And I'm noting this is not an argument about 'want', but what 'is'. — Philosophim

What is a woman? — BenMcLean

You are both asking for dogma which runs the risk of invalidating and erasing transgender persons.

Dogma is authoritative – as if only it is the truth – as if identification by others should supersede self-identification.

The experiences of transgender persons tell us that the definition of “woman” or “man” cannot be based solely on the physical body at birth.

I am more a skeptic than a dogmatist, encouraging open-mindedness and questioning rather than stifling them.

1. A man is an adult human male.
2. A trans man is not an adult human male.
3. Therefore a trans man is not a man.

(The same pattern for "woman," and interpreting "male" biologically.)

Nobody disputes this argument's validity, but validity is not sufficient for philosophical substance in a contested debate. — Jamal

At least we agree the argument is valid.

Of course, what you have actually done is attempted to sidestep the central dispute, which is over whether or not your definition is correct. Your conclusion follows only because you have already made it inevitable by assuming the centrally contested definition. — Jamal

No Jamal. My conclusion follows because I have multiple true premises. No begging required. All you have to demonstrate to invalidate the argument is whether the default definition of man or woman is biological, or a role.

Now, had you taken the time to defend the definition, none of this would matter. Perhaps you just wanted to set things out clearly and simply, and what could be wrong with that? But the following is all you offered in defence:


Most of the world does not view man and woman by gender, but by sex, so the default goes to sex.
— Philosophim

This is where you need a good argument—where it's difficult. — Jamal

Feel free to point out where its flawed. Your judgement of whether the argument is 'good' or not is only evidenced by your ability to refute it.

This is better: you beg the question when your premises assume the truth of

the conclusion. And I think your argument does that, not explicitly but in the context of the ongoing debate. Premise 1 presupposes the conclusion by fixing the meaning of "man" in a way that already excludes trans men. The conclusion is assumed rather than argued for. — Jamal

I think you've put forth a good effort, but couldn't be more wrong here. You see, we also have to establish what 'trans X' means as well. We need the definition of X, trans X, and the conclusion of whether trans X is X. By fact the definition of X alone cannot assume the truth of the conclusion. Sorry Jamal, its impossible for this to be begging the question. You're going to have to dispute the definition of X, or trans X.

In reality, begging the question takes different forms: assuming a disputed claim, building the conclusion into a definitional premise, or stipulating a definition that can only be accepted by someone who already agrees with the conclusion. Some philosophers have made the distinction between intrinsic and dialectical question-begging. In those terms, you have done the latter. — Jamal

This sounds like you're trying to avoid disputing the definition at this point by trying to twist the clear term of question begging. Not buying it. Dispute the definition, or take another approach. Otherwise I have a logically sound argument.

If you have a particular argument against the OP, it is your job to point it out and explain why it counters the premises or conclusion of the OP. If there is a particular debate that you feel is worth pulling in to address the claims of the OP, feel free. But a general reference to unspecified arguments without any demonstrable link to the OP is something I can rationally ignore.
— Philosophim

If you just want to win, then sure. But if you want to find truth, then no, you cannot ignore the chance of attaining knowledge. I pointed you in the direction of a respected philosophical authority (the SEP), and mentioned that some thinkers regard man and woman as cluster concepts. I assumed, because you hadn't mentioned anything remotely like that, that you were unaware of all the work that has already been done in the field. — Jamal

I did read it. But I did that for my own curiosity. That doesn't invalidate my point that it was a flawed counter in any argument. Throwing a massive amount of information at someone without pointing out its specific relevance to the discussion is not a viable tactic from someone trying to find the truth. If you had simply mentioned, "Hey, here's some reading on gender. Its not an argument against what you've written here, just some information if you're curious," I can see your point. But you wanted to win the argument, not just give me knowledge. That information not existing in my argument did not mean the argument was flawed. Claiming that was your mistake.

I meant to call your statement that sex is the default into doubt, to push back against it with examples. If social position is operative in society in substantial, non-ephemeral ways—and I gave examples—then it shows there is a burden on you to support your statement that sex is the default. It does not rigorously prove that sex is not the default, but I had no intention of doing that. — Jamal

This is more interesting now because we're discussing the issue proper. The problem for you is that I did assert that sex is the default reference for man and woman. So if you can't prove that the default is something else my position holds.

The thing is, you are not merely saying, "Given my definition, trans women are not women." (Everyone agrees with this). — Jamal

Correct, because it is not my definition. It is the default definition that people assume when man or woman is unmodified in English.

You are also saying that your definition is the default, and that rival definitions, and therefore contrary conclusions, are deviations from correct usage. At this point, the masses are functioning as an authority. — Jamal

You are free any time to demonstrate that when most people see man and woman unmodified that they instantly jump to it being a role and not a sex reference. Go tell a random person on the street, "I saw a woman walking through the woods the other day." After some time then ask them, "When I said "woman" did you think adult human female or adult human male?" You and I both know the answer to this. So we can stop pretending otherwise. Free of specific context, woman and man default to a sex reference, not a role. To be clear, its the default of the unmodified term. Its not that man or woman can't mean role, they just need proper modification and context to clearly convey that.

How do you get to that? The logic surely goes like this:

Most people use "man" and "woman" to refer to sex, not gender.
Therefore "man" and "women" refer to sex, not gender.

There is a missing premise there — Jamal

Yes, this is fair criticism and I hope the discussion focusses on this rather than the above disputes. Language is a series of signs within context that indicate concepts. But they do follow default definitions within the language they are a part of. For example, black and white are colors without any modification. But we can modify default definitions to create more 'colorful' language. For example, I can call someone a 'white' man. We all understand this is a reference to race, and that a person's skin doesn't have to actually be the color white, but ethnicity or even social class. "Bob might have dark skin, but he's really a white man underneath it all."

Metaphors and similes are also tools to modify language into interesting comparisons. "Todd is just like a black man". Todd of course would be categorized as a 'white man' in reality, as he does not have any black skin or 'ethnicity'. Its a simile where we attribute behavior to ethnicity. Which is fine, but does the behavior make the ethnicity, or is it a trait that is sometimes associated with the ethnicity? Its the later.

It would then be a far cry to say by default, "Tom is black" when he is actually white by ethnicity. Even in a context, there is a default meaning for the term. We understand the default for 'black' is ethnicity, not the actions associated with the ethnicity. So if Tom, a white man, decided to apply for black scholarships, we would rightly deny Tom the ability to do so because 'white' is by default in this context ethnicity, not behavior. Do you disagree with this?

Remove the context, and the base meaning of white as a color still applies. All of this is very important, because if the default is misunderstood, everything built off of it becomes confused. If you started saying, "White unmodified can also mean the feeling of being white", it becomes very difficult to understand language without further context. "Tom is a white man" now all of the sudden becomes ambiguous. Do we mean Tom is white by ethnicity or is actually black by ethnicity and feels white? Suddenly a "White scholarship" can be applied to not be the default meaning, which was ethnicity, but has become unnecessarily ambiguous. Language is now confused, people don't know what it means anymore and thus language has become worse.

Defaults generally happen in languages to avoid ambiguity and create efficient discussion. No one wants to speak to another person saying, "A woman with x sized hips, medium breasts who feels like a male..." People just denote, "A woman" and English speakers understand 'woman' to refer to 'sex' by default. Its just an efficient word to describe a basic concept unambiguously. A "White woman" would default to an ethnic description of a woman by sex. A word that does not have a default is confused and awful in correct language, as language's goal is to accurately communicate a concept efficiently to another person. So the idea of a default for nouns is not flawed, its a real phenomenon in any good language.

The language as well can often tell us what the default is. Lets look at the etymology of the terms man and woman. First, we understand they, in context with each other, were originally sex references. Gender, the idea that males and females have sociological expectations placed upon them, needs a reference to the sex itself. "Male gender" is the sociological expectation placed on an adult human male. Eventually, people started using "Man" as a simile or metaphor. "He acts like a woman." "He's such a woman." But the simile and metaphors don't actually imply the person is 'the other thing', its an implication of traits that are often associated with the thing, in this case behavior.

You can probably see by this point in your reading why I did not go in depth on the OP. My experience is that long posts do not keep the attention span or conversation going. I have found it best to save more in depth assertions for those who are interested in exploring them. I'll continue now.

Back to simile and metaphor. Proper simile's and metaphor's do not imply the person is the default use of the simile and/or metaphor. "My brother Tom doesn't stop talking when he drives. He's such a parrot". We can glean from the context of the sentence that most likely, him being a parrot is a metaphor, not an actual driving parrot. :) The default for parrot is again, the bird. Even though we could parrot other people who use parrot in different ways. As you can see, despite the different meanings of the term parrot in the sentence, you were able to easily understand what was stated without ambiguity. That's an effective and clear sentence.

So, now back to "Trans men are men". The "Are men" is where we will focus first. Is it a metaphor? Is it a claim to be an actual parrot? We'll need to look at what a 'trans man' is first. 'Trans' generally means 'to travel across' and 'man' generally means a sex referent unmodified. But here we have a modification. Intuitively we would think, "Oh, that's a man by sex who is crossing over to the other sex." But of course the phrase was not built on common English expectations.

Instead, we actually need to add some more specificity. Man can also mean 'gender role' in particular contexts, but the context needs to be clear. So we should probably add a modifier to make that clearer. "Trans gender man". This clarifies that the 'man' in question is not a man by sex reference, but by gender reference. And since its 'trans', or crossing over, we can assume their default gender would be woman. And a default gender applies to a default sex. So the trans gender man is a woman. Just like my parrot example above, we can glean from the full sentence the accuracy of the situation. This is a woman who believes in following the sociological expectations of others about sex. She does not want to follow the role society expects of her, she wants to follow the role society expects of men again. Unlike some who would simply reject societal expectations, she embraces them for the other sex.

If the philosophical goal of language is to clearly communicate ideas accurately (and we like efficiency too), has the above accurately conveyed the situation? I would say so. There's no ambiguity. But lets look at the original phrase in question again.

"Trans men are men". What does this mean? Trans men could denote trans sexual or trans gender, so it probably needs a little clarity there. But lets assume its just gender, and there is no transitioning of sex features in any way. "Trans gender man" is a complete phrase that indicates that this is a woman who is taking on the sociological expected role of the other sex. So what's the purpose of the latter addition? If 'man' unmodified by default means 'male sex', this is obviously false.

The modifiers of men further convey the point that man, unmodified by default, refers to sex. This confusion was obviously apparent when the phrase 'trans man' defined common English expectations. For example, most people think on hearing the phrase for the first time that 'trans man' means "A man who's transitioned". There needed to be clarity about the separation of sex and gender with the terms man and woman. Thus the term 'cis' was used to modify the default term so that you would understand that man or woman in this instance refers to gender, not sex. A cis woman, is a woman who has the female gender. This is a clear and accurate sentence.

The proper tautology for accurate and unambiguous communication should be "Trans men are trans men" Or "trans men are not cis men". But "Trans men are men" is ambiguous and poorly phrased at best, or wrong at its worst. Thus the phrase is simply confusing. Assuming that someone is trying to communicate accurately and efficiently the true intentions behind the phrase, they should modify it to be more clear. "Trans men are adult human females that take on the gender role of men" No question there, but wordy. "Trans men are women" still conveys the same information accurrately and more compactly. "Trans men are the male gender" is also compact, but might want to clarify if they're using gender as the sociological meaning vs sex synonym.

As philosophers or people who study philosophy, rationally we should embrace clarity of language and thought where possible. We understand that politics, religion, and ideologies use and abuse language to manipulate and control the populace. This is in defiance of understanding the world and reality in a clear way. So if the phrase is ambiguous because people are going to default to thinking 'Trans men are men' means 'Trans men are men by sex", there shouldn't be a single problem with clarifying the phrase to be clear in its intent.

The only reason I can think that a person would be against it is if they're intending to conflate the default term with gender to avoid having to address the fact that cross gender people aren't cross sex. But you wouldn't be one of those would you? I would assume having studied philosophy for years that you would be aware of such basic deceptions and manipulations. Clarity of language and thoughts is paramount to the study, so why use unclear language? The use of language for conflation or manipulation is the antithesis of philosophy.

My apologies for giving you a mouthful of words (but not a literal mouthful, we both know that right?) but I was saving such extensive explanations for those who would address the subject more pointedly and not reactionary. Please take your time to respond, I will not view time taken to mean anything other than you are thinking about it and you'll respond when you have time.

You are both asking for dogma which runs the risk of invalidating and erasing transgender persons. — Questioner

Transgender persons do not exist. The very term "transgender" is an anti-concept.

This doesn't mean I want anybody rounded up or punished or whatever: just that logic comes before politics.

as if identification by others should supersede self-identification. — Questioner

Identity is always socially negotiated. People aren't necessarily always what they say they are just because they say they are. Just because I say I'm an Olympic gold medalist or a world chess champion doesn't make it true.

The experiences of transgender persons tell us that the definition of “woman” or “man” cannot be based solely on the physical body at birth. — Questioner

Since they don't exist, this is not true.

You are both asking for dogma which runs the risk of invalidating and erasing transgender persons. — Questioner

I'm very confused. How is a basic default definition 'dogma'? How does the point that the unmodified words of woman and man together are sex references, invalidate and erase trans individuals? Words don't erase reality. Good words express concepts clearly. Concepts still exist despite whether you call them out or not.

I think there is a confusion of language use. Language is not used to 'shape' reality. That's manipulation. Language is used to describe reality accurately and efficiently. Any deviation from this is improper use of language. So there's no erasure going on.

Dogma is authoritative – as if only it is the truth – as if identification by others should supersede self-identification. — Questioner

No, dogma is an insistence of reality that is not backed by fact. "God is real!" is dogma. "Trans men are men" can be dogma if it is not backed by fact. Noting, "This is a box" while pointing to a factually provable box is not dogma. Noting men and women by default are sex references is not dogma if I'm correct.

Also, I fail to see how others subjectively identify you should have any bearing on how you identify yourself. I identify myself as a kind, loving, rational person who cares about people. You probably don't identify me that way. And you are not obligated to. You are allowed to identify me as you wish as an opinion.

Now if we are talking about objective identification, if you want others to accept your personal identification, it has to pass a fact check. If I identify as a dog, objectively, I am not. Others do not have to agree with subjective identifications that do not pass objective evaluation.

The experiences of transgender persons tell us that the definition of “woman” or “man” cannot be based solely on the physical body at birth. — Questioner

You're going to have to clarify what you mean by man and woman. You can say, "The experiences of transgender persons tell us that the existence of female and male gender actions cannot be based sole on the physical body at birth," and there's an argument to be considered. If you're claiming 'woman' or 'man' as a sex reference, you're objectively wrong.

I am more a skeptic than a dogmatist, encouraging open-mindedness and questioning rather than stifling them. — Questioner

How so? You don't seem very open minded to considering that man and women are sex references by default. Truly open minded individuals consider everything equally without regard to potential consequences. My observations in my communications with you is you seem to have a very dogmatic conclusion about trans people, and get very upset when an alternative is considered. You even went as far to say trans people would be erased, which is a closed minded tactic to avoid even considering the possibility that the OP is right. I've explained to you that there are trans people who agree with pretty much what I've stated in my trans related posts, and yet I have not seen you once be open to considering that. You might consider yourself open minded, but from my observations of your replies, you're not as open minded as you think.

You are both asking for dogma which runs the risk of invalidating and erasing transgender persons. — Questioner

No. Nothing could do that if trans people experience some real state of being**. I reject that, obviously, so it's cool for me, but just taking this a little further - calling a woman an adult human female is not dogma. Its a description. Most descriptions are entirely stable once accepted. We do not slowly change the meaning of "human" or "male". Interestingly, and I think tellingly, "male" has enjoyed an attempt to be altered to capture females (and vice verse). This is clearly incoherent.

** the word "trans woman" is sufficient. IF you could explain how "trans woman" is insufficient to refer to, encapsulate, and validate the existence of trans women (or men, just being short) that would help us understand your resistance to the language argument i think. At the moment, it seems fully emotional. However,

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

I think this is naive in a way I find it hard to overstate. Language absolutely, 100% shapes our reality. This is very well documented and understood and is, in fact, the basis for this conversation. Your OP implicitly assumes this, by arguing for clear language to describe reality. If you were happy with ambiguous, unhelpful language your world would be different. Excising my clear opinion in that previous line, because its subjective as hell, that's what Questioner presents us with: a world in which language has created different concepts and institutions for that poster (and, i presume, many others who agree - largely, because of the language they have been exposed to).

This is different to an argument about descriptive realities and best practice. I think that's the available argument for the OP. Clear, precise, and helpful language is best practice for human communication and policy. Currently, its a fucking mess in this area and personally I'm 100% behind the project to clear it up - but that's because parsimony is good imo, ambiguity is bad imo and it makes me feel like i'm not engaging honestly with the world when i muddle language about description. To you point about accuracy over comfort, I have a good (but ultimately extremely controversial example)

(@Jamal, if you don't like this next part, please simply tell me to remove it. It is clearly not racist and clearly has some import to the discussion. I am happy to do without it, if it jeopardizes the thread or my standing with you).

It is an absolute fact that black Americans disproportionate harm themselves, and other Americans. The rates of violent crime between black Americans and all other groups show a propensity in only one direction. And it is quite alarmingly significant - for instance, homicide data shows that there is more than 2x higher rate of Black->white homicide than the reverse and nearly exactly 10x more black->black homicide than white->white). It is a little complicated by how the data is collected, or assessed but the margins are high enough that we're safe in hte basic claim.

This is extremely uncomfortable to talk about because It is an accurate description of events in the world. That some people might use this to bolster or justify their personal bias is not a reason to ignore it, or skew it, or avoid it. Avoiding uncomfortable realities has never helped anyone and generally, allow terrible prejudice to fester and become either overt racism, or bigotry of low expectations (i.e white saviour protecting others from the facts about themselves, lets say).

But this is conceptual to illustrate only. Back on topic, whether trans people do in fact experience a true "state of being" or not, the basis for the state is being a certain sex. The only criteria, it seems, for claiming to be a trans woman is being male (yes, I understand that diagnoses happen. That's not quite the point being made - that's considered transmedicalisation by activists and rejected as illegitimate gate-keeping). For robust, accurate and compassionate discussion, this shouldn't be avoided. It should be represented in the language, not hidden by skewing how we use "woman". "trans woman" does the job, and I'd need to know why this isn't good enough to entertain the further arguments.

calling a woman an adult human female is not dogma. Its a description. — AmadeusD

One word is not a description. We need the fullness of language to describe any one person's experience. We need the fullness of intricate meaning and understanding.

As Henry Miller wrote -

“I do not believe in words, no matter if strung together by the most skillful man: I believe in language, which is something beyond words, something which words give only an adequate illusion of.”

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

I think this is naive in a way I find it hard to overstate. Language absolutely, 100% shapes our reality. This is very well documented and understood and is, in fact, the basis for this conversation. — AmadeusD

I'll be more clear. Language does not create reality. Language can shape our perception of reality. But it does not change reality at its core. Calling a piece of grass, "Grass" or "thing that grows towards sun" may shape our perception of it, but it doesn't change what it is. Language used to alter our perception of reality in a flawed way for the benefit of someone else is manipulation.

This is different to an argument about descriptive realities and best practice. I think that's the available argument for the OP. Clear, precise, and helpful language is best practice for human communication and policy. — AmadeusD

Correct. This is the objective of good philosophy as well.

For robust, accurate and compassionate discussion, this shouldn't be avoided. It should be represented in the language, not hidden by skewing how we use "woman". "trans woman" does the job, and I'd need to know why this isn't good enough to entertain the further arguments. — AmadeusD

100% in agreement. What some advocates do not realize is they are doing immense harm to the trans movement by insisting on a poorly worded phrase that ends up making them look out of touch with reality compared to the rest of the world. This insistence on a poorly worded phrase has motivated far more people against trans gender people than a clear admittance that trans gender men and woman are their natal sex taking on the gendered role of the other sex.

One word is not a description. We need the fullness of language to describe any one person's experience. We need the fullness of intricate meaning and understanding. — Questioner

This seems to me veering into totally irrelevant areas of discussion. We don't need that. If a person is an adult, human female, then they are a woman (under this view, I mean). There's nothing missing.

but it doesn't change what it is — Philosophim

That is totally fair, but when it comes to experiential reportage this probably does not apply. Though, I am relatively resistant to identity discussions of that kind - i would prefer to focus (and it seems Questioner is getting this) on the experiential aspects of things. That collapses into sexism pretty quickly here. You've done a good job of laying that out, imo, in the other thread. Gender is social expectation - if it weren't, there would be nothing to point to as Gender. Or, it's tied to sex, in which case we are objectively correct in using 'woman' to refer solely to females.

doing immense harm to the trans movement by insisting on a poorly worded phrase that ends up making them look out of touch with reality compared to the rest of the world. — Philosophim

Yes. And honestly, you saying makes me a little uncomfortable as you're not trans - but I've seen and discussed with many trans people that htis is their view too. Even on that ridiculous podcast Whatever, there's been a couple of trans guests who take this line and are sick and tired of being lumped in with the aggressive, reality-avoidant lot. Fair. I feel the same about white people.

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

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

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

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

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

If I open a pub (which I am thinking about), the toilets will not say "male" and "female", but instead "balls" and "no balls". Problem solved, and all the linguistic sophistry bypassed. Agree?

In addition, in case someone wonders, yes that will include post-op persons. Eunuchs being accepted in female spaces has a long history (check out the harems of the Ottoman and Ming rulers).

Yes. And honestly, you saying makes me a little uncomfortable as you're not trans - but I've seen and discussed with many trans people that htis is their view too. — AmadeusD

Always appreciate your viewpoint Amadeus. If it helps I didn't write this thread after hearing the phrase for the first time. :) I've dived deep into trans issues for some time now, communities, scientists, doctors, and of course, philosophy. So I don't say that carelessly or lightly. The movement is dying. If it digs itself into slogans and foolishly intractable positions, it will be completely finished. It needs to adapt, become more intelligent, and start thinking about how it can work with the general populace instead of against it before its too late.

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

A legal name change makes that the person's actual name. Just because a name is normally associated with the other sex, doesn't mean it belongs to the other sex. That's prejudice. Plenty of names associated with boys and girls have switched over the years or even become neutral. Gender is just a subjective social expectation, nothing more.

If a person legally changes their name, then you should call them their new legal name. I don't think that's in dispute here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How so? Who is the authority of these 'Good manners'? Did you know its actually good manners not to disagree with me specifically? And yet you do. How rude. :D Are you going to be rude and explain why I'm wrong?

(I notice you use the plural pronoun "their" when the referent is singular. — Ecurb

"They're is "They are" and can be used as plural. "Their" indicates ownership and can also be singular or plural. "They're going to the story." "That is their shopping cart".

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think there is something potentially different about trans sexual individuals? Even in societies where women are oppressed, there are trans sexuals. Its a very rare occurrence, but they exist across all cultures. Should the desire be entertained if the technology is available? Is the separation of trans sexuals and trans genders something viable to consider? — Philosophim

The way I understand the distinction is, transgender is like TWareW, whereas transexuals are men that live as women (not actually women). Since you concluded with a 'should question', I'll take a moral standpoint and say, unlike the former, the latter statement is true.

The former is false because men get women pregnant, men can't get pregnant and women can't make anyone get pregnant. Thus men and women are mutually exclusive. When the gender narrative detaches from that reality, it conflicts with the world through ignorance or evil because it is stated as fact when it is not a true story. It's basically a lie.

Transexuals tell the truth which nobody can deny, so they have some moral ground. The question is, is it ethical for other people (society) to provide hormones and surgery to transexuals, or is the attempt to radically cross sex an abomination in some sense? I think it is to some degree. It is absolutely abominable to do that to children on principles of maturity and consent. Can't consent to a tattoo, for example, but sure, lop my breasts off?

It's only for adults.

I think we start going wrong when other people start providing medical intervention, so if forced to answer yes or no, I would say it's wrong and we can't do it, but the individual can do what they want (provided it is harmless).

If not forced with yes or no, I can't justify stopping adults from doing what they want to do if they aren't deceiving or hurting anyone. Just don't lie. Tell a true story.

Freedom is understanding that everyone has their own path through life, but truth is the only way.

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

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

Here's what she says about dead-naming:

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

In social situations it is best to comply with the addressee's wishes. — Ecurb

Excellent. I am addressing you and wish that you would agree with everything I say. So why should you not?

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

No, I am the authority of good manners. And as I am addressing you with these wishes, you should comply. Don't you want to make a smooth social situation? What's giving up your opinion for mine when it doesn't hurt you any? You should be polite and just say I'm right. What's the harm? If you don't agree with me, I'll really hurt inside. And you wouldn't want to do that to poor me right? You don't want to be seen as rude in polite society right?

So why is the above wrong Ecurb? And no, quoting Ms. Manners is silly, don't do it again please. I'm here to talk philosophy, not listen to quotes from an advice column in the paper. I'm being tongue in cheek with my arguments of course, but I want you to legitimately think about it for a minute. These are the same arguments you've been using for weeks now to manipulate people into doing what you want instead of engaging with the topic properly. So why am I wrong? Once you realize why I'm wrong, then you'll realize why you're wrong.

I won't continue to repeat my critique the OP. As you say about my "fair criticism"...

I hope the discussion focusses on this rather than the above disputes. — Philosophim

So I will aim to please.

You are free any time to demonstrate that when most people see man and woman unmodified that they instantly jump to it being a role and not a sex reference. Go tell a random person on the street, "I saw a woman walking through the woods the other day." After some time then ask them, "When I said "woman" did you think adult human female or adult human male?" You and I both know the answer to this. So we can stop pretending otherwise. Free of specific context, woman and man default to a sex reference, not a role. To be clear, its the default of the unmodified term. Its not that man or woman can't mean role, they just need proper modification and context to clearly convey that. — Philosophim

Here you formulate a thought experiment that repeats your appeal to popularity, and then you add an appeal to common sense. The bolded section is rhetorical, and philosophically inadmissible. After all, today's common sense is tomorrow's outmoded ideology, and it's the job of philosophers above all to question it.

But fair enough. You might have been counting on its rhetorical force, assuming that, if I'm being honest, I'll agree with you. You were saying something like "come on, cut the crap," and that might have worked, if we really had shared the same intuition. But the thing is, I genuinely don't. No pretending involved: I just don't share this commonsensical notion, and I don't accept the legitimacy of your thought experiment.

To see what I mean, let's look at the way you put your random victim on the spot in the thought experiment:

"When I said 'woman' did you think adult human female or adult human male?" — Philosophim

This is a loaded question and a false dichotomy, which has your view baked into it. Forcing or strongly encouraging the hearer to come down on one side or the other, it imposes a binary choice on the fuzzy reality that constitutes both the meaning of "woman" and the hearer's thoughts about it. Things are not so black-and-white, either in meaning or in what people think when they hear words used.

Most people, when hearing "I saw a woman...", form a holistic impression that includes many different things: sex characteristics, aspects of gender expression, social role, all mixed in with personal experience. What they do not do is refer to a textbook biological definition. The very idea that they refer to, or use, a definition, whether consciously or unconsciously, is a misunderstanding of language.

In a nutshell, hearers and participants in conversation construct their interpretations according to context, background knowledge, and relevance, which typically produces a fuzzy picture rather than any determinate biological classification.

In case you're tempted to go for a logical gotcha here, note that when I say most people form a holistic impression, etc., I am not inferring the term's proper meaning from that, so I am not hypocritically appealing to popularity. I am countering your descriptive move, to show your prescriptive conclusion to be not only inferred invalidly but also inferred from a false premise. Thus I'm trying to show that your model of meaning is incorrect.

The meaning of a term is never a static definition. It is a matter of public use, logical function, and historically sedimented associations, i.e., the layers of the term's social and ideological history. It is not a matter of tallying up imagined mental snapshots.

You demonstrate some recognition of this yourself:

Lets look at the etymology of the terms man and woman. First, we understand they, in context with each other, were originally sex references. Gender, the idea that males and females have sociological expectations placed upon them, needs a reference to the sex itself. "Male gender" is the sociological expectation placed on an adult human male. Eventually, people started using "Man" as a simile or metaphor. "He acts like a woman." "He's such a woman." But the simile and metaphors don't actually imply the person is 'the other thing', its an implication of traits that are often associated with the thing, in this case behavior. — Philosophim

This is a novel angle, but rather than a historical enrichment of your model of meaning as I just outlined, you commit the etymological fallacy, taking a purported original meaning as the standard for all time, any later meanings being secondary. It's also a just-so story, an unfalsifiable and speculative narrative.

Incidentally, you might not be aware that semantic evolution is significantly driven by the literalization of metaphors, meaning that they are far from being mere embellishments of a central core.

Going back to the thought experiment, another serious problem is that you've conflated two things: the meaning of a word, and what people think when they use it. These are not the same thing. At the very least, if you think they are, you have to argue for it (which, incidentally, would be to go against most (all?) modern linguists and philosophers of language). As it stands, what you have is a folk-linguistic model of meaning.

The central example of this model is the idea of a default or base meaning:

Remove the context, and the base meaning of white as a color still applies. All of this is very important, because if the default is misunderstood, everything built off of it becomes confused. If you started saying, "White unmodified can also mean the feeling of being white", it becomes very difficult to understand language without further context. "Tom is a white man" now all of the sudden becomes ambiguous. Do we mean Tom is white by ethnicity or is actually black by ethnicity and feels white? Suddenly a "White scholarship" can be applied to not be the default meaning, which was ethnicity, but has become unnecessarily ambiguous. Language is now confused, people don't know what it means anymore and thus language has become worse. — Philosophim

I think you're gesturing at something real here, and your intuition is not wrong. People surely do have such expectations, and do mentally reach for typical examples upon hearing a word. And linguistics and cognitive science back this up: it's called prototype theory. People have prototypical associations with words. A starling is closer to the prototypical bird than a penguin. Crucially though, both are birds. The tendency towards prototypical association doesn't justify the exclusion of other members of the category.

Importantly, prototypes are not "default meanings" in your sense. They don't fix what a word means, they don't determine semantic priority, and they can't act as a foundation for claims about correct usage. What they do is describe how people often imagine examples when there is little information available. This is not equivalent to any kind of base or fundamental meaning.

A penguin is not a "modified bird" just because it doesn't fly, and a PhD is not a "modified doctor" because physicians are more prototypical in casual everyday communication. What you're gesturing towards is therefore better understood as a cognitive-linguistic tendency, not a foundation that can determine or justify the attribution of a basic meaning. Conflating the two is your central mistake. Even if sex-based imagery is often prototypical for "man" or "woman" in casual speech, it doesn't follow that sex is the "base meaning" or that other uses are derivative.

So in the thought experiment, you might have shown, not that "woman" has a default definition, but that many hearers have a prototype in mind in the context of a strange philosopher pouncing on them out of nowhere and saying "I saw a woman walking through the woods the other day." They might infer an adult human female (understood biologically), not because there is some "default" ready to be retrieved, but because they are using an inferential shortcut to the prototype, which applies when they haven't been supplied with any other information (before you say this is precisely what a default is, read on).

So...

Free of specific context, woman and man default to a sex reference, not a role. — Philosophim

As I've said, it's more accurate to say that meaning is flexible and dependent on context, and that people understand "woman" in a holistic way, with associations that include many different things including but by no means limited to sexual characteristics. But even if "woman" does default to a sex reference, this has no semantic priority.

Returning to the doctor example, if I say "I met with a doctor this morning," you might imagine a physician, but we can't conclude that "doctor" means physician simpliciter, or by default—nor that people with PhDs are "modified" doctors, or are only doctors in some secondary sense.

Defaults generally happen in languages to avoid ambiguity and create efficient discussion. No one wants to speak to another person saying, "A woman with x sized hips, medium breasts who feels like a male..." People just denote, "A woman" and English speakers understand 'woman' to refer to 'sex' by default. Its just an efficient word to describe a basic concept unambiguously. A "White woman" would default to an ethnic description of a woman by sex. A word that does not have a default is confused and awful in correct language, as language's goal is to accurately communicate a concept efficiently to another person. So the idea of a default for nouns is not flawed, its a real phenomenon in any good language. — Philosophim

This is interesting, because you've moved on from popularity and common sense to argue for the pragmatic requirement for defaults: pragmatically, language must be efficient and unambiguous, and this requires base or default meanings.

But it's not true. Communication in natural language relies on context, pragmatic inferences, and shared background knowledge, not on a single privileged base meaning that's attached to the noun. Communication works precisely because meanings are underdetermined, resolved in context. No core meaning is required.

Ambiguity is not a defect to be eliminated. It is a basic feature of natural language. We have no trouble at all with words that have multiple common meanings, e.g., bank, light, set, doctor, so natural language is routinely ambiguous in your sense. The key is context.

And I don't think it's unfair of me to set out your argument as follows:

1. Language aims at efficient unambiguous communication
2. Therefore nouns must have defaults
3. Therefore "woman" defaults to sex.

There's a lot missing here.

---

As a reminder, this was the criticism that you accepted in a philosophical spirit and addressed at length:

How do you get to that? The logic surely goes like this:

Most people use "man" and "woman" to refer to sex, not gender.
Therefore "man" and "women" refer to sex, not gender.

There is a missing premise there: If most people use a term a certain way, then that is what the term refers to. — Jamal

I don't know if I was clear, but my criticism was not that you missed a premise. We can apply the principle of charity and fill in the gaps no problem. My point was that even with the hidden premise made explicit, and your argument thereby rendered formally valid, it is still fallacious. Note that an argument can be formally valid yet still fail because it relies on informal fallacies such as appeal to popularity or question-begging.

I do appreciate your generous response. The question is, how does it answer the charge? Since it's based on fallacious reasoning and a fundamentally faulty, not to mention unsupported, conception of language, I think it cannot answer it at all.