You’ve just gone down rabbit holes of madness arguing minutiae with some of the more esoteric posters. — Malcolm Parry

The transgender issue IS a rabbit hole, so to even participate is to jump down a rabbit hole and argue with esoteric posters.

Philosophy often involves exploring rabbit holes.

The transgender issue IS a rabbit hole, so to even participate is to jump down a rabbit hole and argue with esoteric posters.

Philosophy often involves exploring rabbit holes. — Harry Hindu

I don’t think it is. It’s an extremely simple issue.

Rabbit holes are sometimes fun but very rarely about the subject being discussed.

No. I'm merely pointing out that there are cases where it is important to know what sex someone is (mating and medical contexts), and you seem to think that knowing another's sex is never relevant in any context. — Harry Hindu

In most contexts. . . no. . . you seem too obsessed with ones chromosomes that your comments do not in fact make this clear.

Answer this question: A woman masquerading as a man walks into a gay bar and fools a gay man into believing they are a man. Is that unethical? — Harry Hindu

Why would it be? If everything worked out and they found themselves to be in a fruitful as well as long dating endeavor then found this out. . . should they or should they not continue the relationship? That would depend on the person.

It's like going into a relationship with someone openly intending to want kids only to learn they don't want any, they had their tubes tied, a medical botch, they physically are incapable, they had a vasectomy, etc. Do they drop the relationship or not? That depends on the person.

Remember they have the freedom of choice to continue it or not in light of that. Ethics be dammed.

In a pragmatic sense they need to get a handle on this and both put their cards on the table. That is relationship advice for any sort or type of relationship. Both camps need to make that point expressly clear.

I don't know. Why were urinals invented? I did ask that and you did not answer. Why are hands-free toilet flushing, sinks, soap dispensers and air dryers were invented - to limit the spread of germs. If you like touching a public toilet seat to lift it up, that is your prerogative, but something tells me that you were one of those people that insisted everyone get a vaccine and wear a mask during Covid, sooo.... — Harry Hindu

I was not one of those people. . . I got what vaccines I could to gain access to what resources I needed or wore masks to respect policies when they were enforced. My parents were middle aged and therefore susceptible at the time as well as worried about it so I respected their wishes to be as safe as possible. In fact, those restrictions actually worsened my mental state and brought about suicidal ideation.

See. . . was it so difficult to ask someone about something? Also. . . thanks. . . for having me bring that all back up mentally.

Further, as shown on myth busters and this article from the national library of medicine the use of paper towels is actually more effective than mere air dryers. Although, that doesn't make all air drying completely unsanitary it depends on a variety of factors.

I would and every other PERSON would like a sense of privacy regardless of anything else we've been discussing when doing our 'business'. It's your pejorative to want to force me to take my dick out in front of strangers to do it but that is just. . . strange.

Does modifying your body make you the think you are trying to emulate? Does having a "sex-changing" operation make you the opposite sex? Is a hole between a man's legs, that he has to use medical grade stents to keep it from closing, a vagina? Yes, or no? — Harry Hindu

No.

So NOW we can move on to normative guidelines and practice which I'm sure you will give educated or non-fence sitting answers to! Yeah!

Not when they way they want me to speak does not reflect my own views, it reflects theirs. My view is that men and women are adult human males and females, not some psychological or social construct. We are free to disagree and go our separate ways. Neither has to submit to the will of the other. The problem is that delusional people always seek to affirm their delusions by trying to force others into participating in their delusion and will appear offended when others refuse to participate. — Harry Hindu

I don't care. I'm not one of those people.

We've been throwing around things such as gender neutrality, gender equality, gender equity, but this seems to concern more gender normativity. What social roles people are meant to take on.

No! Norms are not strictly speaking. . . legal guidelines. . . policies. . . social fads. . . morals. . . although they may overlap in certain respects with all of those. Mainly because they concern the thing moral guidelines or even laws cannot much touch or say much about. Morally ambiguous or morally neutral aspects of our society or culture at large.

I consider whether one is pro-life or pro-choice to be part of that although it has clear moral and legal standing there is such a wide difference in legality across the states that it is allowed a degree of high normative disagreement. Anti-natalist or Pro-natalist also fall into this as there aren't China like laws that force people to have a specific number of kids but there are concerns that people have about that regardless of whether this concerns the superiority of a culture, economic growth, or social stability.

Exactly my point in that "woman" and "man" need to be used consistently and not have open-ended meanings so that we know how to use the terms to refer to ourselves. You said that having a nose-ring and tattoos is an expression of one's sex/gender. I asked which sex/gender does having a nose-ring and tattoos make me? You didn't answer. You don't answer a lot of pertinent questions. — Harry Hindu

Because I now don't care about gender or sex. . . normativity is king here as it concerns what things people ought to do or not do. It also concerns values. You are expressing that right now in terms of demanding there exist, already existent, terms meant to refer to biological aspects. It's not strictly moral or legal in nature so it probably falls rather nicely into a normative standing.

When you ask me what their 'gender' or 'sex' is from this you are REALLY asking what the normative guidelines and intentions are of the person or the culture/society as regards this persons choices. Whether there are such normative guidelines and whether we should adopt them or not.

In most contexts. . . no. . . you seem too obsessed with ones chromosomes that your comments do not in fact make this clear. — substantivalism

To be fair, the consistent "caller of chromosomes", as it were, is not @Harry Hindu, he's simply responding to what information he was given to accept or refute.

Why would it be? — substantivalism

Because people don't like liars. Lies can be small and inconsequential, such as falsely stating you don't know where your good friend's keys are after a night of drinking where he is clearly unfit to operate a motor vehicle. Or they can be fatal. Or unethical, per one's religious belief standards, such as feeding a person who follows a certain religion forbidding the consumption of pork. A person who follows a certain religion that forbids the consumption of pork will not die or burst into flames if they ingest pork. But it brings what can be considered existential shame per their religious belief. Is it foolish? Perhaps. Is it up to you to say what a man's life purpose and pursuit of such purpose should be, where there is no other affected party but the one man? I think not.

Because I now don't care about gender or sex — substantivalism

That's fine. Some people don't care about professional sports racing or even life itself. But this is a topic of discussion for people who in fact either do care, or have some relevant knowledge as to the topic at hand.

To be fair, the consistent "caller of chromosomes", as it were, is not Harry Hindu, he's simply responding to what information he was given to accept or refute. — Outlander

I've been emphasizing how irrelevant it can be legally, morally, etiquette-wise, policy-wise, etc.

What isn't really silent on that rather explicitly are normative values. So clearly we should be discussing those.

Because people don't like liars. — Outlander

That's all you needed to say. No mention of gender, sex, race, or anything else.

That's fine. Some people don't care about professional sports racing or even life itself. But this is a topic of discussion for people who in fact either do care, or have some relevant knowledge as to the topic at hand. — Outlander

More correctly I find the presentation of sex and gender here or elsewhere skirting around normative values.

Harry makes this point in a rather seemingly contradictory manner as he wants people to be 'as they are'. However, he also want them to box themselves into clear and obvious outward categories.

Which is it? Respect people's privacy and let them be as they are or do they have to possess sex coded language, dress, or social roles that a person can notice from a mile away?

Its one thing to have sex coded language but its another to force people to actively present that when it should or could be a private affair.

The amalgamation that is the concept of gender or gender roles are themselves in some respect normative statements, normative values, or normative preferences. Norms are not moral proclamations, they probably vary more greatly region to region or over time than morals, they aren't strictly able to have any legal standing, and yet most if not every person has them.

Totally fair. Fwiw, by 'weirdos' I mean people who willingly try to convince others to enjoy their cognitive dissonance and accept clearly contradictory positions (either this, or people who do not think there are reasonable structures to be found in the world whcih we can describe. I find both weird and unhelpful. I avoid both kinds of people whenever I can).

To be even clearer: Most right-wing activists are 'weirdos', as are most TRAs.

Fwiw, by 'weirdos' I mean people who willingly try to convince others to enjoy their cognitive dissonance and accept clearly contradictory positions (either this, or people who do not think there are reasonable structures to be found in the world whcih we can describe. I find both weird and unhelpful. I avoid both kinds of people whenever I can). — AmadeusD

I'm reading this and rubbing my chin trying to figure out what positions are clearly contradictory. It's messy to begin with. Me, I'm generally uncomfortable with activitsts of any kind, but I also recognise that they're often necessary for social change. Here's my position on the trans issue:

I think "being trans" is a thing.

If "being trans" is a thing, then it's definitely a gender-thing.

It might be, in addition, a sex thing. Or, a variety of disparate sex-constellations could give rise to similar symptoms.

I think the way we think about sex is inherently gendered; male/female are both sex categories and gender categories, but they are sex categories in part because they were gender categories first. We could have devided the field differently. As long as we're talking about reproduction, there's fairly little leeway. But the trans-issue is not primarily related to reproduction (as a gender issue).

I find the trans/cis distinction useful. It must start as a gender issue, and we'd need to approach the underlying sex-issue (including if there is one in the first place) in a way similar to the reproduction issue. Sticking to the reproduction-derived male-female typology might inhibit our ability to ask the right questions. Abandoning the male-female binary while researching the trans-issue may be useful; that doesn't imply also abandonding the male-female binary while researching reproduction.

I'm no biologist, and I have trouble understanding some of the more complicated issues. I tried reading papers a couple of years ago... I don't speak biology; it was slow and inconclusive. On top of this, the trans-issue is highly political, so my default attitude towards such papers is one of cautious distrust: I expect wishful-thinking on the activist side and not-my-problem-complacency on the conservative side. I imagine there are middle-of-the-road researches, but I don't know who they are. So I don't trust my intuitions on the topic, and I don't trust my ability to figure out which experts to trust.

Given a minor background in sociology (academic degree, but decades ago and not my job ever since), I'm a little better at reading gender studies. Unfortunately, that just means I can be more specific about my distrust. I'd need to go read the actual studies, and then think through the theories that underly them, and then... I'd simply be exhausted and still not have made up my mind.

Once the dust settles we might get a clearer look of the issue at hand. Part of me fears though that, once the dust settles, we'll go back to not caring much - meaning we might just not look. I'm hoping for positive left-over substratus, but the current backlash doesn't seem to justify that hope. It's like running with a rubber band; either the rubber band breaks and you fall flat on your face, or the you lose strength and the backlash smashes your back into the wall.

The difference between sex and gender is also intuitively clear to me: I have no problem calling myself male - that's a fact. But I can't call myself a "man" with a straight face. The term feels more like a social imposition than something I identify with. Note that "man" isn't only a gender term; it's also an age term. Am I more comfortable with "boy" than "man"? Peter-Pan Syndrome? Maybe. It's also clear to me, that I'm definitely not a girl/woman; that's just intuitively off the table. I take this to mean that I'm "cis male" without much of an gender identity.

When I say I don't have much of a gender identity, what I mean is that, unless the topic comes up, I don't think of myself in terms of gender at all. That can lead to me not making connections that I'm socially supposed to make. An example: I was working at a market research institute, when the boss of a different department needed to have some tables moved (for a group discussion, I think). She enlisted the help of "strong men". Now the department I was in was mostly women, so most people who responded to the call were women, like my friend and colleague, who said something like, "Hey, you come, too." Not only did I not respond to the flattery, I didn't even realise it was supposed to be gendered flattery to make the (few) men in the room feel good about helping. I just thought I'm not strong, so I'm not going to be much help. (I only later learned that we were to move tables, and they weren't that heavy. And most of the table movers ended up women, anyway.) There are also times I got in trouble for being gender insensitive - that is not being able to see myself as a man and thus making (mostly) women uncomfortable with my presence, or something I said. So while I find the trans condition hard to understand (I asked clarification question, at the end of the which the only thing that was clear is that I didn't understand), I also find it hard to understand why the man-woman gender differentiation matters as much as it does. I don't, here, mean an intellectual understanding; more an instinctive understunding. Meaning: I get by well enough when I pay attention; not so much when I relax.

As for the concrete trans issues, say the bathroom issue - my sympathies tend to lie with your avarage trans person who just wants to live a comfortable life like anyone else. Public bathrooms are a source of stress, and that won't change, not immediately at least, even if they're legally allowed in the bathroom of their "choice". Most of the discussions around the topic tend to focus on the lone toilet goer, but what if a transwoman vistis the bathroom with their cis-woman friends? (Something I've heard of once, concretely: being dragged to the toilet by their cis-woman friends, as the transwoman would have preferred to wait until she got home.) So what about insider vetting? It's not the laws, here, I'm primarily concerned with: it's the daily life that structures around them. The szenarios we imagine reveal our preconceptions. If you'd focus on the actual life-paths, things might look different.

This was meant to be a short post that makes things clearer about where I come from. It's certainly not a short post, but it should make clear that the issue to me inherently messy, which puts me in clear opposition to people who think: men here, women there, trans people deluded. To be sure, I started out saying that I think that "being trans" is a thing; that implies (in my world view) that this is something you can be wrong about. So I do think there are people who are wrong about being women, but their being wrong about being a women is secondary to them being wrong about being trans.

A four-spot grid works well enough for me, for now, definitely when it comes to gender.

I think "being trans" is a thing. — Dawnstorm

I think it's more hijacked by those who are larger and less intelligent to bully those who are smaller, skinnier, perhaps talk with a bit higher voice, or are otherwise closer to what modern societies think of as "feminine" simply because they're cruel and miserable people who they know deep down the world would be better off without. You know the kind. The "if I'm not actively oppressing someone, no matter who it is, I don't feel normal — someone has to be inferior and beneath me for me to function properly" type. Horrible people raised by similarly horrible people thus creating a never-ending chain of blight on moral society. Until people like me are given authority by a fatigued and desperate population whose only wish is to live in the heydays of their grandparents when men knew how to act and how to respect one another.

Men are very prideful so calling someone something that suggests they're "less of a man" or "like a girl" or "little boy" that makes the implication they're unable to defend others or themselves, can be quite hurtful, to the point of mental re-configuration ie. trauma if done perpetually, repeatedly, and of course in tandem with violence or other belittlement or humiliation.

If you shout at someone loud enough, and belittle them while doing so, you will re-wire their mind to make them believe anything. It's occultic and hidden in nature but there are forms of psychological torture and programming available across the web that essentially offer step-by-step results on how to do so. I wouldn't recommend looking them up or having that on your history but, they're there. Basically like imagine a woman being kidnapped in her teens and held captive in a literally cage beating beaten, starved, force-fed (or not fed) and being insulted for a decade or longer. Their mind would turn into something unrecognizable and they would believe themself to be whatever the captor wants them to. That's a more dramatic version of what happens with some people who were bullied into believing they're unfit to even share the same gender of some very negative and cruel people.

So, as long as one can acknowledge that the above scenarios are not only possible and could adequately explain many persons who claim to be such, but do in fact happen, alongside the idea that a person may truly have gender dysphoria that came about organically and not by the work of social engineering, peer pressure, or persistent trauma, that's something I could consider as valid.

Other than that, some people just think whatever the "next big thing" is is cool and are trend followers and would falsely identify as someone who has true gender dysphoria, thus depriving the true person with gender dysphoria of their struggle, plight, and rights simply because young and uneducated people whose minds are not even fully developed have a tendency to mis-diagnose themselves if ever given the opportunity to do so as opposed to a thorough multi-session exam by a licensed medical professional.

the rising number of the young who classify their sex and gender as neutral and sexual orientation as pan indicates their is some truth to your concerns.

On the other hand there are trua differences in sexual differentiation and there are true individuals with profound gender dysphoria. That is why such individuals should receive evaluation and treatment at centers with experienced professionals and receive guidance and care there.

I think the way we think about sex is inherently gendered; male/female are both sex categories and gender categories, but they are sex categories in part because they were gender categories first. — Dawnstorm

This seems quite clearly wrong, unless what you mean by gender is "immature and potentially misinformed prior concepts of sex" which is what I think actually is the case. If so, then yeah. But I can't see that complicating hte current picture.
Sex is sex.
Gender is gender.
They rarely vary independently, but they do in an incredible minority of cases (exception for rule, i suggest).
I agree with Malcolm that this is not in any way complicated. The only complicating factor is people not liking things about themselves, so refusing to wear empirically accurate labels (which is fair, to some degree - but the activism behind it is pernicious, violent and often terroristic).

Abandoning the male-female binary while researching the trans-issue may be useful; that doesn't imply also abandonding the male-female binary while researching reproduction. — Dawnstorm

I can't quite disagree, but I cannot see an avenue to assent to this. Male and female are categories that are not violated. They are useful inherently. I cannot understand a discussion about "trans" that doesn't include the grounding what you're on the "other side" of. That would be sex, no? Genders aren't inherent so you can't actually be "on the other side" of anything. You're just the gender you are.

But then, that's a direct contradiction as to the theory behind being trans: it is a subversive transition from "your gender" to "your chosen gender" or some similarly opaque and unhelpful line. So here's an example of "weirdo" thinking. People can't bear being scrutinized when they run this argument - and you're a bigot for even asking about it. Irrational crap.

But the trans-issue is not primarily related to reproduction (as a gender issue). — Dawnstorm

Now, that's correct - and socially speaking, the comments i've made above this don't apply. Just be good to people. But when we have males claiming they're going to be getting pregnant, have better vaginas then women, are better women than women and all the rest - you can fuck off, quite frankly. That's delusional, dangerous and insanely misogynistic.

and inconclusive — Dawnstorm

It may be the case that you're reading bollocks (i.e your distrust is well-founded. Almost all philosophical writing on the topic, for instance, is utterly incomprehensible babble, and the science writing is out-right dishonest in most cases). Sex determination is insanely simple - sex differentiation is more complicated, and does not affect which sex an organism is. It relates to only presentational aspects of the organisms body.

middle-of-the-road researches — Dawnstorm

Hard to know - it's not possible to publish this type of thing without some ridiculous fanfare and pushback (Tuvel rears her head). There is no middle of the road, as I see it. Either you think people change sex, or you don't. The thing is that it isn't possible for humans to do so. I think you'd be better placed to read basic biology about sex determination, unrelated to this issue. It answers everything, and everyone ignores it.

without much of an gender identity — Dawnstorm

I would probably agree with this (I have a bit stronger of a gender identity, i'd say). My current lecturer would eat this up. His position is that if we were to abolish gender (insane) cis people (i hate that term, btw. Just people) would lose so much of what they are unaware constitutes their identity with the loss of words like 'man' and 'woman'. Just a side note, realy.

There are also times I got in trouble for being gender insensitive - that is not being able to see myself as a man and thus making (mostly) women uncomfortable with my presence, or something I said — Dawnstorm

My take: this is their problem. It is not for you to police yourself, unless you can ascertain a wrong. It doesn't sound like there was a wrong here, and instead, you have woman around you prone to misreading things along gender lines. Not unreasonable, but not your problem. I deal with this is largely-female spaces too, but not in mixed spaces. I do not alter my behaviour between those contexts. It seems to be informed by some misguided solidarity and empowerment concept. Can of worms.. feel free to ignore, i guess as its not on-point to the thread.

So I do think there are people who are wrong about being women — Dawnstorm

This implies there is an objective standard to being a woman/man. If "adult human female" isn't it, the entire conversation collapses in on itself. Another weirdo type line, imo. Fwiw, "adult human X" is perfectly sufficient, conceptually. I have a hard time siding with an extreme minority which can totally reasonably be characterized as mentally aberrant, on issues that, for the majority, amount to safety issues (i have provided ample evidence for this throughout the thread). Even if this breaks down into half of females being fine with transwomen among them, and half not - the half who aren't take priority imo. Inviting males into female spaces is not something that would be standard, and so requires assent of at least 50% of females on a level that covers the specific area in which is a policy is to be implemented (i.e within a specific sport club, within a specific lets say night life precinct, within a specific campus etc.. etc.. etc..). I do not think large-scale policy can address this issue unless woman means something objectively determinable(I think the UK have done the 'right' thing, regardless of a moral valence there. It is what works for policy-writing).

secondary to them being wrong about being trans. — Dawnstorm

Is it posssible you could elaborate here? I get the intuition i would agree, if I understood.

I'm unsure there's such thing as being 'wrong' about being trans, unless there's an objective metric by which a third party could make that call.

people whose minds are not even fully developed have a tendency to mis-diagnose themselves if ever given the opportunity to do so as opposed to a thorough multi-session exam by a licensed medical professional — Outlander

Medical professionals are incentivized to do this, via "moral righteousness" and potential kickbacks(which have been widely reported - Jack Turban being a ridiculously obvious shilling example).

But, yes, there is a social contagion aspect here. A psychologist friend of mine who is intensely left wing had to come to me, somewhat hat-in-hand saying "no, you were right. They are collecting diagnoses". It is literally 'cool' to be disordered, and that's been the case since I was a teen.

It seems to me the term gender has been hijacked. It's a perfect reasonable concept to describe societal differences between the sexes. These have changed dramatically over time and are not exclusive to either sex but describe the social differences that are more typically (but not exclusively) relating to one sex or another.
There would be no issue of people commandeering the other gender if there was not significant differences between the two sexes in an few significant areas.
I have no idea why people struggle with the issue other than self importance or delusion..

I have to say, I can't quite understand what you're actually trying to say.
The concept of gender refers to behaviour and presentation. These are, obviously not 'sexed'. They vary with sex, in most cases. So to me, there's no issue with people claiming whatever gender ID they want whenever they want, along any lines they want. It has to be related to actual gender presentational norms, though (but note: norms. These are not benchmarks, or objectively assessable criteria which leads to...)

The problem, as I see it, is that no one else has to give two squirts of piss about your identity, if it isn't somehow legally understood tout court (i.e sex, ethnicity, religious affiliation etc..) and gender should not be, in any way, a legal concept. It is utterly absurd that there are laws that describe gender as a factor in anything. its so ambiguous as to be essentially unenforceable, other than to assent to screeching children complaining that the world doesn't conform to their wishes.

There's nothing wrong with lamenting the world and your place in it - thinking anyone else needs to do anything about it is a mistake, and in the West, we have (although this seems to have curtailed recently) moved towards policies which enforce some kind of collective assent to people's identities. Ridiculous, and clearly (i.e in action, right now, all around us) a totally failed project.

This seems quite clearly wrong, unless what you mean by gender is "immature and potentially misinformed prior concepts of sex" which is what I think actually is the case. — AmadeusD

This is probably a thread of its own. You say later that:

The concept of gender refers to behaviour and presentation. — AmadeusD

And under that concept there's probably no way to make sense of what I said. I'm not quite sure how to be concise here: I think of gender as a socially organised way to order sexual behaviour through our daily praxis. That's probably not making much sense for now. There's a nature-vs.-nurture aspect here, complicating things, too - but basically it's impossible to think about sex outside of gendered concepts. That includes science, as science is social activity. (It's not that important to follow up on this here, and I'd rather not, since this goes in a different direction, but my influences here come from sociology - Husserl-inspired theories [Alfred Schütz, Berger/Luckmann], as well as a little of Mannheim's total ideology. For what it's worth, I think the current confusion follows on from post-Derridan post-structuralism - which mostly left me confused and I don't think there's much influence here - I think I stopped with Saussure...)

I can't quite disagree, but I cannot see an avenue to assent to this. Male and female are categories that are not violated. They are useful inherently. I cannot understand a discussion about "trans" that doesn't include the grounding what you're on the "other side" of. That would be sex, no? — AmadeusD

They're useful inherently for most people:

They rarely vary independently, but they do in an incredible minority of cases (exception for rule, i suggest). — AmadeusD

You talk about exceptions for a rule. But if the occurance of exceptions is also rule bound, then you're not going find the rules of the exception while focussing on the binary. The key here is attention. We're not going to find the rules that govern those exceptions. Not because they can't be found that way, but because habitual thought patterns have led us past them for centuries. I don't think we can't; I think we won't. And I think the problem is socially re-inforced complacency: it's not our problem. Unless we're trans.

If there are no biological markers somewhere around sex that regulate those exceptions... how can we tell? If there are, listening to trans people and what they're paying attention to should be interesting.

Of course, right now, it's fashionable to be "trans". High motivation (comparitively to earlier times) to look into it, but also more noise to sift through. It's frustrating.

His position is that if we were to abolish gender (insane) cis people (i hate that term, btw. Just people) would lose so much of what they are unaware constitutes their identity with the loss of words like 'man' and 'woman'. — AmadeusD

I'd sort of agree with your lecturer, provided this doesn't lead to a political program. It's impossible to abolish gender, I think, since the combination of biological differences and living together in groups will always lead to some sort of gender distinction. However, I do think there's a lot of unaware stuff going on in gender identity. A practical repetition that doesn't even need to be put into words; something you only really run into if you don't fit (say, if you're trans).

Which is why I said "whithout much of a gender identity" rather than "without any gender identity". I walk into the male toilets without a second thought, for once. Socially speaking, I'm unreflected male as much as I'm unreflected cis. I think being trans means that you can't be "unreflected" anything in terms of gender, because the system that would fit you has not socially developed. I see only two possibilities: you must reflect on your gender, or you must find some other area to put your problems in.

So:

it is a subversive transition from "your gender" to "your chosen gender" or some similarly opaque and unhelpful line. — AmadeusD

How else would they put this? I'm fairly pessimistic, though, so I think I agree it's unhelpful. People aren't going to understand them without a way to approach them or disproportionate effort. If we'd encapsulate them in a social category, the need to actually understand would probably lessen. Of course, then we'd likely have a new trans-people-are-like-this problem. Humans tend towards stereotypes.

Not unreasonable, but not your problem. — AmadeusD

Not much of a problem to be honest. I brought it up as markers of gender identity in a social negotiation context. To what extent I am a man is mostly a fun puzzle I don't take seriously. It passes the time. I can deal with mishaps. But the way they happen do shed light on how I connect with gender.

This implies there is an objective standard to being a woman/man. If "adult human female" isn't it, the entire conversation collapses in on itself. Another weirdo type line, imo. Fwiw, "adult human X" is perfectly sufficient, conceptually. — AmadeusD

There is an objective standard, but it's in constant flux. Let's take our eyes of gender for now and just look at adult. "Adult" is usually connected with both age and behaviour. An adult can behave childishly without being a child, but an adult can "fail to grow up". Etc. Also, this are all things I've improvised from within a social context. How many years have passed since my birth is pretty much a fact. Beyond that there's an ongoing repetition of imperfectly internalised norms you can be wrong about. But being wrong about something that's in flux... adds to a gauge that might lead to social change if the gauge doesn't empty (pardon the video game language; it comes naturally to me).

So:

Is it posssible you could elaborate here? I get the intuition i would agree, if I understood. — AmadeusD

I start with the assumption that there are trans people; i.e. they arise out of contexts that don't give them the information that trans people exist and still end up seeing themselves that way. Whatever that means isn't clear. Whether that's a single grouping or convergent symptoms isn't clear. But this happens in significant albeit low numbers.

Next, we can find out that trans is a thing and name it "trans" and try to figure out what that is. Experts can do that: anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, biologists, etc. We get terms that are used in a variety of systematic ways, sometimes incompatible with each other, but experts usually know about this (as they demonstrate when they fight for academic resources).

Then the terms bleed out into "the wild", where they propagate unsystematically. I don't want to go into it too much here, because that's a whole wild topic of its own, but now you have a lot of people calling themselves trans who might never have "figured it this out for themselves". A man who would like to go out in public in womens clothes certainly engages in cross-gendered behaviour, ("cross" being the English word for "trans"), but that doesn't make for a trans person by itself. They overgeneralise.

Overgeneralisations, IMO, are part and parcel of the identity game. I *am* this. I will fight for the right to be this. And so on. The identity game tends to reinforce gendered behaviour, here, as someone who's gender-identity is contested will often seek refuge in hyper-gendered behaviour to make their "chosen gender" more accessible. The fall-out is two-fold:

If you're really trans you might feel pressured into gendered behaviour you don't really want to engage in (voice lessons are common example... or were a couple of years ago). "I guess I have to wear a dress now."

Meanwhile, the guy who simply wants to wear dresses might try to justify that (maybe to themselves) with "I am trans". This assumes a positively marked social category, and with the right political leanings...

The problem here is this: it's hard, and maybe (currently?) impossible to tell the difference from the outside, when all you have is what they do and say.

I have a hard time siding with an extreme minority which can totally reasonably be characterized as mentally aberrant, on issues that, for the majority, amount to safety issues (i have provided ample evidence for this throughout the thread). — AmadeusD

I'm not contesting the evidence you've cited - mostly because to do that I'd have to go to the source; other than the biology paper, I'd at least somewhat be qualified to read them. And I also don't really want to talk about whether or not trans people ought to be allowed in this or that bathroom. It's just that the acutal "safety issue" seems to be secondary to the general discourse around this (especially, since the safety of trans people is usually secondary for people who argue safety). There's an unease around the gender topic that needs to go before any law change might be useful. I'd not be surprised if trans people allowed into "their" bathrooms still choose to avoid public bathrooms, as these places aren't seen as safe. Under this theory, your numbers could be a transition problem (e.g. some of the trans people who do take advantage of the law might be the "vengeful" kind). This is why, ideally, an attitude change would have to come first. But then an attitude change isn't going to come without actual contact. And given that being trans is rare to begin with...

It's all a muddle for me. My sympathies are with the minority, here, though more with the regular person than with the activist. There's something there, I think, we don't quite understand enough.

I think of gender as a socially organised way to order sexual behaviour through our daily praxis. — Dawnstorm

Ahh ok, that's fair. A slightly stronger version that I would use is all. Fully makes sense of what you're saying though, thank you.

ou talk about exceptions for a rule. — Dawnstorm

Not quite - I don't think gender and sex are rule-bound. They vary almost interdependently but this is no rule - a mere observation. Does that resolve that tension?

And I think the problem is socially re-inforced complacency: it's not our problem. Unless we're trans. — Dawnstorm

I think this is entirely true, on every level. It simply isn't our problem when others gender and sex vary independently. That's fine. I'm unsure that the preceding comments apply in that light, thought I understand their purpose. I just don't think we're looking for rules (though, i assume TRAs are in order to justify enforcing their identities on others social worlds).

If there are no biological markers somewhere around sex that regulate those exceptions... how can we tell? If there are, listening to trans people and what they're paying attention to should be interesting. — Dawnstorm

I agree - and i find it entirely uninteresting to speak with trans people about this specific issue. It is a mess, and rarely comes coherent or in a to-be-taken-seriously form, I think. The only claim is that trans people have the brain of the opposite sex. I note this is untrue, and usually only trotted out to support trans women which goes directly to my fundamental scepticism in the area (not about people's ID - but about people's motivations and what that means for society).

since the combination of biological differences and living together in groups will always lead to some sort of gender distinction. — Dawnstorm

This says to me you want to conclude that gender is analogous to sex? I understand that's not what you're saying but it seems so intensely difficult to accept that there's some biological connection without equating the two. What could apply to one, and vary independently in the other?

"Adult" is usually connected with both age and behaviour. An adult can behave childishly without being a child, but an adult can "fail to grow up". — Dawnstorm

This speaks to the, what I think is, false narrative around trans stuff. The above doesn't change anything about a strict delineation between child and adult, which we have along two metrics:

1. Age of majority;
2. Having experienced puberty.

Both are objective measures of an adult. The subsequent behaviours and presentations don't alter that. Does this make sense? If so, read across to sex. If Gender has an objective standard, it would need to be to clearly assessable. Gender is not. In fact, gender can be claimed as the opposite to behaviour and presentation (as well as sex). It seems its a category unrelated to either, on the TRA version.

But being wrong about something that's in flux — Dawnstorm

This is definitely true, and is probably why "gender transition" is such a totally incoherent concept in practice. Not that there's a moral value there - just that no one can make sense of what's happening in a transition unless they refer to an objective standard which is not in flux.

If you're really trans — Dawnstorm

I think this is an unfortunate way to proceed. I want to know what that is, before assessing it in situ of another discussion (I realise you've resiled from that, and do not hold you to it - just being clear about any comments that might betray this)

The problem here is this: it's hard, and maybe (currently?) impossible to tell the difference from the outside, when all you have is what they do and say. — Dawnstorm

But surely, Gender can only be assessed on those terms, anyway? If its tied to sex, trans people don't have room to make claims they cannot support to others.

"safety issue" seems to be secondary to the general discourse around this (especially, since the safety of trans people is usually secondary for people who argue safety — Dawnstorm

I think this is backwards. The safety of trans people (in bathrooms, lets say) is secondary. They are requesting access to a protected space - being the target of the protective measure (i.e male, in this argument anyway). My wife's safety comes before males who want to piss in the same room as she (for she, and I). It is rare for people to put theoretical safety of others above themselves. It might even be a bad move to do so.

I'd not be surprised if trans people allowed into "their" bathrooms still choose to avoid public bathrooms, as these places aren't seen as safe. — Dawnstorm

It seems to be something somewhat opposite: trans people are determined to access the bathroom they claim, regardless of any safety considerations. Its an affirmation issue. In that light, it seems more likely to be an ignorance of safety on their part, in service of their identity, than much else.

Ahh ok, that's fair. A slightly stronger version that I would use is all. Fully makes sense of what you're saying though, thank you. — AmadeusD

Oh, good. I wasn't sure I'm making sense. For me, there's this intuitive substratus, and then there's the attempt to explain myself. Sometimes I notice myself talking myself into a corner as I speak. Online, that'd be me deleting a post and starting afresh. In real time? It's rather frustrating for the listener.

Not quite - I don't think gender and sex are rule-bound. They vary almost interdependently but this is no rule - a mere observation. Does that resolve that tension? — AmadeusD

Just to make sure we're on a page: I'm thinking of rules here as "regularities to be observed" rather than "instructions to be followed". And I think only the former can be "objective", though the existance of the latter can be objective in terms of the former. (And we have to be vigilant to tell the two apart since social processes braid the two together in its genesis: theories about what's going on influence behaviour influence theories about what's going on...)

This says to me you want to conclude that gender is analogous to sex? I understand that's not what you're saying but it seems so intensely difficult to accept that there's some biological connection without equating the two. What could apply to one, and vary independently in the other? — AmadeusD

I thought the claim I was making here was pretty weak, actually. What I mean is merely that I assume (theorietically, without justification) that what we look at as the "diffence between sexes" will be significant in any society, and people being people, they will always "mythologise" beyond the difference. Not individually, but simply by virtue of living together and accounting for differences with as little friction as possible. So either you have more than two gender category (as organised in daily praxis, as opposed to ideologised in particular discourse), or you have tried and true methods of dismissing the minorities (e.g. considering them deluded).

Again, this is a baseless assumption, as in the real world we can't isolate "societies" (the best we get is really isolated tribes in inaccessible locales such as rainforests, but even they are likely to have some minimal contact). I just need some sort of narrative to think about this.

And all the distinctions I'm making are purely analytic. In real life it's all braided together. My very basic attitude to life is: if something seems clear, you've probably not yet run into troubles. (This is halfway between a slogan and a joke; but it *is* based on a practical attitude.)

I'm also a fairly staunch relativist. I see understanding others as a balancing act: you need to take yourself back to some degree to understand others, but if you take yourself back too far you end up in a place where you no longer understand *anything*. There's no perfect balance, but there's a "useful range". Gender, and this is an impression from experience this time rather than a theoretic assumption, tends to be so deeply rooted in ones daily praxis that it's hard to understand people who have problems here. It's not that you don't see things from their place, you literally don't know the place can exist. I've been interested in this topic since the 1980ies (and I'm born in 1971), and I'm still not sure what it's all about. But it doesn't feel like it has less substance than the male-female distinction. It just feels less familiar.

The above doesn't change anything about a strict delineation between child and adult, which we have along two metrics:

1. Age of majority;
2. Having experienced puberty.

Both are objective measures of an adult. The subsequent behaviours and presentations don't alter that. Does this make sense? If so, read across to sex. — AmadeusD

It makes some sort of sense, but I'd need time to let this settle. Off the top of my head, this is already "within the braid", though. Puberty isn't social, but age of majority certainly is. That is 1. is already part of behaviours and presentation, given that age of majority is reliant on concepts such as birthdays in a way that the onset of puberty isn't (though social organisation might "sculpt" the body in some ways - nutrition, avarage rate of bodily movement, etc. - which in turn might influence the avarage age of onset - again, not an expert here, but I think I've heard some things about this?).

Unless you mean something different from the legal concept? (Note the difference between a rigid date placed on birthdays, or coming of age ceremonies based on people becoming impatient if the kid's "not ready yet, when s/he should be?)

My impression is that we both likes our things clear cut, you manage to have them that way, and I don't. We might live our lives differently because of that. Partly a personality difference? Maybe.

I think this is an unfortunate way to proceed. — AmadeusD

It's not a way to proceed. It's preparation work to make sense of the world.

I want to know what that is, before assessing it in situ of another discussion (I realise you've resiled from that, and do not hold you to it - just being clear about any comments that might betray this) — AmadeusD

Yeah, I'm sympathetic to wanting to know. Which is why I venture out of the shadows in such a thread in the first place. Going back to the above, I don't know how to proceed. I'm at a loss. The result is that I do nothing but add my two cents. My intuitive response is to let transwomen into women's bathrooms and transmen into men's bathrooms, but I'm not married to that. I'm not worried about people thinking this should not be allowed. It's a difficult topic that needs to be sussed out - one way or another. But I dislike the insistance that if we do allow that we're "letting men into women's bathrooms" - not because on some level that's not a valid way to present the facts, but because it tends to signal a not-my-problem attitude that's going to be more of a problem than a "no" to the bathroom issue can ever be. Where people have no motivation to take trans people seriously no laws are going to matter.

They are requesting access to a protected space - being the target of the protective measure (i.e male, in this argument anyway). — AmadeusD

Also, they *have* no protected space being at risk from cis people of either gender. Again, it's not about the bathroom issue. It's that the discourse around them currently tends towards taking them less seriously again. I expected that. It's not a surprise. The backlash was always going to come.

Anecdote alert: when a trans person you've known online only (across the pond, so to speak) suddenly disappears online, I'm worried in a different way. (I always worry. I worry too much. I guess that makes me an expert in the intricacies of worrying?) Drastic change in presence unheard of years; no public announcement. Luckily, nothing bad happened (according to someone closer to her, whom I also only know online). I won't be specific about this. I don't talk about other people when they're not around, beyond the most general of terms.

I have to say, I can't quite understand what you're actually trying to say.
The concept of gender refers to behaviour and presentation. These are, obviously not 'sexed'. They vary with sex, in most cases. So to me, there's no issue with people claiming whatever gender ID they want whenever they want, along any lines they want. It has to be related to actual gender presentational norms, though (but note: norms. These are not benchmarks, or objectively assessable criteria which leads to...)

The problem, as I see it, is that no one else has to give two squirts of piss about your identity, if it isn't somehow legally understood tout court (i.e sex, ethnicity, religious affiliation etc..) and gender should not be, in any way, a legal concept. It is utterly absurd that there are laws that describe gender as a factor in anything. its so ambiguous as to be essentially unenforceable, other than to assent to screeching children complaining that the world doesn't conform to their wishes.

There's nothing wrong with lamenting the world and your place in it - thinking anyone else needs to do anything about it is a mistake, and in the West, we have (although this seems to have curtailed recently) moved towards policies which enforce some kind of collective assent to people's identities. Ridiculous, and clearly (i.e in action, right now, all around us) a totally failed project. — AmadeusD

I agree with you in everything other than

"there's no issue with people claiming whatever gender ID they want whenever they want, along any lines they want"

I think there is an issue. It undermines what it is to be a woman and men cos-playing as women is lamentable.

I have no issue with genuine sufferers of gender dysphoria (which is a tiny percentage of the trans cohort)

As for the girls/young women who are disfigured by the medical professional instead of being given psychiatric help. The less said the better.

Ah, i see what you're getting at. I guess I disagree about your concepts of man and woman. I do agree they are something to do with sex, but only as an indicator/director. I don't find any real 'connection'. Sort of like something being "red". Sometimes obvious, sometimes quite a muddled thing (yellow? orange? Salmon?). This is why I also accept "non-binary". I just find the types of people who claim that ID are already insufferably self-absorbed.

This is where we disagree. I think a person is viewed from very a very early age because of their sex. Even in the most liberal and equitable places girls and boys are treated differently. They are given every opportunity to be whoever they want to be and to do what they want but the world treats them differently and this becomes part of the adult. They are a man or a woman because of how the world has interacted with them and how they see them. They may be a very "feminine" man but they are still a man. I don't think a man calling himself as a women, is of any use to anyone.

I think there is an issue. It undermines what it is to be a woman and men cos-playing as women is lamentable. — Malcolm Parry

Gender, and this is an impression from experience this time rather than a theoretic assumption, tends to be so deeply rooted in ones daily praxis that it's hard to understand people who have problems here. It's not that you don't see things from their place, you literally don't know the place can exist. I've been interested in this topic since the 1980ies (and I'm born in 1971), and I'm still not sure what it's all about. But it doesn't feel like it has less substance than the male-female distinction. It just feels less familiar. — Dawnstorm

I think this is backwards. The safety of trans people (in bathrooms, lets say) is secondary. They are requesting access to a protected space - being the target of the protective measure (i.e male, in this argument anyway). My wife's safety comes before males who want to piss in the same room as she (for she, and I). It is rare for people to put theoretical safety of others above themselves. It might even be a bad move to do so. — AmadeusD

Enter the normative definition of gender that is distinct from social/biological indicators and does not define gender as either rigidly being some particular set of behavioral theater we play out, a form of biological determinism, or some socialized emergent trend. This article here attempts to motivate some version of it in terms of the notion of gender 'fitting'. It being motivated because as the person in the article outlines and we've shown equally well in this thread we can outstrip descriptive agreement in these discussions to still have disagreements about what we consider appropriate to call a women or a man.

In the same sense that,

For instance, disagreements about the type of society it is fitting to desire and promote can outstrip agreement on the descriptive features of different societies; right-libertarians and socialists can agree about the descriptive features of societies governed by socialist and libertarian laws but still disagree about their desirability, and so about which society it is fitting to desire.

Norms are not moral or legal dictates nor do they have to be elevated to them.

We need to admit to the fact that despite all this declaration of the freedom of anyone to be who they are or do what they want to do need to acknowledge the benefits afforded to many may in fact depend on what specific choices one makes. Having a family is just one of those choices and choosing not to or to be actively anti-natalist is fine a fantasy for a select few to entertain of their own free accord but if it were elevated to a statistically significant number this could imply far reaching economic, social, or cultural turmoil. In this sense people naturally choose the direction which usually creates benefits for our own economic growth and social stability.

Once we've generalized these choices enough and abstracted them we could call them norms. All societies have these.

The question isn't one of legality. . . or morality. . . or personal viewing of one's self. . . it's a normative discussion as to how much of a slave one should be to the expectations of the society around them. Especially when those norms arise out of literal biological categories since time immemorial.

You can't just 'gender neutral' them away. Unless you are willing to adopt the extreme strategies of actual gender nihilists or gender abolitionists who would in some cases have argued for literally replacing our family/societal system with a communal system of sorts. In particular there was one author I happened to find who goes by Aly E who self-responded in an article to this persons former gender neutral manifesto where its outlined an obvious overlapping of one political strategy in undermining gender norms in general.

I am convinced that Gleeson is correct about this. The struggle for the abolition of gender cannot be separated from the struggle for communism. A properly materialist assessment of the conditions which produce gender reveals the extent to which gender is not merely a linguistic or discursive phenomena. Gender is a material relationship that can only be combatted materially. The communist movement’s focus on the abolition of the family is precisely what might be needed to undo the forms of economic exploitation of women which Wittig outlines. Wittig’s heterosexual society is also a capitalist society. Only real, concrete, and organized struggle can move us forward. Mere negation, senseless violence, or embrace of unintelligibility cannot be enough. In short we must move beyond negativity. The project at hand is to adequately account for the violence of gender, the necessity of its abolition, and the strategies for achieving that abolition in material terms. Only then will we have the ability to not only achieve abolition, but to change the world.

Having a family is just one of those choices and choosing not to or to be actively anti-natalist is fine a fantasy for a select few to entertain of their own free accord but if it were elevated to a statistically significant number this could imply far reaching economic, social, or cultural turmoil. In this sense people naturally choose the direction which usually creates benefits for our own economic growth and social stability — substantivalism

It is quite hard to understand what you're actually getting at in this para (the whole thing, not just not part). It seems you want to say that an anti-natalist view is somehow immoral as it would lead to X. But the former, you want to reject that possible framework?

Otherwise, a great post that does, ironically, stay quite neutral. Thanks mate

Interesting. So, this sort of takes a 'social constructionist' view but wants to put this in the realm of the communal. I suppose I can get on with that... I haven't run that arguments around in my melon much, but that seems to a decent solution to many of hte disagreements.

If Gender is actually something foisted upon you, but it is a collective bargain, so to speak, you would need to opt ouit of the social contract to deny it. That's somewhat fair imo.

If Gender is actually something foisted upon you, but it is a collective bargain, so to speak, you would need to opt ouit of the social contract to deny it. That's somewhat fair imo. — AmadeusD

I don't see gender as something foisted on you. It's just a description of cultural and social differences between the sexes.

Those differences are changing constantly BUT the sex of a person is a huge factor in the their development.

People can be whoever they wish to be and do not have to play the role that used to be ascribed to the genders. However, there is no doubt in my mind a woman and a man have different experiences growing up and biology plays a factor in physical development and to a smaller extent with hormonally BUT the way the world reacts to either sex is a huge factor on the development of all adults.

People can do whatever they want but cannot alter how they developed as a child and adult.

So, I don't see changing a gender as possible since it's just a description of aggregated and changing social norms. IMHO.

I don't see gender as something foisted on you. — Malcolm Parry

Animals that don't fit in are ostracized. Ostracization in the animal kingdom has a 90%+ rate of death. Are you religious and believe humans are set apart from animals? If not, you believe in science. And that is the science. So, you happen to be incorrect in any and all practical sense, if so.

It's just a description of cultural and social differences between the sexes. — Malcolm Parry

Not all descriptions are valid or above all beneficial to the advancement of an intelligent species. Maybe you're bigger than me and I'm smaller than you. That would, in a contemporary caveman sense, make me inferior. But. In reality, if I'm smarter than you, despite you and even the world around you being wholly unaware of not only the fact itself but what the fact effectively means for the improvement of said society, that description should be considered invalid and only held by fools. So, it's complicated. There's no black and white when it comes to this level of social cohesion with so many moving parts, known and unknown, understood (allegedly) and not.

Animals that don't fit in are ostracized. Ostracization in the animal kingdom has a 90%+ rate of death. Are you religious and believe humans are set apart from animals? If not, you believe in science. And that is the science. So, you happen to be incorrect in any and all practical sense, if so. — Outlander

The only response to that is LOL.

Not all descriptions are valid or above all beneficial to the advancement of an intelligent species. — Outlander

So what? Do descriptions have to be above all beneficial to the advancement of an intelligent species?

There are aggregated societal differences between the sexes. Gender describes those differences. What is your point?

Animals that don't fit in are ostracized. Ostracization in the animal kingdom has a 90%+ rate of death. Are you religious and believe humans are set apart from animals? If not, you believe in science. And that is the science. So, you happen to be incorrect in any and all practical sense, if so. — Outlander

The only response to that is LOL. — Malcolm Parry

That's great. You made an inaccurate statement, that statement basically being: "social expectation is not required (forced upon [anyone])". Scientific facts and reference along with common sense posted has addressed and proven said falsehood. You need to remember, this is a serious discussion forum. Please maintain decorum.

So what? — Malcolm Parry

So it's not a logical point that has any relevance in this or any discussion.

Do descriptions have to be above all beneficial to the advancement of an intelligent species? — Malcolm Parry

No, those that don't, fade away in place of those that do. What we call in the business a "red herring." The idea that something is popular (ride sharing or perhaps slavery) doesn't make it right, conducive, or part of the greater future going forward. You should know this.

There are aggregated societal differences between the sexes. — Malcolm Parry

Naturally. "Societal" differences just reminds me of fluid dynamics applied to psychology ie. "water chooses the path of least resistance" or in more lax terms "what the majority of people happen to think." Sure, the apple (an intelligent social being's observation and opinion of biological fact) doesn't fall far from the tree (biological fact itself). It's a great indicator, but it's no bullseye. No, not in every case and scenario.

Gender describes those differences. — Malcolm Parry

It is the social zeitgeist of what is desired and nothing more. Sure, often based on what's best for a given society in a given time and at a given place. But nothing more.

What is your point? — Malcolm Parry

What has been my point since the beginning, logic and refinement of views and opinions for the betterment of society. What is yours, if I may ask?

That's great. You made an inaccurate statement, that statement basically being: "social expectation is not required (forced upon [anyone])". — Outlander

The statement was gender is not foisted upon anyone.

What is expected of a woman in 2025 in Western liberal democracies? What gender specific thought or action is "foisted" upon them?

Scientific facts and reference along with common sense — Outlander

Another LOL

So it's not a logical point that has any relevance in this or any discussion. — Outlander

What isn't a logical point? That girls and boys are treated differently as they develop? Is that not logical?

No, those that don't, fade away in place of those that do — Outlander

Differences between the genders will fade away? They will definitely change but they won't fade away because there are some problematic biological issues that mean there are differences that will won't fade away. Why is it problematic if some females prefer certain stuff more than males and vice versa?

Naturally. "Societal" differences just reminds me of fluid dynamics applied to psychology ie. "water chooses the path of least resistance" or in more lax terms "what the majority of people happen to think." — Outlander

Are you denying such differences exist? What world do you live in?

Sure, often based on what's best for a given society in a given time and at a given place. — Outlander

I have I said otherwise? What is more, no one is forced to adhere to the differences. (Well, not where I live.)

What has been my point since the beginning, logic and refinement of views and opinions for the betterment of society — Outlander

What have I said is not based on the way the world is?

What do you object to, if more women prefer a bottomless brunch and more men prefer the footy? It's not as if they are exclusive for either gender.

The statement was gender is not foisted upon anyone. — Malcolm Parry

But it clearly, without sense of doubt, is. This is probably hte least-arguable aspect of the debate.

If you feel otherwise, that's a shame.

But it clearly, without sense of doubt, is. — AmadeusD

No one has to conform to any gender stereotype.
How is gender foisted on someone?
Explain the process.

Socialization. That's the process. This isn't really arguable, unless you hold (against basically every single take that makes sens) that gender is tied to sex, rather than associated with it.

(imo) the entire basis for 'gender dysphoria' is that genders are 'foisted' upon people who, naturally, would not conform to that particular set of behaviours. It is, quite simply, bullshit, that the world does not create expectations and standards for gendered behaviour. These are unavoidable in early life.

If you want to just say that "foisted" is too harsh of a word, that's fine - conditioning is decent enough. Gender is a set of expectations which play out in real time as against the developing behavioural tendencies of all children. We seem to have agreed that this is the case. If gender were not foisted upon people, we literally would not have gender dysphoria. Social ostracization and expectations to conform to 'typical' behaviours is an extremely potent aspect of growing up. If your gender and sex align perfectly, you'll have not noticed this. In reality, many people don't have that (I did not) and suffer the pressure of conform to social norms around gender.