My point was more that a leader's chances of success relate to how they accommodate our projections of that which we are not, but aspire to, either positively or negatively. — Baden

Maybe for some I guess.

I work around enough people involved in politics that I have no greater expectations of them than anyone else, and they have no greater likelihood of being a role model than anyone else. In fact, while we're psychoanallyzing, much could be said about the curious personality drawn into politics.

At any rate, if you're looking to your politicians for moral direction, maybe it's time to rethink your religion.

My interest began and ended pretty quickly. You seem a bit more entranced. But her future life as your favourite celebrity is not what I was talking about. — Baden

As if you're not in love too.

Ergo, she's toast imo, though she'll probably limp on for a while. — Baden

As if being the PM of Finland is such a pinnacle of success that losing that position will mean ruin. She's now an international celebrity, who will no doubt figure out how to cash in on all this.

We ask what would happen if she were a middle aged man or whatever. Maybe we could muster up the same sanctimonious outrage, but there'd still be a collective yawn. No one wants to see a middle age man grind into another middle aged man. They want to see her doing all that she's been doing. That interest isn't going to end just because she might choose another track.

Of course. Maybe off topic, but if you are dealing with providing services to people with problematic substance use - people who need support - policy matters little. It's all about how to connect and engage people in new ways of living without using. That can benefit from working with people who have 'been there' too. I've seen it work powerfully in practice, but it is not the only way. If it's policy and research you want, that's all about the nerds - who can take your data and skew it nicely to demonstrate that your hypothesis is correct, regardless of what the case may really be. :razz: — Tom Storm

I know little about drug treatments, so I guess I'd do whatever it is that I do when I'm asked to do something I don't know how to do, which is fairly often, and I'd hire the guy who looked best on paper so that when he fucked everything up, I could say, "Wow, but he looked so good on paper," and then no one would think it was my fault for hiring a fuck up, but that it was just the paper was deceiving.

As a general matter, I have given opportunities to those with checkered pasts because it makes me feel non-judgmental, which I'm not, but I like to feel that way sometimes, but that hasn't always worked out as planned. They'll be super appreciative for the chance, but then they start to not show up on Mondays and they always have a sick dog or broken furnace to tend to and then I'll find out they've been hooking up with everyone in the records department.

Most jobs require conscientiousness and a little enthusiasm, with the rest not being as important. I always hire the guy that seems like they're interested in the job, which, in this market, seems like there's not a whole lot of people like that. At least when I was younger I pretended like I wanted the job. It seemed better when people pretended for some reason.

My two cents:

I think the issue here is a bit over-intellectualized. That Marin danced with her friends means nothing to me, either in terms of it proving she is somehow unprofessional or in terms of proving she has that common touch so elusive in our representatives. I would suspect that there are highnesses and majesties in the House of Windsor who let loose and dance and sing, all the while being elitist icons of a bygone era. It's sort of like seeing the Queen eat and marveling at the fact that she eats too, having convinced ourselves that these people aren't people. So, it means nothing to me she dances, sleeps, eats bonbons, or watches TikTok while she has her morning coffee.

I also don't think the idea of trying to find the Regular Joe as our politician is anything new. It's a common schtick among politicians to tell us they are from the school of hard knocks as opposed to some elitist school. How that plays depends upon who they represent.

Trump's schtick is very much to be this plain spoken self-made person who can say things like they are without fear of reprisal. That the reality behind it isn't true nothwithstanding, that's his schtick, so none of this is new. We're just talking about PR and advertising and what does and doesn't get votes. Apparently Marin is worried that the latest event will hurt her, so she took a drug test so that we would know she just likes to dance but not to fully sedate herself.

As to whether I'd rather hire a prior drug user to deal with drug policy as opposed to someone who is more data driven, I'd go with the guy who actually has a handle on policy and data. That someone has struggled with drugs in the past might give them insight into how to deal with certain issues, but it might also be evidence of an underlying personality issue that has resulted in a resort to self-medication. I'm not excluding those who have had their personal struggles, but basing hiring decisions upon the fact that I think the person "knows what it's like" might not be the best way to go about staffing my office. Again, I tend to be data driven, so if you could actually show me that choosing former drug users to assist in determining drug treatment center protocol (for example) results in better outcomes than in hiring those with advanced degrees in drug addiction and treatment, I'd reconsider, but my initial thought would be to defer to those who have actually studied the problem and not just those how have been consumed by the problem.

, did you change your job or your attitude?
Did you pick your own wars or battles?
Change. Of cages challenging — Amity

Have been thinking about this, and just now got around to answering...

I changed jobs, but it applies to everything. It's that feeling of hollow success, where you've mastered the task, gained the respect, have become the go to person, and you could coast the rest of the way in the safety of the confines of the cage, where you have the lead role. You have all the trappings of success, but a trap is the worst accomplishment of them all.

The walk on part in the war, though, there's no cage. It's the chaos and uncertainty of the moment. It's wondering if you're going to make it or if the next day will be at all like the last.

It's freedom. It's the lack of clinging to all the trappings of safety and comfort. It's pure expression, no one confining you, not trapped in by the fear you may lose. The bullets flying too fast to think about rest.

It's that manic state that knows no bounds, and it's the realization that the cage held no safety at all, but it assured a slow cutting off and a death. It's realizing if you can survive the war, you're invincible.

So yeah, that lyric means a lot to me. And that it's part of a song that wishes someone was here, who critically is gone, well that's another story, but part of what it means to be at it without much else to lose, dependant only on what you've got right then and there. Not having to cling to anything at all.

Clinging. The worst of things. Hanging tight like your life depends on it when it's letting go where life begins.

A ramble I know, but maybe that adds clarity. Or not. But that's what I heard when I heard the song.

I didn't address it because I have no idea what a trans woman, say, means when she says, "I am a woman." Literally don't know what that means. It doesn't much matter to me, so I've not read stories or talked to anyone with first-hand knowledge to try to learn what that means, for at least some people. — Srap Tasmaner

Well yeah, it would be a bit prying to ask the question, but you needn't conduct interviews to explore the question. You can just ask yourself what it means for you to be a man to answer the gender identity question we've been asking here.

My own answer is loaded with socially created stereotypes, dealing heavily with responsibility, control, strength, force, and certain virtues like honesty and reliability. Pretty much a cross between Ward Cleaver, Rambo, and a porn star.

No, it's not enough to show the video of her dancing and everyone should come to agreement this is a normal behavior of a leader having fun. — L'éléphant

No, that's exactly what I am saying. That it is screamingly obvious to you that she acted inappropriately doesn't have any persuasive power over my opinion that she acted inappropriately. Why was what she did wrong? I really don't get what you saw that I missed.

In any event, we're both in agreement that whether Trump is worse has no bearing on whether her behavior is bad, so the only objection I can decipher that you have is that object that some irrelevant comparison question was asked.

And I don't think really it was inserted for the reason you think it was. The OP wasn't suggesting iher behavior was OK because Trump has behaved worse. The OP was asking if we, as a society, give a pass for poor male behavior but then condemn perfectly normal female behavior.

I said clearly that her behavior is fine. That's what I think.

I also agree with @Benkei's comments that if you do believe her behavior is substandard, then you have to explain why you don't think men behaving worse is also substandard.

That is, if you have a double standard, you need to explain why.

As you've explained, you don't have a double standard. You condemn them all. That's fine, but now you have to explain why your standard, equally as you may apply it to all, is a standard worth having. I think it's not. Who cares if a grown woman dances?

Choose a better counter-example, not Trump, for christ's sake. — L'éléphant

That's a strawman. I didn't say she should get a pass because Trump is worse. I pretty clearly said her actions were fine under any standard.

She seems remarkably normal. That's what I saw.

The real crime is European music. It's just flashing lights and electronic beats that take place in discotheques, which is a word that hasn't been said in the US since 1975.

I disagree because I don't see anything negative about dancing and singing and I see no reason to take a drug test because I don't see anything negative about drinking or taking other drugs during your free time.

The question is purely a democratic one, which is whether that will get her or lose her votes. In itself, that wouldn't affect my vote one way or the other. That it would affect others just means some rely upon irrelevant information when choosing their candidates.

How you can diagnose a personality disorder from her acting like plenty of women her age I don't really follow.

I think that politicians should walk stiffly upright, always look serious so that we know that our troubles are always on their minds, wear clothes that drape their genitalia in such a way that we're not sure if they have any, put their hair in a tight bun so I won't think of smelling their locks, and they even should put a few pounds on their hips so that I think only motherly thoughts about them. A sagging breast wouldn't be necessary, but preferred.

The dishonor of the mating dance of that harlot should get her removed. I was shocked. How could such a whore ever govern?

There are even today people in the world who do not believe you can, whether you go to temple or not, whether you've ever even seen one. We do not want to be like them, the people who say "what you are is up to us." — Srap Tasmaner

I am aware of the peculiarities of Judaism, but I think that has more to do with prescriptive, legalistic definitions more than what we're talking about (although it might have something to do with how others in this thread are misunderstanding the conversation). That is, it is true that Orthodox Jews declare all whose mother is Jewish to be Jewish, even if that means declaring a devout Catholic a Jew. On the flip side of things, Jewish oppressors (most notably Nazis) also took a rigid view on who was a Jew for their purposes, regardless of the person's self-identification.

What you say here though doesn't address the issue of identity from a subjective perspective (which was our gender question), which is what this thread is more interested in. That is, the fact that the rabbis and my oppressors identify me as a Jew does not entail that I personally identify as a Jew. This conflict between what people want to call me versus what I see myself as is the entirety of this gender identify quandary.

Yes, but psychologically a trans person is really their psychological gender and also really their biological sex. But I, for example, can't be a trans woman no matter how artistic I feel about it because I identify as a man and that's not something I believe can be willed in and out of existence on a whim any more than sexual preference can. — Baden

So I've thought way too fucking much about this, and this is what I've landed on.

Your comments resort to a mysticism that I'm not fully able to decipher. Your man-ness under this definition is a geist, incapable of discernment. The term "transition" has alternative meaning under your analysis. At the pragmatic level of application, "transition" means certain medical procedures are performed, chemicals are prescribed, wardrobes are changed, and government documents updated. At the spiritual level, I'm not sure what it entails, but surely the concept of gender is not immutable, which means I might be a gender male when I'm a child only to undergo the mental change later in life and then to consider myself the opposite sex. This problem lays large in your analysis. As Lady Gaga wants to say "I was born this way," but that denies the possibility of transition and fluidity if how you are born is how you must be.

To the direct question, can one undergo a gender transition? (Note, I'm not asking if they can undergo a physical transition, as the answer is obviously that they can).

What I think to be the problem is that gender is both a mental property and a social property, neither of which can be fully distilled from the other. That is, to say I am a man means not just I feel myself a man in some nebulous way, but it is to ascribe the social meaning of man-ness upon me. There is no coherence to the concept of the primordial man prior to social designations upon him. You can't claim this primitive man did the primary man things, like act on every sexual urge and do battle with his competitor males like some odd upright walking primate would. He did all sorts of things humans did because he never was a simple animal, but he had the social designations of maleness that were as much a part of his man-ness as his biological characteristics. What does a biological man that doesn't have any social manifestations of man-ness act like?

And this presents the limitations of the MU analogy presented by @Michael. What could it possibly mean to be a Manchester United fan without the social designations of what that means? It must mean cheering for the team, wearing the jersey, and having friends and family who are also fans. To say otherwise presents this idea that there's this inherent identity of MU fan-ness that's just there, just part of the way he's made.

Consider another analogy. I consider myself Jewish by identity. It arises from the fact that I was born into such a family, all my early educators were Jewish, my friends and social network was Jewish, etc. If one were to speak to an Orthodox Jew, they'd even give a nod toward the mystical theory that I have the soul of a Jew that cannot be denied, regardless of how I might attempt to suppress it. That's a theory that's hard to accept, but it's not an uncommon way for a religious community to view things, and it seems oddly consistent with what is being argued for here.

It's also entirely inaccurate to say that I've always considered myself Jewish, as I have traveled through atheism and back. I'm not so ridiculous to think I embarked upon a worldly search for meaning and found that what was being thrust upon me was the truth I had been seeking, but I realize my current beliefs are heavily influenced by my social upbringing. By the same token, I am not an automaton, as I still had some choice in the matter of how I wanted to identify, and I suspect there might be some fluidity in that regard as I age, or, more likely I'll just get more stubborn and ornery.

My point here is that "woman" is a social term, a biological term, and a mental term, but there aren't boundaries around each. They correlate with and cause one another. Just as I could change my identity from being Jewish, I could change it from being a man, and that change would demand some physical act. If it did not require any physical act, then my change would be only to the ethereal ghost of identity within me, whatever that means.

think we can expect edge cases that aren't convincing. So far I've only met trans people who were clearly embracing stereotypical traits of the of their new gender. The trans man was growing facial hair. The trans women, which I saw more often, were wearing dresses and carrying purses. — Pie

The issue is complex because it both demands recognition of traditional gender roles and rejects them at the same time. A classic liberal perspective demands egalitarianism, which should result in a denial of gender roles and distinctions. Under an established egalitarian society, we should expect men and women's clothing to move toward androgeny, with equal likelihood of skirts, heels, and makeup for everyone. But to be transsexual,, you must rely upon those distinctions to express your identity, assuming the arcane conservative gender expression.

The point being we seem to have two strains of not entirely consistent progressive liberal thoughts going on here: (1) gender roles and gender expression should not be designated by biological sex, and (2) transsexuals should be able to express themselves by the gender roles traditionally assigned to them by their biological sex.

It's not like I recognized that I am English and live in England and then concluded that I therefore must already be a supporter of the English football team. — Michael

I get your carefully crafted example where you had an internal unexpressed feeling that revealed itself after the fact through behavior, with the behavior being purely epiphenomenonal of the internal state.

My point was that isn't a necessary, and I'm not even sure a common, revelation of such things. I think many people sort out their identities by self-analysis, which includes taking stock in their preferences and behaviors. It's why the road to exiting the closet is often delayed, often the person themselves last to recognize their identity.

To give a pure hypothetical, devoid of any political heat, should my genetic coding reveal I'm a Martian, that revelation would impact my self identity and result in me appreciating why my perspective on life differs from others. That is to say, it is my wearing the MU shirt that changed the mental state, which is bidirectional causation, not epiphenomenal.

this person's existence makes any of you angry, I suggest the problem is with you, not him. And you can't stop him existing or being recognized as existing. You lost the battle for social reality. That part is over. — Baden

I'm not going to argue the position I don't hold, but I think the general sentiment of the opposition isn't anger or a desire for physical interference, but it's ridicule and an eye roll.

The response then becomes increased insularity by the respective sides at what is perceived as a world gone mad.

Gender roles are stitched into the fabric of culture and have been identified in our earliest histories. It's realistic to expect the keepers of such ancient flames to categorically resist change. I only say this because I get your post, which is to shock the opposition into change by seeing what little threat is posed. Letting you know you're getting a different reaction than you might imagine, though, which isn't anger and violence but more of an "are you fucking kidding me?"

But it's a mistake to say that the cause of that self-identity is the characteristic that constitutes the self-identity. It's not like I recognized that I am English and live in England and then concluded that I therefore must be a supporter of the English football team. — Michael

What you describe as not having occurred in your particular case does happen though.

That is, I realize my emotional, spiritual, recreational, occupational, and general preferences are consistent with traditional female attributes, so I seek physical modifications to align those characteristics with other parts of my identity and that then encompasses me as a whole woman.

Being ac woman are all those things.

Otherwise you just have a person in a vacuum who claims himself a man for no reason at all.

I'm not a supporter because I wear the shirt or watch the games; rather I wear the shirt or watch the games because I'm a supporter. — Michael

I get that, but what makes you a fan?

Fanhood isn't immutable. From point A to Point B, what causes you to change into a fan?

support England when they play. I don't wear the shirt and most of the times I don't even watch the games. — Michael

And now I question whether you're actually a fan.

Something makes you a fan. Your love of the team, your undying commitment to your land, the excitement of singing stupid songs, getting drunk with hooligans, whatever, but if it's just an undefined identity, then it's meaningless

Animal examples have applicability as analogies, but not as direct examples. A male goat could act (as evaluated by humans) in a female way, resulting in an undetermination of biology to "gender" (anthropomorphicislzing the term). Such analogies are often used by those denying naturalistic arguments, disputing that traditional sexual behavior. Is dictated by nature.

Where I'm most stuck really is in the holistic definition of "man" you try to maintain, as if there is nothing about being a man that can be said other than that it is. How is being a man different than being a woman then?

Not in the sense that the appearance is what determines identity. Wearing a Manchester United shirt isn’t what it means to be a Manchester United supporter. — Michael

I get that language is an expression of intent and not an actual tangible mental state. Language is a behavioral manifestation of belief.

You tell me what doesn't count as an attribute of a MU supporter, but can't tell me what does. I don't think you can leave it at that but need something more.

My position is that wearing the shirt and attending the matches is part of what it means to be a MU fan. As with the trans issue, I similarly would expect a trans MtF to wear women's clothes. That's part of it. Saying the expression isn't part of the identity seems too brittle a distinction. The behavior isn't all you are, but is part.

I'm sure a Manchester United supporter would feel uncomfortable wearing a Manchester City shirt. It's not incoherent for them to want to change their clothes. — Michael

Then part of your identity links to your appearance. If not, why the discomfort?

The question then is why one's organs are relevant in deciding which football team one is on. — Banno

But this presumes a common objective, which as you've presented it, is the promotion of fairness. Not a bad objective, but not a necessary one.

Community Right wishes to go to the marketplace and purchase tickets to a CIS event. They don't want to watch a trans event. They then go to the supermarket and buy blueberries. They don't want strawberries.

And the psychology of gender relates primarily to the identity function, described earlier by Michael, which is also absent in animals. Only biological sex has any relevance to animals. And that's not an issue here. We all know what it is. The issue is about finding a social solution to a contradiction between psychological identity and biological identity. Your Billy goat won't help us with that. — Baden

I didn't read what @Michaelsaid that way. I read him as denying any discernable definition of gender other than generally thinking himself a man, offering no characteristic of what a man would be.

If we dissociate gender entirely from physical attributes, the concept of physical transition becomes incoherent. How can you physically transition from male to female if you are already a female and your body has nothing to do with that?

I think more thought needs to be had into the link between the anatomy and the mindset when defining gender, as opposed to your very clean bright line between the two. Otherwise, you're left wondering why all these trans folks do link gender to their own anatomy.

>>A "man" is what is socially recognized as a man. A "woman" is what is socially recognized as a woman. Since there is no overwhelming social consensus, it's up to us to argue one into existence. — Baden

It's up to the community to use a term and from there its meaning can be derived from those seeking definitions.

Community Right defines woman based upon her sexual organs and it is considered an absurdity to use it otherwise.

Community Left defines woman based upon the personal identification of the person and considers misapplication of the term an insult.

Whether Rights ought talk Leftish is a political and moral question, but both are linguistically valid languages.

I'm not saying they don't. I just don't think animal behaviour has anything to do with gender. — Michael

I get that animal sociology is less complex than human sociology, but it is accurate to relate animal behavior to their social function. I would also grant some amount of free will to an animal.

So, to my goats, the billy goat rears its head and swings it down on the other male goats to show his dominance and to declare the female goats for himself. That is no doubt a product of his genetics, but to some extent I would assume the goat could decide whether to be a combative goat or a nice goat, meaning it's not all pre-determined.

How are you using gender here?

Animals don't have genders, just biological sexes. — Michael

Why can't there be sociological functions assignable to biological sex within a non-human animal? Billy goat behavior is different from nanny goat behavior, which is what I assume you mean by "gender."

Again, I'm agreeing generally with the basic notion of human gender fluidity based upon the human will being more intentional and less driven by naturalistic forces than animals, with the final focus of the question being where is there an actual natural/genetic barrier to fluidity. That is, how much are we our will versus how much are we determined by our genetics (which includes gender).

But to argue that even animals don't behave in predictably natural ways seems a stretch that doesn't need to be made.

That's a very general law, and sufficient to action. What I find odd is the specificity. — Banno

Title 9 is a well known law, arising often in the context of college athletics, which is obviously a very large US interest. For many years men dominated the sports scene, but Title 9 dictated equal play for women., which required equal numbers of teams and sports scholarships.

Sports is big business (and it affects college admissions in many ways), so I think limiting your considerations to recreational types activities doesn't fully appreciate the significance of the disruptions caused by these trans issues.

I'll agree that the US sports culture, especially as it interplays with academia, is dysfunctional, but that's the reality and why this matters in other ways.

You needed a law for that? — Banno

Yes. For the Australian counterpart, see: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/legislation

We even have laws against murder and rape, despite the obviousness of the need. That's how lands governed by laws typically work, as opposed to just wise people handing down their latest views of what justice dictates.

Not an entirely responsive post to what I said, but nice chat.

Tough shit for sport. their organisation is based on a parochial patriarchic attitude towards people. — Banno

No doubt complaints arise from those quarters, where the objections are simply that they don't want a status quo disrupted, but an equal argument is made from the other side, which is that athletics serves a useful social and emotional function and should be as equally distributed as possible. It's for that reason that there is US law requiring equal access to sports opportunities at the college level (Title 9 rules) for men and women.

These things were pretty reliably categorised according to biological sex. Now that's not such a good proxy. So why not base the categorisation on what is actually significant - Fast twitch muscle fibre, testosterone during puberty and whatever.... — Banno

In short, because you would be eliminating CIS women from the sports marketplace. Those measurements you reference do correlate generally to biological sex, which is why they have served historically as a proxy for distinguishing ability.

That's the complaint. If you allow entry of MtF athletes on traditionally CIS female sports teams, the CIS women lose their spots.

The consequences are minimal at the recreational level because the CIS girls and women could find a team to compete on at their level, but at the collegiate and professional level, those opportunities would be eliminated. It's just simple math. If you increase the competitors in the current CIS division to include trans competitors, you will lose CIS competitors, especially considering there is evidence that trans athletes are athletically superior to CIS competitors

Western" morality is ambiguous phrasing. Free speech was not considered a right in the West until enlightenment thinkers like Locke. A lot of these enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire were inspired by their idea of "Turkish society", where they believed multiple religions lived and worked side by side. That was an exaggeration, but not incorrect as a comparative statement vis a vis Europe at the time. — absoluteaspiration

Sure, it's a broad based theory that requires some tinkering, but I'm not in agreement that the power of speech and its special status can only be traced to the Enlightenment.

The guy you banned spent some time explaining how fragmented Islam is. Then you mentioned "that community.". I see now that I was supposed to read that as the global Muslim community, which the guy you banned said doesn't really exist, which is true. — Tate

No, now I see my initial assumption of the bad faith basis of your question was correct. You weren't confused, and I regret attempting to clarify. I didn't say the entire Muslim community in my last post. I explained it was the entire community at first, clarified to be Shiah, then opened by others back to the community. I contextualuzed what occurred, which is what I asked you do the first time, but such wasn't your desire.

When people behave in ways that one thinks are anti-social, uncivilized, or immoral, one must condemn it. One must disavow the unacceptable action. — Bitter Crank

And I think that's the gist of this whole thing, which is that the West holds speech as holy, both in the right to offend and duty to protect. It's primary. We perceive it fatally wrong to be told we can't express our wrongness and we feel a piwerful imperative to speak against injustice.

So that's what makes this thing stick in my craw. Rushdie was being told to shut up, and when he was physically attacked for it, the speech reaction from those best positioned to be heard didn't scream.

It's a realization of what free speech means to Western morality. An interesting revelation for me, at least.

Back to my theological musings now. I don't know enough about the Koran for a comparative analysis, but thematic to the OT is the power to create the universe from speech acts alone and for humans to challenge the authority of God, offering foundational support for where this free speech protection emphasis distinction arises.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but it's an interesting thesis.

From the OP:

I Googled looking for the Muslim reaction to the attack and found nothing in the way of Muslim leadership condemning it. — Hanover

You used the word "community". I still don't know what community you mean. In the US? The global community? Iran? Shiites? — Tate

The OP was clearly about the Muslim reaction, later focused to Shias, then some reopening it to Sunnis as well. I'm confused why you're confused. This whole conversation has been about my difficultly understanding why the reaction has been difficult to decipher.

That's why I responded to you as I did. Where was all this ground lost and then needing re-plowed?

Beats me. Maybe that clarifies?

That's why it's important for religious leaders to speak up. It's their job to go full MLK Jr and shout "Let freedom ring!" — Tate

7

So you asked what I meant earlier and I didn't respond because it was clear to me you did, and this is the point I was making. Is there a duty to speak truth to power, damn the consequences?

suppose if you want to say that the essential characteristic of being a man is identifying as a man then it's a kind of essentialism, but I was thinking of essentialism as involving a little more than that when I asserted my rejection of it. — Michael

OK, but I was thinking you were arguing fluidity of meaning based upon usage, which I would subscribe closer to, but I guess I don't know what you mean when you reject essentialism. It seems you're just arguing that your usage is more consistent with common progressive morality and is therefore preferred, but that makes it prescriptive and essentialist, which is the failing of those whose definition you reject.

I've missed something?

applies to being a man (and woman). I don't know off the top of my head what other things are like this. Maybe being a supporter of Manchester United? — Michael

So in terms of meaning being use, I rely upon what usage to know if you're a man? That you tell me you are? Is that the only public usage manifestation?

That strikes me as essentialism. To be a man, it is essential that one believe they are and then say they are.

A usage theory requires variability of characteristics and a public meaning, not just an internal state.