God didn't keep his words to Adam and Eve — Truth Seeker

See my post above.

If Satan is an essential part of human life, is God complicit with him. Is it possible that God was complicit in the initial rebellion? — Ludwig V

If God is omniscient, he surely knew what was going to happen at the creation. By the way, I posted about some of those ideas in the thread comparing scientific and religious worldviews in The Lounge. You might check it out.

Personally, I don't think God's foreknowledge contradicts free will, but others disagree.

What is a "scientific worldview"? A "worldview" is "a way of thinking about the world." If we think about the world "scientifically", we ignore (or at least undervalue) history, philosophy and all the other Humanities. In fact, we are moving in that direction. In court, DNA evidence has supplanted eye-witness testimony. Indeed, some of the "scientific" evidence used in court has been questioned: lie detectors and fingerprints have the aura of "scientific" but often produce dubious results. DNA evidence is the sin qua non, but the inferences derived from it are often unjustified (or at least unproven).

Truth Seeker's analysis of the ("evil") fable of Eden ignores the symbolic and metaphoric value of the story. Is "knowledge" and the quest for knowledge worth suffering for? Was Eve's eating of the apple a "sin" or a noble refusal to abide by arbitrary rules, and a desire to know and understand? I've been reading "Paradise Lost", and in that epic, that appears to be her motive. Does she "seduce" Adam into sin? Yes, in a way. Adam (in the poem) knows he will die if he eats the apple but remembers how lonely he was before Eve was created. He chooses to suffer and die in order to be with her, because he loves her. Without suffering, such nobility would be impossible. Also, arbitrary (non-scientific) rules and regulations abound in myths and fairy tales. Blow this horn, and the castle walls will topple. Ring this bell and disaster will ensue. Perhaps this socializes people into obedience, or perhaps it highlights the arbitrary nature of the scientific "laws of nature", which lead inevitably to suffering and death.

Of course humans suffer and die. That is the reality of the human condition. All animals share that fate. The "scientific worldview" can explain this but cannot tell us how to deal with it. In the Christian worldview, we are redeemed by love; in "Paradise Lost", Adam is redeemed by love. Perhaps there is a transcendence in love that can make even suffering and death seem pale shadows, even for us agnostics and atheists.

In the end, it doesn't matter, since when we take over Canada, all of Vancouver will be ours, and maybe Minnesota and Manitoba will be merged. We'll lose our little chimney up there. — BC

Maybe by that time the independent nation of Cascadia will emerge, comprising Oregon (my home state) Washington and British Columbia. We will not let California join, beg as they may.

Hands off Greenland. And Canada, too. — BC

I think we should invade Vancouver Island. The 70 or 80 miles that are south of the 49th parallel are rightfully ours. We'll give up that section of Minnesota that sticks up north of 49 by Lake of the Woods. Fair trade?

the point is that humans and chimps are closely related, and notions of right and wrong first evolved in an ancestor we shared.

We are not closely related to insects, so whatever "similarities" we find between us and them is an example of convergent evolution and outside of this discussion — Questioner

"Principles" and "notions" (or intuitions, or feelings) are not identical. Maybe chimps have religions -- maybe ants and bees do. There's no way of knowing. But if they are capable of "principles" they are capable of religion.

I'm not sure Ecurb understands the abstract approach I'm bringing to the discussion — Philosophim

I understand it perfectly. As I wrote earlier, good manners are a trivial form of proper morality. I believe in freedom of speech. But rude speech is trivialy immoral, based on "do unto others." It can be contemned without being condemned.

Chimps have behaviors. We cannot tell if they have "principles". Eusocial (haplodiplontic) insects practice altruistic behaviors, too. Are these based on moral principles?

No. The morality came first. We evolved the neurological capacities for it. Our evolution as a social species refined it. Toss in the capacity to invent supernatural beings, and the evolution of a theory of mind, and we see the rise of things like religious rituals, myths, taboos, and burial practices — Questioner

That depends on what you mean by "morality". Obviously, all female mammals (and many non-mammals) care for their children and give them scarce resources they could use themselves. Does this constitute "morality"? Are all behaviors of which you approve forms of "morality"?

The4 dictionary defines morality as

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour:

. Based on the spelling of "behaviour", we cannot fully trust this dictionary, but "principles" are distinct from actions. A mother may nurse her children without considering the "principles" concerning this behavior. Indeed, "principles" are clearly based on language and are clearly cultural, not exclusively "neurological".

As far as which came first -- how can we know? AS far as we can tell from studying stone age groups alive in the recent past, most principles have supernatural (i.e. religious or mythological) facets. It is likely, of course, that such principles derive in part from natural (biological) urges, like the principle that mothers should care for their children. Buit the principles themselves are clearly cultural.

You did not answer my questions -

If brain capacities are not the result of our evolution, what is your alternative explanation?

How do you separate a species from their structure and function? — Questioner

Man makes himself (as V. Gordon Childe once wrote). Based on the evidence of skulls, once language developed the lobes of the human brain devoted to language developed very rapidly (in evolutionary terms). So there is a complicated interface between culture and biology. It appears that cultural developments preceded and influenced physical evolution - or, at least, they developed together.

Language is clearly cultural. So are ethics. Of course our biological capacities are an important influence on both -- but both are probably an important influence on our biological capacities as well.

Reductionist "explanations" for facets of culture (like morality) are at best incomplete, at worst based on affirming the consequent. WE learn more about the development of moral codes by studying the development of moral codes than by studying the human brain. .

In Tilney's day, "nice" expressed "neatness, propriety, delicacy, or refinement." He deplored a word with a specific meaning morphing into one which expresses "every commendation in the world." But his battle has long been lost.

Your battle about the "default meaning" of "woman" is losing as well. It is morphing into a more general noun -- in many ways it has already morphed.

First, if it was true, that doesn't prove that the disagreement is rational or right. Educated people as a group have believed or asserted plenty of beliefs that later were found not to be founded on rational thought, but cultural group think. — Philosophim

Yes it does prove they are right in terms of the definition of "man" and "woman". That's how lexicographers define words.

No, its reasonable to use definitions for clarity of communication. Its manipulative, coercive, and a means to influence to gain power over people's thinking when you shape words for 'kindness', politeness, and political reasons. — Philosophim

Words often change from the specific to the general. WE may deplore the change (as Henry Tilney did 200 years ago in Northanger Abbey), but it would be foolish to deny it.

Here's Tilney lecturing his beloved Catherine Morland about "nice". Catherine speaks first:

“Not very good, I am afraid. But now really, do not you think Udolpho the nicest book in the world?”

“The nicest — by which I suppose you mean the neatest. That must depend upon the binding.”

“Henry,” said Miss Tilney, “you are very impertinent. Miss Morland, he is treating you exactly as he does his sister. He is forever finding fault with me, for some incorrectness of language, and now he is taking the same liberty with you. The word ‘nicest,’ as you used it, did not suit him; and you had better change it as soon as you can, or we shall be overpowered with Johnson and Blair all the rest of the way.”

“I am sure,” cried Catherine, “I did not mean to say anything wrong; but it is a nice book, and why should not I call it so?”

“Very true,” said Henry, “and this is a very nice day, and we are taking a very nice walk, and you are two very nice young ladies. Oh! It is a very nice word indeed! It does for everything. Originally perhaps it was applied only to express neatness, propriety, delicacy, or refinement — people were nice in their dress, in their sentiments, or their choice. But now every commendation on every subject is comprised in that one word.”

“While, in fact,” cried his sister, “it ought only to be applied to you, without any commendation at all. You are more nice than wise.

The battle over "nice" has long been lost (Northanger Abbey was written more than 200 years ago). You are losing the battle over pronouns and "man" and "woman" now.

No, that's not me, nor a great number of other critical-thinkers — Questioner

Clearest? How can a "great number" all have the clearest vision? Won't some have clearer vision than others?

Yeah, those in a cult don't have the clearest vision. — Questioner

In that respect, they resemble the rest of us.

God, no. An appeal to the best in us is not equivalent to the worst in us. — Questioner

Both influence behavior. Only the negative connotations surrounding "propaganda" make the word apply to one kind of influence and not the other. Those who ARE influenced by "propaganda" probably don't call it propaganda.

I'm not saying it 'should' be any of them. I'm noting it 'is'. That's where you misunderstand the OP. This not about what man or woman should mean by default, its about what they do mean by default. — Philosophim

Well, I and most educated people in the U.S. disagree. The definitions are changing, as Jamal has clearly pointed out. It's reasonable to modify definitions out of kindness, politeness, and for political reasons. That's what's happening. (Dictionaries rely on usage by well-educated people -- I'd suggest that in Universities, the definitions of man and woman, and the use of proper pronouns has already changed.)

Correct, and I offered you another. Me. — Philosophim

When you've written a widely syndicated column on manners for 40 years, let me know.

There should be no debate that woman can refer to adult human female, and woman can refer to a gender role — Philosophim

"Woman" can refer to an image of a prototypical woman, just like "bird" can refer to the image of prototypical bird. Research shows that this is how children learn and use language. If a child sees a transwoman walking through the woods and says, "There's a woman walking through the woods:, is he "lying"? He may not even be mistaken -- that's the crux of the argument after all. Of course if we define "woman" as "an adult human having two x chromosomes", then trans women are not women. But why do we need to define it that way? Perhaps the child is right, and the Emperor is naked. The chromosomal clothes that you believe are defining features have vanished.

If a person legally changes their name, then you should call them their new legal name. — Philosophim

You're backtracking (which is fine -- I'm glad you've changed your mind). However, this suggests that you needn't use preferred names unless a legal name has been changed. Names and pronouns are similar in this regard. Your case is slightly better for refusing to use preferred pronouns, but not much better. p.s. my grammatical correction, which I made based on your claim that the thread is about "language", stands.

My note is that unmodified, when the term 'woman' is used, its default is a sex reference, not a role. — Philosophim

Well, it might be a "role", or an "image (prototype)", a genetic description, or a mere preference. That's what the discussion is about. Why should it be one and not the others?

You don't believe in the power of propaganda? — Questioner

Of course I do. But "love your neighbor as yourself" is "propaganda" just as much as "kill the witch" is. I'm the one who is arguing that morals are culturally constituted -- they are determined by the mores of society, which are influenced by many cultural factors, one of which can be called "propaganda". The difference between "propaganda" and legitimate moral suasion is mainly that we agree with the legitimate,and decry that with which we disagree as "propaganda".

And linguistics and cognitive science back this up: it's called prototype theory. People have prototypical associations with words. A starling is closer to the prototypical bird than a penguin. Crucially though, both are birds. The tendency towards prototypical association doesn't justify the exclusion of other members of the category. — Jamal

That's correct. Some linguists think language is "structural", others that it is more "analogical" (this latter would involve the "prototypes" you mention). Reverting to P's "woman in the woods", the default image might NOT be someone with xx genes (which are unidentifiable to the naked eye). Instead, it might (like the starling that many children identify as a prototypical bird) be the image of a prototypical women: dressed like a woman, shaped like a woman, with feminine features.

Clearly, some transwomen will fit this image more closely than some women born with xx chromosomes. Only the "structural" (scientific) approach to language defines "woman" as P does.

I think you missed my point that groups of people can be manipulated — Questioner

That's my point, not yours. Morality is culturally constituted. It is "manipulated" by laws, mores, religions, philosophies, novels, poetry and other cultural artifacts. It can be manipulated in a positive or a negative way. You seem to be claiming that empathy and sympathy are biological; negative morals are "manipulated". Huh? Why the one and not the other?

No, I am the authority of good manners. And as I am addressing you with these wishes, you should comply. Don't you want to make a smooth social situation? — Philosophim

Well, you asked for an authority on manners, and I offered one. You don't have to accept her advice, but based on Miss Maner's definition of "rude" such is your behavior. Of course we need not smooth over every social situation -- but using preferred names is not something a rational person "disagrees with". Speech is social, and it is socially and culturally accepted to use preferred names -- but not to agree with everything anyone says.

Now - as to the "gassing of the Jews" during WW2 - that is a big question - At the pinnacle of this movement was one man - Hitler - who was a deviant from the norm - — Questioner

Explaining the Holocaust as the result of one deviant individual is unpersuasive. Hitler was elected, and he didn't personally kill any Jews. Hundreds of thousands of Germans did.

More important, that's beside the point. I was simply using the Holocaust as an example of humans lacking empathy. There are hundreds of other examples: Witch killings, Inquisitions, slavery, communist executions and gulags, etc. etc. etc. All suggest a lack of "biological" empathy.

The video you linked is also unpersuasive. 14-month-old children have learned a lot, and become enculturated. Indeed, you must be familiar with reems of research suggesting that babies who are not cuddled fail to grow, fail to learn empathy or sympathy (sympathy being the better word for what you are getting at then empathy), and are handicapped in other ways.

Seems Kees "went missing" 1955 - never to be seen again. — Questioner

Kees was a poet, a novelist, a musician and film maker. His car was found by the Golden Gate Bridge, and it was assumed he committed suicide -- but he had also talked about disappearing. HIs poems are dark. He's my favorite "beat" poet. .

Here's another. I like the last line in this poem :

The Patient Is Rallying

Difficult to recall an emotion that is dead,
Particularly so among these unbelieved fanfares
And admonitions from a camouflaged sky.

I should have remained burdened with destinations
Perhaps, or stayed quite drunk, or obeyed
The undertaker, who was fairly charming, after all.

Or was there a room like that one, worn
With our whispers, and a great tree blossoming
Outside blue windows, warm rain blowing in the night?

There seems to be some doubt. No doubt, however
Of the chilled and emptied tissues of the mind
--Cold, cold, a great grey winter entering--
Like spines of air, frozen in an ice cube.

By the way, here's a quote from the afore mentioned Miss Manners:

“The emphasis on suiting pronouns to identity has to do with tolerance and acceptance. Therefore, Miss Manners trusts that those who expect these virtues will also practice them. … An apology ought to be enough to establish one’s goodwill when mistaking a name or a pronoun."

Here's what she says about dead-naming:

"Use the name and pronouns a person asks you to use, and politely correct yourself when you slip up. Choosing to repeatedly use the name someone has asked you not to use is considered disrespectful in polite society."

Here's one for a philosophy forum.

Crime Club
by Weldon Kees

No butler, no second maid, no blood upon the stair.
No eccentric aunt, no gardener, no family friend
Smiling among the bric-a-brac and murder.
Only a suburban house with the front door open
And a dog barking at a squirrel, and the cars
Passing. The corpse quite dead. The wife in Florida.

Consider the clues: the potato masher in a vase,
The torn photograph of a Wesleyan basketball team,
Scattered with check stubs in the hall;
The unsent fan letter to Shirley Temple,
The Hoover button on the lapel of the deceased,
The note: "To be killed this way is quite all right with me."

Small wonder that the case remains unsolved,
Or that the sleuth, Le Roux, is now incurably insane,
And sits alone in a white room in a white gown,
Screaming that all the world is mad, that clues
Lead nowhere, or to walls so high their tops cannot be seen;
Screaming all day of war, screaming that nothing can be solved

The point is that all morality comes from our evolution. — Questioner

If you mean the culture "evolves", anyone might agree. If you mean morality is influenced by biological evolution, fine. If, however, you mean that morality is purely biological, that is nonsense. Some moral codes suggest empathy for the oppressed; others suggest gassing the Jews. Are both the result of human biological evolution?

Here's an example from anthropology. The incest taboo is one universal human moral code. Some biology oriented types incorrectly claim it resulted from the greater likelihood of negative recessive traits for children of close relatives. However, in many simple societies (Australian aborigines, for one) one must not marry one's parallel cousin (mother's sister's or father's brother's child) but must marry one's cross cousin (mother's brother's or father's sister's child). The genetic closeness of the cousins is identical. The prohibition seems based on social and economic benefits for the couple and their children. the parallel cousins will be in the same clan as their spouses; the cross cousins in different clans. The marriage will cement economic and social relationships between the clans. Such relationships are clearly "cultural" (other societies may not have clans at all, or may organize them differently). So this form of the one, universal human moral rule seems cultural, not biological.

Everything has failed to create a better world. The world is as it is.

However, there is no point of comparison. We don't know if the world without philosophy would be better or worse.

Because a name is a legally binding identifier for the individual. Why do you think it wouldn't matter? — Philosophim

Plenty of people go by a name that is neither their birth name nor their legal name. A woman I know named "Kathleen" prefers to go by "Kathy". I suppose on legal documents one must use the legal name. In social situations it is best to comply with the addressee's wishes. I don't know why you're so hung up on the law. Who cares about legal names in a social situation?

Who is the authority of these 'Good manners'? — Philosophim

Miss Manners, of course. Why don't write to her column and ask her. I'll bet anything she'll agree with me.

"Their" indicates ownership and can also be singular or plural. — Philosophim

Only in the same modern, politically correct grammar you abhor. You wrote "If a person legally changes their name". "A person" is singular. "Their" is plural. The old, grammatically correct form would be "If a person legally changes his name..." The newer one (which is awkward, so some people use "their" now, in a grammatically incorrect manner): "If a person changes his or her name."

What does "legally" have to do with it? Why should that matter?

Good manners suggest that we should refer to people by the name they request us to use.

(I notice you use the plural pronoun "their" when the referent is singular. Maybe you are coming around.)

I do not believe in Adam and Eve as historical figures.

All human behavior is "natural" — Questioner

Neither do I. But the story was probably first told during the transition from small, hunting and gathering societies (represented as "Eden") to civilizations based on agriculture and animal husbandry (represented by Cain and Abel).

Human behavior is "natural" in one sense, but in some uses of the word "cultural" is distinct from "natural".

Chimps may know what "belongs to them". But for humans it differs from culture to culture. In most hunting and gathering societies, the hunter who kills an animal doesn't "own" it; he is required by custom to distribute it among the group.

Of course non-human animals have a sense of morality, as the experiment with capuchin monkeys clearly shows.

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=capuchin+monkey+morality+experiment&mid=C8EB1E689CAA032DFE8DC8EB1E689CAA032DFE8D&FORM=VIRE

What non-human animals don't have is moral "codes" (because they lack sophisticated language). The "knowledge of good and evil" may (my interpretation) refer to moral codes, rather than "morals".

The evolution of moral codes developed from concepts of morality, not the other way around. — Questioner

Maybe. Maybe not. "Thou shalt not steal", for example, depends on a theory of property rights that did not exist in many simple societies. So the moral code and the notion of "property" developed together.

When Eve ate the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, this may represent the transition from simple, hunting and gathering societies (like Eden) to more complicated civilizations in which morality must be codified (because it is less "natural").

Language is not used to 'shape' reality. That's manipulation.
— Philosophim

I think this is naive in a way I find it hard to overstate. Language absolutely, 100% shapes our reality — AmadeusD

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (well known in anthropology) states, "Language has a tyranny on thought." The idea was that Inuits, who have 22 words for snow, actually see snow differently from us temperate zoners.

Perhaps trans women and men want to be seen as the gender with which they identify. This would involve using gender-appropriate pronouns. The words "man" and "woman" come up rarely in ordinary speech (with regard to the individuals with whom one is conversing). Instead, they are used on applications, medical information forms, drivers' licenses and passports.

Since names often indicate gender, if a trans person changes her (OK, the pronoun is controversial) name from "Al" to "Alice" would those objecting to the pronoun preferred by the individual insist on continuing to call her "Al"?

For the teleological explanation, we ask, "What is it good for?" Does it produce a good outcome? Well, in the context of natural selection, we can say that any traits that are selected for, have the effect of increasing fitness - improving the chances of survival and reproduction. — Questioner

IN his book Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches Marvin Harris (a neo-Marxist anthropologist) offers economic "explanations" for the taboos on eating pigs and cows. They are complicated and abstruse. (They may also be dated, I studied anthropology several decades ago.)

I don't buy it. You needn't taboo rational economic behavior. Instead, the taboos (if nothing else) communicate that an individual is willing to give up something valuable to assert membership in the group. Membership is more important than eating cows, pigs, or fish on Friday.

So, you are saying that goodness comes from God and we know this because the Bible tells us it's so?

I think the more likely explanation is that we evolved something called biological altruism.

Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures – — Questioner

If that's true, why do we need moral rules? Of course all female mammals are altruistic toward their children. If they weren't, the children wouldn't survive (until human practices like adoption and orphanages).

Anthropologists claim that the incest taboo is the one universal human moral code. But moral codes wouldn't be necessary if people didn't desire to break them. Moslems have a taboo about eating pork; Hindus about eating beef. Nobody has a taboo about eating dirt, or shit. That's because pork and beef are tasty and healthful. We have moral bans on behavior people would otherwise want to do, not on behaviors for which we have a biological abhorrence. Many of us might want to steal, covet, commit adultery, or forget to keep the Sabbath holy (especially this last). We are enjoined from doing so by the Ten Commandments, not by "biological altruism".

Is it surprising that social controls are similar from one culture to another? Prohibitions against stealing, murdering, coveting one's neighbor's wife, and taking the Lord's name in vain (OK, maybe not this last) are important forms of social control. The universality of the Tao (if, as is not the case, it is universal) proves neither that morality comes from God nor that it comes from "biological altruism".

By the way, Questioner, if you're interested in Indigenous American philosophy, I recommend The Dawn of Everything by Graeber (a cultural anthropologist) and Wengrow (an archaeologist). The authors argue that the traditional liberal European philosophers (Locke, Mill, Rousseau, et. al.) were influenced by Native American philosophy. Some American philosophers came to Europe, and books about their philosophy were popular, promoting individual freedom, rights, and equality.

This is about language. — Philosophim

And I gave you an example where almost all native English speakers would say, "I saw a woman walking in the woods."

Are you going to insist on asking, "How do you know? Just because she looks like a woman, acts like a woman and presents as a woman, you might be lying, because HE might have been born male."

The claim it is the default definition is a given. Go to anyone you know and say, "A woman was walking in the woods." Wait a second. Then ask them, "Did you imagine an adult human male or an adult human female?" Of course we all know the answer is, "Adult human female". That is because man and woman by default do not refer to a role, but a sex. — Philosophim

If the same person saw a person with long hair, breasts, wearing a dress walking in the woods, he or she might say, "I saw a woman walking in the woods." Or if he saw such a person entering a men's toilet, he might say, "Huh? Why is a woman entering a men's toilet?"

This is obvious. Of course there is some ambiguity. The question is how to deal with it. I suggest dealing with it with kindness, empathy and good manners. You suggest (incorrectly) that would be a lie.
Since definitions change, it would not be a lie.

No, I am not begging the question. The assertion of a definition, and a reason why it is that definition is not a conclusion within the premises. — Philosophim

Nonsense. The definition is changing, or has changed. Why else would it be commonplace for people to list their "pronouns". The use of "she" and "her" to refer to transwomen is accepted and normal (although not, perhaps, in MAGA circles). To refer to a trans individual by his or her birth name or birth pronouns is commonly considered rude. Manners (and the definitions of words) are culturally constituted. "Biology" plays little role in how words are defined.

So that premise, at least, is dubious.

It's clarity, directness and ability to be weilded for policy purposes means that "man" and "woman" should be distinct from the more nuanced, and possibly undefinable concepts of gender in each case - which can be captured by "transman" or "transwoman" without ambiguity - the "trans" gives you the data you need to categorize accurately without passing any moral judgement. — AmadeusD

This begs the questions of policy. Should a "transman" use the men's or women's toilets? Should a transwoman play women's sports? It also ignores pronouns. Does a transwoman use "she" and "her"? (I admit that we need a singular neuter pronoun. It grates on my nerves to use "they" or "them" -- but the only alternative is to recast the sentence. That's fine when writing, but awkward in speech.)

Of course your suggestion is more accurate and less ambiguous. But what's so bad about ambiguity? Also, those (nobody here I'm sure) who are prejudiced against trans individuals will be enabled to discriminate more easily.

I would have agreed with this, if TRAs and the entire ideological movement didn't also exist besides trans people who want to do this. I think the concept of "my truth" is absolutely unacceptable in a civilized society, so we're going to disagree on that anyway - but just on empirical grounds, the people Phil and I and referencing (and we need to be honest about this, as above) are overly, explicitly and aggressive expecting/demanding that others live "their truth" (i.e the trans person's "truth") despite either believing it is a lie, or not really caring enough to engage. You don't have to take part in my self-image, and you don't have to take part in mine - again, even if* it reflects some "true" tension between the mind and body in an individual. — AmadeusD

I don't buy it. I doubt many trans people want to "pass" so they can date. If you know someone well enough to "date" (have sex with), you would probably know if he or she were trans. So desired pronouns indicate a public identity, whereas sexual activity is private.

Nor are using desired pronouns "a lie", because pronouns (these days) refer to gender, not to biological sex. The "truth" is that a transwoman is a woman, in terms of her public image, persona, and gender. Therefore the "lie" would be referring to her as "he" or "him" (given the current definition of these pronouns).

By insisting that gender identity develops in utero, you suggest that it is biological, like sex. But gender is culturally determined. So attempting to redefine it as biological supports the notion that proper use of gendered pronouns (for example) is biologically determined. I disagree. It's a matter of politely accepting the gender identity of others, whether or not it is biologically determined.