Am I correct in understanding you to be saying the procedure for comprehending the value of an infinite causal chain entails looking at the infinite causal chain as a whole? — ucarr

It entails eventually putting it into a set.

Moreover, am I correctly inferring that by looking at an infinite causal chain as a whole, I'm drawn by a sequence of reasoning to the necessarily logical conclusion that an infinite causal chain is a first cause? — ucarr

No, the chain is not the first cause. The first cause of the chain occurs after you take all other causality within that universe. So you have mapped out that it is eternal and infinitely regressive. What remains after that is, "What caused the universe to be?" Go backwards if you wish. Start with the set, then you can explore every single bit of cauasality within that set. None of what is in the set caused the set, an infinitely eternal universe, to be.

Given a first cause, is it correct to say the next thing following the first cause -- the first thing caused by the first cause -- appears as the first causation? Subsequent links in the causal chain are, likewise, causations? — ucarr

Seems good to me. This is definitely clear in a finitely regressive universe. In the case of the formula of an infinitely regressive universe, because there is infinite time and we are capturing all possible causations within infinite time, there is no 'first causation". Essentially the first cause comes about after we capture all possible infinite causations in that universe, then ask the next question, "What caused it to be this way?"

Why is it 2t + infinity = Y and not 3t + infinity = Y?
— Philosophim

Does Y have an infinite value? — ucarr

Anything + infinity is still infinity. I'm not questioning at this point whether this is possible, we're just looking at what its like to capture the set of all causations within an infinite universe.

And one could argue the purpose of the word negro was to describe color of skin. — Joshs

I did note that. And I also agreed with you that it had grafted a connotation onto it that was entirely too negative as to ever be disregarded. I also noted however that the new word continued with the non-offensive use of the term which is simply describing skin color.

This is not a good analogy for the change of pronouns.

1. You aren't disregarding the old words to make a new word, you are using the same word. We're still using 'him' and 'her'. This would be like me still continuing to use negro but saying, "Yeah, but it doesn't mean slave or black anymore, don't think that way."

2. The disregard for negro was to regard what was offensive or oppressive. There is nothing offensive or oppressive about the part that pronouns were used primarily to identify sex.

So you are not creating a new word to keep the inoffensive part of an old word. You are saying we remove the inoffensive point of the word and replace the meaning of the word with something else entirely. Why erase a word describing sex? What's the benefit?

But it was likely never simply a neutral label, because it was shaped right from the start by the cultural context of its use, just as pronouns were never purely about biological sex. The modern scientific concept of sex didnt even exist until recently. Tracing the etymological history of male-female pronouns through different cultures would produce in every case meaning in which whatever ‘natural’ sense of the binary was hopelessly and inextricably entangled with cultural understanding of gender roles. — Joshs

I would like to hear more specific examples then general claims. My understanding is that in most cultures for most uses of the use of pronouns, it refers to sex. This is also not argument against my point as to why pronouns are better used to describe sex than gender. Please address that point if you would.

You want to be careful here , because look how easily we could insert the word ‘negro’ into your account. In fact , conservatives like William F . Buckley used a justification not unlike your argument for not supporting the civil rights movement. — Joshs

Don't just tell me I should be careful. Tell me how I'm doing the same thing. Otherwise I'm going to handwave this away considering your analogy with negros doesn't work.

The burden was upon the negroes to convince the larger population of the need for the changes they advocated. I agree that whether one’s cause is worthy ultimately will be decided not simply by our own desires but by convincing others. — Joshs

Correct. And as philosophers we should ask if their arguments are valid and helpful. If we started spreading telling all of the children in America that the president should be a king, does that make it right? Of course activism is happening. That's not an argument for it being right. Try to go back to my points that sex is a fine neutral term that crosses cultures, whereas gender creates cross cultural problems in communication.

Why do you think it has become important for those advocating for changes in the way society thinks about gender to alter the traditional association of pronouns with plumbing? Isnt it because they believe that the use of these
pronouns has evolved in most cultures to associate maleness with power and privilege not accorded to femaleness? — Joshs

Wouldn't it be far easier to get people to stop associating maleness with power and privilege? Do you think changing the meaning of pronouns is going to erase this? No, that's stilly. People associating more to a word than its meaning and general use are using slang. If there is slang that implies being a 'he' means power, then the slang needs to be addressed, not the culturally neutral term of the pronoun.

So how do we define what it means for the meaning of a word to be used accurately? — Joshs

'He' is a biological mail, 'she' is a biological female. That's it. Anything more attributed to that then this is slang, and an issue with the people involved not the language.

The etymological history of language shows that the meaning of words continually shifts over time. Shouldn’t accuracy of words be defined on the basis of the dominant way they are actually understood by a culture, rather than by recourse to categorization based on a presumed authority ( such as biological plumbing) that the culture is not paying attention to? — Joshs

Of course words can change over time, but there is still the question of whether this is a positive or negative change. What you're talking about is stereotyping and sexism. First, the entire culture is not using pronouns as a form of oppression. Most of us are just using it to identify sex.

Second, anyone who uses them as a form of oppression is adding more to the word than intended. They are 'genderfying' the word. And as you can see, that creates a problem doesn't it?

Third, there are multiple cultures who all have their own uses of words, but when we communicate cross cultures we understand we need common ground. The minority culture may ask the majority culture to use the minorities terms, but they may not demand it. Makes sense right? If most people used the word 'cool' to describe something awesome, and a minority demanded that the majority stop using it that way, I don't think it would go so well.

Why was the word negro changed to black? After all, one could argue that it is merely a translation of the French word for black into English. But those who advocated for a change knew that this is not how negro was understood by the dominant culture of the U.S. in the mid 20th century. The word black was chosen as a more accurate verbal representation of a being with equal social status to whites than the word negro symbolized. — Joshs

Excellent point. But we have a very objective reason. Slavery. A difference of use that was so controversial an entire war was fought over it because negro was synomyous with 'inferior person'. But pronouns don't have an objective abuse like this. Further, the color change had the same underlying meaning it was trying to get to, "that they had black skin". The idea that pronouns change to gender defies the entire purpose of the underlying word, which is to describe sex.

Similarly, allowing individuals to chose their preferred pronouns over ‘he’ or ‘she’ is designed to offer a more accurate verbal representation of what they consider as their gender and/or how they want their social status to be perceived. — Joshs

Society is not obligated to view you how you view yourself. This is what a child does. "I'm strong!" "No you're not" *Child gets mad and storms off* Part of maturing is realizing that you exist in society and other people see you differently than you see yourself. Part of existing in society is learning how to get others to see you the way you want, which requires effort on your part. No one is every obligated to see you as you see yourself simply because you tell them they should.

If I want others to see me as strong, I need to lift heavy weights. If I want others to see me as kind, I'ld better act kind. Even then, people will have their own opinions. "Nah, they're not that strong, that's just 120 pounds" "Kind? All they did was listen to another person's problems, that's basic."

Now, can someone tell a local group, "Hey, would you mind calling me he or she? It makes me happy." That's fine. People can say "No" or they can say, "Yes". Its up to them. But it is using the word differently as initially intended, asking them to covert it to a slang which describes gender in that group. No one is obligated to participate in your slang. No one is obligated to see you as you see yourself. It may be kind to. Some people may not mind. But it is never an obligation or something that should be enforced as being official.

The ongoing reinvention of gender-related language is a an experiment still in progress. Like all etymological changes that have taken place in history, we will likely go through a number of permutations before society settles down for a time with a consensus on what ‘accurately’ reflects the emerging understanding of the relation between sex, gender, status and power. — Joshs

That is what we're doing here. Appreciate your input to the discussion. :)

But I am assuming we will not be returning to ‘he’ and ‘she’ for the same reasons that ‘negro’ is not likely to be making a comeback any time soon. — Joshs

I disagree, on the points I addressed earlier.

This isnt quite accurate. ‘Trans’ isn’t simply slot ratting within an already defined and culturally familiar binary. It can mean ‘transcend’ as well as transition within. — Joshs

I'm not sure I understand. Gender is a cultural expectation for how each sex should act within that culture. But culture doesn't make all actions about gender. For example, all people wear shoes. All people breath. Its not transcending gender, its just being a human.

Maybe you mean in a case in which there is an expected way for one gender to act, but not an opposite in the other gender? Can you give me an example, I think that would help.

It can just as well be true that a transgender perceives themselves to be acting in a way that defies all expectations of a culture. — Joshs

See, if a man or a woman started to walk around barefoot, I wouldn't see that as transcending gender. That's just defying cultural expectations for people.

So, if it is not intentional then it's not transgendered? Do we mean intentionally deciding to cross gender traits or intentional in any way? — Bylaw

Great question that I'll try to clarify. Lets say a woman acts 'aggressive' and no one blinks an eye. Within that culture, its accepted that someone of her sex can act that way. However, she enters into a culture where aggressiveness is seen as male. People tell her, "You're acting like a man with that aggression." At this point she understands within that culture that her behavior is seen as belonging to the male gender, not the female gender. If she says to herself, "I don't care, I'm still going to be me." she is transgendered in that culture.

Basically, its understanding the gender of a culture, then not being pressured by that culture to follow the gender expectations.

And, not an example of the same question, is a transvestite, transgender? — Bylaw

Yes. To be a transvestite is to dress in the manner as the opposite sex that clearly conveys this to other people. This does not mean they are transex, just transgender.

Perhaps today some people would call a Tom Boy transgendered, but when I was growing up those girls were not considered transgendered and things were vastly more conservative about gender roles then. It was one of the types of normal girls. If someone had thought they were truly transgendered they would have used a much harsher name. — Bylaw

Just because we use the term transgendered more today doesn't mean it can't be applied retroactively to the past. Telling someone, "You're acting like a boy," is telling someone, "You're acting like the wrong gender".

Of course other people can disagree. But saying that the Malaysians disagree, doesn't mean I am transgendered. I haven't become something else. I am in a place where some people would think I am outside the proper role/set of traits. I'm not saying they are wrong and I am right. I may not even be thinking I am anything in particular. But I don't become something else because of how they see me. — Bylaw

To be clear, being transgender does not mean you've changed your sex. You have not become, "Something else". You are simply dressing, acting, or behaving in a way that a particular culture expects people of a particular sex to do. If I'm a male that likes putting on nail extenders and painting them hot pink, I'm still a male. The action I'm doing is transgender, as normative American culture expects that only women do this.

Here's a more historical example:

“It was related to the mother color of red, which was ardent and passionate and more active, more aggressive. Even though you reduce the shade level, it was a color that was associated with boys,” Eiseman said.

An article titled “Pink or Blue,” published in the trade journal The Infants’ Department in 1918, said that the generally accepted rule is pink for boys and blue for girls. “The reason is that pink being a decided and stronger color is more suitable for the boy,” it said."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/12/health/colorscope-pink-boy-girl-gender/index.html

As you can see the colors which are escribed to modern genders were once reversed. Did men suddenly become women and vice versa once we switched colors? Of course not.

It makes me think of how people who have very rigid ideas about what a boy then man should be like and what a girl then woman should be like often put in a lot of effort training boys and girls to fit their roles. If they are right that boys are like X and girls are like Y you shouldn't need all that training. Boys will be boys and girls will be girls. All the training and shaming to form correct roles is a sign that they are precisely NOT natural, or you could let nature take its course. — Bylaw

I agree! I think we can take questions of 'transgender' and look at them more in depth. If your boy is open with their feelings, why do you think that shouldn't be? They're still a boy whether they hide their feelings or not, so what's the reasoning behind a gendered idea that they should be stoic and unsharing? Separating the body and gender continue to show more benefits and clearer points then blending them together.

In culture, the matter of trans identity is still finding its way. Trans people themselves have a range of views and approaches. For now my opinion is that we need to remain open to a range of understandings in the space and not police the language and conceptual frameworks too much. That's all. — Tom Storm

This I can understand. My counter, and you may disagree with me, is that trans people are people, not a specialized group. We all speak English and share language. It is the responsibility of those that want to move beyond their isolated culture to invite us all in and allow our input as well. I appreciate your viewpoints Tom, we'll catch you another time!

So a woman who wears a suit is still a woman. How she expresses, dresses, or behaves, has no impact or change on her sex.
— Philosophim

This is you imposing your morality on the world. It may be your ideal, and how you would like it to be, but it is a long, long way from the actual. — unenlightened

I don't think this is morality, this is just a proper way to identify people.

The actual is that a woman with a beard is a freak. Therefore, a woman with a beard might prefer to 'pass as a man'. And in that case, your insisting on referring to her with the female pronoun is not merely oppressive, but dangerous and possibly life-threatening. — unenlightened

This is a case of morality. First, I'm not saying people can't emulate other sexes and attempt to pass in casual settings where sex does not matter. I'm only noting that when sex does matter, emulation should be deemed good enough. Growing a beard does not mean a woman has a prostate exam for example.

Calling a woman who is emulating as a man is not dangerous. What's dangerous is if people think they should commit violence against a woman who is emulating as a man, or has secondary sex characteristics that are typically associated with a man. We have not yet discussed pronouns yet, but we may here.

The problem with pronouns is they have traditionally been sex driven, not gender driven. In old times if I was told I was going to meet my future wife and I would love her, everyone knew she meant 'female sex'. Now, that doesn't mean this tradition needs to continue, but there should be a good reason to change it.

So, lets think about it. Gender is a cultural construct, or an expectation of how a particular sex should act. Is this consistent across all cultures? No. In fact, this might not be consistent across even small groups of people or individuals.

The purpose of communication is to convey an idea clearly and efficiently. When I say a 'car' you don't think a 'truck'. When pronouns mean sex, the conveyance is clear. Bodily female or male. Pronouns, which are not culturally bound, must remain culture neutral to keep their clear conveyance. Since different cultures have different ideas of gender, it is not rational for pronouns to be used to match culture, to keep their clarity.

What you're looking for is 'slang'. Slang happens when we take a word that means one thing in a language, and repurpose it within a culture. Thus the word 'drip' can mean more than water droplets trickling, but 'snazzy dress'. If I call someone a snazzy dresser instead of saying, "You have drip", I am not participating in slang, but cross culture language.

This means that if a group of people, or a sub culture wants to call a transgender person a pronoun that doesn't fit their sex, its fine. But that's slang, not official. Requiring other people to use slang is of course, wrong. Being offended that people do not use slang is also wrong. I don't have to use the word 'drip' or 'jelly' or 'cool' if I don't want to. Can people who use slang push it to become part of the vernacular? Of course. But that doesn't erase the other meanings of the word in the culture either. I have no issue with people using pronouns as slang. But if they insist that pronouns as slang should eliminate the normative use of the term, I'm going to reject that. Pronouns as sex identification is far more valuable as a culturally neutral term than as slang.

Firstly, as has been pointed out, the genetic picture is subject to various anomalous and exceptional conditions that have been somewhat discussed by others. This does not altogether prevent one from establishing an absolute rule such that there are exactly two kinds of human genome that we could call male and female, and we could then extend this from the genotype to the phenotype. — unenlightened

You may have missed my discussion with AmadeusD, but we went over that. I have no issue with more than 2 sexes. I also have no issue with someone saying, "There are two sexes, and this is a genetic variant with different phenotypical expression". The point that I care about is that sex is tied to something beyond culture and opinion. Makes sense right? Just for the act of sex alone based on your orientation. People sleep with bodies, not personal identities.

But then, apart from declaring that an individual falls genetically into one or other camp, what does it actually say about the individual? If it says nothing, then it it becomes completely trivial, and uncommunicative in almost every circumstance outside of the gene lab. — unenlightened

Correct. No disagreement here. It only matters in specific cases that are tied completely to biology. So men can't menstruate for example. There are certain diseases and conditions that can only happen to men or women. Sex is about biology, and nothing else.

But if it says something significant about the individual, it falls into exactly the generalising and potentially prejudicial vagueness you are trying to avoid. — unenlightened

Right, this is gender. And yes, you're correct. Gender is often prejudicial, and can sometimes cross into sexism. My point is when you tie gender as necessarily coming from sex when it clearly doesn't, for example saying you're a biological woman if you paint your nails, its sexism. We have bodies, and gender is our opinion about how those bodies should behave and express themselves within a particular culture.

I have mentioned sports, where men and women of either sex are sometimes separated on the basis of hormone levels, and prisons, where genitalia would seem to me to be the thing to be mainly concerned about. — unenlightened

I really haven't waded into the sports discussion, as I'm more concerned about clarity of language first. Sports to me is about bodies. Therefore there should be questions about transexuals in sports, not transgendered people in sports. If I'm a biological male who has done nothing to become transex, I should not be allowed in a woman's sport. I leave it to the medical community to determine how far a man should transsex to be viable competition in woman's sports.

Prison is the same. Do we separate women and men because of gender, or because of the physical realities of their sex? Its sex. Therefore a man who expresses their gender associated with their idea of a woman, should still be in a male prison. A transexual women could be in a female prison after an evaluation has been done to determine how much transex has occurred for the safety and sexual protection of the other sex.

"...men and women of either sex..." this is the sort of cumbersome usage that results from your definition of sex. I don't like it, but it seems to follow from your definition that we would have to talk in some way about hormones, genitalia, physique and social grouping in 'sex-neutral' ways. — unenlightened

That wasn't my intention and perhaps I wrote that poorly. Sex would be biological, so clear. You would be a female on hormones, or a male on hormones. I think what makes more sense is that such things would be stated in 'gender-neutral' ways, as gender is not sex or the body, it is an aspect of culture.

Or, and this is my suspicion, the whole idea is, that having made the ruling and established its writ, that it should be applied universally and enforced and imposed, limiting folk to 'what their genes say'. — unenlightened

Do not be suspicious, say what you mean. Treat me as an honest person until I show you otherwise. We need honest and trusting discussion to be productive. Say what you feel, I will take no offense. This is philosophy, not politics. Here is where we should be willing to say and explore every facet without judgement (ideally anyway).

My point is that sex is bodily, so areas of the world that are separated by bodies should not consider transgenderism. Like I noted with sports and prisons above. And on the flip side, areas of the world that are separated by gender, should not concern themselves with differences of sex. So a woman who wears a suit is still a woman. How she expresses, dresses, or behaves, has no impact or change on her sex.

What does Y stand for in your equation? — ucarr

Total number of causations within that point of time on the chain.

↪Philosophim Transsexualism is in the DSM-5. It is an actual medical condition that one can get diagnosed with. Upon receiving the diagnosis the patient receives a prescription for HRT. — BitconnectCarlos

Ah, there has been a trend to move away from transsex as a mental disorder. I do not attribute it as a mental disorder here. But, if you want to attribute it as a mental disorder, than you are correct.

So, it's correct to say your core proposition within this conversation goes as follows:

Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause — ucarr

Correct.

A transgendered person exhibits cultural actions that defy the cultural expectations of their sex.
— Philosophim
That, then, would be everyone, given that different cultures and individuals have different criteria and also given that pretty much everyone will have exceptional moments in their lives where they exhibit 'out of character' traits (in crisis, when tired, for fun, in private with someone they trust and so on.) — Bylaw

Then let me clarify. It is intentional and continual exhibition of cultural actions within one's culture that defy the cultural expectations of their sex. For example, If in a culture it is acceptable for men to wear a particular type of skirt, a kilt for example, but a woman decided to wear one, she would be making an intentional transgendered action.

In America there is a term for women who act like men in terms of aggression, actions, and language. Its called a "Tom Boy". That's a transgendered woman in her actions. Of course, in a culture where aggressive women are the norm, she would not be transgendered. Transgenderism is the stereotypes, prejudice, and social enforcement of behavior actions based on your biological sex. It is highly mutable and can differ not only from culture to culture, but from person to person.

In fact, we can break 'transgendered' up into several different types. There could be 'self identified transgender' vs 'accidental transgender' vs 'local culturally transgendered' etc. As noted, gender is highly mutable and can differ wildly from person to person.

I also feel like we are giving to much power to the observer when we say someone changes gender when others judge that they have done something that doesn't fit cultural expectations. Like if I take a trip to Malaysia and suddenly on a street in a village I become a transgendered person. I don't think that makes sense. — Bylaw

Yes, you would be transgendered in that culture. You would not be transgendered in your culture. Anytime we talk about culture, we involve at least one other person, or observer. The only way we remove other people from culture is if we have a completely personal opinion as to what a gender is. So for example, lets say that I believe wearing a dress as a woman is transgender. In my culture, every woman wears dresses. But in my mind, only boys should, so I say that all women are transgender. This is fine for my personal idea of transgenderism. But the moment I involve one other person, my own personal identification can be disagreed with by other people.

Are there personality traits that entail one is REALLY a woman or REALLY a man, or not? — Bylaw

The only way this is possible is if only a man, or only a woman, could exhibit a personality trait. If even one man or woman exhibited a personality trait that we associated only with the other sex, then that would dispel the notion that that particular personality trait was derived from being that particular sex.

To say otherwise is sexism.

I see no safe haven to be ourselves on any part of the political spectrum. — Bylaw

Which is what we have philosophy for! We can remove politics and discuss freely the definitions and nature of the issue. Here we are allowed to question and wonder without judgement or threat. I honestly feel this is where the issue can be resolved, not in politics.

Transsexualism is a condition. A transsexual may present as their assigned gender (especially before they begin HRT), so they may not be transgender at that point. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sure I would call transexualism a condition. Transexualism is an action of bodily modification. Your statement is like saying, "I'm a body builder" but you've never lifted a weight in your life. You are a body builder after you start body building. You are a transexual after you start modifying your body.

If you have not transitioned your sex, but practice aspects of gender that you perceive as being associated with the other sex, then you are still just trasngendered. Once you transex and practice as that sex, I would say you are no longer transgendered, but acting as the gender your have changed your sex to. Does that make sense?

By making a small change to your last sentence, I get a proposition: Logically, a universe cannot exist that does not inevitably arrive at a first cause within its causal chain. — ucarr

To make it even simpler, remove universe. "Every causal chain inevitably arrives at a first cause". I say this because we might have definitions of 'universe' that might differ here based on the context of the conversation.

The important point is the causal chain. So for example, if universe 1 creates universe 2, universe 2 is part of the causal chain that leads to universe one. If universe 1 and universe 2 incept as first causes, they are two separate causal chains. The easier and core problem is demonstrating a causal chain that does not have a first cause.

This will be my last reply. The reason why, is that you are wilfully ignoring almost everything I have said to service a continuation of your point, which has been dealt with ad nauseum throughout several thorough replies. — AmadeusD

Again, I think you're misreading my intentions, and I can't seem to read yours. You're coming across as angry and hostile. Which is fine. But I'm not seeing this as a productive conversation right now. I genuinely don't understand where you're coming from with your last few replies, and that tells me something is crossed in the communication that isn't going to be resolved over the forums this time.

So I think its best that you've said your piece, I've said mine, and we go our own way at this point. Makes sense right? You're battling a lot of other people in this thread, so have the gift of one less. :)

Where did I state this was a mental condition? Do women have a mental condition for wanting to wear dresses and paint their nails? No. — Philosophim

I did not intimate that you did. If you read what I wrote and took that you from it you literally had to make up a load of words that I didn't write. Apart from this, this utter strawman you want me to reply to is insulting. — AmadeusD

Does it not strike you as pathologising to label enjoying certain fashion as some kind of mental condition? (transgenderism is a mental condition, whether or not you think its an illness - its a condition of hte mind, if you see what i mean). — AmadeusD

So you can see why I'm confused here. And you're confused that I'm confused. And I'm confused that YOU'RE confused. And now you're yelling and saying things like, "How can you be so bad at English?!" I feel like you're juggling too many conversations at this point and getting things crossed up.

I'm not seeing the contradiction,
— Philosophim

Sorry, are you actually having trouble understanding plain English here? You literally quoted where i said i saw a contradiction and you cleared it up. — AmadeusD

Have you considered your English isn't as clear as you think? I have to redo and clarify what I've written all the time. When communicating with other people its often true that things which seem clear to us in our head are not conveyed as we wish when it meets other minds. Notice, I'm not putting the entire blame on you, but also noting that what I'm writing to you seems to keep being misinterpreted as well.

So I think the issue is unresolvable, we should tip our hat to each other, and try this again another day.

You do love your definitions don't you. — unenlightened

I do. I've found in many discussions over the years that unclear or poor definitions are 9/10ths of the problem. Not to say I'm not guilty of using poor definitions of my own. But I do try where possible not to.

I clearly wrote that if gene therapy developed to allow more radical changes in genes, then one's genetic make up would not be immutable and become a lifestyle choice. Just as it is already a lifestyle choice to modify one's hormone levels and body form. You interpret the conditional as an absolute, because you did not read to understand, but to dispute. — unenlightened

See? Now I'm guilty of being unclear. :) The point is that sex is genetic. If you could change your genes, then you could change your sex. I have no problem with that. Modifying specific sex hormones or castrating your normal hormone production organs doesn't make you the opposite sex. If you're a male, you're now a male with low testosterone and higher levels of estrogen. If you get surgery to cut your breast tissue out, you're a woman with missing breast tissue.

A male Eunich, is still a male. A woman in a suit is still a woman. A man who paints their nails is a man who paints their nails. This is clear and universal no matter what one's gender intentions are. I think that makes the issue clear and unambiguous while avoiding sexism. If you see a problem with this, what's the problem in your view?

" Tying lifestyle with sex or race is the definition of sexism and racism." As for this, it is really just bluster. — unenlightened

This is not bluster. This is very real. If you say, "Because you're black, you have to like basketball," that's racism. If you say, "Because you're black, you probably like basketball," that's prejudice. If you say, "Because you're a woman, you paint your nails," is sexism. "Because you're a woman, you probably paint your nails," is prejudice. Tying expected culture with the physical attributes of a person is the source of prejudice and isms.

If one notices for example that black men are hugely over represented in the prison population, that might be because of lifestyle being associated with race, or it might be because of a racist culture. — unenlightened

But does that mean that going to prison means you're black? Or that if you're black, we should say, "You're probably been, or are going to prison one day?" In the case of a fact, that more people who are black go to prison, it is important that we understand it is either culture, or other people's culture that have put them there. We don't say, "It is an aspect of being born black that causes you to commit more crimes." right?

Women spend more time, money and effort on their appearance than men on average. This is a trivial social observation, not sexism. — unenlightened

If its a social observation, its likely prejudice. But lets avoid that. Lets say we have actual facts that women spend more on their appearance than average. Is that across all cultures? Is that the destiny of a woman's DNA that this be? If I'm a woman who spends less on my appearance than most men, does that mean suddenly I'm not a woman anymore? My sister never paints her nails, wears minimal make up, and doesn't wear dresses. She's married to a man and has two kids. Is my sister not a woman? Is she a gay man who had children with her gay lover? While this might seem silly, I have seen gender/sex discussions devolve into such nonsense. My sister is a woman by her DNA, not her expressed culture or actions.

Sex is not an identity. Sex is an embodiment.
— Philosophim

Again you use your definition to prove other definitions and conceptions wrong. You know that is illegitimate argument. — unenlightened

No, because I've clearly separated culture and expectations associated with someone who has a particular body. And what is male and female based off of? What are we crossing? The sexual aspects of bodies. Gender is the cultural expectations we heap upon those different bodies. That's why its 'trans' gender. Trans means to move. You are moving from a gender expected of a female, to the gender expected of a male. You are not becoming male in body. That would be transex. Isn't that clear and unambiguous? What's wrong with it being clear and unambiguous?

Bodies can be modified, and this I suspect is what motivates you to retreat to genes as the last refuge of immutability. — unenlightened

No, its not modification. Its that there can be variety in sexual expression. A man can have extremely low testosterone. A woman can have abnormally high testosterone. That doesn't change their sex. Whether you modify aspects of your body, or the phenotype of your body is naturally 'abnormal', it doesn't change your sex. If I put blackface on am I black? No different than putting whiteface on doesn't make me white.

The story of mankind, and in particular of the scientific revolution is very much one of liberation from the immutability of nature. And every stage has suffered resistance from the old guard. — unenlightened

I have no problem with modification. You seem to be attributing things beyond my argument. If transex people wish to modify their body, I have no problem with this. I believe people should be free to do what they want to do in life. There are people who also want to cut their arm off. If after a discussion they still want to, let them. You seem to have a problem with me trying to make the language between gender and sex more clear. Why? What advantage is there in keeping them ambiguous and confusing? That's not advancement.

Eunuchs go back a long way before genetics were dreamed of, and the technique of controlling and modifying sex has been applied to humans and domesticated animals since antiquity. These were and still are seen as sexual modifications - one does not hear much about the gender identity of geldings. — unenlightened

Of course. But they're still male eunichs. We're taking males and making sure they can't reproduce. They don't magically turn into women.

In animal husbandry, sex is a function, and one to be controlled, not at all immutable. Not penis, but functioning balls define the male. — unenlightened

"Primary sex determination is the determination of the gonads. In mammals, primary sex determination is strictly chromosomal and is not usually influenced by the environment. In most cases, the female is XX and the male is XY. Every individual must have at least one X chromosome."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9967/#:~:text=Primary%20sex%20determination%20is%20the,at%20least%20one%20X%20chromosome.

In otherwords, its a male without balls. And of course this would be identified as such. A male without balls cannot be milked or birth. They don't say, "Its a female cow that can't be milked or give birth."

These are perfectly understandable usages that reflect the complexity of life rather better in my opinion than a rigid definition can manage. — unenlightened

As you can see, they don't. I have a very important question for you. Why the resistance to clearer definitions and language? Why the resistance between the division of sex as embodied, and gender as culture? What advantage does that give? Doesn't it seem dishonest to coach your words in ambiguity as if you're hiding something? Honesty is straight forwards and unambiguous. So lets have some honesty.

You seem to be universalizing my response about one aspect of one issue in order to dramatist a point. I make no such claims about language generally or the community - only what I said about this one matter. — Tom Storm

What I guess I am saying is that your demand for clear language to me seems like it's trying to fence in some complex ideas that have no convenient solution. — Tom Storm

Then I'm sure you understand now why I'm trying to make words more specific and don't have a disagreement with that. If you are not making claims that it is better for terms to be ambiguous, then you should understand I am not attempting to fence anyone in. Clearer and easily understood terminology is better for the community then ambiguous opinionated terminology.

This is a safe place to discuss topics. I'm very familiar with and supportive of the transgender community and this is not about being a bigot or hurting people. If you don't want to answer me, answer yourself in a quiet moment.

My answer is an attempt to supply you with a different frame for this matter. What I guess I am saying is that your demand for clear language to me seems like it's trying to fence in some complex ideas that have no convenient solution. — Tom Storm

That's why we're on a philosophy board though right? What's convenient about discussing morality, God, or any other host of debated topics? This is avoiding the question once again. You don't have to agree with my definitions. "Why is it good to have language that devolves into ambiguous personal opinion, versus language that is clear and unambiguous?" I think this is a very important question. Why do you think undefined and opinionated words benefit the community?

Maybe there is a more open ended set of descriptors we can use to broaden the language for trans? — Tom Storm

What is the advantage of making words less specific and unclear in this community?

Either way it isn't really a critical problem from my perspective. — Tom Storm

Seems important enough for you to have waded in. If you leave now, I'm not going to see your viewpoint. You seem to think that the community needs ambiguous and opinionated language. Why?

No, I do not believe you can categorize people into neat boxes like this. I would not support trans groups who say only one way to be trans either. — Tom Storm

This didn't answer my question. My question was, "Why is it good to have language that devolves into ambiguous personal opinion, versus language that is clear and unambiguous?"

As others have posited, what makes us gatekeepers in this matter? Sports and schools and prisons and changing room owners can work though this issue as they need. — Tom Storm

Asking for clear language to communicate and discuss ideas is not gatekeeping. It is a requirement for honest and productive thought and conversation.

What is more important is coming up with definitions that serve purposes of being logical, clear, accurate, and useful to the most people.
— Philosophim

Which is the only aim I took, and exactly the one all my comments have pushed toward. Again, can you point out where you think that might not have been the case? — AmadeusD

I noted earlier that your point about the SRY gamet was fine. Our only disagreement at this point is that sex must necessarily be defined as being only two. There are good reasons to do so, but I can also see other reasons not to. That's all.

This is not 'my view'. Sex as defined is restricted to two. It is a binary. It is a term which was designed to signify the reproductive binary of male/female in dimorphic animals. If you want to redefine, I have given an option for that to happen. As it is, your position here is nonsensical as it uses the word 'sexes' (which is restricted to two, by definition) and then calls into question 'my opinion'. — AmadeusD

Here's an article in scientific America talking about the idea of making more than two sexes.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

As well, I gave you a point about chromosonal variance and the example of 'tall bush' vs 'short tree'. Go re-read the initial point as I think you misunderstood my greater point about when we use modifiers to words vs invent entirely new words.

Words are agreed upon by communities, not dictated from above.
— Philosophim

I really, seriously, cannot grasp what you think is happening here. — AmadeusD

If you can't understand after re-reading my point, then perhaps we just leave it then. Seems pointless to continue if after several replies you can't understand my point and you believe I've misunderstood yours. No harm or foul either, it may just not be our day to convey our proper intentions. :)

The reality is they liked dressing up in women's clothing, painting their nails, and putting their hair in a pony tail. They could do all this and be happy.
— Philosophim

Does it not strike you as pathologising to label enjoying certain fashion as some kind of mental condition? — AmadeusD

Where did I state this was a mental condition? Do women have a mental condition for wanting to wear dresses and paint their nails? No. Same with transgendered individuals. Look, my friend wrote lesbian fan fiction for years (Nothing I'm interested in). I've never once thought it was a mental condition.

The underlying immutableness of sex as chromosomes remains.
— Philosophim

While i disagree, pretty vehemently, with this claim, the rest of your post was perfect to explain what I saw as contradiction. Thank you very much :) — AmadeusD

I'm not seeing the contradiction, but you do you at this point. We seem to be talking at cross odds with each other today. That sometimes happens and I don't think there's any fixing it at this point.

Thanks, I will digest this and get back to you. Sorry, I admit, I didn't read all of the comments on here as there are a lot. Thanks for reposting your earlier comments, I appreciate your patience. — Beverley

Not a worry Beverly! Take your time and feel free to disagree after reading it.

More trans people I've known these days don't undertaken the operation or use hormones. Certainly not for the first years. — Tom Storm

That's a personal anecdote, not a fact. According to Trangend Health

"Introduction: The number of individuals seeking sex hormone therapy for gender dysphoria has been increasing. The prevalence gender dysphoria has recently been estimated as high as 390 to 460 per 100,000 with a consistently greater prevalence of trans women (MTF) than trans men (FTM). We report here the changing demographics encountered in our experience over the past 2 decades."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906237/#:~:text=Introduction%3A%20The%20number%20of%20individuals,than%20trans%20men%20(FTM).

People within the community should want clearly defined words and concepts that they can make good decisions with.
— Philosophim

Like every other community there is no one codified approach to all this. I'm not sure it would be realistic to expect this. People have different views and self-images in every community. — Tom Storm

Doesn't that sound like opinions? Everyone can have their own opinion, but if we are going to use language that asks us to accept facts, we need words and definitions that are more than personal feelings. Especially when we have decisions such as medical transition, sports participation, and a whole host of laws being made.

I'm going to ask you this then: "Why is it more advantageous to have language that isn't clear and ambiguous?" How does this benefit any community?

Meaning, both the definition of sex cannot change, and one's sex cannot change.
— Philosophim
Hey mate, I'm not editing this back into my more substantive reply, incase you're reading it right now - or, it's not particualrly relevant because I've missed something further on in the thread But:

The above quote seems to indicate that you're not open to the position you're currently taking. Has the position on the above changed, in a way that would explain the current acceptance of redefinition? — AmadeusD

Let me repost the context first.

Sex is immutable. It is a biological determinant of DNA. Hormone changes do not change your sex, only allow you to emulate a hormone aspect of the other sex. Meaning, both the definition of sex cannot change, and one's sex cannot change.

Here I am not referring to a definition that is mutable in regards to culture. My point here is that the definition of sex is linked to a biological determinant. Thus, if to my earlier point, we linked XX as female and XY as male, that's not changing. The discussion about changing the definition of sex is within the introduction of information that does not fit our original division of the sexes. For example, XXY. My point is that if we are linking sex to chromosomes, it is just as reasonable to say, "XXY is a male variant" versus "XXY is a new sex." The underlying immutableness of sex as chromosomes remains.

As such, I believe that labeling a transexual person as 'transgendered' creates confusion and harm.
— Philosophim

I'm am just intrigued to understand why and how you think this creates harm. — Beverley

Certainly. I posted this earlier and I'll do so again.

I have seen a host of problems by blending transgender and transsexual together. First, the concept of blending genetics and culture together is the root of stereotypes such as classism, racism, and sexism. The idea that I take on the culture of a woman, therefore am a woman, implies that there is some objective truth in genetics with culture. This argument can be applied to race as well, but we've learned that's a bad idea.

Second, there is much confusion among people who have gender dysphoria. Is it gender dysphoria, or sex dysphoria? They are very different. Gender, as in the cultural dysphoria, does not require one to get on drugs or get surgery to act culturally as the other gender. Understanding that gender is just cultural expectations by society means one can make different choices in adapting to and fulfilling their emotional desires.

Sex dysphoria on the other hand is often solved by physical disguises, drugs, or surgeries. Such things are last resort to solve issues, and yet I've come across people who think gender dysphoria should be solved by such changes, then regret the pain and loss they went through.

The point is that clear language allows a clear identity of issues. With clear identities, we can come up with clear solutions. The current lumping of the term which describes two separate issues is causing a confusion and mix within the community itself, and as such is causing great harm where decisions are incorrectly made for one's condition.

Finally, there is confusion outside of the community as well. Many people are willing to accept decision in regards to gender for gender issues, and sex regarding sex issues. But when people believe the subject is gender, and sex issues creep in, there can be backlash or disagreement. Thus, it serves everyone involved for the clearest language possible that describes the issue most accurately. — Philosophim

To add to this from some personal experience, I have a friend who is transgender. They mistakenly thought that this meant they needed to transition using hormones and surgery. The reality is they liked dressing up in women's clothing, painting their nails, and putting their hair in a pony tail. They could do all this and be happy. This is someone who is transgendered who initially thought that the only way to fulfill their transgender desires was body alteration. Body alteration through drugs or surgery comes with many risks for people and should be a last resort.

In short, confusion in the transgender and transex community is just as bad as without. People within the community should want clearly defined words and concepts that they can make good decisions with.

Relax, we're trying to do the same thing.
— Philosophim

AS noted, you seem absolutely resistant to a fool-proof grammatical way of solving your problem. What would you have assumed, If i had rejected the same? — AmadeusD

I think you're getting a little too worked up and reading things that aren't there. I get you're being attacked by others, but not me. I am not resistant to something fool proof and already told you it could work on your follow up. Relax. :)

I can see the viability in declaring more than two, and I don't see any problem in noting this.
— Philosophim

As 'sex' is defined, there is no viable option other than male or female. Again, if another culture usurps this word into a system that has a different word for sex(as we understand it) fine. But that's a ridiculous reason to accept that usurping. — AmadeusD

Of course its viable to create more than one sex. We can change definitions. There is no existent thing out there that decrees 'sex must be defined this way'. What is more important is coming up with definitions that serve purposes of being logical, clear, accurate, and useful to the most people. One of the core functions of philosophy is to question and ensure that vocabulary and concept are sometimes redefined or clarified to serve these purposes.

You have to understand that your view that there should only be two sexes is an option. One that you can reason with others to keep. But if you're dogmatic about it? People can viably reject you. Words are agreed upon by communities, not dictated from above.

Some of the peer-reviewed literature: — Mark S

I'm not asking for a course study. That's easy enough to find. I'm asking what literature you're using, and what ideas you're basing this off of. When you reference something by science, put a quote so we can see where you're coming from and what research you're basing it off of.

Regarding your proposed counter-examples, I thought I had explained them, including how dying for your country is part of a reciprocity strategy. The short answer is the motivation for loyalty only works to your gene's advantage on average. — Mark S

Ok, but that's not cooperation. I can do many things for my gene's advantage that do not involve cooperation. How is me, under threat of jail or duress, getting drafted in a war to die for my country cooperation?

“Also fully in the domain of science is understanding how the biology underlying empathy and loyalty can exist and motivate true altruism, sometimes even unto the death of the giver.
That explanation, first proposed by Darwin, is that empathy and loyalty motivate cooperation that can increase what is called inclusive fitness of groups who experience empathy and loyalty even at the cost of the life of the individual.” — Mark S

Once again, this does not answer my example of coopting others for power. Many ideas of morality and laws in culture are not about cooperation or willingness, but forced obeyance under threat of punishment or death. Don't misunderstand, someone can find cooperative benefit in going to war. But you need to consider the people who don't and are forced to. I'm not seeing this consideration so far.

If someone in trouble tells me they don't need help, but I secretly slip them 20$ that can't be traced back to me, that's has nothing to do with morality? — Mark S

Our moral emotion of empathy exists because empathy for other people motivates initiating the powerful cooperation strategy of indirect reciprocity. — Mark S

Indirect reciprocity? Look, I'm not thinking they're going to pay it forward. For all I know the guy's a psychopath. I also lost 20$. I do it because I think if I have spare resources, it should go towards helping another life live well. This is not cooperation. This is sacrifice. Altruism. You don't get to twist everything into, "But you see, if we twist the word around its really indirect cooperation." Be better than that.

Our ancestors who did not experience empathy tended to die out. — Mark S

Do you have evidence of this? Empathy can also be double edged. If you're empathic to the wrong person, they can take advantage of you, kill you when you're vulnerable and/or take all of your resources.

Empathy for a bug is a misfire on its evolutionary function — Mark S

Again, do you have proof of this? Or is this an opinion so we can hand wave anything away that doesn't fit into 'cooperation'?

Could stomping on the bug still be immoral in a culture? Sure. People who kill bugs can be thought of as deserving punishment (being descriptively immoral in that society). In that society, this moral norm would be a marker strategy for a person with empathy and therefore a good person to cooperate with. — Mark S

You're really going to try to claim that if I stomp on a bug, it could be considered immoral because it means I'm not good to cooperate with? How does that have anything to do with whether I can work with other people towards a common goal? The problem is you're trying too hard to fit everything into cooperation. You know what's more likely? Cooperation is not the full end all explanation for morality.

Understanding our moral sense and cultural moral are parts of cooperation strategies explains much about human morality that would otherwise remain puzzling. — Mark S

No question. But you're claiming cooperation is the entirety of morality which is inadequate as I've covered.

“Loyalty – one of six commonly recognized emotions triggered by our moral sense that motivate behaviors that are parts of known cooperation strategies – Loyalty motivates initiating indirect reciprocity (unselfishly helping our group) and exists because our ancestors who experienced this emotion tended to survive due the benefits of cooperation it provided. — Mark S

So once again, if I'm loyal to a dictator that slaughters millions of Jews, this is somehow moral?

Punishment – by our conscience, a god, other individuals, society, or the law – is a necessary part of reciprocity strategies. — Mark S

Threat of punishment for not following a culture or society is not cooperation. Its also not 'reciprocity'. Its servileness. Slavery. Personal sacrifice for obedience to others. Its not, "You see, by serving the master plantation owner, the slave is indirectly benefitting themselves by the fact that they aren't beaten and killed for daring to be an individual human being." If you go this route, you're lost. I suppose this would mean if one lone slave stood up to their master they would be violating cooperation and thus be immoral.

This needs work. A lot of work Mark S.

Once again I think you're misreading the intent and going down a path no one else is taking. What about yourself? Do you think we know things, or is our knowledge all faith?

Socrates famously proclaimed that he knew that he knew nothing. — Echogem222

I don't think this was meant to be taken literally, but word play to convey that the essence of philosophy and seeking knowledge is to come to every situation as if you know nothing. Thus you leave your preconceptions behind, you listen to others in discussions, and you seek to understand the topic before telling others how it should be.

As for, "How do we know that we know?" there's an entire field of philosophy called epistemology. I've written a bit on the subject as well here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 Its a bit lengthy, but there's a summary from the next poster besides me that captures it very well. Feel free to read and ask questions if you're curious.

How on Earth did you derive that from anything I have said? — unenlightened

By you claiming that sex is a lifestyle choice. I clearly wrote this. Sex is what you are. Lifestyle choices are how you decide to live. Tying lifestyle with sex or race is the definition of sexism and racism.

And I still don't have much of an answer. What is the use of this wonderful clarity you propose we adopt? — unenlightened

You seem to be ignoring the clear reasons I've posted. Clarity of language for clarity of thought. Go back up and read my examples again as I've already replied to you.

See my problem is I never took a genetic test, so I don't know what my genes are. So I have to rely on presumptions based on old-fashioned things like having a penis, and being sent to a boys school, and so on. — unenlightened

This is a fair argument. If you wish to base sex off of genetalia, I see little objection to that. Since genetics determine genetalia, this seems consistent with my point.

I think identity is always a complex interaction of adopted and assigned, and you are very much in the business of assigning a sexual identity. — unenlightened

Sex is not an identity. Sex is an embodiment.

Mrs un, by the way, is at least just as white as she is black, if we are talking genetics, but that is seldom 'counted' by people that count these things for other folk. — unenlightened

Also another good point. But to my point, you don't think she has to act a certain way culturally because of her genetics right? If she never painted her nails or wore a dress she would still be a woman right?

But your definition does not help, for example, the difficulties faced by sports governance, and I do not see that it helps people with "gender dysphoria" (another imposed identity). — unenlightened

I am not addressing sports, but genetic markers would ensure proper biological separation. And I did address gender dysphoria. Go re-read the first reply I gave to you, I detailed it all out there.

And my point is, "How do we determine what is male?"
— Philosophim

My point is that we do not have to determine that in the same way or even necessarily at all, in relation to every social situation — unenlightened

Sure, not every social situation is determined by sex. But those that are, are. And we need a nice and clear delineation of what counts as sex for that. This is different from dividing social situations by gender. Gender expects you to act and look a certain way, so sex itself is not important in these situations.

Yep. Its called de la Chapelle syndrome. — AmadeusD

The alternative, which is covers every human ever, and categorises into precisely two categories without (known) exception, and with full utility in the sense that once categorised, it gets set aside unless medically relevant, is to use the activation of the SRY gene as a marker for sex, given that this is determinant of which cascade of sexual development is engaged. — AmadeusD

Right, so the SRY gene is found on the Y chromosome. In the case of De La Chapelle syndrome it only happens because that piece gets broken off the Y and merges with an X. Really, I have no objection to the SRY gene to match all special cases, as long as its genetic.

What does matter is blending gender and sex together, as there are clear logical distinctions between sex and gender that lead to poor logical thinking when blended. The two are distinct enough to warrant their own words.
— Philosophim

Absolutely. Am trying to establish how this delineation works - you seem resistant. — AmadeusD

Relax, we're trying to do the same thing. An alternative to your viewpoint does not mean I'm not trying to establish a solid delineation either. I'm just making sure its clear, unambiguous, and not based on phenotype.

So if a culture wants to call Klinefelter syndrome a new sex, makes sense.
— Philosophim

No it doesn't. Because that term belongs to a culture in which is it bounded to Males experiencing a certain genetic expression. That is what it symbolises in the culture in which it arose.

Another culture coming along and misappropriating the word isn't helpful, or sensible. At the very least, it violates, entirely hte premise of your attempt to solve the problem that exact thing causes. I'm unsure how this is not obvious. — AmadeusD

The point is to demonstrate the logic around how language is formed and framed. Of course if another culture defined the term differently, we would have to come to an agreement on how it was defined. My point is there is nothing innate in only saying, "There are two sexes." Depending on one's approach, and if their definitions are clear and consistent, I can see the viability in declaring more than two, and I don't see any problem in noting this.

You are repeating your definition and declaring it to be the truth. — unenlightened

That's an odd accusation. I'm pointing out why I'm defining things, feel free to disagree and explain why.

Genes are immutable, snd you want to define sex in terms of genes. What will you do if/when progress in gene therapy allows "sex - change" to be real in your own definition? — unenlightened

Nothing at that point. At that point sex would be mutable with surgery. But the definition of sex would not change. I see no problem with this at all.

Sex would cease to be immutable and become a lifestyle choice - again. — unenlightened

Sex has never been a lifestyle choice, just as race is not a lifestyle choice. You can choose to live the culture that society has associated with race or sex. Thus I can dress in hoodies, listen to rap, etc. if I want to live the lifestyle of inner city 'blacks', but it does not make me black. Same as a black person listening to Adelle and driving a Prius doesn't make them 'white', just living the lifestyle of an urban 'white' culture.

I want you to understand what you are implying very clearly. You are saying that living as a culture makes you a different type of body. This also implies that being a certain body, means you MUST have a particular type of culture. That is the definition of racism and sexism. Be very careful with that.

I guess that is some kind of joke that went over my head. — unenlightened

You may have missed it, but I had posted a half post by accident. I had just fixed it when I saw you asked your question.

Why do you want to redefine sex in terms of genetics? — unenlightened

Because words should be as accurate as possible within reasonable means. Sex is immutable.
Genetics are very simple and immutable. Gender is mutable. This serves a very clear distinction between the two and avoids issues of ambiguity. As a response question, "Why should we not define sex by genetics?" Thanks.

I have fixed the above post. If it did not answer your question, feel free to ask it again.

Since then, there has been somewhat of a retreat; first long haired men then gays, then men with boobs, then men with micro penis, and now we have your final last stand that hormones and organs and orientation and gender can be ignored in favour of the sacred genome. That's ok, but why? What can we all derive as a practical consequence from this ruling? — unenlightened

A very good question! Because clear and unambiguous language allows for clear and unabiguous thought. Have you heard of George Orwells definition of "newsspeak"?

In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), by George Orwell, Newspeak is the fictional language of Oceania, a totalitarian superstate. To meet the ideological requirements of Ingsoc (English Socialism) in Oceania, the Party created Newspeak, which is a controlled language of simplified grammar and limited vocabulary designed to limit a person's ability for critical thinking. The Newspeak language thus limits the person's ability to articulate and communicate abstract concepts, such as personal identity, self-expression, and free will, which are thoughtcrimes, acts of personal independence that contradict the ideological orthodoxy of Ingsoc collectivism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

I have seen a host of problems by blending transgender and transsexual together. First, the concept of blending genetics and culture together is the root of stereotypes such as classism, racism, and sexism. The idea that I take on the culture of a woman, therefore am a woman, implies that there is some objective truth in genetics with culture. This argument can be applied to race as well, but we've learned that's a bad idea.

Second, there is much confusion among people who have gender dysphoria. Is it gender dysphoria, or sex dysphoria? They are very different. Gender, as in the cultural dysphoria, does not require one to get on drugs or get surgery to act culturally as the other gender. Understanding that gender is just cultural expectations by society means one can make different choices in adapting to and fulfilling their emotional desires.

Sex dysphoria on the other hand is often solved by physical disguises, drugs, or surgeries. Such things are last resort to solve issues, and yet I've come across people who think gender dysphoria should be solved by such changes, then regret the pain and loss they went through.

The point is that clear language allows a clear identity of issues. With clear identities, we can come up with clear solutions. The current lumping of the term which describes two separate issues is causing a confusion and mix within the community itself, and as such is causing great harm where decisions are incorrectly made for one's condition.

Finally, there is confusion outside of the community as well. Many people are willing to accept decision in regards to gender for gender issues, and sex regarding sex issues. But when people believe the subject is gender, and sex issues creep in, there can be backlash or disagreement. Thus, it serves everyone involved for the clearest language possible that describes the issue most accurately.

This assumes genetic make up as-is, determines sex - where is does not. So, "harm" is probably not apt, but it is flatly incorrect to assign a status of 'sex' to a genetic variation within an established sex. This ruins your aim entirely. — AmadeusD

I'm surprised to hear you say this. So if I'm XX I can be male? Have you really thought this one through? What is your alternative and why is that better than genetics?

Again, sex is already established as somthing that genetic variation does not determine, so it is again, flatly wrong to attribute a 'sex' status to a genetic variation - this, aside from it being exactly against your purported aim for the thread. — AmadeusD

Where is this established?

Klinefelter syndrome
— Philosophim

Is strictly a condition present in males.. It is determined firstly, by the subject being male. The highlighted section in your link (i assume you were pointing me to that?) indicates this clearly, without ambiguity. Phenotype has merely a correlative relation to sex (extremely closely correlated, it must be said). The case study presented is concerned solely with phenotype. The researches know this person is male, and that is the basis for this being a novel case (well, novel, after three examples? lol). — AmadeusD

And my point is, "How do we determine what is male?" In this case, its likely genetalia and because the majority of cases exhibit more male secondary sex characteristics. But I can see another culture creating a new sex out of it. You're missing a major point: We make language up AmadeusD. The goal of language is to create a clear and simple line of communication within one's culture. So if a culture wants to call Klinefelter syndrome a new sex, makes sense. If they want to modify it off of only desiring to have two sexes, makes sense. It doesn't matter.

What does matter is blending gender and sex together, as there are clear logical distinctions between sex and gender that lead to poor logical thinking when blended. The two are distinct enough to warrant their own words.

I propose a highly robust hypothesis based on its remarkable explanatory power for the huge, superficially chaotic data set of our moral sense and cultural moral codes, no contradiction with known facts, no remotely competitive hypotheses, simplicity, and integration with the rest of science. — Mark S

No, you don't. Look Mark, proposing cultural values are moral values is ethics 101. Its highly debated. Your 'no contradiction with known facts' is dogmatic at this point with the examples I've given you. I still see no posted scientific papers that agree with you. You haven't addressed the specific examples I've given you like "Dying for your country". I'm not feeling like you're engaging with questioning, but dogmatically harping that your theory is right because 'science'.

As such, I'm quickly losing interest. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm letting you know the glaring weaknesses of your claim which would be dismantled in any professional setting in seconds. If you want to explore the examples I gave you and try to find solutions, feel free. But if you're just here to preach, good luck to you, I'm out.

I am still finding it unclear what principle you are using to decipher when to to use what UOM, but, if I may, I think I can serve a solution: if more existence is better than less, then whatever UOM, and (not to mention) what measuring tool, is most precise is ideal; however, whatever is practical will prevail, which is really just the most precise tool and UOM available in any reasonable manner, because we haven’t created such an ideal tool (yet or perhaps ever, although we would strive towards developing it if your theory is adhered to). If this is something you agree with, then I think we have resolved my confusion about UOMs. — Bob Ross

Yes, this is the underlying principle behind the proposed measurements. I agree!

The two main issues, in summary, I would say, is that (1) “existence” is an entirely too vague an idea in your theory (thus far, I believe it to be roughly equivalent to complexity and not being) — Bob Ross

Its not complexity per say, its about more existence measured in identities and potential per material existence. Higher morality is often times going to be more 'complex' as a result.

(2) there is not an ounce, if I may be so bold, of proof that more existence being good is not good as a matter of subjective dispositions. — Bob Ross

I'm assuming you're intending to say "There's no proof that its not a subjective matter that existence is good." To my mind you have a different way of viewing subjectivity then most would take, but I have little disagreement with your overall view in how we understand the world. Regardless of this, at best my proposal for morality is based off of the supposition that there is an objective morality. If of course there is no objective morality, than this is wrong. Finally, my stabs in the dark, while done with an underlying guide, are most certainly not objective but educated attempts at grasping the underlying 'objective' push.
Still, I think this is the best stab at the traditional idea of objectivity I know of in the pursuit of morality, so until something better comes along I'm going to keep exploring this.

Nevertheless, if one accepts that “more existence is good”, and understands that “existence” refers here to “complexity”, then it is clear and correct the project which you are working on by denoting ‘material’, ‘potential’, ‘expressive’, etc. ‘existences’ and your conclusions seem pretty, by-at-large, accurate relative to that project. — Bob Ross

Thanks! Its nice to see its not completely out there in left field.

The more I have thought about it, your theory starts from bottom-up but, although it is important and necessary to start with that approach, requires an up-bottom approach to determine an ideal state of reality. — Bob Ross

Agreed. Its difficult to convey the theory because it must start with the basics, but its hard to show others how this is going to lead into the top level of morality that people are actually interested in. Trying to find that blend without confusing people or them losing interest was part of what I'm trying to do here.

On this, our theories actually converge; however, we diverge in that for you the balance is just a means towards what is good (which, in turn, for you, is the greatest complexity of being) whereas, for me, the balance (i.e., harmony) is what is good. I say that not to derail our conversation into a comparison of theories; but I have just grown to see the similarities in our views that I had not seen before and wanted to share (: — Bob Ross

No worry about divergence, this is good. The step after understanding the theory was to apply it to broadly accepted ideas of morality today and see how if it both fits in with our intuitions, explains why, and if it contradicts our intuitions has solid reasoning. As noted, its not complexity per say, but the existence of the highest number of identities and potential existence over a period of time. I've labeled this homeostasis, but harmony works just as well. To my mind, harmony works as it tries to find an equilibrium between competing existences that allows as much to exist over time as possible without collapse.

Here's a good question: how does your theory handle suffering? — Bob Ross

We had not gotten to the level of human and social morality in depth yet, but no, at first glance unnecessary suffering would not be moral. Suffering is a state of oppression on life. For life to have its full potential, suffering should be minimized where possible as it prevents life from acting as fully as it could. This makes sense because suffering is a state that lets the body know that there is something that is inhibiting it, harming it, or could destroy it. Suffering as a detection and motivation tool is necessary to ensure life defends itself. Unnecessary suffering is when the detection tool is going off, but there is nothing the life can do to appease it.

In the case of torturing another person, taken in the vacuum of:
1. The person doing the torturing is doing it only for pleasure

Its not moral. First, there's holding a person against their will. Second, one is causing bodily harm in some way to create suffering. So in all ways we are decreasing the potential existence of a human being. The benefit of another being having a pleasant emotion is overall a net negative for existence, and therefore wrong.

I'll let you answer that and ask about any other moral applications you're interested in. If you have none, I'll address some of the more subjective problems that are better explained through this theory of existential morality such as cross cultural morality.

According to the worldview of Materialism, "nothing" is non-sense. — Gnomon

Nonsense. :D Nothing is the negation of material. You can't have materialism without it. "Aether theories" have largely been discredited in the scientific world from my understanding. Not that it really matters. Do materialists understand the number zero? Then we're good.

And, since the physical world does exist, it must have always existed in some form or other. Also, how or why it came to be is not an empirical question, hence more non-sense. If there is nothing to explain its existence, then it's cause is a matter of Faith. — Gnomon

There is no logical conclusion which leads to the idea that since the material world exists, it must have always existed. Nor is that an empirical conclusion. My proof is a logical proof, not an empirical one so I don't care if they dismiss it because its not empirical. They seem fine holding the idea that existence must have always existed without any empirical proof, so I can't take them seriously.

Hence Ideal notions, such as "something from nothing", are literally nonsensical, since we cannot sense nothingness. And from the perspective of modern Materialism, non-sensible is non-sensical. — Gnomon

I'm not saying "Something from nothing". Nothing is not causing something. Its something incepted despite there being nothing which caused it to be. If non-sensible is non-sensible than once again, claiming that the universe has always existed is also nonsense. If they dismiss the question out of hand, I don't care once again as this is a logical exploration, not empirical.

Ironically, modern science postulates several causal features of reality that are logical inferences instead of sensory observations. For example Energy is the universal cause of all changes in the world, but we never detect the Energy per se, we only infer its logically-necessary existence from after-effects in material objects. Likewise, the notion of electric or quantum Fields is a logical inference from observation of changes in the material world*3. How that universal or local field came to be --- "popped into existence" --- is irrelevant for pragmatic Science : it just is, and it works. — Gnomon

Bingo. Which is why the argument against logical conclusions that do not have empirical means of testability is hypocritical and can be hand waved away.

The First Cause is simply another inference from logical necessity. But is it Real? Of course not. It's Ideal. — Gnomon

Its not idea either. Its a logical conclusion through reason. Denying it inevitably leads back to its necessity. So its not a matter of faith either, but reason.

There is the question whether a first cause, lacking a precedent, must be eternal. — ucarr

There is no question, its one of the main points of the OP. Whether the universe is finite or infinitely regressive, there is necessarily a first cause.

Also, there is the question whether or not an eternal existence is self-caused rather than uncaused. — ucarr

Its uncaused. For something to be self-caused it would need to exist, then do something to ensure it exists. A self-sustaining entity is part of causality. "Why does A exist in state B at this time? Because A existed in state B one second prior". That's self-sustaining which is not a first cause.

Given: No should and no should not, we have equilibrium as nothing. Given: No restrictions and no intentions, again we have equilibrium as nothing.

I'm not seeing how this is any different from claiming: "First cause popped into existence from nothing." — ucarr

Right, this is a consequence of the conclusion that a first cause must exist. You didn't counter that a first cause must logically exist, which is where we arrive at the conclusion that the inception of a first cause is not caused by anything else.

Following from this we have: a) there is no something-from-nothing, so, no first cause from nothing; b) there is no other thing in the role of a precedent for first cause. Given these restrictions, first cause cannot pop into existence from nothing and it cannot come from a precedent, thus it must be eternally self-caused. — ucarr

A} needs to be clarified. Nothing doesn't cause something. It just means there is nothing which causes the inception of the first cause. b) is fine as long as you mean, "There is nothing which causes the first cause". Given these restrictions the only conclusion is that something can incept without nothing causing it. Self-cause does not work. Being explained by the fact that it does exist does not mean, "It causes itself as a first cause".

It's okay to claim: "First cause popped into existence from nothing." Maybe so. I'm only claiming this declaration is not the conclusion of a logical sequence of reasoning. — ucarr

How so? If a first cause is uncaused by something else, then its existence cannot be explained by something else. This means its existence cannot be limited by something else either. Meaning, there is no logical reason for its existence besides the fact it exists. Meaning that what can potentially be a first cause is limitless. This is all a clear logical flow Ucarr. Address this specifically if you think its not logical.

You can't fulfill the claim of your title until you present a logical sequence of reasoning that necessarily concludes with: "First cause popped into existence from nothing." — ucarr

I'm going to state this clearly again. This is not the point of the thread nor the title. The point is that a first cause is necessary. The conclusion that its inception happened without anything prior causing it, and concluding that anything could have happened, concludes from examining the logical conclusions of what being a first cause entails. These are two separate issues.

When you say you establish what a first cause is, you merely define first cause. That's okay to do. — ucarr

True.

You can't fulfill the claim of your title until you present a logical sequence of reasoning that necessarily concludes with: "First cause popped into existence from nothing." When you say you establish what a first cause is, you merely define first cause. That's okay to do. However, it's a claim of truth based on words asserted without a logical sequence of reasoning to justify them. Proceeding from here, you claim no reasons for or against existence of a first cause and no restrictions or intentions as to what the identity of first cause shall be. That's okay to do. However, again, it's a claim of truth based on words asserted without a logical sequence of reasoning to justify them. — ucarr

Ucarr, are you accidently confusing logical necessity with empirical necessity? The theory of relativity was logically correct. It was only confirmed as empirically correct when observing an eclipse. I've never stated my points are empirically correct. Logical correctness is "If we take these statements and definitions, reasonably this is the only conclusion we can reach." It doesn't mean it actually exists. Logically, I've presented the argument several times now. And not once have you taken the argument and demonstrated why the logic is incorrect. Do that and you'll have an argument. Otherwise, my points stand.

Perhaps your conversation title should be: Concluding A First Cause Simply Exists is a Logical Necessity. Isn't this what you've been saying over and over? — ucarr

Its an odd way to word it Ucarr. 'Concluding' is redundant, and 'simply' is unnecessary. "Exists" doesn't work because that's present tense and I don't know if a first cause continues to exist or not. The title is proper English without redundancy.

Okay. You're saying a first cause is uncaused. I think we agree this is a definition for which logical proof is impossible. — ucarr

If you mean empirical, yes, that's going to be extremely difficult to do. As a definition, its fine. I'm not sure what you mean by 'logical proof is impossible'. If we can start with 'not A' (our definition) and demonstration that we need to conclude 'A' as true at the end, then this is a logical proof that A must be.

If first cause refers to an eternal universe, there follows the question whether anything is caused because everything has always existed, whether actually or potentially. — ucarr

No, an eternal universe that has causation in it is comprised of causal moments. Meaning that which has not happened yet does not exist. That which no longer exists, does not exist. We're just referring to the causal chains that lead up to this point of reality. So there is no question that causality exists in such a universe.

Going up an infinite causal regression does not conclude with arrival at a point; the points continue without arrival being possible. — ucarr

You are misunderstanding how the set of an infinitely regressive universe still has to answer "What caused it?". Here's another example.

Here is a set of infinite regressive causality: 2t + infinity = Y

Infinity represent the number of causal existences in the universe. t stands for time, which for an infinite universe, has an arbitrary origin. So time can flow infinitely forward and backwards with no beginning or end. 2 represents that after every tick of that universe, 2 more causes happen.

Now here's the question which you have to answer Ucarr. Why is it 2t + infinity = Y and not 3t + infinity = Y? Is there anything outside which caused it to be one way over the other? How about 4t? Or -1T +2? You see we've captured the causal chain of the infinite universe, but that still hasn't answered "What caused that universe to exist?" My point is there is no outside cause by logical proof. If you say "A" is what caused the universe to be 2T + infinity = Y, I'm going to ask, "And what caused A?" And we're right back at the same conclusion, "Nothing". You have to logically break out of this to have a point.

If something is part of an existing universe, how can it be without precedent? No, a first cause, by your oft-repeated definition: "Something which is not caused by anything else." cannot be other than a new and independent universe. An existing universe cannot spawn a first cause. — ucarr

I never said another first cause was caused by the universe it incepts in. I noted that a first cause could incept within an universe because there is nothing that can cause it not to. For example, potentially there could have been other matter that was in existence before the big bang (if we are using the big bang as an example, not a literal, first cause). There is nothing within the logic I've noted that would prevent this from happening, therefore it is logically permitted.

I'm asking you to give me an example of a universe without a first cause in its causation chain.
— Philosophim

An eternal universe is an example because it has no beginning and no causation. — ucarr

Then the first cause of the universe when we ask, "What caused a universe which has no beginning and is eternal" is "Nothing". This is proving my point Ucarr, not countering it.

I can't prove existence of such a universe logically. I can only declare it as an axiom from which reasoning follows. — ucarr

And that's not an issue. I can't either. I also can't prove the universe did not eternally exist. Its irrelevant. Whether the universe eternally existed or did not, there is at least one first cause. THAT I've logically proven.

Below I reprint an argument you haven't responded to:

...you cannot talk rationally about nothing (or anything else) causing the universe to exist because it's impossible to ascertain any logical reason for its existence. This is so because reason_cause imply sequence, but infinite value cannot be specified and therefore cannot be [logically] sequenced. — ucarr

I've answered this earlier here.

Why did one type of eternal universe exist, whereas another universe does not? There is no answer besides the fact one type of universe, space and matter, exists.
— Philosophim

This is not a sequence of reasoning. If it were, you would include a list of possible reasons for only one type of universe — ucarr

What? No. Its reasonable because the alternative proposal, "That a universe without a first cause can exist" leads to the conclusion that "A first cause must exist". Go back to the math sets I wrote.

You think claiming as fact "there is but one type of universe" is reasoning? Give me a logical explanation for your belief. See my statement above (infinity cannot be sequenced) for an example of
reasoning toward a conclusion. — ucarr

I'm not claiming there is but one type of universe, and you know that at this point. Please don't resort to claims like this. You know I have stated several times that there is at least one first cause, and that I make no claim as to what that specific first cause is empirically or logically.

I therefore conclude, logically, that completing the circuit requires bypassing the plastic. — ucarr

Yes, you used logic but also empiricism. This is an empirical claim, not a logical claim. You have not proven that its logically impossible to complete the circuit unless you bypass the plastic. You only know given the materials, tools, and techniques you have, you have no other means of completing the circuit by bypassing the plastic. If you proved that there was no method in existence which could. A logical proof would be an argument that demonstrates that no matter what material, tool, or techniques anyone comes up with, even those we haven't discovered yet, it is impossible to complete the circuit without bypassing the plastic.

I am noting that given an infinitely regressively caused universe or a finitely regressively caused universe, a first cause is logically necessary.

My example parallels:
Why did one type of eternal universe exist, whereas another universe does not? There is no answer besides the fact one type of universe, space and matter, exists.
— Philosophim

This is an observation, not an explanation. You have no argument towards claiming logically only one type of universe exists. On the basis of your information-scarce observation, there's no logical reason to conclude there exists only one type of universe. You insist people believe your claim because you say so. — ucarr

This is not an observation, this is an example. The explanation is noting that at least one first cause is logically necessary. And this is an example of that being true. The logical proof allows you to plug in any type of universe you can imagine, and its still true. I'm not saying this prooves "One type of universe exists". I'm noting that no matter what it exists, a matter universe, non-matter universe, or 2t + infinity = y universe, there must be at least one first cause in its one or many causal chains.

I've put in bold letters what's at the center of our debate: "There is nothing that explains the being of a first cause."

Here we have your fatal mistake in mostly your own words. By definition -- not by a sequence of reasoning -- you state without explanation the truth about a first cause: it's an axiom by supposition. Moreover, it cannot be explained logically because, as you say, "There is (by definition) nothing which explains its being." — ucarr

If a first cause is true, then it follows that "There is nothing that explains the being of a first cause." The logic is in showing that there must be at least one first cause. If you can demonstrate that it is not necessary that there is at least one first cause within a chain of causality, then of course its moot. Look at it this way. "Flying unicorns fly. But if we don't prove a flying unicorn is logically necessary, its moot." First causes have no prior cause for their existence, which means nothing explains its being. But if we don't prove a first cause is logically necessary, its moot.

Your goal is to demonstrate that a first cause is not necessary. You are not going to win by challenging the definition of the first cause, if the definition is logically necessary. The only way to do that is to demonstrate that logically a universe can exist that does not inevitably arrive at a first cause within its causal chain. Keep trying Ucarr!

Can I ask you, setting aside the complex theory, if you had to explain trans to a group of people with no understanding of the issue, how would you frame it? — Tom Storm

I don't think Josh's reply answered your question. I have a close friend of over 20 years who is trans, and I've been studying the issue for a few years both in papers, and in the community.

The easiest way to describe transgender to people who are unaware is that it is a strong emotional proclivity to want to express aspects commonly associated with the opposite sex. In 'gender' specifically, it is a desire to take on mostly the cultural aspects such as manner of speech, dress, and behavior the individual associates with the other sex. In matters of transexualism, which is the division being noted here, it is a desire to take on the secondary and/or primary sex characteristics of the opposite sex. Currently, these two notions are lumped under the same moniker 'transgender' which causes a lot of confusion.

This desire can be primarily driven by positive or negative emotions. Some examples of negatively driven desires are hatred of their own gender/sex. Not wanting the expectations of their gender/sex. Escaping their personal disgust/fear of being gay. Some positive examples are beliefs that life will be easier as the other gender/sex. An enjoyment of the cultural aspects of the other gender/sex that they believe they cannot enjoy as their current gender/sex. Sexual and romantic enjoyment in being the other gender/sex.

The desire is of course extremely strong or persistent. So it affects the individual to the point where the enjoyment is so great, or the displeasure of not exhibiting cross gender/sex is so painful, that they are willing to do whatever it takes to satisfy or appease those desires. Most understand it is not 'rational'. Practicing transgender/transexual actions serves to somewhat appease these desires.