...as I've aptly put it to Banno why this is hte case. — AmadeusD

Banno doesn't agree.

But if 'man' is not a sex, then this is meaningless. It would be 'unambiguous' if the phrase were "transfemales are women". I fear this has been entirely missed by both Banno and yourself. — AmadeusD

What twaddle.

The specific sense of "adult male of the human race" (distinguished from a woman or boy) is by late Old English (c. 1000). Before that it referred to either sex. The phrase man as “sexed male” is just one sense of a polysemous word. Privileging a modern biological sense as a universal truth is arbitrary; it’s just one of several legitimate senses.

But apparently now one sense can be considered the default without privileging it. :lol:

It is not about you, but them. — Questioner

What a radical idea! That can't be right...

A thread about trans people being about trans people...
:wink:

Loved your reply to @Outlander.

Loved your reply to Outlander. — Banno

Thank you! that means a lot

Transgender people — Questioner

Again, you refuse to define (and maintain a constant definition of) "transgender people". I already caught you in one backtrack you won't own up to.

You said "transgenders are born". Which due to the existence of ultrasounds that can detect even the smallest abnormalities of the brain, means "transgenderism" should be able to be "detected" early on in the womb, which no reputable science supports. Instead of admitting you were wrong, or meeting halfway and saying "I don't know, that's just what I'm parroting, perhaps I made a mistake" you arrogantly pretended like you weren't painted into a corner, trying to shift focus onto something else hoping people wouldn't notice, as if we're all stupid or something. That's offensive. All that little move did is expose the illogical nature of your argument and possibly more about your character (or agenda or purpose here).

The meaning of what I wrote is simply this: transgender persons are born that way. I never said anything about detection. That would be absurd. — Questioner

You said, and I quote:

a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born. — Questioner

Then, when I asked if you could tell the difference between a "male brain" and a "female brain", specifically around the time a human being is born, you said:

yes, it can be done with fMRI - scans of brain activity — Questioner

So which is it? Either you can "detect" whether or not a male body is allegedly paired with a "female" brain (and vice versa) or no such specific pairing occurs in the womb at all.

(Not to mention actual science that confirms the human brain isn't done developing at all until around the age of 25 or later!)

So yes, you in fact made an unfounded scientific claim not backed by reputable science. Your best bet if you want to keep going is to pull a casual "oh I didn't mean to" or maybe suggest that English isn't your first language or something. Because your wording was clear as day. You can't keep doubling down without a cop-out at this point, not without harming your own case. Which might be well-intended but nevertheless has failed to remain logically consistent. Think about it.

I'm in a good mood tonight, don't take it personally. I worry we're getting a bit off topic from the OP's stated premise. But this is not a place where you can remain logically inconsistent without being called out for it. You need to understand that.

Again, you refuse to define (and maintain a constant definition of) "transgender people". I already caught you in one backtrack you won't own up to. — Outlander

I wouldn't debate too hard with Questioner. I get the feeling English is a second language, and they're unwilling to clarify their posts if you ask. You both could be going back and forth for a long time without any progress either way.

I'm feeling like this topic has also hit what it needed to and there doesn't seem to be much else to explore. I'll probably post another topic later this week that's going to explore another aspect of this.

"what twaddle".

Hehe. Ok Banno. You are simply not engaging with anything put to you, as is your right. I'll resile.

Almost everything you've said here tells me the points have gone way above your head, to the point of it being an absolute quagmire to respond to these points.

Suffice to say my repsonses so far are apt to respond to this reply also. If you wish to leave it there, that's fine. Your rejection of that which I tell you is actual, and provide evidence for, is bizarre.

Here are two different claims:

1. Trans men are men
2. Under this Act, it is illegal to refuse entry to men — Michael

This makes it pretty clear you do not understand the phrases being used in the way I do (or plenty of other people). The debate is over. You are wrong. These phrases are ambiguous. You just wnat everything to think of them what you do. Which is natural.

The female brain does develop differently from the male brain. This is well established by science, and we see the differences in our own personal experiences. As I posted up-thread: — Questioner

It is not, as I provided ample evidence for. It is a myth which exists only in the minds of those who require it to support otherwise nonsensical points of view.

Please provide a source of this information. — Questioner

My claims is in the negative. The onus is not on me.

False. This is your opinion. My position is supported by science, yours is not. — Questioner

It literally is not, and I have provided ample evidence for such. Comments above apply.

This has become children yelling at their dad about how they are aeroplanes. I'm out.

But to carry Philosophim's point what is needed is that one ought not talk about apple devices being sweet.

What is salient is that we can talk about apple devices being sweet, and trans women being women. — Banno

It is salient if you are sticking strictly to normativity in the logical sense rather than the epistemological sense. You have just continued to corner yourself in the logical sense.

I've pointed out that even if most people would understand "woman in the woods" as referring to a female, doing so is not a necessary consequence of either logic or grammar. This is shown by the fact that "the woman in the woods" might be a trans. — Banno

And as we have said, epistemology nomrativity says otherwise. It is not defeasible, but it is more than reasonable to state that we ought to believe "woman in a forest" refers to a female. You understand this perfectly well I imagine; and have stated this elsewhere I think?

Accept that there are epistemic norms just as there are logical norms. Accept that in day-to-day speech we tend to see epistemic norms in use rather than niche cases. It should also be noted that given this has been a hot topic it makes sense to actually state transwoman when referring to a transwoman to avoid confusion (you know, standard understanding so everyone knows what the hell is going on).

If I met someone who was a transwoman tomorrow I would likely mention this to my wife by saying "I met someone today who said, blah blah blah ..." and would likely add in somewhere that they were a transwoman, just like I would add in any other unique distinction, such as 'guide dog,' 'one eye' or 'wearing a clown outfit'. There is a chance I would not mention any other points as the content of the discussion we had may have been the priority rather than just idle chitchat and saying what I did in the day and who I talked to.

The politics and personal take is likely raising your hackles and clouding your judgement.

But to carry Philosophim's point what is needed is that one ought not talk about apple devices being sweet. — Banno

Yes. One ought not (in a normative epistemic sense) talk about apple devices being sweet if we are referring to how they taste rather than stating you like the device. This is basic stuff.

If philosophim is stating that when we hear 'woman' we ought to assume 'female' he is epistemically correct. It is defeasible, but that is not the point. If 'woman' is being used in a technical setting then the use of the term requires careful delineation as speech can become confusing. In a technical setting it goes that when referring to a transwoman we should say transwoman to more easily distinguish between how 'woman' can be used. In such cases 'cis' and 'trans' would be ideal.

Anyway, back to work ... :)

You are simply not engaging with anything put to you, as is your right. — AmadeusD

That was not the whole of what I had to say. You might address the remainder.

If you are alone in a room, away from society, are you still you? Does a man live in his head, or in his testicles? The brain is the seat of our identity, and our self-image. — Questioner

You have a very pre determined way of looking at the self. What do you deem to be your identity and where did it come from?
Sitting in a room alone you still are a product of every interaction you have had with others and the world and the history of thought. You aren’t an empty vessel that has a woman’s or a man’s brain.

You have a very pre determined way of looking at the self. What do you deem to be your identity and where did it come from? — Malcolm Parry

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of the word "pre-determined" in this context. Your identity is produced by all the thought processes of the brain - producing the "self" - it all adds up to not only how you define yourself as a person, but all our experiences. Consciousness is a product of the brain.

Sitting in a room alone you still are a product of every interaction you have had with others and the world and the history of thought. You aren’t an empty vessel that has a woman’s or a man’s brain. — Malcolm Parry

Again - I am unsure about the introduction of the term "empty vessel" into this discussion. if you have a brain, you are not an empty vessel. Yes, interactions affect us, but not in and of themselves - only in the way that the brain processes them.

I wouldn't debate too hard with Questioner. I get the feeling English is a second language — Philosophim

That's funny, when it was you two who were confused by a simple post.

I'm born-and-raised in Canada.

and they're unwilling to clarify their posts if you ask. — Philosophim

I asked you if you had any questions and you didn't reply.

I wouldn't debate too hard with Questioner. I get the feeling English is a second language
— Philosophim

That's funny, when it was you two who were confused by a simple post. — Questioner

Yep, I told you I was. That was right as you said, "You've misunderstood what I said." I could tell at that point you weren't here to discuss, you were here to argue.

I asked you if you had any questions and you didn't reply. — Questioner

I'm not sure how clear I can be by asking you to take a second look at your post and try to clarify your intentions. It was littered with unclear points and seeming contradictions. I was giving genuine feedback and a genuine person would have gone back, reviewed, and tried to clarify. I clarify what I mean all the time when asked genuinely because I understand the difficulty communicating through the internet and I'm trying to discuss, not argue. Not that I always succeed, but I do try. Your instant dismissal on genuine appeal meant that a discussion was impossible with you from that moment forward.

you were here to argue. — Philosophim

Your instant dismissal — Philosophim

These two accusations contradict one another. Which one was it?

It was littered with unclear points and seeming contradictions — Philosophim

No, it wasn't.

Anyway, please share with me now and I will try to make it more understandable.

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of the word "pre-determined" in this context — Questioner

Female brains think like females. Male brains think like males. A bloke with a female brain will think he’s female. It’s predetermined.
Unless I’ve misunderstood your point.

Again - I am unsure about the introduction of the term "empty vessel" into this discussion. — Questioner

Well the brain structure seems to determine how someone perceives themselves. If I have understood your point.

Female brains think like females. Male brains think like males. A bloke with a female brain will think he’s female. It’s predetermined. — Malcolm Parry

I'm not sure I would use the word "pre-determined" when talking about brain development. But, it may be said that brain development is influenced by genes and the hormonal environment (which may vary from mother to mother) in the uterus, if that is what you mean. To suggest development is "pre-determined" is to say that once the sperm fertilizes the egg, exactly how the brain develops is determined, and I don't think that is the case.

By birth, however, the brain has differentiated to either a male or female brain, in most cases.

Well the brain structure seems to determine how someone perceives themselves. — Malcolm Parry

Yes, definitely. Our brains maintain a "mental construct" of ourselves. Research even shows that thoughts about oneself are processed differently than other thoughts - they are given priority. It's called a self-reference effect, "in which information re­­­­­­lated to oneself is privileged and more salient in our thoughts."

Landmark research first published in 2021 revealed how one particular brain region helps "to knit together memories of the present and future self," and:

When people sustain an injury to this area, it leads to an impaired sense of identity. The region—called the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC)—may produce a fundamental model of oneself and place it in mental time. When the region does so, this study suggests, it may be the source of our sense of self.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-our-brain-preserves-our-sense-of-self/

The claim is that there is a distinction between sex and gender and that the English words "man" and "woman" are polysemic, referring either to sex or to gender.

We can make this explicit with:

man₁ = male sex
man₂ = male gender
woman₁ = female sex
woman₂ = female gender

Now if someone says "trans men are men" then which of these do you think they could mean?

1. trans men are men₁
2. trans men are men₂

Given that the sentence starts with "trans men" rather than "cis men" then it is obvious that they mean (2). So it's not ambiguous.

And then perhaps you want to know what "trans man" means? Well, it could mean one of these:

3. women₁ who identify as men₁
4. women₁ who identify as men₂

(3) would be referring to someone hallucinating genitals that don't exist or being delusional about one's chromosomes, etc., and so is limited to those with legitimate psychosis. The ordinary meaning of "trans man" is obviously (4).

So the common sense interpretation of "trans men are men" is "women₁ who identify as men₂ are men₂".

But let's say that some Act of Parliament says "it is illegal to refuse entry to men". Which of these do you think the Act could mean?

5. it is illegal to refuse entry to men₁
6. it is illegal to refuse entry to men₂

It's not obvious which of (5) and (6) is the proper interpretation of the law, and requires some court to rule on the matter.

And it's important to note that the answer to this question has no bearing on the truth of (2). The UK Supreme Court made a point to recognize this in the ruling you alluded to earlier, saying "it is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word 'woman' other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010".

Now it may be that you just don't know what "male gender" means as distinct from "male sex", but that's a separate issue – and not an issue for Philosophim as he has accepted this distinction.

Carrying on from the above, it's worth pointing out that those in favour of trans rights are also often guilty of equivocation.

Take the following claim:

1. Trans men are men and so ought be allowed to use men's facilities

Given the four distinct terms defined in the previous post, and the proper interpretation of "trans men are men", how is this to be understood?

2. women₁ who identify as men₂ are men₂ and so ought be allowed to use men₂'s facilities
3. women₁ who identify as men₂ are men₂ and so ought be allowed to use men₁'s facilities

These each depend on an implicit premise:

2a. All men₂ ought be allowed to use men₂'s facilities
3a. All men₂ ought be allowed to use men₁'s facilities

Even if (1) means (2) and even if (2a) is true the counterargument is that there is no such thing as men₂'s facilities, and so (1) is moot.

And if (1) means (3) then the counterargument is that (3a) is false.

So the political question is: should men's facilities be men₁'s facilities or men₂'s facilities?

Given that the sentence starts with "trans men" rather than "cis men" then it is obvious that they mean (2). So it's not ambiguous.

...

The ordinary meaning of "trans man" is obviously (4).

So the common sense interpretation of "trans men are men" is "women1 who identify as men2 are men2". — Michael

This is admirably clear, but do you really believe it?

The activist means something like, "This human being who says that he is a man should be viewed by all as a man, both as regards sex and gender." And in a dialogical sense what tends to happen is a motte-and-bailey fallacy, where the bailey encroaches upon sex and the motte retreats back to gender.

The underlying point is that your binary framing is inadequate. The traditional logic does not see a clean separation between sex and gender, and the logical telos of the activist also denies a clean distinction between sex and gender. The nominalistic logic of the trans movement has to do with the power of self-identification. It is the idea, "If I say I am X, then I am X." There is no intrinsic reason why that ideology would stop at "gender" and fail to go on to "sex." Indeed, we are already beginning to see this, and it will become ever more prevalent in those circles. The logic is not, "Gender is subjective and sex is objective," but rather, "Self-identification reigns." It is the outgrowth of an autonomy ethic, where one is sovereign over things which have traditionally been seen as objective or unrelated to one's will - particularly those things which bear on one's social life.

To take a simple case, if you were right then sports which obviously make distinctions based on sex and not on "gender" (such as weightlifting) would have encountered no problems with people of the oppose sex competing in those sports. If you were right and, "Transwomen are women," only meant that biological men are feminine (or woman-gendered), then there would be no biological men competing in women's sports, particularly those such as weightlifting, boxing, MMA, etc. But that's not true at all. Heck, if what you say were true then the most grievous problems would not even exist.

This is admirably clear, but do you really believe it?

The activist means something like, "This human being who says that he is a man should be viewed by all as a man, both as regards sex and gender." And in a dialogical sense what tends to happen is a motte-and-bailey fallacy, where the bailey encroaches upon sex and the motte retreats back to gender. — Leontiskos

Well I certainly don't think that anyone who says "trans men are men" means to say "anyone who self-identifies as a man has XY chromosomes and a penis".

- The whole issue has to do with the claim that trans activism involves itself in contradictory or illogical positions. So if you take one premise of that system and work it out logically, obviously you will get no contradiction. But this is short-sighted. As I pointed out, on your view there simply couldn't be any biological men who compete in biologically female sports. Someone who takes your view would be apt to say, "Well I certainly don't think anyone who says, 'I am a transwoman who is a woman' would ever compete in a sport restricted to biological females," and yet they would be wrong. They would be wrong because in order to assess whether a contradiction is occurring, one must consider independent premises or data points.

(Also consider the fact that "trans women/men" generally prefer to leave out the 'trans' modifier and simply call themselves a woman/man, thus allowing the sexual component to operate.)

As I pointed out, on your view there simply couldn't be any biological men who compete in biologically female sports. — Leontiskos

Yes, I alluded to this in that second post above.

Given these terms:

man₁ = male sex
man₂ = male gender
woman₁ = female sex
woman₂ = female gender

It is perfectly consistent to accept that all of these are true:

1. Men₁ who identify as women₂ are women₂
2. Men₁ ought not compete in women₁'s sports
3. All women's sports is women₁'s sports, not women₂'s sports
4. Therefore, those women₂ who are men₁ ought not compete in women's sports

The political dispute concerns (3). Should women's sports be women₁'s sports or women₂'s sports?

The political dispute concerns (3). Should women's sports be women1's sports or women2's sports? — Michael

This is like saying, "We were never sure whether men's sports like wrestling/boxing/MMA excluded biological females or gendered females." That position seems disingenuous. Everyone knew that these separations were made on the basis of biological factors.

Everyone knew that these separations were made on the basis of biological factors. — Leontiskos

Sure, but the question is: should we continue with this historical separation, or ought our modern society introduce a new separation based instead on gender?

It is perfectly consistent to accept that all these are true — Michael

If you want to be propositional about it then your rational error lies in this:

• 1. "Transwomen are women" means that biological men who identify as women are feminine (or woman-gendered)
• 2. Therefore, those who claim "transwomen are women" do not favor biological men competing in biological women's sports

(2) is false; therefore (1) is false (modus tollens).

(2) doesn't follow from (1)?

should we continue with this historical separation, or ought our modern society introduce a new separation based instead on gender? — Michael

This is exactly what it boils down to.
For sports and female exclusive spaces the answer is keep it exactly as it is. Complete separation. No men2 anywhere near women1 sports or exclusive places.
For the rest, gender is irrelevant.

1. "Transwomen are women" means that biological men who identify as women are feminine (or woman-gendered)
2. Therefore, those who claim "transwomen are women" do not favor biological men competing in biological women's sports — Leontiskos

(2) doesn't follow from (1)? — Michael

Here are some of the tacit steps:

• 1. "Transwomen are women" means that biological males who identify as women are feminine (or female-gendered)
  
  • {Premise}
• 2. "Transwomen are women" does not mean that biological males who identify as women are biological females
  
  • {From (1) and <this post>}
• 3. If <those who claim "transwomen are women" thereby favor biological males competing in sports that are restricted to biological females> then <"transwomen are women" means that biological males who identify as women are biological females>
  
  • {Premise}
• 4. Therefore, those who claim "transwomen are women" do not thereby favor biological men competing in sports that are restricted to biological females (especially sports such as wrestling, boxing, MMA, etc.)
  
  • From (2) and (3); modus tollens
• (Reductio ad absurdum)

I don't quite understand what (3) means, but it doesn't seem to follow from (1). So even if (3) and (4) are false, it is still the case that (1) is true.