributing to the discussion anymore.

The sentence "trans men are men" isn't ambiguous, just as the sentences "bats are flying mammals" and "bats are used in baseball" are not ambiguous. — Michael

Hello again Michael. The above is a statement, but I'm not seeing any reason that backs this statement. Please refer to the reason's I gave you earlier explaining why it is ambiguous, and present reasons why you think this is wrong.

Anyone who isn't being intentionally dense can figure out the particular meaning of a homonym by just considering the sentence as a whole. — Michael

Incorrect. This is begging the question. Again, this needs to be fleshed out more and address the points I made to you earlier.

So it is a very obvious strawman to interpret "trans men are men" as "biological women who identify as men are biological men". — Michael

It is not at all. Go out to reddit, youtube, and check. Many, MANY people are assuming that 'men' in isolation is referring to sex. Calling them idiots is not an argument. My point is that the phrase conflicts too much with the normal use of the English language, and that it rationally defaults to mean 'sex reference' without the introduction of context. Thus why it is ambiguous. Because you have to have special outside knowledge to understand the phrase as it is, in addition to the reuse of a term which is the basis of gender instead of gender itself.

But, I notice you didn't answer my question again. You see I understand that you're trying to pull the above to avoid clarifying the phrase. That's your real motivation. So I'm going to ask this: "If it is the case that it is ambiguous and difficult for society to understand based on current culture and language, is there a problem with clarifying the phrase to be "Trans men are adult human females who act in the gendered ways of adult human males?" Since you seem so resistant to it, I would rather you just answer why you are instead of avoid it again. We're here to talk about difficult concepts, not avoid them.

Oh, and I guess I should address your analogy too. Its not quite on par.

Female can mean sex, or the gender of that sex
"Bats are female"
"Trans bats are female"

That's a proper analogy. The phrases alone do not indicate what female means clearly.

Yes, great addition.

It's social engineering. Effectively making any person do things they otherwise wouldn't do, generally immoral, dangerous, or destructive things by suggesting if they don't they're not "normal" or "not a man" or "not a woman" or whatever it is they're supposed to "be like" per social opinion. — Outlander

I think an evaluation of gender is probably a good topic for another thread. But to comment, yes gender is a social prejudice on sexes to control their behavior. Is that good or bad? I think there can be a good debate here to see. My feeling is that its not always bad and that there are probably some good reasons for it. I think the bad reasons are obvious, but I don't want that to color gender entirely black.

Ah, yes. Back on track. This stands to reason since, per definition of the OP, "gender" is a reference to cultural norms. How many cultures are there on Earth? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Millions, perhaps, counting sub-cultures and small civilizations, perhaps unheard of? Sure. So, one may argue it would simply be—not just difficult or inaccurate—but impossible to account for something that varies from social sphere to social sphere ("social expectation of behavior" ie. gender, if you define it as such) in favor of something absolute and constant (sex).

That much is understandable. Isn't it? :chin: — Outlander

This doesn't quite work out because when we're saying 'woman' means 'gender of adult human females', we're not saying what that specific gender is. As long as its only referencing the concept of gender itself, it should be universal to all cultures.

↪Philosophim The main criticism I can see being directed at you here is that you are veering away from the usual academic usage of the term 'gender'? — I like sushi

I don't think so. I am of course separating trans gender from trans sexual when this is often blended together in general culture. I find the terms different enough to warrant separation in the discussion. This is mainly because there are real people who are trans gender, but not trans sexual. And there are real trans sexual people who are not trans gender. So its important not to conflate the two as they are actually different.

I have come across scientists in the past who attacked people for even suggesting there were different 'races' because they could not think of anything else other than the biological definition of 'race' (where clearly they are correct). This is what I think may have happened in this thread. — I like sushi

Pretty much. I think people have argued correctly that man and woman can be read in a gendered way, but they have not given a good argument in that it should be read that way 50/50 or better than a referent to sex, nor given any good reason why the phrase is not a poor phrase that leads to ambiguity, confusion, and for some reason doesn't need to be clarified.

My point is, just because a given society or even world has a "social expectation" of something (in this case, per my story, being vulgar or edgy, or perhaps in another time, accepting and supportive of slavery), doesn't mean it should be treated as if it has the same class of relevance as "sex", something that is rooted in the absolute. — Outlander

Yes. Gender is subjective to the person and the culture. If a group of individuals believe "Woman shouldn't work and be in the kitchen," that's gender. Elevating the subjectivity of gender over the objectivity of sex, at least in law, is going to run into many problems.

This (that is to say the current impasse) seems to be more of a social issue involving words and meaning of words. Not exactly a deep pool of philosophy, IMO. Unless I missed something? — Outlander

Correct. Mine is an observation that the majority of society and the current default rules of the English language lead 'man or woman' unaltered by adjectives to be interpreted as a sex reference, not a gender reference. This is a philosophical study, because we can analyze how current society views terms, then argue, "But should they?" The primary issue that people have with the OP is that they believe the gendered view of the term in the phrase is clearly and unambiguously seen as a gender reference. My experience and analysis show otherwise.

My conclusion over the course of the conversation is that because the term is ambiguous when read without context, as well as not the normal interpretation of the word in such a phrase, that it makes more sense to clarify the term to clearly indicate what it means. The people arguing against me do not want to clarify the phrase to clearly explain what it means. The weak argument given is that it is "Not ambiguous" despite the fact that the phrase clearly is. Otherwise we wouldn't be having these debates over its meaning.

The reluctance to explain the phrase more fully does not seem rational, but emotional. They're afraid I think of mentioning biology at all, likely because they think this will lead to bigotry or some other silliness. What they don't realize is bigotry thrives on deceptive terms, and that honest philosophical discourse requires clear and unambiguous language for clear thought. Unfortunately there still seems to be a lot of fear and anger around really digging into the topic. My hope is that helps fix that a bit.

Meaning all you have in response to an honest and friendly critique is rhetoric, so it isn't worth pursuing in the philosophical spirit in which I intervened on both occasions (page 2 and today). — Jamal

I recall I clearly pointed out how you are NOT being friendly or honest in your critique. I have yet to see you even attempt to tackle that, look inward a bit, or even an apology or an attempt to start over. Nice try.

Each time, you respond not with argument but effectively by sticking your fingers in your ears and attempting to disguise it with bluster. — Jamal

No I think the citation of original context and points backed with reasons are an effective argument, because you come back with bluster instead of addressing them.

I admit it’s particularly galling this time around because I was very deliberately friendly, attempting to re-open the exchange in good faith. — Jamal

By starting it off saying my original post was prejudiced without explaining why? Good faith wouldn't have been trying to defend yourself two months after the fact and complimenting another poster I've been discussing with as "Having a strong argument" without any reason why. Please.

Or am I wrong? — Jamal

Yes Jamal. You're wrong. You were wrong on your first logical fallacy post, wrong on the second double down post, and are wrong in trying to save face instead of moving on. I really have nothing else to say to you as you have done nothing to prove to me you have any intention of an honest debate.

I should have known better. — Jamal

Nice to see we can agree on something. Have a good day Jamal, its not personal on my part.

As with every area that involves personal freedoms there are bad actors and good actors. I do think this topic has kind of started to level off now, but maybe not. It would be nice to see people acting on blind prejudices and just discussing in a reasonable manner. It can be hard sometimes though if the topic concerns yourself personally and there is an emotionally charged vibe in the room. — I like sushi

I think its about leveled off too. Part of the reason I made the post is to get a good conversation started. The topic was forbidden and taboo for a long time, and people were mostly afraid of thinking about it. Those are the things we need to think about the hardest. When someone tries to silence you, you need to speak up even more. As for the 'where should trans gender people be allowed topic', I feel that's a good follow up to the this thread, but probably not a great topic in the thread itself.

But since you seem to me now to be motivated by some idea of philosophical clarity and rigour rather than by prejudice, I think it's worth my explaining more carefully what I meant, because it's directly relevant to how the discussion is unfolding now. — Jamal

I was never motivated by prejudice, and I resent the assumption without clear reason. The accusation that I was motivated by prejudice is begging the question. Do you understand when you open with a line like that, that it poisons everything you're going to say afterwards? You should always assume that someone is trying to be philosophical first, and only after a discussion is properly engaged should you piece together that the person is prejudiced.

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

(The same pattern for “woman”; and “male” understood biologically.)

In isolation, this does not technically beg the question, because the conclusion isn't present in the premises. — Jamal

Correct. Which means it doesn't beg the question.

But it does beg the question in the context of the debate, because the very meaning of "man" and "woman" is exactly what is disputed—and you stipulate one of the contested meanings as a premise. — Jamal

How so?

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

That's both a premise and a reason why the premise was chosen. Now you could easily come back with, "I don't think that because the majority of people think man/woman are references to sex, that this is a reason it should be defined this way." Or you could say, "I don't think the majority of the world defines man/woman as sex referents." But begging the question? If I had stated, "man means sex reference" and did not back that statement, or double down if people asked me to prove why and I provided no reason, that would be begging the question. That is not what happened.

You insist on one definition but don’t properly engage with the arguments that challenge it. — Jamal

Where? Anytime anyone has brought forward the idea that man and woman can also be defined in terms of gender, I've agreed. This discussion has evolved over 2 months and as long as people have engaged honestly, I have engaged back honestly adjusting, clarifying, and agreeing to other points. You're making accusations again without any backing.

As Michael and @Banno have been getting at, there are serious philosophical arguments—cluster-concept analyses, social-kind analyses, externalist semantic approaches, etc.—that claim "man" and "woman" do not have the fixed boundaries your definition tries to impose — Jamal

They made good points and I agreed that there can be other definitions for man/woman. As you just noted, this was in the OP. And to my mind, neither of them were able to indicate that man/woman without adjectives are normally and most rationally seen as defining a gendered meaning over sex. If you've been following along like you seem to have, that should be clear.

Pointing this out is not an ad hominem, contrary to what you said here:

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

You're going to reference posts that weren't your own and way after you posted to try to absolve yourself of your Ad Hominim attack against me? Lets go back to the full original context of that:

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

Now this is a proper logical fallacy called Ad Hominem. — Philosophim

I helped put that little bit in bold which is the Ad Hominem. You have no idea what I've researched and haven't. You directed an accusation of ignorance against me that you couldn't back instead of the position I was maintaining. Of course I didn't have a problem with you noting the debate has been going on for years. I had an issue with your assumption that I had not done research, and that just made ME incapable of addressing the argument. You could have stated, "This is part of the debate that counters your point." "I'll cite X which shows why you're wrong." Not, "You're ignorant and obviously wrong because I'm going to assume you haven't read things I know about but won't actually say."

That your syllogism is valid is trivial. The entire debate is about one of the premises. Everyone already agrees that if "man" is necessarily biologically male, then trans men are not men. To repeat, the dispute is over the "if". — Jamal

And "if" you actually proposed an argument of alternatives instead of trying to excuse your earlier logical fallacies, we might have had a good debate. You might have even changed my mind. I would much rather know that I am wrong then run around actually being wrong while thinking I'm holding what is right. Good philosophical debate is not inherently antagonistic but should be a partnership of thought between two people trying to determine an outcome. You got in the way of that Jamal.

NOTE: I haven't closely followed the discussion so if you have developed your argument to support the definition, I'd like to see it. But Banno seems to be mounting a strong challenge. — Jamal

So you have been following the discussion closely enough to attempt to make claims about what Banno is saying, you seem ignorant to what I've been saying, but you think Banno is a strong challenge? I think the timing of you coming into the thread after two months is a bit suspicious. I think you or someone messaged you because they realized Banno was NOT making a strong challenge at the end when he refused to answer a question of mine. Why else wait until now Jamal? This is also not a slight on Banno. He engaged fairly, made many good points, and I have a ton of respect for him from this thread.

Language games are attempts to use language to confuse concepts.
— Philosophim

I'm just going to butt in here to point out that the term has a technical sense, to be found in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations — Jamal

I'm sure Banno is perfectly capable of referencing that if that was his intention. From my point in the context of the discussion, I did not feel that Wittenstein's term was what was implied. Its odd that out of that entire discussion you pulled one line that really wasn't key to the core argument. Was this another attempt to make me look ignorant to persuade people I'm not worth listening to? Didn't really work Jamal.

I would invite you to engage the topic in good faith, but do you have the mindset and discipline to do so? Since this is the second time you've attempted to double down on accusations of my character, and you tried to defend against a two month old accusation of Ad Hominem without referencing the full context, I don't know. A proper reset from you would be nice Jamal. Otherwise I don't think there's much to speak further on.

If you insist that only sex counts, then of course only reasons grounded in sex will seem “viable.” But that is a choice of rule—part of how you are choosing to play the language-game. — Banno

No, I think that's just logic. If spaces are divided by sex, then only sex should be considered for those spaces. Language games are attempts to use language to confuse concepts. The 'game' is manipulation of the language for an end. I'm genuinely not trying to manipulate for an end, but trying to establish clear concepts to reason through issues relating to sex and gender clearly.

I just want to be clear the conversation has at no point involved trans sexuals or their particular considerations.
— Philosophim
Why not? Seems odd to exclude them. But whatever. — Banno

The reason is what we can consider in law. I do not think there is a single viable reason to allow a trans gender person in cross sex spaces. There are viable considerations in allowing trans sexuals in cross sex spaces.

That might be an end, then. — Banno

I think so. Its been good to explore.

Ok, point taken.

But it remains that a transgender person may change their physiology. — Banno

Of course. But once they are a trans gender person who is also now a trans sexual. I just want to be clear the conversation has at no point involved trans sexuals or their particular considerations.

Banno, go re-read as I noted, its already been said several times. I also never equated polysemous with ambiguous, please read my point again.
— Philosophim
At the very least, provide a link. — Banno

No. There are some things so obvious in the conversation that its not worth me addressing. Your inability to address what is obvious was already indicated to me as a way to avoid answering 'the question'. Indicate to me that you are genuine in your point by actually addressing the ambiguity claims that I made and I will take it more seriously.

Sure. But transgender people do change their biology. All transsexual people are transgender. Not all transgender people are transsexual. Transgender includes transsexuality. — Banno

Factually incorrect as defined here. You can be a trans sexual and decide to follow the gender of your natal sex. You can be be a trans gender and decide not to change any aspect of your biology. This describes real individuals and is not simply theory.

If there is an ambiguity, set it out. Polysemous does not mean ambiguous. — Banno

Banno, go re-read as I noted, its already been said several times. I also never equated polysemous with ambiguous, please read my point again.

No, physical characteristics are not involved.
— Philosophim
Of course they are. Beards, tats, body building, breast reduction... — Banno

No, this entire conversation has been referring to trans gender individuals. Whether they are also trans sexual or not is irrelevant to the discussion up until now.

Being transgender, perhaps, does not require it; but transgender folk do change their "biology" - your word. — Banno

No, that is not my word. That is a trans sexual. There is no requirement that changing your biology means you are a trans gender individual.

They are two separate terms.
— Philosophim
Indeed, and these are neither exclusive nor complete. — Banno

They have been exclusive in the context of this entire conversation. I understand that transgender can be short hand for 'trans gender or trans sexual' in other contexts, but I clearly defined trans gender to not involve trans sexuals to keep the conversation focused. If you want to address trans sexuals, this is separate from the conversation we've had so far.

I have. I'm not going to repeat myself unnecessarily.
— Philosophim
Ok. Then the point is rendered moot. — Banno

If you mean your point that "I have not pointed out the ambiguity involved" has been rendered moot, yes.

Back to call-and-answer, so not expecting much now. A pity. — Banno

Banno, I've been polite and respectful with you. Don't ruin that with a snide remark please.

If you think it ambiguous, set out the ambiguity. — Banno

I have. I'm not going to repeat myself unnecessarily.

But if instead we can agree that trans men are (often) female adult humans who take on male social and physical characteristics, we might do better. — Banno

No, physical characteristics are not involved. That would indicate a trans sexual who is attempting to change their biology, not a trans gender individual. A trans gender individual requires no hormones or bodily alterations. And a trans sexual is not required to be trans gendered. They are two separate terms.

That's why the unambiguous version of the phrase only mentions the actions of a sex taking on the gender of another sex, not the expected sex characteristics of the other sex.

Choosing to redefine it biologically is a deliberate, prescriptive move — not a clarification required by ordinary usage. — Banno

No, choosing to note the difference between biology and gender is a clear clarification of the term so that the user resolves the ambiguity between sex and gender intentions in the phrase. I have not seen any argument here that indicates the phrase is not ambiguous, so nothing else to add from me.

It's not an ambiguity. It's Polysemy. It's not that the meaning is unclear, but that there are multiple uses. — Banno

This is word play to avoid answering the question. There can be ambiguity over polysemous words used in a phrase correct? If the term was NOT Polysemous then you would have an argument that it is not ambiguous. All you have done is use a more advanced word when we already agree that the term woman can have multiple meanings based on context. This is not an argument against the phrase being ambiguous, just a fancy word.

As long as you avoid my question Banno, my point stands. There is nothing wrong with clarifying the phrase "Trans men are men" to "Trans men are adult human females who exhibit the gender of adult human males." Unless you are willing to answer the question, I think we've reached the end of that discussion.

This amounts to special pleading - deliberately ignoring those aspects that are unfavourable to your argument. — Banno

This is an assertion, not an argument. I'm seeing no evidence that this is so.

There is always a personal or social context. — Banno

There is always a context, but that context can also be the rules of the language itself. I am not seeing any reason why this isn't true from your assertion.

You admit that the gendered version is also "one sense is what is rationally interpreted in English and culture as of today", yet insist on the primacy of the sexed version. — Banno

Now you're ignoring what I just said. I am not insisting like it is my decision. I am observing it is so by the rules of English and broader culture. We can agree to disagree at this point because this requires proof at this point. I've provided the example of 'A woman in the woods" and you have not provided anything that would dissuade me that by default, people see 'woman' or 'man' unmodified as a reference to physical sex. And that's fine. None of us have the ability to do a statistical analysis and poll people like I've proposed. This is a point in the conversation where proof is needed, but by consequence there is nothing wrong with either of us holding our belief to a statement until such proof is gathered.

So on this, I'm not sure there is anything more to be said. However what did need to be said was the answer to my question. You don't even have to agree on the way most people will interpret the phrase, but it is clear there is more than one way to interpret the phrase, and as such it is ambiguous. One of the essential tenants in philosophy is a disambiguation of terminology to allow clear thinking and rational thought. Anyone who is against getting rid of ambiguity in phrasing is being dishonest and manipulative in a discussion if they are not ignorant or rationally deficient. I do not believe you are ignorant or rationally deficient.

So I can only assume at this point that your attachment to the phrase is not rational, but a need for the ambiguity. By your own approach to language, you cannot rationally claim that it cannot be interpreted in more than one way. There can be no good reason to hold onto and insist on ambiguity in terms when we have the option of clarifying them. If I do not hear an answer to the question in your next post, I will conclude that I will have won the point that it should be clarified because I am upholding proper philosophical discourse and you have not demonstrated that I am not.

You can when language is stated without context.
— Philosophim
There is no language without context. — Banno

There is language without conveyed personal or social context, and when that happens we default to the context of the language, such as English.

Is there a problem with clarifying the phrase so there is no ambiguity or confusion?
— Philosophim
But this is not what you are doing. You are choosing one sense over the other. — Banno

No, I am observing that one sense is what is rationally interpreted in English and culture as of today. It is not my choice, it is again, an observation.

As such, the phrase should be clarified to not be interpreted incorrectly to the underlying intent of the phrase.

Now, I'll ask again. If you avoid answering this time, I'm going to assume what I assumed about Michael. If the phrase is ambiguous and likely to be misinterpreted, then it is a poor phrase for accurate communication. Whether you understand it is not the point. Its that the phrase can both mean and be interpreted as a claim of sex and not gender. Is there anything rationally wrong with clarifying the phrase to convey its meaning without any ambiguity or misinterpretation? "Trans men are adult human females who act in gendered ways of adult human males?"

There can be no "what someone would hold to be true read alone without further context". Language is always embedded in life. — Banno

You can when language is stated without context. At that point we default to the general rules of English. Just like most people would do if we saw the sentence, "The moon is sweet" without context.

You are simply giving primacy to one context - the biological one. — Banno

No, I am simply noting that given the English language and broader culture, the phrase "Trans men are men" is going to be seen as claiming that a trans man is the same as 'an adult human female', thus it needs clarity.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Michael. Is there a problem with clarifying the phrase so there is no ambiguity or confusion?

...for English and general culture, it is most rational to read 'woman' unmodified to refer to 'sex', and not gender.
— Philosophim
This appears contrary to
We'd agreed that "woman" might be considered to to mean "female adult human", or it might be "one who adopts a certain social role".
— Banno
Which you accepted. That is, you are giving an unjustified primacy to one interpretation. — Banno

It is not contrary to note that while there can be different interpretations based on context, one context is less likely to be interpreted when introduced to another context. "Rational" is not a prejudice, it is a claim of what the English language is like and the way most will interpret a phrase in isolation. Let me give a different example. "The moon is sweet." In general English, this indicates that the moon tastes sweet. But in the context of another conversation with a few teenagers, we might find it is a phrase where 'sweet' means 'awesome', and isn't referring to the taste at all.

If these two teenagers went to people who didn't know this context, and didn't know the teenagers at all, the phrase alone would most likely trigger people to think, "They are saying the moon tastes sweet." Notice how the two contexts can be both true, but when the sentence is taken alone one context is more likely to be interpreted than the other.

And that specific part is what I'm pointing out with 'trans men are men'. Yes, there is a context that this can be true when 'men' unmodified refers to the gender of adult human men. But it is not rationally what someone would hold to be true read alone without further context. As such, while it may be understood in a smaller group of people, most people are going to see the phrase as claiming the second unmodified man or woman as a sex reference. In my time exploring this issue and going to several different groups of people, this has also been my observed outcome. As such, the phrase is poor and causes confusion among the greater culture. It should therefore be clarified to 'Trans men are adult human females that act in gendered terms like an adult human male." If this is what the phrase is intended to mean, then there should be no objection to increased clarity of the phrase so that people outside of the gendered community understand.

I don't understand. We agreed, I'd thought, that there need not be a single fundamental definition for a word, but that we might look to how a word is used in order to make sense of it's meaning. We'd agreed that "woman" might be considered to to mean "female adult human", or it might be "one who adopts a certain social role". — Banno

Correct.

In your OP you claimed that "a trans woman is a woman" is false, on the grounds that a trans woman is not an adult human female. But if we understand "woman" as being used as "one who adopts a certain social role", then "A trans woman is a woman" is equivalent to "A trans woman adopts a certain social role" and is true. — Banno

Also correct.

So contrary to the OP, there is an interpretation of "a trans woman is a woman" that is true. — Banno

Not quite. Yes, there is an interpretation of 'a trans woman is a woman' that is true. What I note in the OP is that while it might be true if one knows the context behind the phrase, for English and general culture, it is most rational to read 'woman' unmodified to refer to 'sex', and not gender. As such, it is a poor phrase to use in the general context of language as the phrase in isolation is most likely to be interpreted incorrectly. As such, the phrase should be more detailed and changed to something like "Trans men are adult human females who follow adult human male gender expectations."

I believe where we agreed to disagree was the general interpretation of the phrase in broad language and culture. I contest that 'woman' or 'man' without adjective modifiers is in most cases seen as 'adult human sex', whereas you don't.

I don't think you've necessarily disagreed with my logic if 'woman' by default is seen in the larger culture as adult human female.
— Philosophim
I am indeed disagreeing with that, in so far as you take it to be fundamental. “Adult human female” is one salient use of woman in many contexts. But I’m rejecting the claim that this use is somehow the foundational, default, or conceptually governing one in English. — Banno

To be clear, it is not that this cannot change, or that we can't argue it can't change. It is very possible for language norms to change over time, and maybe one day people will think of "A woman in the woods" and will envision an adult human male or female with equal likelihood. But as of today, that is not how most people envision 'woman' without adjectives. It still defaults to "Adult human female", and as such the phrase 'trans women are women' would do better by adding clarity to the phrase to avoid ambiguous intent and incorrect interpretation in the larger culture.

Perhaps mathematicians and physicists are taught differently, but when talking to my contemporaries and reading posts on this forum, I notice that society’s idea of quantum mechanics or relativity is more like “oh, just another more precise formula” rather than “guys, actually reality is arranged radically differently.” — Astorre

It is best not to take the general viewpoints of people who are not in the field or can cite the exact background. Many higher level ideas are captured and watered down into concepts that are palatable to the average person.

1. A problem has one correct answer.
2. Facts are objective.
3. The world is linear, comprehensible and obeys rules. — Astorre

You also shouldn't take children's textbooks as a basis for good education. Even in the ancient world there were multiple solutions to a problem. Part of the art of geometry is finding multiple means to find different solutions.

Facts are still objective. If someone is telling you that something subjective is a fact, they're simply wrong.

The world still is linear. Time travel has not happened yet, the point has been to approach the world with the intent to comprehend it, and rules are written claims of that comprehension. Carl Popper born in 1902, a key contributer to the modern day scientific method always took the approach that what is known should be falsifiable, and that new knowledge could come along and change our comprehension of the world.

But the world we live in keeps showing us that something is wrong. — Astorre

Nothing is wrong. Most people are just average as they've always been. Most people don't know of or understand Descartes "Medititations". Most aren't physicists or mathematicians, and their world does not require precision or complete understanding.

Based on what I’ve seen, I have identified the following groups — Astorre

None of these are new. These types of people have existed since the human race began.

For them, reality has always been fluid, multiple, controlled attention. They wonder why seniors cling to "facts" and "logic" when it's obvious that the world works differently. — Astorre

This has always been the case. Galileo was tried by the church because he supported the Copernican model of the Earth revolving around the sun. There will always be people who follow logic, science, and defy the social order. There will always be idiots who try them. There will always be people who do not fully understand them. The discoveries and claims of these individuals may not even be of any important to most people of their time. Did the average town person care that the Sun was at the center of the universe? Didn't exactly feed their family one way or another.

If you say to him: "There is no truth, everything depends on your point of view," he will not become a philosopher. He will lose his mind or become a cynical beast. A terrible fork is obtained: — Astorre

That's because this is a stupid saying. To state, "There is no truth," you are asserting truth. There will always be stupid and short sighted people who claim truth to things that objectively make no sense. Just point it out and ignore them.

• We dont leave the old education: We release people with a "solid" consciousness into a "liquid" world. They are looking for stability, which is not there. They break down, facing the chaos of society and the market. They feel cheated. — Astorre

The stability and rational view of the world are there. The frustration is often in the fact that most other people don't care. Living rationally is not a natural outcome, it is a choice that someone must actively make in the temptation of competing pressures from people who are not rational.

It may very well be that the old education is the only thing that keeps today's world from falling apart. — Astorre

It is not the 'old' education. It is education which is logical, clear in thought, and seeks proof over ego and self-assurance in one's viewpoint of the world. It has never gone out of style because its never been in style. Very few people are able to have the education, training, and fortitude to hold actual rationality as the standard to approach the world. Most of us use rationalization, or 'explanations that make us feel like we are justified in our view points'. This has never changed.

So don't worry too much! The world will be the same as it always has, the question is whether you will take up the mantle of being rational in the face of a world which often is not. Nothing is coming to an end and we are not losing our way. The world has always been like this.

Why don't you sleep on it, come back tomorrow and answer my question? You're not in the correct mindset right now to have a coherent discussion with. Have a good day today Michael, I'll look for your answer tomorrow.

It’s common sense that there is no widespread mass psychosis about the sex organs of transgender people. — Michael

Wow. Tripling down on using "Common sense" as a viable argument? I don't know what to say anymore that you haven't screamed to everyone reading your post.

Also, where in this discussion did I claim mass psychosis? Where did that even come from? Are you enjoying that straw man you're beating on in the corner to avoid the question I asked?

The very words people use proves beyond all reasonable doubt that they are not hallucinating or delusional. — Michael

This is also incredibly deficient. So anytime anyone says words, that means they are not hallucinating or delusional? Michael. You're caught in something that is stopping you from thinking clearly. Break out of it. Do not become what you know you hate.

You’re just doubling down on a completely unreasonable accusation, and then shifting the burden of proof. — Michael

Hard to make that case when you're ignoring the question I asked and spouting logical fallacies like "Common sense" as a viable argument. Your mind is captured Michael. You're letting emotions block you from thinking clearly. Take some time to quietly think about what has been said so far and come back later. I've been where you are before. Its ok. Remember that we should carefully consider all outcomes. Remember your years of understanding rational thought, fallacies, and taking every emotion that prevents you from doing so, and put them to the side. Right now you're not at your best.

There are delusional people who believe this.
— Philosophim

That some people suffer from psychosis does not justify your position. — Michael

And I noted that its not nearly important as the follow up, which is how people are going to interpret the phrase. So a little logical fallacy of avoidance.

Common sense is sufficient to understand — Michael

Are you seriously doubling down that "Common sense" is an argument? That's embarrassing. You're supposed to be versed in philosophy, rational thinking, and good arguments. You just glossed over the point that someone can easily say its "Common sense" that a man refers to sex, like countless people do today. You sound like a fool for doubling down on that.

Finally, you ignored my question. Which means you are against clarifying the language. So maybe you are ignorant despite your 16 thousands posts because you actually think a doubling down on an argument from "Common sense" would make people think, "Oh gee, he's right!" instead of imagining a conservative hick in the woods advocating against gay marriage.

But I'm going to assume you're not. I'm going to assume you're reasonably intelligent, understand common logical fallacies, and can think rationally. So this leaves me to consider that you are being deceptive with language, a malicious action that deserves no place in philosophical discussion. In terms of honest and clear discussion, I am the one holding onto clarity while you are using language for an outcome you desire.

Do you really want to come across as so afraid of clarifying language because you think it will go against an outcome that you want down the road? If the outcome you want down the road is the most rational, then it should be easily defended and argued for with clear language and communication. How are you any different from a Christian who insists on not clarifying their terms? A backwards conservative who ignores points in a discussion to double down on something they simply want? Come on Michael, I know you have a better intellect than that. Address my question. Do not be afraid.

Again, if you interpret the phrase “trans men are men” as “trans men are biologically male” then that’s on you.

Do you honestly believe that people who say this are delusional about someone’s sex organs? Do you honestly believe that trans men imagine themselves to have a penis? — Michael

There are delusional people who believe this. I've been around online and in trans circles. But what is more relevant is that a person who hears the phrase is most likely to interpret the phrase as claiming they have changed actual sex. That's why its a poor phrase and needs to be clarified. "Common sense" is not an argument because to people who interpret solitary to 'man' to reference sex, that's also "Common sense" to them. Charity is given to people who are seen as rational and honest in debate, and it must be earned through discussion. Many people lie, are delusional, ignorant, uneducated, and attempt to deceive others. Consider that many in the culture think that a trans person is already mentally ill (Not saying they are, it is an observation) why should they think this person isn't claiming to be the other sex?

So I'll ask you very plainly. If its an unclear phrase to most people and is most rationally interpreted alone to reference sex when that is not the intention, why double down on it? Rationally, there should be no issue with saying, "Yeah, I guess it can come across like that. Lets adjust the phrase to be more accurate so the broader culture understands." Just like there should be no essentialist attachment to 'men' to always refer to sex, there should be no essentialist attachment for 'men' to always refer to gender. If the goal is to clearly communicate the reality of the situation, any provably ambiguous language and phrasing should be clarified. So why are you against it? Because unless a good reason is stated, people who advocate for unclear language are using language in a way which conveys they are confused, uneducated, or ignorant at best. At worst, its a person attempting to manipulate language for an outcome that they desire, which is deceptive, malicious, and wrong.

So unless you can explain to me why you're advocating and insisting that a provably ambiguous phrase shouldn't be clarified to remove its ambiguity, I have no recourse but to assume you fit one one of the adjectives above in this debate.

I think that if you interpret the phrase “trans men are men” as “trans men are biologically male” then that’s on you. — Michael

No, that is a perfectly legitimate and rational interpretation of the phrase in isolation. It is on the speaker to provide clear phrasing. Do you agree "Trans men are adult human females who take on the gendered role of men" is a much better sentence to clearly communicate the intent of the phrase? Do you think you would get in debate over the phrase itself, or would it then open the conversation to discuss 'trans men' with this clearly understood context between two people?

As philosophers, we must be advocates of clear, unambiguous, and rational phrases and language when discussing ideas. "Trans men are men" alone can be legitimately interpreted with the singular 'men' being either 'sex' or 'gendered'. Based on current culture and English rules and norms, it is more rational for a person reading the phrase without context to interpret it to mean the noun sex referent. Thus it is a poor phrase if a person coming from the still niche gender culture and language wants to communicate the concept, "Trans men are adult human females who take on the gendered role of men" to the general culture for honest and unambiguous discussion.

I think that if you interpret the phrase “trans men are men” as “trans men are biologically male” then that’s on you. Given that the sentence starts with “trans men” it is immediately obvious that they are referring to those who are biologically female, and so the context of the ending phrase “are men” should be self-evident. — Michael

If you are familiar with gender theory and culture, then you understand the context. But the phrase alone divorced from that culture does not indicate this. If you go out to the wider web or bring up the discussion with people, they will assume you are saying, "Trans men are adult human males". My point is that rationally, this interpretation makes sense. Good phrases and language should not need an isolated cultural reference to be declared as being true in the broader language.

Since the gender debate has been brought to the larger society in the past few years, it should improve its phrasing to more accurately indicate the meaning of the phrase as it is ambiguous on its own. "Thus, "Trans men are adult human females who take on the gendered role of men" is a much better phrasing that allows people to think about the consequences of this thought instead of arguing with someone because they think what's being said is that "Trans men are adult human men".

Trans men are women, and trans women are men. — BC

To my point here, most people would have no problem understanding that you are used the second women and men here as sex references. Even if this was the only sentence stated, almost everyone would know what you were intending to say. That's the point. Also if I state "Trans men are women who take on the gendered role of men", this is understood easily and requires no more clarity. No one would ask, "Do you mean the unmodified men and women mean gendered expectations of adult males and females?" There's no question the intention.

And yet there is resistance to this. Sometimes even anger. Meaning that often times to Banno's point, trans ideologists want the term 'man' and 'woman' to become gender essentialist instead of the common sex reference. My point is to eliminate any possible conflation or ambiguity when talking about trans men and women so that way we can get past debates of meaning, and instead move onto questions like, "How should we integrate trans individuals in society?" I feel the reason why there is an insistence on keeping it ambiguous is for manipulation. Trans people want access to cross sex spaces. If you clearly point out that a trans individual is not the other sex, then the trans person has to come up with a reason why they should be allowed in cross sex spaces. If you can change the term 'men' to essentially mean gender, then they can point to spaces where 'men' are allowed, and attempt to claim, "men means gendered, I am a gendered male, therefore I belong there".

Of course, it may be that there is a good reason to allow gendered men in men's spaces (when men alone means sex obviously). But that must be tackled and reasoned through without verbal tricks and conflationary logical fallacies. An honest person should have no problem asking for clear phrasing in discussion, and no one should object to the notion that 'trans men are adult human females who take on the gendered role of men' and that "trans men are not adult human males".