Fantastic post.

Is hate an emotion, or is it more of an attitude, or a judgement? — Questioner

Hatred is a desire to eliminate something no matter what value it may have to others.

All three. You can feel the fires of hatred yet not act on it. You can not feel hatred, but judge and act on it. Finally you can take a stance that nothing matters and anything that gets in your way should be destroyed.

Is hate more irrational or logical? — Questioner

Hate can be rational or irrational. Hate is the motivation to destroy something without compassion, and sometimes that is needed in life. Ever seen a pedophile in the act of trying to rape a child? That hate is rational. You're trying to prevent something horrific from occurring.

Hate can also be completely irrational. A personal dislike of something can bloom into an irrational hatred that is merely a circular feeding of your own feelings into an ever greater intensity of emotion. That's not rational, that's an animal seeking the fix of empowerment and intensity that such strong emotions can bring.

Why is it that both love and hate can result in both heroic and evil actions?...Is hate ever positive? Is love ever negative? — Questioner

Because love is the desire to protect and preserve something no matter its value to others. If you have irrational love, you can do great evil to others in pursuit of preserving the thing you love. Same with irrational hatred.

Is hate what happens when someone is not loved? — Questioner

No, its just a human emotion that is used to motivate destruction when needed. I have seen unloved people become the most loving people in the world to others because they wouldn't dare deprive to others what was deprived to them.

Is hate a stronger force than love? — Questioner

I view them as equal. Some people have a greater capacity for one or the other. Wielded correctly, they can be very powerful forces of good.

The evolutionary advantage of love seems obvious, considering we are a social species. Attachment to our kith and kin better ensured we all survived. But what of hate? We see so much of it, in the current political turmoil darkening the world. What is the evolutionary advantage of hate? — Questioner

Hate is what punishes criminals. Hate is what allows us to kill your fellow man when they are trying to kill you. Hate is what motivates us to eradicate terrible diseases. The world is unfortunately not a nice place at times, and hate is a very useful emotion to have when there is a need to destroy something in it that is very harmful.

The problem with both hate and love is irrationality. Hate and love in themselves are not necessarily forces of good. Rational application of them is. The world is full of both irrational hatred and love. Our goal as those interested in philosophy is not to try to eliminate or vilify these emotions, but find practical and reasonable ways to apply them for the benefit of mankind.

↪Christoffer Hear, here. — Banno

The cries of those who cannot counter a very simple point. Questioner is an example of what people on this board should be like. We disagree on some fundamental issues, but they keep bringing facts, citations, and different arguments. Also respectful in disagreement. They have my respect back.

but you didn't say they were misrepresenting anything
— Philosophim

Actually, I did. They refuted supposed claims that were never actually made, like locating a specific “gender area” of the brain, or that any one brain is “100% male or female” and that male and female brains “do not look different.” No- one has ever claimed these things, so they approach was less than honest. Please re-read my post above. — Questioner

I don't want to get stuck on this as these points they were making to other people were never intended as directed at you. The main post of this was to demonstrate that there is still debate in science as to how different male and female brains are. Yes, people have claimed these things. I've discussed with quite a few people, you'll find people who hold these views. So they aren't being dishonest by answering comments that other people make. I'm not even claiming that any science they've cited is indisputable, I've claimed many times it is even from my own viewpoints. The point is that you understand that brain science on sex and gender is still evolving and there is still a lot of scientific debate out there. Can we agree on that?

You can't make up your own definition of gender that invalidates all the current scientific research and expect people to accept it without question. No, there are not two definitions of gender. Gender is the sex that you identify with. Identity is a mental construct of the brain. — Questioner

I am not making these up. I've posted sources backing my definitions. Gender identity is the gender you identify with. Gender in itself does not include personal identity. And where am I saying its invalidating scientific research? All I noted above is the way they were using gender in the paper was to refer to biological sex differences, not sociological ones. For the purposes of this conversation, sex and gender are clearly separated to avoid conflation and allow clear and unambiguous communication.

Let try a different approach. Do you believe that there are biological sex differences? Do you also believe that there can be different social expectations for sexes across people and cultures? If so, are these different enough to need unique terms for clarity of discussion? For example, men biologically are more statistically likely to have lower octive voices. Socially, there are some people who think women should wear dresses, and men should not. Is this a distinct enough difference to consider? And if it is, what would words you use to identify these different concepts? And if it is not, why is it not a distinct enough difference to consider?

Remember how I've said, "Everything is the brain"? So are our sociological concepts. The difference is these are learned and reasoned through, and not innate. What you need to demonstrate is that if someone says, "Women should wear top hats," and someone else says, "Women should not wear top hats," that there is some region of the brain that innately is going to believe this.
— Philosophim

Yes, social mores are learned. Gender identity is not. — Questioner

I'm talking about gender. Gender is learned as a social construct. If we don't have an agreement on the definition of gender, then we're not going to be able to agree on gender identity.

I'm talking about treating gender dysphoria
— Philosophim

The medically accepted treatment is gender-affirming care. — Questioner

My counter was to this very statement you made again. This does not indicate why I am wrong and you are right. This is just a repeat of your point after I provided a full explanation of what gender-affirming care treats.

According to the American Psychiatric Association, here is the correct definition:

“gender dysphoria,” - refers to the psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity. — Questioner

Right. Now please point out how it is different from my own definition that I gave you. What between mine and yours is the fundamental distinction?

And to add to the above from the same site:
Gender- refers to the socially constructed characteristics of people, including gender norms and the roles we play.
— Philosophim

No. According to the APA (on the same page linked above):

gender identity - one’s psychological sense of their gender — Questioner

Did you see that I defined gender, not gender identity? Proving a definition for gender identity as a counter for gender isn't addressing the correct point. Gender is a belief about how a sex acts, and a gender identity is saying, "I identify as that gender."

I urge you to read up more about the transgender experience. — Questioner

I urge you to drop this false idea that I haven't. I have a close friend who's in the middle of transition right now. I've researched the issue for years. You need to get rid of the idea that only your view point is innately correct and that if someone disagrees with it, it means there is a moral failure or ignorance. That's cult behavior, or behavior from someone who has nothing else to rely on for their arguments. Everything I've said in this topic is agreed with by at least one trans person.

Let me explain: I always consider that I could be wrong. If you hold your position as true without question, then its almost certainly not. I've arrived at where I am through doubts and questioning carefully over time. I once was an avid supporter of trans gender rights and gender ideology. Over time with thinking and questioning, I have found plain flaws that have invalidated many of their points. It doesn't mean that I don't like trans gender people, it just means that some of the things they want and some of the ideas around them are flawed. And I'm still open to the idea that I could be wrong. That's what a good discussion is for. If you want to convince me, post good papers, arguments, and definitions. Stuff like the sentence above will only cause good people to hand wave you away as full of yourself. Don't do that, you've been much better than the average poster. So far this discussion has made me learn about trans gender self-identity processing in the neo-cortex from our conversation. Continue with your points please, not suggestions that I need to do more reading.

Philosophim allows for the possibility that sexual preference may be connected with a brain region which differs between males and females, but he doesn’t believe there are any other behaviors associated with biological sex and their associated brain structures. — Joshs

No, that is incorrect. Innate and unlearned behaviors are obviously from the brain. The question of course is how much is associated with the brain vs learned behavior. Things that strongly correlate with the purpose of sex like flirting behavior are likely inborn.

This is why he believes that the concept of gender is completely socially constructed. — Joshs

No. First, gender by definition is NOT a synonym sex here, but the sociological belief about how a sex should behave in front of other people. There is simply no evidence as of yet that this sociological belief is anything more than a subjective opinion that is formed through experience. In other words, there is no place in the brain where a person is born and innately believes that only women should wear a dress.

The biological and the social are inextricably intertwined with regard to gender behavior. — Joshs

No, gender is just a prejudice in how a sex should act. That's it. Its just an opinion.

The possibility I am suggesting is that innate brain functions include the organization of processing. — Joshs

Its not a suggestion, its a fact. If the brain does not have the ability to process something, it can't.

Are you open to the possibility that more than just this one facet of sexual behavior is traceable to brain wiring? That perhaps a whole host of behaviors originate this way, and are connected on the basis of a single mechanism? And that the reason many see only sexual attraction as associated with innate brain wiring is that it is the most tangible and identifiable sexual
behavior? Others point to aggression, perceptual processing, voice modulation, gait, posture and many other subtle aspects of behavior as being shaped and organized by the same innate brain structure that dictates who we are attracted to. — Joshs

Absolutely I am open to this. Let go deep into this.

What the OP has deviated into due to Questioner is whether there is an innate 'gender identity' that is in the brain. So for example, if you were born and thought, "Women should not wear top hats", and this is not learned nor can it be changed at any point, then it would be a biological reality of oneself. Sexual orientation fits this bill. You cannot choose who or what you are attracted to. You can only decide what you do about it. I fully support gays marrying and having sexual relations as sexual orientation is unchangable and ridiculously strong. So someone not fulfilling their sexual desires is forced into denying a very strong part of their brain. Also, at the end of the day, what does it matter? It causes no harm to anyone else in society, and can cause all the nice sexual and romantic feelings with another partner.

Gender however is a learned trait. I can learn, "Top hats shouldn't be worn by women," but also learn, "Top hats should be worn by women," Now my brain might have a proclivity to attach things to sex that don't belong. I might have a brain that has a higher proclivity towards prejudice, and is more inflexible and tends to sexism is unchecked. That does not mean I as a person do not have the ability to unlearn prejudice or sexism.

There can also be innate brain states that compel one to act in a way that other people might think should be exclusive to the other sex. This won't change either. But you can decide, "This is who I am, their prejudice is irrelevant," or "This is who I am. I can't act in that way if I'm not the other sex." The former is what you should conclude, the later should be banished from your thoughts.

The point is there is no innate brain state that establishes a particular gender. Or, no area of the brain that biologically determines how a sex should act in social situations, like wearing a dress. That is learned sociological behavior. And it can change. One can learn prejudice, but they can also unlearn prejudice. Maybe the person really wants to wear a dress. That's fine, that in itself is not prejudice. It is only when a person states, "Only women can wear a dress, I wear a dress, therefore I must be a woman," that one has elevated their prejudice over sex and descended into sexism.

there's no difference between using Chatgpt as a search engine and using Google as a search engine — Questioner

My apologies, using it as a search engine is fine. I do not use ChatGPT very often so I was unaware what that referenced.

The site has citations to several articles, its one of many things to read. The real enemy is "I will not read or listen to you because you have an agenda".
— Philosophim

But if the source begins with misrepresentations, I am unlikely to consider them unbiased, and therefore likely to call into question anything else they say — Questioner

Fair, but you didn't say they were misrepresenting anything, only that what they cited wasn't against what you were saying.

This is not a gender study, this is a sex differences study. We have to be careful to not accidently conflate the wrong meaning of gender in the discussion. We are using gender as the sociological concept, not a synonym for sex. Sex expectations are biological. Remember that gender is "Women should wear top hats." If we could find a brain section that correlated with this sociological belief, then we could demonstrate gender in the brain.
— Philosophim

But I am not using gender as a sociological concept, but an aspect of identity at least in part determined by brain function. — Questioner

These two things are not incompatible. Remember how I've said, "Everything is the brain"? So are our sociological concepts. The difference is these are learned and reasoned through, and not innate. What you need to demonstrate is that if someone says, "Women should wear top hats," and someone else says, "Women should not wear top hats," that there is some region of the brain that innately is going to believe this.

Remember that there are two definitions for gender, and that we are discussing the sociological aspect, not the synonym for sex. If there is a sex reference, then we note that to avoid conflation logical fallacies, and keep clear communication. My description of gender as sociological beliefs about how a sex should act is confirmed in gender theory, as well as in science. If you are going to use gender in some other way, you are not using gender as agreed upon within these institutions. If you do think there should be another definition, then you need to explain how this definition is separate from sex. Further, all of your papers at that point are suspect, as they use established definitions of gender and not your personal one. Even if you have a personal definition for gender, if a paper is clearly using gender as a synonym for sex, you do not get to change their definition to suit what you want.

No, it is not the type of hat one should wear, but patterns of thinking that emerge from neurological function. — Questioner

No, what type of hat a sex should wear is 100% what gender is. That's the social construct. Sex expectations, like a deeper voice for men, is not gender but a biological expression of an expected sex characteristic objectively determined over scientific studies. That is not sociological, and not gender.

It may very well be that our sociological constructs of gender are determined by the brain. But you need to be pointing to the sociological aspect. It doesn't have to be "top hats" per say, but you need to show a study between people's different opinions about how a sex should behave in public and be able to point to a brain region that is likely to determine that opinion. As of today, I do not believe any paper is able to show this.

As noted, I agreed with you that someone who is likely to identity as trans gender does have an area in the prefrontal cortex that lights up differently which involves the processing of body perception. And I'm also very open to the fact that brain science on gender is very early and not set in stone yet. But so far there is not an indicator of some inaliaable identity like a female brain in a male body, but a misprocessing of one's body perception. Remember, I've never said people don't feel like they're in the wrong body or have a gender identity. What I've noted is that gender is a prejudice against the sexes, and elevating it over sex is sexism. That does not mean its a good thing to hold or that one should base their life around such identities.

this is a sex differences evaluation, not a gender evaluation of the brain.
— Philosophim

How do you think the differences in male and female brains are manifested? — Questioner

As noted, science is still out on it. A couple of things which are clear is that female brains on average have more white matter, male brains on average have more grey matter. Again, I'm not disputing male and female differences in brains, and have referenced a few myself. But sex differences are not sociological gender differences. That is incontrovertible.

What if we could isolate it to a misunderstanding and train the person to simply have a better understanding of their body?
— Philosophim

This sounds dangerously like advocating for "conversion therapy" which has been been roundly denounced by all major medical associations. Conversion therapy is unsuccessful and in fact leads to psychological distress. If you are looking for a science-backed approach, this is not it. — Questioner

Conversation therapy regarding sexual orientation, yes. Yes, I'm aware the trans community tried to grab and re-use the word for themselves regarding gender identity so they could accuse people of being bigots, but that in no way is settled science. The words and phrases are irrelevant to the concepts. And as I am referring to the treatment of gender dysphoria, that concept in no way applies. Gender dysphoria can be treated in multiple ways. Transition is considered the last treatment when no other forms of treatment like therapy suffice. But offering therapy to a person to treat gender dysphoria is in no way conversation therapy.

This policy statement affirms APA’s support for unobstructed access to healthcare and evidence-based clinical care for transgender, gender-diverse, and nonbinary children, adolescents, and adults.

Furthermore, this policy statement addresses the spread of misleading and unfounded narratives that mischaracterize gender dysphoria and affirming care, likely resulting in further stigmatization, marginalization, and lack of access to psychological and medical supports for transgender, gender-diverse, and nonbinary individuals.”

"The American Psychological Association has adopted a resolution opposing efforts to change people’s gender identity, citing scientific research showing that such actions may be harmful. — Questioner

Yes, I'm aware of all of this. I'm talking about treating gender dysphoria. And to my mind I have not misrepresented any of the treatment methodologies. I'm also not noting that people don't have gender identities. I'm merely noting they are prejudiced subjective opinions about the sexes. Which again, I have not see any counter evidence that they are not.

“Attempts to force people to conform with rigid gender identities can be harmful to their mental health and well-being.” — Questioner

I agree 100%. One should not live their life by prejudice or sexism.

you still have not demonstrated why gender is not prejudice, and sexism when taken as being more important in law and culture than sex.
— Philosophim

I think I have. Gender-affirming care is about affirming identity, not enforcing whatever cultural mores may exist. Besides, your position assumes that all of the male gender, or all of the female gender, hold the same cultural mores, and this is of course a false premise. — Questioner

Do not think you have, show you have. That's philosophy. First, remember that while the words, 'gender affirming care' are used, why is it used? Its used to treat gender dysphoria, not people who do not have it. For example, if I'm a male who lives in a culture that says, "Men should never cry," yet I cry without caring about what society thinks, I do not have gender dysphoria. If as a woman, I liked to wear top hats in a culture that was against women wearing them, and I did without worry, I would not have gender dysphoria.

Gender Dysphoria- Clinically significant distress and sense of unease that may lead to increased levels of depression and anxiety that have a harmful impact on daily life. This distress is caused by a person’s gender identity not matching how they feel within. This often occurs when a trans person is forced to match their gender identity and expression to their assigned sex at birth. Cisgender people can also experience gender dysphoria when dressing as the opposite sex.
https://aghope.org/en/blog/sogie-terms-and-definitions-understanding-the-lgbtqia2s-community-2022-6?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=11348411711&gbraid=0AAAAAD7UOl-E4otwZ5aEHO12spjLEEXj6&gclid=CjwKCAiAu67KBhAkEiwAY0jAlR1hi4rPCt1twfZXFYCSWDNVLMH1nwNrYiyoTVFvTBvRKFwZ8X2vwhoCnGEQAvD_BwE

And to add to the above from the same site:
Gender- refers to the socially constructed characteristics of people, including gender norms and the roles we play.

Typically therapy helps a person come to terms with their own view of themselves. If you're a boy who likes dolls, you learn its ok to like dolls. Most people can come to terms with that. Gender dysphoria that is treated is specifically about a person's sex not being in line with their gender identity. So a boy who likes dolls is told, "Its ok to like dolls," but despite this they cannot accept this fact and desire to have the body of the opposite sex.

From my observations, transgender treatment is to learn to accept your own personality differences and eliminate the prejudice and sexism a person has about the sexism. I don't have a full picture, but I suspect most people who transition are trans sexuals, or people who simply desire the body of the opposite sex. The language of 'gender' is often used to hide this, as trans sexualism had a poor connotation for many years prior. To be clear, when I talk about trans genderism, I am not talking about trans sexualism. That is not gender. I am talking about the definition cited above which in no way is the same or necessarily leads to trans sexualism or even transition.

Finally, of course I don't hold that males and females hold the same cultural mores. I've been saying all along gender is a subjective prejudice that can differ from person to person and culture to culture.

sex expectations as markers for correct sex identification are usually extremely accurate and easy to identify
— Philosophim

Even for prepubescent children?

I'm not sure I agree even for adults. What are the specific "markers" you are thinking of? — Leontiskos

For kids it can be a little more difficult if someone specifically dressed up a boy or a girl to disguise them, but even at that age its not very difficult to tell the difference. Personal anecdote, I had a few jobs where I had to deal with 20-30+ kids in different age categories. I have never mistaken a kid for the wrong sex.

Markers are usually face, voice, gait, and non-verbal gestures.

Adults are usually very easy to tell. There are so many markers.

A 96% accuracy in telling sex when smelling someone's palm sweat.
https://www.sciencealert.com/its-possible-to-identify-someones-sex-with-96-accuracy-with-just-a-sniff-of-their-hand

In a study where people listened to voices:
"Listeners were extremely accurate in recognizing the sex of male and female vocalisers, achieving 99% accuracy from a full paragraph to 95% accuracy from a single vowel."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49596-y

Studies about facial recognition without adornments:
"Our results indicate that facial structures with full information on the texture and color of the skin are correctly classified as to their sex by most of the participants (98.4 % for Exp. 1 and 94.6 % for Exp. 2). If we do not consider versions 3 and 5 (close to the androgyne version 4), which contain a certain degree of sex ambiguity and only consider the less ambiguous versions (1 and 2 for male faces, and 6 and 7 for female faces), the accuracy approaches the ceiling (99.9 % for Exp.1, and 99.1 % for Exp.2). This is in line with previous research which observed that natural faces, devoid of any cultural signs of sex, are generally correctly categorized into their sex (Bruce et al., 1987, Bruce et al., 1993, Sæther et al., 2009)."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004269892200133X

How many times have you mistaken a person's sex in your own life out of the thousands of people you've met? Sex is such an important social and physical component in life, and mistakes can be costly. I also have rarely ever seen a person who cannot correctly identify a person's sex in public.

The one difficulty I think that I and many others have is identifying trans men in public. Testosterone is a hormone that imo, is the primary catalyst for sexual dimorphism and alters the face. For me at least, the face is usually an instant indicator to a person's sex. In my many observations of trans women in a live setting, its usually extremely easy to tell they are men, not so with trans men.

But what happens if people say that an institution should consider gender rather than sex? What if they say, "I am not saying gender should shape something that is sex-related. I am saying that gender should shape something that is gender-related. I think this institution should turn on gender, not sex." — Leontiskos

First, "Who is going to determine the exact definition of the female and male gender?" Its a subjective opinion, and basing objective law on subjective opinion is discrimination. If I believe women should be able to wear top hats, and an organization declares, "Women cannot wear top hats. If you wear a top hate, you are not a woman in this organization," that's discriminatory sexism. But this is from my side. Can you craft a situation in which gender of sex would A. Not be sexism, or B, if its still sexism, its a fair and good sexism that avoids discrimination?

Please do better than chatgpt again.
— Philosophim

I cited papers, not Chatgpt — Questioner

Your source has https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091302211000252?utm_source=chatgpt.com <-

You need to be reading your own papers please, not typing into chatGPT and citing things. Do your own research, ChatGPT is not yet a good source of research.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17352-8.pdf
— Philosophim

I went to this paper, and the first sentence literally read:

Both transgenderism and homosexuality are facets of human biology, believed to derive from different
sexual differentiation of the brain. — Questioner

Yes, and read my quote from the paper and findings.

Another general site with more studies demonstrating the brain science is still very much not settled. https://www.transgendertrend.com/brain-research/
— Philosophim

This is not a scientific site, but a site with an agenda. — Questioner

Then should I ignore any site which would compile studies for trans in the brain? Should I just tell you, "You have an agenda, therefore I will ignore everything you say?" The site has citations to several articles, its one of many things to read. The real enemy is "I will not read or listen to you because you have an agenda". We need to talk to each other and listen. That's the real triumph of humanity and how we help people.

The point of the site is to let you know that currently there is no settled science on the trans gender and the brain. There are some common findings at this moment, but many conflicting papers and scientific points of view. I have also mentioned this several times in this discussion. I've been claiming certain things that I've read, but also noted things are still in flux.

"scientists have found no separate innate ‘gender’ area of the brain which is fixed at birth." - No sh*t - that has never been claimed. Please re-read my cites. — Questioner

Relax. I didn't cite that specific line so you can assumed I didn't mean to consider it. It was a broad area for more reading.

"In reality male and female brains do not look very different from each other." - the valid research does not look at "what brains look like" - but how they function — Questioner

The point being there is no real evidence of transgender individuals having a brain that is at odds with their sex.

That study is from 2011 and used MRI. There is more recent research that uses fMRI and contradicts those findings.

Overall our neuroimaging results suggest that the basic visuospatial abilities are associated with different activations pattern of cortical visual areas depending on the sex assigned at birth and gender identity.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9010387/ — Questioner

This study did not counter the 2011 study because it missed a vital point. It did not separate people by sexual orientation which was shown to be key for the brain differences.

Taken together, these four structural MRI studies provide preliminary evidence that regional cortical volumes can be modulated by gender attributes, especially in the frontal lobe.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811922008539 — Questioner

I do not have access to this article to read it. Again, I would need to see if they separate by sexual orientation, and if they had the same conclusion I noted above:

What is consistent between these papers is after sexual orientation is taken into account that at most the difference appears to be in the area in which a person process their own body. In other words, a misprocessing or misinterpretation of their body, not a case of a female or male brain in a person's body. This may not be innate either, but something developed. — Philosophim

the prefrontal cortex is where this is located, so it may be the same conclusion. You'll have to check and let me know if you could please.


"There is a wide range of evidence for gender differences in behavioral profiles as well as in brain structure and function (Sacher et al., 2013; Ruigrok et al., 2014; Gur and Gur, 2017). Behaviorally, males are shown to perform superiorly in some domains including motor and visuospatial processing, whereas females have an advantage in terms of verbal skills and emotional memory. There is an increasing interest in studying the brain mechanisms underlying these behavioral differences between genders. For example, there is evidence showing that larger gray matter volume (GMV) in occipital lobe was correlated with better visual function in males and larger hippocampal gyrus was correlated with better memory performance in females (Giedd et al., 2012)."

Females had greater GMV in several areas including the thalamus, postcentral gyrus, triangular part of inferior frontal gyrus, orbital part of middle frontal gyrus and medial superior frontal gyrus in both hemispheres, middle occipital gyrus and middle cingulate gyrus in the left hemisphere, and the inferior parietal lobule and caudate in the right hemisphere, and bilateral cerebellum. Males had greater GMV than females only in the right inferior occipital gyrus.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00244/full — Questioner

This is not a gender study, this is a sex differences study. We have to be careful to not accidently conflate the wrong meaning of gender in the discussion. We are using gender as the sociological concept, not a synonym for sex. Sex expectations are biological. Remember that gender is "Women should wear top hats." If we could find a brain section that correlated with this sociological belief, then we could demonstrate gender in the brain.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00244/full

Our stDNN model accurately differentiated male and female brains, demonstrating consistently high cross-validation accuracy (>90%), replicability, and generalizability across multisession data from the same individuals and three independent cohorts (N ~ 1,500 young adults aged 20 to 35). — Questioner

Again, this is a sex differences evaluation, not a gender evaluation of the brain.

So - the question that remains is - why are you so fixed against the notion that gender might be determined in utero? — Questioner

And I could easily ask "Why are you so fixated on the notion that gender might be determined in utero?" That's not a discussion point, that's an accusation and attack. Lets not do that as this has been a pleasant conversation so far. :)

Its not a fixation, its so far the science that I see. The problem is that most of the evidence about in uteror changes are about sexual orientation, not gender. We have to be careful with the terms we're using. Sex - biology. Gender - sociology Sexual orientation - what sex you' want to sleep with

The science that I've seen that separates the brains of people by sexual orientation reveals that what you are noting is about sexual orientation, not trans gender. Trans gender brains of heterosexual people do not show any evidence of feminized brains, only homosexual men do. Do you understand how important that is if that's true? We're not trying to prove a point, we're trying to figure out what's most true. If it is the case that the only brain structure we find when taking into account sexual orientation, is a common area in the neo cortex that processes the ability for people to identify themselves, we can isolate trans genderism to that point. If its simply a misunderstanding of oneself, that can be helped. Just like a person with poor spatial awareness can improve by practice, training and new methods could be established. Do you understand the hell trans people go through when they first get gender dysphoria? The permanent drugs? Surgeries? What if we could isolate it to a misunderstanding and train the person to simply have a better understanding of their body? We cannot simply look at one aspect, we must look at multiple. I am very well aware of your side of the ideological isle, I'm hoping you'll see that there a lot of unanswered questions and issues if you take that side only, and there's much more than that out there.

And of course, that may not be it either. The science is still very much in flux and there's much more to study and learn. What you may not understand is that I don't have an agenda. I'm exploring every angle on this, and if there were certain hard truths found, I would embrace those.

And again, to not get off topic on the OP, you still have not demonstrated why gender is not prejudice, and sexism when taken as being more important in law and culture than sex. While all that you are posting is interesting and a fantastic explore, if you're not addressing that point of the OP, it still stands.

During the intrauterine period a testosterone surge masculinizes the fetal brain, whereas the absence of such a surge results in a feminine brain. As sexual differentiation of the brain takes place at a much later stage in development than sexual differentiation of the genitals, these two processes can be influenced independently of each other.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091302211000252?utm_source=chatgpt.com — Questioner

Please do better than chatgpt again. You need to make sure to include sexual orientation in your findings. To my knowledge, most of your papers are describing homosexuality formation, not gender identity.

"Thus, accounting for individual differences in sexual orientation, the transgender groups showed lower,
sex-atypical FA specifically in the right IFOF and left ILF. In all other tracts, FA values of the transgender groups became sex-typical after accounting for sexual orientation (see for comparison Supplementary Results when Kinsey scores were not co-varied)."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17352-8.pdf

Another general site with more studies demonstrating the brain science is still very much not settled. https://www.transgendertrend.com/brain-research/

HeM = Heterosexual Male
MtF-TR = Male to female transgender (post hormone therapy which is known to alter the brain)

"Like HeM, MtF-TR displayed larger GM volumes than HeW in the cerebellum and lingual gyrus and smaller GM and WM volumes in the precentral gyrus. Both male groups had smaller hippocampal volumes than HeW. As in HeM, but not HeW, the right cerebral hemisphere and thalamus volume was in MtF-TR lager than the left. None of these measures differed between HeM and MtF-TR. MtF-TR displayed also singular features and differed from both control groups by having reduced thalamus and putamen volumes and elevated GM volumes in the right insular and inferior frontal cortex and an area covering the right angular gyrus.The present data do not support the notion that brains of MtF-TR are feminized. The observed changes in MtF-TR bring attention to the networks inferred in processing of body perception."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21467211/

What is consistent between these papers is after sexual orientation is taken into account that at most the difference appears to be in the area in which a person process their own body. In other words, a misprocessing or misinterpretation of their body, not a case of a female or male brain in a person's body. This may not be innate either, but something developed. The jury is still very out on anything final at this time.

And Questioner, you still haven't indicated why gender itself isn't just prejudice, or why elevating it over sex isn't sexism. Go back to the OP again if you need to.

What DOES the possibility of a brain similarity between gay men and women mean to you? — Joshs

I don't know. What it does seem to imply is that sexual orientation is not a processing issue, its an innate brain function. The problem of course is that we don't yet quite have the brain issues for sexual orientation down in heterosexual brains. So at this point its a lot of guess work. The only thing we can say for certain is that gay men are not females in male bodies. They are males with a sexual orientation towards the same sex.

Do you think the region of the brain which differs between straight men and women is responsible for behavioral differences between the sexes? — Joshs

Behavioral differences in regards to sexual orientation. There are certain methods of flirting that are repeatable across cultures, implying biological origin. I would say you would be able to assess much better than I do, but 'flightiness' for example can be seen as an attractive trait in women to men, while it it often not seen as an attractive trait in men for women. To be clear, flirting which is socially learned would be gender. We're talking about innate attraction and flirting which is natural and unlearned.

Still, its a topic mostly outside of my wheelhouse so I don't have too much educated to say about it. What I do know from my research so far (and again, brain science is still very early and not yet conclusive) is that when trans individuals are examined based on sexual orientation, there is no difference. So homosexuals who are trans have the same brains as homosexuals who are not trans. Same with heterosexuals. There is one minor barely statistical difference in the corpus collosum in both, and that may be important as we continue to learn more. But this largely indicates gender is a processing issue, not an innate brain function.

And if not, what do you suppose is the function of that sex-related brain region? — Joshs

Unsure. But it could explain behavior that is associated more with women. Of course it doesn't mean you have a female brain. It means you have a brain that has aspects of it that would normally be associated with females. You're still a maie.

Delusion as false belief doesn’t necessarily describe the schizophrenic experience either. Thus the need for the ‘hearing voices’ movement. — Joshs

First, my apologies for all these separate posts on your topics, I'm catching up from vacation.

I have a major issue with this need to never say anything is 'wrong'. There are lots of things wrong with all of us, and maturity is admitting that. I have a very scarred face that often scares people. Its bad. Its a handicap in social settings. I am flawed because of it. Saying, "Oh but really you're not mangled, its an expression of blah blah blah" is both a diminishment of the reality of my situation, and an insult to myself as if I'm not mature enough to handle that I have things wrong with me. There are schizophrenics who fight daily to be normal despite their handicap. Saying their condition is normal is beyond insulting.

If you are hearing voices, there is something wrong with your brain, period. Its important to realize it, get help, and work to function normally in society despite one's delusion and handicap. The idea of transition is a coping mechanism for severe gender dysphoria. Its not a normal, healthy way of life. And that's ok. But it doesn't mean you latch onto sexism to make yourself feel better. I have something fundamentally wrong with me and cannot live a normal and healthy life without extra effort and work on my part. And that's ok. But it doesn't mean I get run around pretending I don't look like what I do.

If I went around pretending that I had a normal face and asked people to call me 'good looking' because otherwise my feelings would be hurt, I would have an infantile mind and be a pathetic individual. I do not encourage or endorse other people being infantile or pathetic. I encourage others to admit reality because that is the only way you really handle the arrows of life. I do not say this as some healthy normal individual safely behind a screen. I say this as an individual who has been through great physical and emotional difficulties. The truth is the only way to triumph. Lies and pretend only work temporarily, will always be shattered by uncaring reality and keep you weak. This is from personal experience.

You see, I have a great sympathy for fellow sufferers in life. And the last thing they need is pity, excuses, or lies to get over it. I believe in their strength of mind, constitution, and morals. I do not treat them like inferiors. I do not give them false sympathy or pretend their pain is not real and does not exist to make myself feel better. I do not treat you like an inferior because you went through the struggles of being gay. You're just a person like me. And I'll hold you to the same intellectual and moral standards I would hold anyone else despite those difficulties.

But, if you ask any cisgender male or female, they will tell you what it feels like to be a woman or a man.
— Questioner

We should ask Philosophim this question. I’ll bet you a twinkie he insists that there is nothing a priori it feels like to be a man or a woman, because these feelings are merely the result of arbitrary social conditioning, and the only feelings that aren’t socially imposed have to do with how a male body (not mind) feels different from a female body. — Joshs

No, there is a way of feeling like a man. Its sexual. I can grow a beard. I pee a certain way. I have more strength naturally. Its entirely 100% biological. I do have sociological pressures to act, dress, and behave a particular way because of my sex. But I don't have to follow them generally. True strength is realizing I can give the proverbial middle finger to everyone else in society and do what I want. But men or women can realize that.

How else would I 'feel like a man'?

I'm sorry that you face that prejudice and that ignorance. — Questioner

Most people face prejudice and ignorance in life. I have in spades. It does not make his position special or his ideas have any more merit or value, nor my own. Ideas have merit and value not in how we suffer with them, but if they rationally make sense.

I would say having surgery to appear as a (caricature, naturally) of the opposite sex is sexist pretty much by definition. I just don't think all sexism is bad. Clearly not, as law instantiates several instances of it. — AmadeusD

I actually don't. I think there are trans sexuals who desire the biological average sex expectations of the opposite sex, and I think desiring that and/or obtaining that does not fit the definition of sexism itself.

prejudice or discrimination based on sex OR
behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex — Philosophim

I'm not saying one couldn't be sexist and desire the body of the other sex, but I don't think desiring or shaping their body to the objectively normal biological expectations of the other sex is itself sexist.

Also fantastic discussion by you and Questioner while I was gone.

Many people are uncomfortable with the idea that innate brain schemes organize the processing of incoming stimuli such as to form a gender affective-perceptual ‘style’. Of course such a style, whether we label it with terms such as masculine, feminine or something other, is inseparably intertwined with cultural influences, but this doesnt negate the fact that we arrive into the world armed already with gender-based stylistic proclivities prior to our exposure to social influence. — Joshs

To be clear, anything biological that fits a sex expectation is not gender. Gender is ONLY sociological, and I think this is where the confusion comes in. As of yet, there is no brain evidence of gender. Gender is just an opinion or sociological construct in how a sex should act. It is a prejudice, and if it becomes more important than sex itself, sexism.

As a non-Kantian on the matter of gender. Philosophim would say that my awareness of my gayness as a gender was either concocted in my head by piecing together arbitrary fragments of behavior to force a narrative out of them , or forced on my via my unconscious exposure to some outside arbitrary narrative. — Joshs

No, I would say 'gay' is not a gender. Act however you want. There are prejudices in how a gay person should act, but that doesn't mean you actually are that way. That's like saying, "You don't like Lady Gaga, you can't be gay." or, "You're not gay enough." Its just prejudice. As for being gay, that's a sexual orientation, not a gender. Further, we actually have brain evidence that indicates a difference between male gay men and straight men. While nothing is conclusive, its been noted that some areas of the brain that are normally associated with women are more like women in gay male brains. Does that mean you're a female in a man's body? I would never insult or imply such homophobic tripe.

I'm glad you found people with your same sexual orientation you can relate with. I have nothing against that. But that's not gender. Someone saying, "I think men shouldn't be gay," is gender. Its just prejudice.

Would it then follow on your view that the woman who uses a woman's bathroom because she looks like a woman rather than because she is a woman, is engaged in sexism? Or it this incorrect because she is not acting "over and against" sex? — Leontiskos

Back from vacation. Seems like some good conversations happened while I was away.

To be clear we mean woman by sex, not gender. And I will not use "woman" by itself to mean gender as it leads to unclear communication. If a man wears some makeup and a dress because that's the way women are supposed to act, that's gender. If they think this makes them a woman this would be sexism.

We haven't really addressed trans sexualism. That is where one alters their body to match or resemble the sex expectations of the other sex. I do not see that as sexism. Sex expectations are biologically expected statistics and are not gender. Admiring and wanting the body of the opposite sex for yourself is an entirely different subject.

The question of whether a man of any type is allowed as a normal visitor in any cross sex space should consider why that cross sex space was created and the purpose it serves. There may be good reasons and arguments for allowing cross sex access, but sexism is not one of them. If gender is claiming the actions or inner feelings of a person make a sex, that's sexism. So if someone cross gender is not cross sex, I see no justified reason to allow cross sex space access from this alone.

To speak quickly, I think one difficulty with the position is that sex and gender actually are interrelated in a social sense, especially if we consider everything pertaining to appearance as pertaining to gender. — Leontiskos

To be clear, sex expectations of the body are not gender. Adornment of the body is. We are as of yet not talking about transsexuals, or those whose body may be on the extreme statistical end of those expectations. In an informal setting like a bathroom, culture will keep most trans gender people out, as sex expectations as markers for correct sex identification are usually extremely accurate and easy to identify. In the case where there is uncertainty, this will be incredibly low. Once trans gender people are out, it will go back to a low priority and likely be flexible like it was before all of this attempt to make bathrooms about identity instead of places you go where you blend in best.

Second, it's not clear what the error actually consists in, namely, "Elevating gender over and against sex." It seems to me that if we enforce that consistently, then we can never talk about gender in a way that does not presuppose sex. — Leontiskos

Gender is always about sex. It is the expectation for how a sex should act. I think that's the proper way to speak about it.

If not, what does it mean to elevate gender over and against sex? And instead of mere examples I would need an actual explanation of what this means. (Does it mean something like believing that one's gender is more important than one's sex, and is contrary to one's sex, and acting on that belief while at the same time requiring others to do the same? I.e. creating public policies that are gender-based rather than sex-based?) — Leontiskos

Correct. Anytime you think gender should shape anything sex related, you've elevated it over sex. Gender is a belief about how a sex should act. But its a subjective opinion. It does not shape sex, justify one as a sex, or shape sex in any way. Its just a prejudice or stereotype. Identifying as a 'gender' is really just saying, "I act like I or others expect that sex to act in society." Which again, is completely worthless in any sex identification itself.

I'm glad the discussion has continued on despite the timid early posters with their wrote and trite 'get help' — unimportant

Before you judge, most of us knew the OP from past posts. Darkness had not been doing well. His post was not coming from a purely intellectual place or morbid curiosity. I genuinely hope they are doing well.

Nobody has ever questioned their gender on the basis of thinking they're aggressive or whatever, so yes I believe you've either made up your anecdotes and/or horribly misunderstood what your friends were saying. — Mijin

Absolutely. Especially among children and adolescents. My advice is to seek more points of view than you've currently seen. Everything I'm advocating in this thread has been advocated by other trans gender and trans sexual people.

Go ahead and have the last word, I'm done. — Mijin

Farewell then Mijin. I'll be on vacation so will respond when I'm back if you change your mind down the road. Have a nice holiday!

If I view that the men should not cry, that is a gendered identity. If I view that women should always agree with men, that is a gendered identity.
— Philosophim

No. This is not at all how I have been using the term "identity." — Questioner

Ah, I'm glad you entered back into the conversation with more information, but you have to understand that I can't keep track of everyone's view of identity in the thread. As this is written by me, I've asserted a definition of identity and have stuck to that. Its ok if you disagree, but since it has been a moment and I don't know if your ideas have evolved further, please clearly define what you mean by identity, gender, and gender identity.

What you describe is sexist, but there is nothing linking these examples with the experience of a transgender person. — Questioner

Again, I'll remind you that being trans gender in of itself is not sexist. It is when the gender identity elevates itself over sex. For example, a woman personally being aggressive and thinking, "I'm acting like gender I attribute to men" is fine. If she then thinks, "Because I'm acting in a gendered way I attribute to a male, I should be treated like I'm the male sex", that is sexism. And yes, there are trans gender people who act this way. To your point, this is sexist.

To apply this to transgender persons, you would have to characterize their gender identity as a "prejudice" and I hope you can see that this is not the case. — Questioner

All gender by definition is a prejudice. Again, using the very definition of gender theory which is used in terms of both cis and trans gender discussion, gender is a social construct that conveys a belief in how a sex should act socially. Any time you pre judge how someone should act, that is a prejudice. To be clear, pre judging is not in itself wrong. Any intelligent being pre judges on almost anything based on their previous experience. A prejudice is only wrong if you extend it into an 'ism'. An ism is when we value our prejudices over objective reality. That is why elevating gender over the objective reality of sex is sexist.

is to propose a trans person claims an identity, then indicate why its true.
— Philosophim

To whom? the gender police? — Questioner

That's not an answer. This also was an incomplete sentence and I could not find what you were quoting in full. In philosophical discussions we talk about terms and their truth conditions. Its not about 'the police'. Its about clearly understanding what a term is, if it can be falsified, and under what conditions it would be true or false.

That keeps the logic organized and clear for both parties.
— Philosophim

I'm not clear why anyone should justify their identity to another party. — Questioner

If you are asking the other party to accept their identity, you absolutely have to justify that. You can view yourself however you want in your head. The moment you start implying that others have to agree is the moment you need to start justifying why.

o be transgender, you must first have a gendered opinion about the sexes. Men act like X, Women act like Y. Then, you have to pick the gender that is opposite to your sex and act that way while rejecting acting like the gender of your sex.
— Philosophim

Again, a profound misunderstanding of what transgenderism is — Questioner

This is not an argument. At this point you should be presenting what trans genderism is and why it is wrong. To be charitible towards yourself, are you sure you aren't mixing up trans sexualism with trans genderism? They are not the same thing.

Also, we do not take AI summaries on this board.
— Philosophim

Are you sure about that? I have seen them in other threads. And the rules simply state that members are not to use AI to write their posts. — Questioner

I may be misinterpreting the rules then. I'm not going to entertain AI summaries because they aren't your thoughts on the article. I'm not discussing with an AI, I'm discussing with you. Again, I will give you the same treatment back.

I've just noted that gender is a prejudice, and that elevating that prejudice over sex in importance fits the definition of sexism.
— Philosophim

Gender is most assuredly not a "prejudice" - again: — Questioner

This is a disagreement or dislike with what I stated. This does not give any argument or reason why it is not a prejudice.

Sexism is relational - anyone can be sexist - whether or not they are transgender - if they hold sexist views towards others - but transgenderism is about identity - it is not relational. Your point-of-view fails conceptually. Sexism is an attitude. Transgender is an identity condition. — Questioner

I've clearly pointed out examples of sexism towards oneself. Sexism does not require two people. You can can subject yourself as the object you apply sexism towards. I've also explained that you can have sexism as part of your identity. So again, saying that being trans gender is an identity does not indicate that this identity is not prejudice.

It doesn't mean that identity accurately represents reality, is healthy for the individual, or should be entertained. I loved speeding when I first drove. It was part of my identity. It was something I had to get under control because it was inappropriately expressed on public roads. You can be sexist, and that be a part of your identity. No break in diachronic unity.
— Philosophim

It appears you have no conceptual understanding of what I have been trying to explain to you. — Questioner

Then it is your job to clarify it and explain what I don't understand if you know that I have made pains to understand your viewpoint and am open to listening to it. An answer like this without explanation is a common tactic of someone who is avoiding answering the point because they don't have an answer. Maybe you do, but answering like this does not convey that.

My point that it is that my claim that gender elevated over sex is sexism has not been refuted by any of your arguments so far.
— Philosophim

No. Transgenderism in and of itself is not sexism. — Questioner

And neither do I. Read carefully please. Being trans gender is not sexist. Elevating gender of sex is. Having a prejudice that women should cook in the kitchen is fine. Asserting that they must when they see a woman working outside of the home without any other reason than their personal attachment to that prejudice is sexism.

Anyone's ideas about whether or not men should or should not cry is immaterial to the transgender experience. — Questioner

If I am a woman who wants to be a trans gender man, and I hold that men do not cry, isn't that pertinent to the trans gender experience?

Sexism exists in the attitude and the behavior, not in the very nature of being. — Questioner

Attitudes and behaviors come from the brain right? So its part of your being if you decide to be sexist. Its not a good part of a person's being, and I would suggest they work on changing it. Just like gender right? That's part of the brain too.

I am going on vacation for a while Questioner, but I will reply when I get back. Have a wonderful holiday despite our differences on this matter!

It's an extremely tired question, but I would need to know what a 'woman' or 'man' is before the discussion goes too far. — AmadeusD

The common definition is that a woman is an adult human female, and a man is an adult human male. It is a biological referent, not a sociological one. In context, someone can parse the words man and women to be a sociological role, but this is metaphor, and not an actual indicator of actual sex. If someone called me a 'parrot' because I talked a lot, we all understand its a metaphor, not an actual claim that I am in fact a biological parrot.

If I tell a woman, "Women shouldn't work" when they are clearly working and there is no reason why they shouldn't work besides my personal feelings on the matter, I'm telling them they shouldn't commit an action. Where's the object?
— Philosophim

The women who you think should not work. — Questioner

Women are subjects, not objects.

That would be interpersonal sexism between two subjects.
— Philosophim

Not quite. In any one example of interpersonal action, there is the sender of the action (the subject) and the receiver of the action (the object) — Questioner

Again, a person is not an object, but a subject. Unless you're talking English grammar? In which case we're talking about very different things.

But a subject can also be sexist towards themselves. There are men who think they can't cry. There are woman who think they should always agree with what a man says. You can absolutely have sexist perspectives of yourself.
— Philosophim

But this is something different than what we have been talking about. it's got nothing to do with gender identity and transgenderism. — Questioner

How so? If I view that the men should not cry, that is a gendered identity. If I view that women should always agree with men, that is a gendered identity. This sentence specifically is not addressing trans genderism, or 'crossing genders'. To first understand trans genderism, you need to understand 'cis' genderism. That is what this sentence notes.

Sexism is an attitude. Attitudes are formed in the brain. Are you suggesting that if a person claims a transgender identity they’re being sexist against their penis or vagina? — Questioner

Sexism is an action that elevates one's prejudices over the biological reality of the the person. I might believe that men shouldn't cry, and that in itself is a prejudice. If I then encountered a man crying and told them, "Hey, stop that right now. You're a man, you can't cry." that's sexism. There is nothing innate in being a man that indicates a man shouldn't cry. That's gender, or a sociological belief in how a particular sex should act in society apart from their biological reality.

When a transgender person claims their true identity, it is not so they can fulfill some expectations society places on this or that gender, or even expectations as that person might see them. It is about being who they are in their head, and a chief element of that is “diachronic unity.” — Questioner

One, assuming its 'true' is begging the question. How do we know it is true? A more honest approach (just teaching here, it has nothing to do with whether you are correct or not) is to propose a trans person claims an identity, then indicate why its true. That keeps the logic organized and clear for both parties.

First, I have not claimed why a person is trans gender. I have explained what being trans gender is. To be transgender, you must first have a gendered opinion about the sexes. Men act like X, Women act like Y. Then, you have to pick the gender that is opposite to your sex and act that way while rejecting acting like the gender of your sex. Every thought is in your head, so remember that a thought being in a person's head is nothing special from any other thought in a person's head.

Gender is a biological reality involving patterns of identity produced by the brain. The prenatal hormone environment during fetal development is crucial to this brain organization. Thyroid hormones, progesterone, and steroids are critical regulators of fetal neural differentiation. They direct development of the hypothalamus, the amygdala, and connectivity patterns. That’s the biology. — Questioner

As noted before, the brain science on trans gender is no where near settled. Also, we do not take AI summaries on this board. Its important that you understand the papers and explicitly mark the point that lead to your conclusion. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying that AI is not a trustworthy source for arguments. You need to do the work and cite lines that back your points. I do the same.

And gender is indeed part of identity. — Questioner

I never said it wasn't. I have never claimed that gender identity doesn't exist. I've just noted that gender is a prejudice, and that elevating that prejudice over sex in importance fits the definition of sexism.

Diachronic unity describes a stable sense of self across time, like a self-continuity. If the unity is intact, then memories linked with an internal narrative are able to say – “That was me then, this is me now, and I am the same person.” — Questioner

This is just a basic stability of self. Anyone without psychosis has this. I have changed roles many times in life but I understood that all of those roles were a part of me. I think you're implying that I don't think gender identity isn't part of a person's sense of self. Of course it is. Every thought can be a part of the sense of self. It doesn't mean that identity accurately represents reality, is healthy for the individual, or should be entertained. I loved speeding when I first drove. It was part of my identity. It was something I had to get under control because it was inappropriately expressed on public roads. You can be sexist, and that be a part of your identity. No break in diachronic unity.

The interesting thing is that gender transition does not fragment diachronic unity – it restores and strengthens it. Before transition, transgender persons feel alienated from themselves, and it’s hard to imagine a future self. But following transition, their internal narrative becomes more coherent and they feel more connected to their current self. They have reclaimed their identity. — Questioner

I felt really upset when I learned I couldn't speed. It sucked, I had to leave early, drive more carefully, and it was frustrating at times. If someone told me I could speed to my hearts content I would have been elated. "I get to do what I want without restriction," feels pretty good to most people. Tons of people like being jerks to others. Some people feel 'complete' while smoking ten packs of cigarettes a day. Or drinking. Your subjective feeling of 'completeness' and connection to the self is a bit odd.

Ever been in the fetish communities? I have through research. I'm mostly what you would consider 'asexual'. Its not a major interest of mine basically, but its something I was curious about. Want to know a pattern of speech that consistently emerges? "I feel like my true self." Uh oh. "Why did you leave your husband?" "I had to find myself" (The sex wasn't good anymore, needed more sexual excitement in life)

There are fetish communities where changing their body is a turn on. There is a weight gain fetish community where people gorge themselves into obesity and say, "I'm my true self now". And hate to break it to you if you're not aware, but there are people who also have a sexual and romantic attraction to emulating the other sex. They become enamored by it and want to be it all the time finding 'their true self'. I will link sites if you need, but I don't want to link smut on this forum, and I think its against the terms of service as well. Google it yourself, you'll find it.

My point is someone saying, "I'm connected with my current self" is a subjective feeling that can mean a lot of things. People can feel really good doing things that are objectively bad for them. And participating in sexism can also feel very good an 'natural' for people. Doesn't mean its not sexist or right.

when you elevate your gender over your sex, you make your sex inferior to gender. And that is where sexism occurs.
— Philosophim

This represents a profound misunderstanding of transgender identity, and the challenges they face as they seek a life in which they can live as who they really are. — Questioner

My point that it is that my claim that gender elevated over sex is sexism has not been refuted by any of your arguments so far. Thus I have not misrepresented a transgender individual who thinks that being the other gender means they are the opposite sex and deserve the same treatment. If a person is transgender and wants to act that way in their personal life, I have no objection if they aren't being sexist about it. I also don't care about the challenges a trans gender person faces. That's irrelevant to the discussion. Everyone has challenges in life. We're not exploring a person's particular challenges, we're exploring whether gender elevated over sex is sexism or not.

So to my point again, if you deny yourself the right to cry because as a man, you believe you shouldn't cry, you're making your bodies natural capabilities inferior to your gender identity of yourself. That is sexism. I don't see any way around it.

Enough about the strawman. If you're not going to discuss the OP anymore, I'm not going to have a never ending go around on this that isn't introducing new or different information. At this point we let other people judge.

Note that how we got into this tangent, was I was responding to your points before you went down this "prove a negative" requirement. — Mijin

You assumed I was asking you to prove a negative. I pointed out that in no way should you.

No, there is no survey result on specifically the claim of the OP. — Mijin

You may need to read the OP again. This is not a survey argument. This is a logical conclusion based purely on definitions.

However, actual definitions of transgender do not match the notion that it is acquired by virtue of noticing a predilection towards a behaviour associated with the other gender. — Mijin

No, that's actually what trans gender means. To be clear, no trans sexual. A trans gender person is a person who observes their own or a groups idea of how a particular sex should act socially, then says, "I act in the way of the other gender. Therefore I am trans gender." Trans gender people do not always transition, or even want to transition. Because they feel they match the gender of the other sex, some of them think this gives them a right to be in the opposite sex spaces of that gender. This is very real. There are people not on medication or desire surgery who think this is the way things should work. My argument is, this is sexism. If you think acting like the way you or others think the opposite sex should act in public makes you that sex, that is 100% sexist thinking.

Plus vast numbers of people exhibit at least some behaviours atypical for their gender -- orders of magnitude more people than the number of transgender. — Mijin

Yes, this is why gender is a prejudice and not a fact. Woman can actually wear top hats and everything will be ok. They're still a woman. Men can wear dresses, they're still men, and everything will be ok.

This is also another problem with someone claiming they are 'trans gender'. What do they feel the gender of a man and woman is personally? How many attributes do they match of that gender while shunning their own? Its honestly a prejudicial argument. You're a man or a woman no matter how you act. Just because you think a man or a woman should act a certain way socially, that doesn't mean your subjective opinion changes the reality of their sex.

Meanwhile, on the other side, we only have your anecdotes. — Mijin

What anecdotes? How do these anecdotes apply to the argument? If so, how are they wrong? A claim of, "You're wrong" is not an argument, its an expression of dislike. Liking or not liking an argument has nothing to do with whether its correct or not. 2+2=4 even if I hate that fact. If you want to demonstrate that my argument is wrong, you need to address the premises and demonstrate how your challenge invalidates either those premises, or the conclusion I've made.

Yes, but then you do seem to be agreeing with me that sexism qua gender is completely divorced from sexism qua sex in your view. No? — Bob Ross

Completely? Can you clarify what you mean? Its a version of sexism as sex is always involved. Maybe my answers below will help clarify what I mean.

And this is why such a divorce is problematic: gender isn’t about sex in your view but, rather, a expectation based off of sex that isn’t accurate about sex. — Bob Ross

Its just not my view Bob, its the view of gender theory. This isn't a debate about whether gender theory is correct or not. I'm assuming for the purposes of this argument, that gender according to gender theory is accepted. We did have a separate argument on whether it should be considered as valid or not, but this OP is assuming that it is.

So, either, by my lights, (1) all gendering is sexism qua gender in your view (because gender is always an inaccurate expectation of a person based off of an erroneous understanding of sex) or (2) gendering someone is not inherently sexist (because does not attribute anything about sex to the person but, rather, something else called ‘gender’). — Bob Ross

Gender is inherently a prejudgment, or prejudice. Prejudice in itself is not wrong. We pre judge about many things. I see a tall 300 pound guy and prejudge they'll have a deep voice. They do not. I prejudge that a nicely dressed individual will be polite. They are not. Sometimes prejudices are also affirmed.

"Isms" happen when we stick with our prejudices despite evidence to their contrary. So if a tall and heavy man had a heavy voice and we said, "Impossible. You can't be tall or that weight. No man of that height and weight would ever have a voice that high pitched." You're sticking with your prejudice over reality.

Sexism happens when our prejudices become more important than the reality of the situation. Gender is of course prejudice about sex. I might have the prejudice that men should wear top hats and women should not. If a woman wore a top hat, I could realize, "Oh, women can wear top hats." If I insisted she was wrong, that she should take it off, etc., I'm valuing my prejudice over the reality of the situation. In this case, the prejudice evolves from gender into sexism.

If I say you are feminine because your voice is high, then either that is a purported gender fact or a sex fact. If it is a sex fact because voice pertains to sex, then I am not elevating gender over sex. — Bob Ross

Correct, because you aren't making a gendered judgement. You're making a sex expectation judgement based on biological statistics. Its not prejudiced to claim that most women have a higher pitched voice, that's just a reality. Its gender when you say, "Even if a woman naturally has a lower pitched voice, women should speak with a higher pitch anyway." Then when a woman naturally speaks in a lower pitch, it becomes sexism when we say, "You can't do that, that's not what women do!" You're not quite separating the biological expectation from gender expectation here.

If it is a gender fact because voice pertains to gender, — Bob Ross

There is no gender fact. Gender is subjective and by consequence is not a fact about reality, only a fact that it exists as a subjective viewpoint. Sex expectations are facts grounded in biological reality. They are not gendered judgements in themselves.

If I say you are ‘floppy’ because your voice is high and a high voice is a trait we rightly associate with the gender ‘floppiness’ (which has no association with your sex) — Bob Ross

All gender is an opinion about how a sex should act socially. It can not refer to sex is some way. The floppy thing doesn't quite work, so I'm not going to address it further down either. If there's something I'm missing though in not addressing this, please try again using another example closer to sex and gender if you could.

This is why I noted, and I dare say correctly (: , that you are equivocating sex and gender internally given your terms as if they are the same while also claiming they are divorced from each other. — Bob Ross

I don't think so. I think you're missing that I've also defined that sex expectations based on biology are not gender. Once you truly divorce gender from the biological expectations of the person, and understand its purely sociological, these problems don't occur.

I underlined the portions that use gendered terms in the sense of sex and bolded the ones that are using the gendered terms in the sense of gender. — Bob Ross

I intended all terms to refer to sex. The opinion on how the sex should behave is gender. I do not see man or woman as a role unless I explicitly point that out. Mostly because a 'role' is a subjective prejudice, and I generally try not to give credence to that.

With all due respect, without having read every post you have made, I don’t know of any that you have posted that are threatening to the liberal ideology. My point was not that one cannot have controversial conversations on TPF: it’s that if the topic is too disapproved of by the liberals on here then you get banned or censored even if it doesn’t violate the TPF’s rules and guidelines. — Bob Ross

I would say that this post I've made pretty much invalidates any idea that trans gender people should enter cross sex spaces. That is would I would call a far left viewpoint, and yet I have no warnings or threats of banning. I understand you've had a few posts banned, but the conservative viewpoint would be to first look inward and see if there were mistakes made on your part to see if they could be improved to not be banned. I did review one of your posts and agreed it should be banned Bob, even on a conservative forum. I say this with great respect towards you, and apolitically. When one is on a social platform the way one approaches a subject is just as important as what you're trying to say.

Let me give you an example. So my point here about gender applies to everyone. Its not religious, angry, or based on bias. Its a simple definition of the terms, a reasoning of how they intermingle together, and a conclusion based on those terms and logic. Now, someone could come to the same conclusion as myself but not approach it this way. A person could simply be disgusted by or hate trans people and just say, "Its sexist because its gross!" The later is not a discussion or approaching the idea in a way that invites discussion, but in a way that is invective. Whether its right or not, in a social philosophy discussion board, its not an appropriate way to address the topic in a thoughtful manner.

Perhaps being invective is a conservative trait, but I propose that it isn't. I've known many wise and respectable conservatives who challenge a person to think without using words or phrases that stoke controversy. Now in our conversations, I don't see you being invective. I want to be clear, you're one of my favorite people to chat with on this forum. You have passion, insight, and are eager to explore any possibility. You make me think in ways I haven't before Bob, and that is wonderful.

I would propose that if you are being banned on your topics that it is not because you are conservative. To be clear, you may get a lot of push back from people because it has a conservative bent, but I don't think you'll be banned if you can convey your points without being invective. And what I mean is ask yourself, "Will a person respond to this in anger looking for a fight, or despite not liking it, will they be inclined to at least discuss it?" If I had to note anything in the last post of yours I reviewed, I would caution very much against assuming controversial topics are true without lead up. If it helps, if someone started a post with, "Conservatives as we know are all selfish individuals who think nothing of others," its not going to spur debate, just a fight. Again, I have a lot of love for you Bob, so on this one look inward first before accusing others for your recent difficulties in posts.

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man"), instead of the opponent's proposition.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, as though an argument against Y were an argument against X.

And what did you say?

No, that's irrational. No-one has demonstrated that the oogie-boogie monster doesn't exist and isn't feared by millions. Therefore, you need to accept that claim as true? — Mijin

Again, considering I have no idea how this is supposed to relate to the argument because you don't mention the actual argument, that's a straw man.

But then I remembered that of course there are many debates now with the format of "[claim], prove me wrong!". So it is worth just pointing out that that format is almost always bad faith. — Mijin

But not always in bad faith. Have you demonstrated why this is in bad faith? No. You have to demonstrate that first.

It's a shift of the burden of proof, and the idea of such debates is to pander to an audience that just wants to see an opposing view get pwned. — Mijin

Not at all. The burden of proof is on me. I've put forth an argument. All you have to do is demonstrate why I have not risen to that burden of proof. But you keep arguing around that because...you know you can't. You're not the first person in history to not like the outcome of an argument but can't actually address it. Look at Leontiskos' previous posts. They address the OP straight on, challenge it at parts, ask questions, and are obviously thinking about it. You aren't, and that's because you're afraid you can't. So typical tactics of avoidance. All it tells me and everyone else is that you don't have anything.

I always give a person a few chances though because occasionally people come around and try. I'm certain you'll shrink from the challenge again. Its probably best anyway, I'm heading out for vacation for a while and won't be able to respond after today.

The null hypothesis is that a claim may or may not be true. No empirical claim is true by default. — Mijin

This is when I knew you were done. Go look up what the null hypthesis means. When you start throwing around technical words that make no sense to the discussion, that's a person who's just flailing as they continue to realize they don't have anything substantial.

Hello, I'm back. I see you are still incorrectly defining gender, but I will proceed... — Questioner

Welcome back Questioner! Remember that my definition of gender is aligned with gender theory and you have not shown any credible evidence or argument that would demonstrate I have not.

I have figured out another aspect of your theory that is troubling.

You’ve been using the word “sexism” to describe a transgender person’s insistence that they put their gender above their sex.

But – sexism is not a solitary feature. It is relational. It requires both a subject and an object. — Questioner

Sexism requires a subject, I agree. But an object? If I tell a woman, "Women shouldn't work" when they are clearly working and there is no reason why they shouldn't work besides my personal feelings on the matter, I'm telling them they shouldn't commit an action. Where's the object?

The subject would be the person (or group or institution) that expresses sexist beliefs or practices.

The object would be the person (or group) that is being devalued because of sex (or gender). — Questioner

That would be interpersonal sexism between two subjects. But a subject can also be sexist towards themselves. There are men who think they can't cry. There are woman who think they should always agree with what a man says. You can absolutely have sexist perspectives of yourself.

So, a person (the object) has to be positioned as inferior because of their sex or gender, by the person (or group) applying the belief (the subject). Sexism is not a private belief, but exists in power and practice. — Questioner

To be clear, when you elevate your gender over your sex, you make your sex inferior to gender. And that is where sexism occurs. "I'm a man who's incredibly sad because my mother died, but I believe that men shouldn't ever cry (gender), so i won't." "I'm a woman who clearly sees that this man's statement is wrong. Its 2+2=4, not 5, but I'm going to stay silent and agree because that's what a woman does." In both cases there is nothing in their sex that would imply they had to do any of those things. It is their subjective expectation of how they should behave as that sex which has elevated their gender over their bodies freedom, and is sexist.

I think you make a formidable argument to the effect that all gender-based identifications at bottom implicate sex, and are therefore also sex-based. I think that's probably right, and I understand your position much better after reading this post. :up: — Leontiskos

Thank you! That's a rare compliment. Also thank you for drilling into it more, its good to test it further.

I am not saying holding a gender or gender preference makes you a sexist.

Which sex or gender does the trans activist prefer? Which do they discriminate against? Which are they prejudicial towards?

The answer seems to be "none of them," and this is why I'm not sure the trans activist is sexist. — Leontiskos

I agree with you.

The trans activist does not opt for any of the positions outlined <here>; they show no favoritism with respect to individuals of a particular sex or gender. — Leontiskos

I also agree with this. To be clear, trans genderism in itself is not sexist. It is only sexist when it elevates itself as being more important than the sex of an individual.

For example, lets say a man gets turned on by femininity. They wear women's clothing and it feels wonderful. They like it enough and wear it enough that it becomes less immediately sexual, and evolves into the romantic comfort of a long time girlfriend. This is neither sexist, nor wrong. This is someone wearing and dressing themselves a particular way for their particular enjoyment.

Because they like it so much, they decide to go out in public dressed in this way. They don't dress provacatively or indicate in any way a sexual undertone, it really is just like taking a walk with their girlfriend. This isn't sexist or wrong either.

But suddenly the man thinks because they've dressed a particular way, and that they enjoy doing this so much, that they must be an actual woman. That is sexist. That is taking an expectation of how women should act, then identifying yourself with the sex of that woman. If the man thinks, "I should be able to go where women are because I'm a woman," that's sexist. The reality is this is a man who enjoys certain behavior some would prejudice towards women. But the enactment of that behavior in no way makes that man a woman.

So I think we are in agreement to your point, but I hope I've shown how the sexism of the situation doesn't involve that point.

Whatever sexism is, it is based on sex. Yet the trans activist is relying on a basis other than sex... — Leontiskos

But gender is based on sex. Its a belief that a person should act in a certain way in society without regards to biological limitations. "Women should not wear top hats, men should". Its really just a fancy encapsulation of a cultural prejudice against a sex. Calling it gender doesn't suddenly make what's going on any different.

...But the other strange thing about the trans activist is that although their position is based on gender, it does not involve "prejudice or discrimination" in the way that those words are commonly understood. — Leontiskos

I would argue its definitely prejudice, but gender alone is not sexism. That is why I've specifically stated "It is the elevation of gender over sex that is sexism." Let me explain.

Everyone has pre judgements. A pre judgement, or prejudice, is not inherently wrong. Maybe you were raised in a community where only men worked and women stayed home and took care of household duties. As such, you would become prejudiced to thinking the next woman you meet is a stay at home care taker.

Prejudices can be challenged, and it is how the person responds to that challenge that determines whether a prejudice is upgraded to an 'ism'. Lets say our sheltered man leaves his community and goes to the city where he finds that women often work. The man might be surprised, or even think at first, "That shouldn't be done." But if they adapt and realize, "Women can work too," their prejudice did not become an 'ism'.

An 'ism' happens when someone insists on their prejudices despite clear facts to the contrary. "Women CAN'T work outside of the home! This is crazy!" There's not any real reason the man finds that they can't, despite his mere dislike and discomfort that they can. This is when sexism occurs.

So to be clear, I don't think its sexism to declare gender, or even declare a gender identity. It is when the prejudice of gender elevates itself above the reality of sex that it becomes 'sexism'. Going back to our previous example. If the man said, "Since you work outside of the home, you aren't a woman, you're a man." this is obvious sexism. In the same way, if the man saw another man being a home caretaker and said, "You're not a man, you're a woman because you stay at home and take care of the house," this is also sexism. There is nothing inherent in one's sex that gender ever has any right to supercede. It is this superceding that is sexism.

The way those words are commonly understood, one is only discriminating on the basis of gender if they prefer one gender over the other (and they are only discriminating on the basis of sex if they prefer one sex over the other, or act in a way that ends up favoring or controlling based on sex). — Leontiskos

Hopefully with the above you see that this is not categorized as sexism. Having a preference for one sex or the other is not sexism. Sexism would be if you had a preference for one sex, and treated that sex better in ways that were only backed by your personal like, disregarding merit, capability, or objective good of the person.

The trans activist effectively says, "It doesn't matter whether you are male or female; what matters is how you self-identify, and that is what should be the norm for policy." — Leontiskos

This is clearly sexism. Its saying, "Because I do things that I expect a man should do that have nothing to do with their biology, I should be considered a man." To be clear, this is not the trans sexual argument, only the trans gender argument.

As I said in my last, this is a form of nominalism, where human constructs are being elevated over reality-based concepts. — Leontiskos

And sexism can be a form of nominalism. This doesn't denote that its not sexism.

I think the Merriam-Webster is too broad for a moral concept of sexism, given that it would vilify even things like, "Men are better boxers than women." But maybe we really do need a non-pejorative usage of sexism. — Leontiskos

This is actually a sex expectation based on objective data. However, if a woman boxed and fairly beat a man, insisting its not possible because of the sex expectation, is again sexism.

So the question is whether, "favoring gender-based categorizations over sex-based categorizations," can be called a form of sexism. In a traditional sense it would not given the way that it differs from the traditional possibilities that constitute sexism. — Leontiskos

Hopefully my deeper dive demonstrates why it would still be sexism. But of course, please disagree if you see something more.

I more or less agree that gender should not be elevated over sex, but I don't agree that this is sexism. — Leontiskos

Thank you, I'm grateful for someone addressing the OP.

I actually don't like this definition as grounding a moral argument, but let's accept it for the sake of argument. — Leontiskos

That's fair. We can say at this point that even if it is sexism, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. We can address it after we resolve if it fits sexism first.

The examples you give will not allow us to distinguish (1) from (2), but other examples would. For example, suppose someone says, "Men are better boxers than women." This claim is sexism on (1) but probably not on (2), given that the social expectation is not counter to biological reality. — Leontiskos

Ah ok. Bob pointed this out earlier and I had given it some thought as well. I thought at first there might be a better term for what I was describing and thought, "genderism". Turns out that word is taken and means something very different.

genderism -Also called gender binarism. the belief that there are only two genders, that a person’s gender is fixed at birth, and that gender expression is determined by gender assigned at birth.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/genderism — Philosophim

Sexism is therefore also defined to include both sex and gender.

'Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on one's sex or gender.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

To your point though, it feels like sexism by gender is a version of sexism that seems different enough to support a unique identity. I proposed the following:

Do I think we could call discrimination against gender a subset of sexism? Yes. Gender at the end of the day is still targeted at a person's sex, just sociologically instead of biologically. If you want a clearer separation, biological and sociological sexism might suffice. — Philosophim

Both delineations are sexism, but we can now categorize them by types: biological vs sociological. So keen insight. Does this suffice? If not, feel free to counter more. If so, feel free to propose that despite it being sexism, that is not inherently wrong in itself.

A "straw man" is when someone misstates an argument for the purposes of attacking it more easily. I was not misstating your argument, I was trying to explain a logical point to you. — Mijin

No, a straw man is when you build up an idea that the presenter never argued for or backed, then attack it.

The point that you are not getting is that the idea that a claim is true by default, until someone can prove it false, is irrational. It's trivial to show this with claims that cannot be falsified. — Mijin

No, its not irrational at all. That's how arguments work. Falsification means that there is a situation in which the claim could be false. For example, my definition of sexism is wrong. Or the elevation of gender over sex does not fit the definition of sexism. Or gender is wrong. Its absolutely falsifiable. Can you prove it to be false however? If you can't, then its true.

No, that's irrational. No-one has demonstrated that the oogie-boogie monster doesn't exist and isn't feared by millions. Therefore, you need to accept that claim as true? — Mijin

Straw man, as I have no idea what you're talking about. You're attacking something that doesn't relate to the OP. Cite the argument of the OP and address why it is wrong please.

Yes, because firstly I showed that people regularly exhibit traits that are somewhat emblematic of the other gender while maintaining their own gender. — Mijin

I also agree with this. This does not counter the claim of the OP in any way.

And secondly the association between transgenderism and transsexuality demonstrates that gender dysmorphia is not as simple as wanting to wear a dress or whatever. — Mijin

The OP does not address gender dysmorphia. That is irrelevant. Further I noted that trans genderism and trans sexualism are separate things that do not require both to exist in a person. I have not see any counter claim to this. Present one and you'll have a point that we can explore.

So far, the OP stands.

Because you're asking me for a cite that most people don't consider your very specific claim to be true. It's obviously not a reasonable request -- the only evidence would be the result of a survey asking "Do you believe that transgenderism is sexism?" but there is no such survey. And you conclude that I must accept your claim. — Mijin

Not at all. I've posted what gender is, what sexism is, and demonstrated why when gender is elevated over sex, it meets the definition of sexism. There's a clear argument being made here that is open to discussion and is not a matter of opinion. And its not that you must accept my claim. Its that my claim, if uncontested, is correct by fact. If you don't answer it, I'm right. Emotions are irrelevant.

I have given arguments for why your concept of transgenderism does not reflect reality. — Mijin

Can you demonstrate why these arguments counter the point of the OP? Again, if not, then what I've posted stands. If it were so simple to counter, you would. Walking away generally means, "I don't like what you said, but I can't prove its wrong." I want you to imagine for a second that I have power in real life to make actionable change, and this argument is the basis upon which that change is made. Are you satisfied walking away, knowing that you could have demonstrated I was wrong? Its your last chance.

I think it was correct for Wayf to suggest not to get into these threads. Not because they aren't meaningful (they are meaningful and obviously important), but because they just end up like this. — AmadeusD

This will always happen when discussing meaningful yet highly emotional subjects. We can't be turn away from topics just because some people have emotional difficulties with them. If anything, we need to address those topics more. I'm glad you've joined in and given your viewpoint, its very valuable for good discussion.

If you want a clearer separation, biological and sociological sexism might suffice.

Would you agree, though, semantics aside, that sexism in the sense of sex would be divorced from sexism in the sense of gender given your definitions of sex and gender? — Bob Ross

I actually meant that more than semantics. Biological sexism would be treating a man with a voice within the range of an average female like they aren't a man. While its not the average biological sex expectation that a man have a voice range that high, it does happen. Treating them as a woman because they have a rare, but perfectly normal expression of being male would be biological sexism.

Gender sexism, or sociological sexism, would be what we've been talking about. Tophats and all. :)

To go back to gender, my point is that gender becomes sexism when elevated above sex.

Before I respond, I think I need to grasp better what you are conveying here. Am I correct in thinking that ‘elevation’ here refers to contradiction? — Bob Ross

No, elevation means favoring gender as indicating that a person is a sex over the fact of their sex. So if a woman wore a top hat and you called her a man, that's sexism due to the woman defying a gender expectation.

Exactly, it is shame that this forum doesn't support free speech and the free exchange of ideas about philosophy; as we could have productive conversations that help further the knowledge base. — Bob Ross

I disagree with this Bob. I've been able to post this topic, and I've seen a wide variety of topics that cover things which might be taboo or difficult to talk about. There still needs to be some moderation which handles approach and tone. It may be the case that people who read it may not want to discuss it properly, but that's a far cry from it being banned to be discussed at all.

You're asking me to prove a negative, otherwise your claim stands? — Mijin

No. I'm asserting that if gender is elevated over sex, its sexism. That's not proving a negative, that's disproving an affirmative.

This is a philosophy forum; if there's one place such sloppy reasoning wouldn't fly, it's here. — Mijin

I'll let the first claim be a pass. If you insist that I'm asking you to prove a negative, please point out specifically where and why its a negative. This requires more than an assertion.

If you are concerned that I am somehow immoral, therefore you don't need to talk to me, realize that is a tactic of thought suppression.
— Philosophim

I made no such claim or insinuation. — Mijin

Not a worry. It can be difficult to glean what a person is feeling over text, so I try to spell things out as clearly as possible.

So it's quite a leap to suggest I was calling you immoral, let alone advocating that your speech should be suppressed. — Mijin

Relax, its not a hard accusation. Would you like to engage with the topic then? You seem to have some feelings and thoughts on the matter, and I think its important that those thoughts and feelings are expressed. I don't want to go around thinking I'm right when I'm wrong. But if no one points out where its wrong...then I have to assume that I'm right.

I don't think massive numbers of people agree with the specific claim of this thread, but go ahead and cite me wrong: I'm happy to hear it. — Mijin

And you have equally zero claim that massive numbers of people don't agree with the specific claim of this thread. In fact, its irrelevant. You have a claim presented to you. Are you able to demonstrate why it is false? If not, then it stands as true. Lets not worry about what other people think, what do you think? Why is the premise of the thread wrong? Practice philosophy with us.

If you are concerned that I am somehow immoral, therefore you don't need to talk to me, realize that is a tactic of thought suppression. If it helps, one of my closest friends has been transitioning for several years now. We stay in touch regularly, and I would take a bullet for him. Its important that you realize that just because there is a narrative out there that is against trans individuals for the wrong reasons, does not mean that everyone who is against a particular trans ideology is immoral and cannot be reasoned with.

For clarification, my understanding of the terms trans sexual and trans gender seem to differ from your usage here. That is, to my understanding transgender is an umbrella term for all folks whose (internal) gender identity does not completely conform to their biological sex, which includes those who take hormonal and surgical steps (which describes trans sexuals), but also folks who don't take those steps. — LuckyR

No, we are not using slang and colloquial language. Part of what philosophy should be doing is finding clear words and concepts that allow clear thoughts. A massive issue with 'trans' is that it is trying to unite two separate concepts that are different enough that it needs to be pointed out. There is much confusion over the topic for many people, and adding in these distinct terms erases a lot of the confusion. A trans gender person does not have to think they are the same as a trans sexual. Being trans gender does not mean you have to align your body with how you want to act in the world. Act in the world as you wish. It is sexist to think that your social behavior implies that you are not your sex.

Thus why my postings have tried to delineate the borderline between sexual and gender motivations, as described in the OP. — LuckyR

I think this is good btw. Please keep pushing that boundary. Maybe there is a blur that I'm not seeing, but I think for the large part they are very separate things.

But the more I think about it, the blurrier that borderline becomes, to the point that the umbrella term of transgender seems most accurate, since it's an umbrella term, ie all TS are TG, but not all TG are TS. — LuckyR

I don't see it that way. First, its not true that all trans sexuals are trans gender. There are people who only want the body of the opposite sex, but do not want to act in the stereotypical way that the other sex usually acts. With that body they may feel the need to 'perform' but genuinely want the body of the opposite sex and would rather be left alone afterward. There are men who want breasts for example, but keep their beards. Women can also grow beards and have facial hair. Because it is rare, there is a social push to keep it shaved or have hair removal. So they defy gender for their biology in this aspect.

But, I would love to hear examples of this blurring. Again, maybe you're right. While I do think there is a clear division from my observations, maybe there is some place where the division blurs and maybe a third term should be invented to capture that point.

Again, why? You may be right. But without a good reason we can't know that. For a claim about reality to be valid, there needs to be a situation in which the claim is correct, and a situation in which the claim is incorrect. Otherwise we're not talking about something real.
— Philosophim

I have sufficiently answered these questions in previous posts. — Questioner

I don't believe you have. If you aren't going to add any more, its been a nice conversation.

Not according to my research:

The most common reasons cited (for regret) were pressure from a parent (36%), transitioning was too hard (33%), too much harassment or discrimination (31%), and trouble getting a job (29%). — Questioner

First, that didn't prove that no transgender people cited that they had their identity wrong. Here

"“There are so many reasons why people detransition,” said Sinead Watson, aged 30, a Genspect advisor who transitioned from female to male, starting in 2015, and who decided to detransition in 2019. Citing a study by Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, published in 2021, Ms. Watson said the most common reasons for detransitioning were realizing that gender dysphoria was caused by other issues; internal homophobia; and the unbearable nature of transphobia.

Ms. Watson said the hardest part of detransitioning was admitting to herself that her transition had been a mistake. “It’s embarrassing and you feel ashamed and guilty,” she said, adding that it may mean losing friends who now regard you as a “bigot, while you’re also dealing with transition regret.”

“It’s a living hell, especially when none of your therapists or counselors will listen to you,” she said. “Detransitioning isn’t fun.”"
https://blogs.the-hospitalist.org/content/doctors-have-failed-them-say-those-transgender-regret

What you cited is ' cross-sectional nonprobability study'. Lets break down why that is a problem:

"Surveys of people's opinions are fraught with difficulties. It is easier to obtain information from those who respond to text messages or to emails than to attempt to obtain a representative sample. Samples of the population that are selected non-randomly in this way are termed convenience samples as they are easy to recruit. This introduces a sampling bias. Such non-probability samples have merit in many situations, but an epidemiological enquiry is of little value unless a random sample is obtained."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4817645/

Further, lets add up your percentages: 36, 33, 31, and 29, That adds up to 129%. Notice that it only reports, "The most" as well. So its not reporting all. Meaning that your study does not counter my point.

The detransitioning rate is actually pretty low. — Questioner

Irrelevant to my point. My point was that people can be wrong in their gender identity. You did not counter this.

In any case, it seems we cannot agree on the most basic definitions and facts and have fallen into repeating ourselves, so I will bow out of the conversation now. — Questioner

And this is why you have my respect Questioner. Thank you for bringing your view points, politely exchanging with me, and understanding when we've both said our side and there might not be any more to cover. You and I do not have to agree on the outcome, but I hope you enjoyed thinking about it with me. I hope to see you around again on the forums!

Just because we can identify ourselves as "X" it doesn't mean we actually are "X".
— Philosophim

This does not apply to transgender persons. — Questioner

Its fine to disagree, but why? In every other case it applies, what makes trans gender special?

In other words, an identity claim can be incorrect.
— Philosophim

This does not apply to transgender persons. — Questioner

Again, why? You may be right. But without a good reason we can't know that. For a claim about reality to be valid, there needs to be a situation in which the claim is correct, and a situation in which the claim is incorrect. Otherwise we're not talking about something real.

If it helps, there are people who detransition who claim they had their identity wrong. There are also people who go through therapy and might think they are transgender, then find out it was some other issue. I want to be clear, the fact that an identity can be wrong, means it can also be right. So the possibility of someone mistaking themselves as being transgender means they can also correctly identify as trans gender with the proper definitions.

There is nothing innate in one's identity that has any value apart from an emotional feeling
— Philosophim

But there is. It's a mental understanding of who you are. — Questioner

If it is a correct objective assessment of who you are, then it is knowledge. If it is a subjective assessment, then it is simply a belief of who you are.

So if I identified as a female, when its objectively true that I'm a male, I would be wrong. My feelings or desire that it be true are irrelevant.
— Philosophim

No. Your identity is produced by your brain, not your body. — Questioner

Remember that I already agreed that every thought is produced by your brain. But we also realize that our thoughts assessments about reality can be wrong.

To be transgender is not based on a wish that it be true - it is true. — Questioner

Again, this has to be proven, not merely asserted.

Do you not understand that to declare yourself transgender makes things a lot harder for a person, not easier, and one would only do so if it was the only way they could be their authentic self? — Questioner

Incorrect. People often times believe things that are wrong, and stubbornly so. Many times a belief in something wrong is to their own detriment, because the feeling of being right is more important than acknowledging you're wrong and adjusting.

Gender is again, a subjective belief that a sex should act in a particular way in society.
— Philosophim

No. Gender is an internal, emergent property of the brain. — Questioner

Every thought is an emergent property of the brain. This doesn't describe what gender actually is. Further, my definition of gender is the common definition of gender used in gender theory.

"The social sciences have a branch devoted to gender studies. Other sciences, such as psychology, sociology, sexology, and neuroscience, are interested in the subject. The social sciences sometimes approach gender as a social construct, and gender studies particularly does"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

What is sex to you? What is gender?
— Philosophim

Sex is the biological differentiation to male or female of physical structures in the human body. — Questioner

This is close enough. As long as we both understand it is an intended reproductive role of the species.

Gender is the male or female differentiation in the brain. — Questioner

If you mean biological, that would be a sex difference, not gender. If you mean gender as used in gender theory, then there is no evidence of any physical brain difference. Meaning gender is not an innate biological reality, but a social construct built upon thoughts and beliefs. Basically its information the brain processes, not something native to the brain itself.

Should gender ever be elevated over sex?
— Philosophim

It sounds like you're asking for permission to deny transgender persons their authenticity. — Questioner

This is an avoidance of the question. True thinking does not desire a conclusion, then construct premises that support that conclusion. That is called 'rationalization' and is not intelligent. Real reason thinks through the premises and comes to a conclusion that it cannot doubt. Meaning even the first conclusion should be questioned severely.

What you seem to be telling me is that you think gender should be elevated over sex only when a transgender person wants this. First, you haven't demonstrated why this isn't sexism. Second, why does it apply only to trans gender people? Why couldn't a cis person want this? "I don't believe women should be anywhere but the kitchen (gender), therefore I'm going to disown my daughter if she ever works a job." Is that right?

Finally, I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'authenticity'. No one is doubting that there aren't trans gender people who believe they are the other gender. I'm just noting it is sexist if they think their gender should be elevated over their sex.

Thank you for the kind words Bob. :)

I thought about this very thing when I was first mulling this over, but it turns out 'genderism' has a different meaning.

The problem, though, with this is that you are purposefully equivocating discrimination based off of gender vs. sex (in your own definitions) because ‘genderism’ is already taken. — Bob Ross

I understand your concern, and I had that very same concern as well. It is not out of line for sexism to apply to both sex and gender.

'Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on one's sex or gender.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

Do I think we could call discrimination against gender a subset of sexism? Yes. Gender at the end of the day is still targeted at a person's sex, just sociologically instead of biologically. If you want a clearer separation, biological and sociological sexism might suffice.

When words are already taken, there should be a good reason to use them for something that means something contrary or wildly different to the original meaning. While the gender community has attempted to equate woman and 'woman' as a gender, I would never do such a thing in my own philosophy as that's a clear attempt at conflation and equivocation. The 'first to market' often wins, and the gender community knew what it was doing when they quickly captured 'genderism' to imply that anyone who doesn't believe there are only two genders should have a negative connotation to them.

When we shift the focus from sex to gender, in your terms, then it gets interesting to me because your definition of gender seems to imply, by my lights, that maybe you consider it just sociological, irrational expectations that we have of a sex which we shouldn’t; so this makes us wonder what is wrong with misgendering someone in your view if it all just irrational expectations based off of tastes. — Bob Ross

I'll adjust this caveat a little. "Irrational" might be a little strong. While I also wouldn't call them 'rational' either, it doesn't mean that gender roles may form based on lived experience. If you were raised in a household where all men worked and all women stayed home, you might be surprised one day when you leave the house and find a man who stays at home and a woman who works. Its a pre-judgement. And pre-judgements in themselves are not wrong. They're simple adaptations of expectation that are common to our environment. Pre judgements become 'isms' when we find facts that contradict our prejudices and then insist that our prejudices must be right.

So a man could be surprised that a woman works, but accept that. While a sexist person would see a woman working and insist that she should not simply because of a belief, and not because of any fact in front of them.

. Now, imagine I thought that all stereotypes about pizza lovers is purely relative to tastes; and someone tells me I’m a cheesy because I am currently eating cheese-pizza. However, they do not understand that eating cheese-pizza does not thereby implicate one as considering cheese a topping: little did they know I’m a crazy; and so I do not really fit the stereotype of a cheesy—they mispizza’d me. Now, the central question is this: what did they do that was immoral there by mispizza’ing’ing me? — Bob Ross

Nothing. They made an assumption about you based on their past experience and what you were doing.

However, what we couldn’t say is that they are being sexist. — Bob Ross

Correct. Nor were they being "pizza-ist". :)

What I would say you have done here, unless I am misunderstanding, is, by analogy, shifted mispizza’ing a person to discriminating against them based off of sex; for if I discriminate against someone because of their pizza stereotype then I have not thereby discriminated based off of there sex. — Bob Ross

To go back to gender, my point is that gender becomes sexism when elevated above sex. So if you as a man think that men cannot like the color pink, even though every objective fact demonstrates there is nothing preventing a man from liking pink, insisting that a male who likes pink isn't a man is sexist.

But maybe you have a general approach that "Men should be tough". You find a man who's not tough. You might not like that he's not tough, but you don't assume he's not a male or treat him like a female. You have a prejudgement, but you don't let your prejudice become sexism.

then it follows logically that a person who voluntarily identifies with a gender (such as 'femaleness') is being sexist against themselves.— Bob Ross

Correct.

I honestly didn’t think you would accept that (: . This means that, by analogy, anyone who self-identifies with any stereotype of pizza-loving is thereby being sexist against themselves. — Bob Ross

I neglected to add, "If the person elevates their gender over their sex". I hope the above clarifies it. Good dive into this!

I was a battle rapper for some years. I had a totally different identity then. Similarly when I was a stand up comedian. Similarly when I was a fairly robust figure in the psychedelic space. Similarly when I was a depressed, teenage rocker. These things all change throughout life and hte idea that there is a fixed identity when it comes to gendered behaviours (i.e claiming 'a gender') seems erroneous. I've spent long periods wearing make up and womens clothes and behaving as they say, as a soy boy. I was not trans. — AmadeusD

Awesome! You've lived a neat life.

If we look at this from a biological standpoint, we can consider the human brain in terms of its structure and function. The brain is the structure, and the function of that structure is to produce the mind. The mind consists of all the mental output of one's brain — Questioner

Sure. Lets view identity apart from gender for a moment. I don't believe in a soul, so all of our thoughts come from the brain. Identity is one type of thought in the brain that asserts something. "I am X". What is that X? It could be sex, gender, job, family member, club member, race, species, etc. Our brain has the remarkable ability to claim that "I am X" and attach an emotional affirmation to that which makes us feel that its good or true.

Just because we can identify ourselves as "X" it doesn't mean we actually are "X". As before I mentioned a person who believes they are a doctor without a phd. But perhaps they correctly identify that they are a brother. Because "Identity" as a whole, is often comprised of parts. We can be correct in some of those parts, and incorrect in others.

In other words, an identity claim can be incorrect. There is nothing innate in one's identity that has any value apart from an emotional feeling, or whether its correct or incorrect. Having a positive emotional feeling about an identity that is incorrect, doesn't mean we should elevate the feeling over the objective reality of the identity. That is one of the few times we can clearly say, "That would be wrong."

I did want your definition of sex and gender, and if you find it different from what I will provide, please provide it. Sex is simply the biological expression of reproductive intent of a species. In humans, there are two sexes that are needed to join to reproduce, a male, and a female. I could be a male, and personally identify as a female. But sex is an objective reality. So if I identified as a female, when its objectively true that I'm a male, I would be wrong. My feelings or desire that it be true are irrelevant.

Gender is again, a subjective belief that a sex should act in a particular way in society. That might be what they like, clothing, hair style, speech patterns, or body language. When you have a gendered view of the world, you believe that a man should be like Y, and a woman should be like Z. But this isn't based on any biology besides their sex. Its based on what you personally attach as emotionally positive vs emotionally negative to a sex's behavior in public.

So then what is a personal gender identity? First, you have to have a gender identity. You need to believe that men should be like Y, and women should be like Z. Then, if you mostly favor Y, or Z, you say, "I like to behave in public like Y or Z." Therefore I fit the gender of my choosing.

Now can one's gender identity be wrong? No. If you believe that men should be like Y, and you act like Y, then you have 'the gender of a male'. But all this means is, "I believe men should act like Y, and I act like Y." The moment you cross into the idea that a prejudiced belief in how a man should act, means that acting that way overrides your actual sex, you have crossed into sexism. Sexism is objectively incorrect. Therefore there is nothing wrong with believing that a sex should act a certain way, but it is an incorrect jump to believe that acting or not acting that way has anything to do with whether you are that sex or not.

That is elevating gender over sex. And that fits the definition of sexism. So then, if you believe in different definitions, please spell them out. What is sex to you? What is gender? Are your definitions backed by the literature? Should gender ever be elevated over sex? If so, how is it not sexism?

And it’s just part of the culture war nonsense that tries to subliminally attack trans, gays and every other LGBTQ person in society. — Christoffer

That's a very biased take without evidence. Would you like to explain where in the OP I'm trying to attack trans or gays?

My opinion is that these discussions are very low quality for this forum. I’m not sure we should entertain the level of discourse that comes out of the rising hate we see in society. — Christoffer

If its low quality, please point out why this specific OP is low quality. If you think I am hateful, please point out where. You don't silence or suppress hate. It only grows, festers, and comes out in underhanded ways down the road. You shine a light on it. Point out to people why they're expressing hate. You don't change all minds, but some minds can be changed. I particularly don't want to be a hateful person, but if I am unknowingly it would be great if someone pointed it out correctly.

If we’re talking about the science around transsexualism, — Christoffer

The topic is about trans gender, not transsexualism. I view them as two different discussions.

We can easily have a civil discussion between each other who aren’t transsexuals, but a civil discussion that isn’t having insights and perspective from the people it’s about is seriously lacking in being able to have a qualitative level. — Christoffer

My good friend of many years is several years into transition. I have immersed myself in the trans community for quite some time now. I've also read papers, seen debates, and many different approaches to the subject. So I do include the insights and perspectives of trans gender and trans sexual people. Feel free to voice where you think I'm wrong, include your own perspectives, or demonstrate where the argument specifically needs more than what is provided.

If any in this discussion are are trans, that’s good, but it risks just becoming a bunch of hetero males discussion LGBTQ topics through a very narrow lens. — Christoffer

Everyone is welcome to the discussion. And gender is not owned by LGBTQ. Gender applies to every single human being. The idea that it is owned by a certain group of people is wrong.