Your friend is transitioning to female, and you still refer to her as, "he"

Tells me all I need to know about your level of understanding. — Questioner

Did you not read the entirety of what I wrote? He knows he's still a he. He's transitioning to fill this need. Not all trans gender people take the idea that transition equates to being equated with the opposite sex or gender. Remember your claim to being open minded? Time to own up to that and learn something from me this time.

Obviously my friend is a private person, and I'm sure if they came on here they would be accused of being a second account or some such. Here is a nice non-political interview with Debbie Hayton, a trans woman who holds similar views. As an open minded individual, you should take a listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO4pFnRdC1o

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

Well, I and most educated people in the U.S. disagree. — Ecurb

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

Second, I'm an educated person. There are many, many educated people like me who hold my view. Unless you have an unbiased and carefully set up survey's that conclude the same results, your claim is a belief, not reality.

The definitions are changing, as Jamal has clearly pointed out. — Ecurb

Whether they are changing or not is irrelevant to the point of the OP. What are they today? I'm not noting what they should be, and I'm surely not stating what they are going to be a year from now.

It's reasonable to modify definitions out of kindness, politeness, and for political reasons. — Ecurb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, you appeal mass appeal to 'generalized educated people' is not evidence of the default of man and woman not being sex references. Are you going to tell me next that because American money has "In God we trust", that God is real?

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

Again, that's not what the OP is saying. Its saying, now, today, that the default meaning of men and women unmodified is a sex referent.

The battle over "nice" has long been lost (Northanger Abbey was written more than 200 years ago). — Ecurb

Look, I'm trying to have a rational discussion about language with you. You keep trying to use emotional coercion to make me do something I rationally conclude that I rationally do not have to. That's not very nice is it? Why should I listen to someone who isn't being very nice tell me what's nice?

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

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

Your battle about the "default meaning" of "woman" is losing as well. — Ecurb

Here in the OP, I'm fairly confident at this point that I'm correct, at least in my conversation with you. If it changes or morphs in the future, I don't care. Its something I'm not quite sure you've understood in reading the OP. Its ok to say, "Today woman by default does mean 'sex reference', but I and others want to change it to where the default is 'role'" That's a separate discussion.

As such, when embodying femininity, and the longer they do it, this feeling becomes very much like a long term girl friend and then wife. Just like normal people feel an underlying calm and pleasantness being around a woman they love, similar feelings manifest in him. — Philosophim

that is a very interesting point that I'd never considered before.

Do I think a man should be allowed to wear tasteful feminine clothes and make up in public? Sure, why not? Does it make them women? No. — Philosophim

Of course. Being female is the only criterion for womanhood (other than being an adult). The only thing all TW have in common is being male.

Being an 80's kid (the best kind of kid), much of the rock and pop scene were gender benders from the hair metal bands to Boy George and Annie Lennox, but they were not transgender by identity, and the hair, tights, painted nails and makeup of Poison was actually hyper-masculine. Dress and mannerism doesn't equate to (trans) gender, and Dee Snider was not a drag queen. It's not appearance and mannerism per-se, but a concept of self, or as you say, the utilisation of an alter-self for sexual gratification and love and companionship in relief from isolation. Essentially, it is nothing other than self-impressionism in one form or another.

The question of self is a whole 'nuther issue, but it is also the foundational issue in question. I'm in the 'self-is-an-illusion' camp, and all identity claims contradict my foundational premise. I am male, but I am not 'a man'. For me to claim I am 'a man' is as ludicrous as claiming to be 'a woman', and you will notice that males who make being 'a man' very important are equally ridiculous as males who give being 'a woman' importance. Gender identity, be it cis or trans, is ludicrous. Colour me cis-phobic if you like.

If I was a doctor and surgeon, I would question the ethics of transitioning people. They are not ill and in need of treatment, so it's not really medicine. It is cosmetic, but exogenous steroids and sex-reassignment surgery interferes with and/or obliterates healthy organ function (whereas a nose job doesn't). Plastic surgery doesn't mean ethics go out the window and 'anything goes', and cross-sexualising interventions do grievous bodily harm.

I personally couldn't in good conscience administer drugs to anyone whose hormone levels were within healthy ranges because adverse outcomes for otherwise healthy people are inevitable. It's like administering steroids to a young gym goer just because he wants to look a certain way and is very distressed that he doesn't. No reasonable doctor would prescribe that, let alone surgically remove perfectly functioning organs (other than perhaps some adipose tissue).

The differences are too great to ethically equate transexualism with general cosmetic surgery. Transexual interventions are at best an extreme form of cosmetic surgery, well beyond even the indulgences of Michael Jackson.

It's not appearance and mannerism per-se, but a concept of self, or as you say, the utilisation of an alter-self for sexual gratification and love and companionship in relief from isolation. Essentially, it is nothing other than self-impressionism in one form or another. — Throng

Its a good way to describe it.

I am male, but I am not 'a man'. For me to claim I am 'a man' is as ludicrous as claiming to be 'a woman', and you will notice that males who make being 'a man' very important are equally ridiculous as males who give being 'a woman' importance. Gender identity, be it cis or trans, is ludicrous. — Throng

100% agree. Its just basic sexism. Sexism is of course very appealing and powerful, so its easy to worm itself into people if they don't recognize it. 'Gender' is one of the best language twists to trick you into thinking its not sexism ever invented. It follows one of the best manipulative tactics: the assertion of its moral superiority by a higher power. The higher power in this case is legislation, moneyed interests, and the force of sexually desirous men who were willing to say whatever was necessary to get what they wanted. A fantastic example of a secular cult.

Notice that the 'gender' push was not done from the ground up like gay rights. It was pushed down from on high, and people were told this was the way things were going to be now. Disagreement was immoral, you were to follow the new precepts, the language, and the rituals. As someone who grew up in religion and broke out of it myself, its been a very familiar feeling pushing against this.

If I was a doctor and surgeon, I would question the ethics of transitioning people. They are not ill and in need of treatment, so it's not really medicine. It is cosmetic, but exogenous steroids and sex-reassignment surgery interferes with and/or obliterates healthy organ function (whereas a nose job doesn't). Plastic surgery doesn't mean ethics go out the window and 'anything goes', and cross-sexualising interventions do grievous bodily harm. — Throng

Despite this, I think people should be free to do so. I very much rest on the camp of 'freedom'. My experience in life is that people are far to quick to judge how others should live their lives without having actually been in that person's shoes. I can easily judge from the outside everything you've said, but I can't live the person who is undergoing that desperate and obsessive sexual impulse. I've seen it in my friend first hand. Ever seen a pet in heat trapped in a house with no mate? That was him. It was extremely painful to watch, and I wouldn't want to sentence him to a life of just experiencing that with no alternative. Its not something I would push on most people who might have it as a partial influence in their life, but to me it was very much like a person who could not choose to be gay. Its condemning someone to celibacy due to other's people discomfort with the sexual variation of that person.

You might even think, "They'll be find if they're with a woman." If its not the major sexual influence, that's possible. But research stories of trans widows. Its story after story of men who after five years (when sexual interest dies down) or children are born and the attention is focused on the child, decide to transition as the relationship is no longer serving their sexual needs. I wouldn't push a gay person to get married saying, "You should try it, maybe you're only somewhat gay." So why would I push a person who has this to do so?

The trans community has largely tried to push back vehemently on the sexual narrative, but its very real for many. I understand why. If the general community figures it out, its game over for that sweet, sweet ability to enter into women's spaces. Its pretty nice having people bend the knee for your sexual interests without them knowing about it. Also, if you can claim its a medical need, you can get insurance to pay for it. So there's really little personal benefit for the trans community activists to recognize this prevalent part of the trans experience, and gender is the perfect cover as most people don't have the learning to realize its just veiled sexism. Simply moralize gender, get people to repeat the mantra 'trans women are women', and they won't think to question it anymore. Watching people here do mental backflips and pretzel twists to try to defend it, its the same exact experience I've had when debating people that God doesn't exist while they insist he does.

Fortunately, there are trans individuals who recognize it and have moral standards and respect for women like my friend. They are largely rejected by 'the community' as the sexual situation is too good for many to be disrupted. Not to mention the amount of money being made off of trans gender medicine is incredible. If you catch them young, its permanent life long medication with the promise of surgeries down the road. Just like religion, its the zealots up front with people in the back collecting all the money.

The differences are too great to ethically equate transexualism with general cosmetic surgery. Transexual interventions are at best an extreme form of cosmetic surgery, well beyond even the indulgences of Michael Jackson. — Throng

I think if the sexual nature of the condition come to light, there can be good reasons to allow this. Yes, I suppose it wouldn't be something you just walked into a basic clinic to do, but educating a person the sexual nature honestly, and helping them to adjust tastefully and appropriately in society could be a benefit to everyone. If there's one thing I think we've learned from the gay rights movement, is that sexual variation can be tastefully integrated into society without normative sexuality being hindered or disrupted. Just because a person has a different sexual interest, it doesn't mean it becomes a focus in work or in public beyond basic acknowledgement. Gays suddenly didn't star parading around in speedos and sexually suggestive clothing, trans gender men and women won't either. It is the hiding of that sexuality where some people will attempt to abuse the situation from people's ignorance and good graces. Bringing it to light might be painful at first, but I believe more beneficial in the long run.

But maybe I am wrong. Maybe there are limitations on sexual variation expression for good reasons, and not merely ignorance or taboo. Maybe the fact that it necessitates drugs to reach its full enjoyment is a problem. People wiser than I can debate that as that is at the limit of my current experience.