"lived role" - Socially constructed expectation of behavior — Philosophim

I read this differently, since we live inside our heads

psychological factors — Philosophim

one's own psychological factors, not the factors of others

a person’s biological constitution — Philosophim

The brain is part of your biology

Is that all? Do you have anything more to say to my last response? — Philosophim

Much of your argument depends on one's identity being something produced outside of them, and I cannot accept that presumption.

Thank you for agreeing with me then. Glad you accept the premise of the OP. — Philosophim

That’s not what I said, and you know it. More importantly, you didn’t respond to my primary point which was:

taking gender into account is not the same thing as “placing gender over sex.” — T Clark

Your bias against me has nothing to do with philosophy or anything intellectual in the slightest. — Philosophim

I think your ideas on transgenderism are poorly argued and supported and I think it’s important that the weakness of your argument be demonstrated. Whether or not I’m doing a good job, that’s what I’m trying to do.

Then you clearly did not read the OP. Oh wait, you already said you didn't. — Philosophim

I did read the OP.

I just replied to his post. — Philosophim

It’s true, I wrote my post before I read your response to @Questioner’s post. Now I’ve read your post and the article Questioner linked to. The results presented in that article were fairly clear, if certainly not without qualifications. Sexual identity, or gender identity, or whatever you want to call it—and even brain structure—can be affected by genetic and hormonal effects both before and after birth. You ignored that.

Much of your argument depends on one's identity being something produced outside of them, and I cannot accept that presumption. — Questioner

No, my argument simply notes that gender is a subjective opinion of how a sex should act in society, and that this is essentially no more than prejudice or sexism if we say it is more important than the reality of your sex itself. A gendered opinion can be from the self, or society, so it does not need to be produced outside of an individual.

You know TClark, I know you're not a kid, and I know you can be sensible and polite. I don't get why you come in here being rude right off the bat without any focus on the actual discussion.

Your bias against me has nothing to do with philosophy or anything intellectual in the slightest.
— Philosophim

I think your ideas on transgenderism are poorly argued and supported and I think it’s important that the weakness of your argument be demonstrated. Whether or not I’m doing a good job, that’s what I’m trying to do. — T Clark

You are doing a terrible job. I don't mind if you don't like me. I don't mind if you don't like my arguments. But we're not on reddit. We're on a philosophy board. You don't have to like me. So swallow the personal attack accusations and actually give a coherent argument that addresses the OP instead of basic trolling and passive aggressive sniping.

Now I’ve read your post and the article they linked to. The results presented in that article were fairly clear, if certainly not without qualifications. Sexual identity, or gender identity, or whatever you want to call it—as well as brain structure—can be affected by genetic and hormonal effects both before and after birth. You ignored that. — T Clark

This is just lazy. I responded to, and posted several articles. Which one TClark? Maybe a quote? You've let your own bias turn your brains into mush and I'm about done with it. What a disappointment that one of my favorite posters isn't any better than some fresh face single digit poster.

So swallow the personal attack accusations and actually give a coherent argument that addresses the OP instead of basic trolling and passive aggressive sniping. — Philosophim

I went back and looked through all my comments on this thread. They were all civil. The only comment I found that was not philosophically appropriate was what I said about your obsession with transgender issues.

This is a controversial and provocative issue. If you’re going to mess around with it, you need to come up with better arguments. Something with substance. That’s what infuriates me about this, not your opinions, but the low quality of your arguments.

That’s what infuriates me about this, not your opinions, but the low quality of your arguments. — T Clark

Whenever you want to actually getting around to actually addressing them, let me know.

I think we’ve already hashed out our differences on gender and sex; but I would like to point one thing out as just food for thought:

You say that:

2. Definition of sexism

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

(underlined for emphasis)

If gender is “the non-biological expectations that one or more people have about how a sex should express themselves in public”, then the stereotypes of social roles based off of sex would be genderism and not sexism; for your definition of sex and gender entail that such stereotypes have nothing to do with sex itself other than being loosely tied to sex in an illegitimate fashion, so, thusly, it cannot be sexist since ‘sexism’ has as its object of thought what is discriminatory about sex (which would be the first part of your definition of sexism).

So:

"Women should cook in the kitchen. Martha does not cook in the kitchen, therefore she is not a woman," that would be sexist.
…
On the other hand, if William, a male, decided to cook in the kitchen and someone said, "William isn't a man," this would also be sexist

This idea of ‘a woman’ or ‘a man’ here, in your terms (as far as I can tell), refers to gender and not sex since it pertains to stereotypes based off of sex.

I think maybe your response would be that stereotyping sex with a gender is sexist because it tries too tie too much to sex; but nothing about sex in your terms has been discriminated against (such as their voice tone to use your example). Instead, the person would have been, at best, misgendered.

It seems like by noting misgendering is sexist; you have actually implicitly adopted a more realist framework about gender that is incompatible with your definition of it.

Likewise, if gender is about 'how a sex should express themselves in public' and any 'stereotypes of social roles based on sex' is sexism; then it follows logically that a person who voluntarily identifies with a gender (such as 'femaleness') is being sexist against themselves.

He didn’t just make a claim. Unlike you and Philosophim, he provided references to evidence. If you want to question his evidence, that would make sense, but all you do is wave your arms. — T Clark

You seem to have ignored (again, and along with with Questioner) have obviously, and unfortunately obviously on purpose, ignore the several sources (and quotes there from, along with explanations of how they link with the context we're talking in) I have provided. I sent you to them. You have not bothered to look.

That means I don't need to care. Questioner has not provided any support that trumps several metastudies for any points hes made. The only one you seem to want to point to is the brain one. That is a myth. For which I have provided ample evidence. You not looking at it shouldn't become my problem.

Well, I certainly have never told you not to talk about this. I think it’s fine. And I don’t understand why you would say I’m not arguing in good faith. — T Clark

Because of the objective reality of the above lack in your engagement. You've literally responded to nothing except to stand behind Questioner going "yeah, get 'em!". Its not fun to see. You're usually good at this. Iin this case, you've not engaged with any argument whatsoever and just leaped straight to ad hominem.

In any case, that position betrays the claim. If brains are sexed, then that's sex. Not gender.

The claim that one can be born in the wrong body then looms large. Are we claiming that? I don't think so. That tells me there's no consistency here.

Because [bearing] is subjective and subject to the whims of an individual or group, and placing [bearing] over sex in matters of importance matches the definition of [delusion]. — Philosophim

:mask:

E.g. a "transwoman" (typical XY) is a gender dysmorphic, modified (mutilated) adult male in drag and not a woman (typical XX). Afaik, "she" is almost never attracted to (or found attractive by) a "transman" (typical XX), I suspect, because usually "she" (and/or "he") is also gay (XY-XY / XX-XX).

Afaik, well-substantiated in that most "trans" children are simply gay children being pulled about by ideologues.

You seem to have ignored (again, and along with with Questioner) have obviously, and unfortunately obviously on purpose, ignore the several sources (and quotes there from, along with explanations of how they link with the context we're talking in) I have provided. I sent you to them. You have not bothered to look. — AmadeusD

I went back and looked at all the posts you and Philosophim made in this thread. I have no idea what you’re talking about when you refer to quotes and sources and explanations.

I have presented him with ample evidence that the male/female brain claim is a myth, for example - which got ignored. You can probably use the search function if interested. Its in the Transwomen are women thread. — AmadeusD

Because you aren't even clearly reading my responses to you. See below. I am not trying to be purposefully rude - this is just extremely hard to be polite about. You are ignoring the key aspects of arguments against you (including sources), while presenting none of your own and riding coattails (in this specific thread, only). It doesn't really call for civility. It calls for ignoring you, for the most part. I'm trying to do neither.

have presented him with ample evidence that the male/female brain claim is a myth, for example - which got ignored. You can probably use the search function if interested. Its in the Transwomen are women thread. — AmadeusD

Sorry if you looked before I fixed the quote.

Afaik, well-substantiated in that most "trans" children are simply gay children being pulled about by ideologues. — AmadeusD

See, this is what's annoying any non-biased intellectual should be able to spot from a mile away.

Humanity has normalized primal, brutish behavior. This was required, yes, for a time. But times pass away, and so do (or at least should) those who so adamantly cling to them.

Humanity has evolved. From beyond a little monster that can't keep his thing between his pants (which grows into a so-called "normal" adult male, only after learning consequence of course). To that of a refined intellect. A refined intellect, the only class and creed of human that will be permitted to live, can see an attractive member of the opposite gender at a young or any age, and see a fellow intelligent being. Not a piece of meat to essentially impale. This is what the "average" pathetic attempt at calling those who cannot a "straight" male, who is pained and otherwise damned to live a life of. Never knowing one of the opposite gender as a true equal. This is the mental illness being made "normal manhood" that is what truly should be considered "homosexual" or "not capable to reproduce."

Until you see that, you'll be forever lost. Not that it matters. What's done is done. And what must be, will be. You will see it is those who know they are threatened (rightfully so) who attempt to commit effective infanticide (lack of reproduction and outnumbering the scourge that is un-evolved man who chose violence and lust over peace and purpose) by attempting to enlist society (many if not most like the damned) to cast certain (superior) forms of life as "homosexual" or "gay" or (not eligible to reproduce) when it fact it remains starkly the opposite. They lost. And they won't ever realize until far too late. Perhaps they never will. But it matters not.

No different than the first fish that evolved strange or "queer" features. It brought forth a previously untold wealth of development and progress by being able to traverse land (in that case physical, but perhaps in this new case, mental) territory its larger and more powerful peers never could. And it shan't be disrupted by the lesser evolved.

It's been like this from the beginning. From the death of Socrates. To now. "Common stereotype of smart people being bullied" in movies. It's all the same. The perpetually inferior suppressing the momentarily superior. Fortunately. The smart people are now behind the nuclear launch buttons. Will the lower class and unevolved throngs of humanity obey? Or will they destroy themselves? Does it matter? :smile:

The slaves, clearly created to build and work for the elect (naturally smaller and a bit more silly, more emotional and basically everything else it means to be an actual human being), were already given more than they ever deserved. Clearly more than they could ever understand. They live better lives than even the highest of kings 1,000 years ago. And they still have no appreciation. No understanding. No sense of what it means to be human. But, when humbled, they'll learn real quick. This is the fate of all who stand in the way of true progress. Which is not shiny machines and towering skyscrapers, but peaceful streets and lovable neighbors one actually wakes up in impatience to experience. This cannot be achieved by military might, prudent math, incredible science, not even unbound intelligence, no. It can only be achieved by the one thing humanity was given at the beginning, the one thing these other things (while incredible) ultimately detract and rob us of.

While I take it you're supportive of the idea that pathologizing homosexuality is unhelpful, if not bad and immoral, I can't quite understand the rest of this. Manhood or 'manliness' isn't an object.

I don't understand the term 'true progress' either. What's false progress in contrast?

In summary, gender/identity should take precedence over the physical attributes of the body. — Questioner

How does this apply to, say, women's sports? I think, in those cases, physical attributes take precedence over gender/identity. To take an extreme example, if Mike Tyson in his prime started identifying as a women, he would not be allowed to box in the women's division. That would be insane.

Because you aren't even clearly reading my responses to you. See below. I am not trying to be purposefully rude - this is just extremely hard to be polite about. You are ignoring the key aspects of arguments against you (including sources), while presenting none of your own and riding coattails (in this specific thread, only). It doesn't really call for civility. It calls for ignoring you, for the most part. I'm trying to do neither. — AmadeusD

So, I’m at fault for not taking into account— searching for—arguments you made in a different thread. Is that right. And since I didn’t, I’m arguing in bad faith.

Anyway, we’re not getting anywhere. Let’s leave it there. Or at least until the next time.

Hey Bob! Good to see an actual argument.

2. Definition of sexism

prejudice or discrimination based on sex OR
behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
(underlined for emphasis)

If gender is “the non-biological expectations that one or more people have about how a sex should express themselves in public”, then the stereotypes of social roles based off of sex would be genderism and not sexism; — Bob Ross

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

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

So the word is taken already. Which means the definition of sexism still fits for preferring gender over sex.

This idea of ‘a woman’ or ‘a man’ here, in your terms (as far as I can tell), refers to gender and not sex since it pertains to stereotypes based off of sex. — Bob Ross

Correct. And yet it is still a form of sexism.

I think maybe your response would be that stereotyping sex with a gender is sexist because it tries too tie too much to sex; but nothing about sex in your terms has been discriminated against (such as their voice tone to use your example). Instead, the person would have been, at best, misgendered. — Bob Ross

To be clear, it is the elevation of gender of sex that is sexist. Not necessarily the observation of it. Lets say a woman behaves in a stereotypical 'girly' way. Its an observation. But if I take another girl who does not behave in a 'girly' (gendered) way, then tell them, "You're not a woman," that's sexism.

I think misgendering is when we associate stereotypes about sex on the wrong sex. So if a woman is 'acting masculine' and we say, "You're a man", that's misgendering. Of course, misgendering is again, another form of sexism. It is placing the expectations one has on a sex's behavior over the reality of the person. It is an indicator that if you do, or do not act and behave in a certain social way that you are 'not your sex'.

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

Correct.

E.g. a "transwoman" (typical XY) is a gender dysmorphic, modified (mutilated) adult male in drag and not a woman (typical XX). Afaik, "she" is almost never attracted to (or found attractive by) a "transman" (typical XX), I suspect, because usually "she" (and/or "he") is also gay (XY-XY / XX-XX). — 180 Proof

There are plenty of straight men who transition as well. I believe there are more straight men who've transitioned today than gay men. The majority of them often have an inward sexual orientation to being female.

that gender is a subjective opinion of how a sex should act in society — Philosophim

But I have presented you with a compelling argument and much evidence that it is not. What you may be defining is cultural mores, or accepted practices, but gender is part of a person's identity, and an identity is an internal feature of who we are. It is one's mental construct of themself.

What a disappointment that one of my favorite posters isn't any better than some fresh face single digit poster. — Philosophim

If you mean me:

I have 168 posts (169 with this one) and my face is not as fresh as it used to be.

If you don't mean me, sorry for the misunderstanding.

I believe there are more straight men who've transitioned today than gay men. — Philosophim

Stop assuming a male human being is "gay" just because they aren't sexually attracted to the given, often limited selection of "women" that happen to be available. (Or that they are and unlike you or at least those around them, they have self-control, discipline, and a refined sense of self, even in the face of temptation where the other person does not!). That sort of thinking is what's "gay" or queer, which actually only means odd. It's a sad shame how humanity fails to realize this. Why would you assume the few limited group of people you were born around and into (the average modern person only having 4-5 "close friends" and only any sort of knowledge beyond immediate recognition of a few dozen), this small group we're acquainted with is supposed to define how all men and women and people are out of a sea of 8 billion? That's beyond silly. It's simple. And simple men never make it very far.

nd along with with Questioner) have obviously, and unfortunately obviously on purpose, ignore the several sources (and quotes there from, along with explanations of how they link with the context we're talking in) I have provided. — AmadeusD

This is not true, I had the last word about male vs female brains, in a reply to you, citing more accurate and recent research, that sex differences in brains can be read with fMRI

Questioner going "yeah, get 'em!" — AmadeusD

This is your interpretation of my motivations for posting what I did, and it is wrong.

The claim that one can be born in the wrong body then looms large. — AmadeusD

Well, I wouldn't use the words "right" and "wrong" - just different.

I'm going to ask you to put on your thinking hat - and ask yourself - where is the seat of my perception of myself? Is it in the brain? Does your perception of yourself - which is constructed by putting together all your thought processes - tell you that you are one particular gender rather than another?

I think we really need to get a firm understanding of what identity is, and accept that gender, in most cases, is part of that identity. Yes, outside perceptions may influence our identity - but they trigger an internal dialogue - and then how they are analyzed, processed, and responded to are determined by our brains.

Here's a quote from The Neuroscience of Identity -

... that there are two parts of the prefrontal cortex used for processing information salient to the human identity—the medial prefrontal cortex, or mpfc (BA10) and the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex, or dmpfc (BA9) (Lieberman 2018). The mpfc is active during our default mode, or when we are not focused on the external environment, and biases us to shift our thinking to become egocentric, while the dmpfc is active when processing salient social information pertinent to one’s position in groups as well as the perspective of others. We quite literally process thoughts about ourselves and thoughts about others in different parts of the brain. This is a reflection of the dynamic and co-optive nature of identity.

https://creatingwe.com/news-blogs/articles-blogs/psychology-today/the-neuroscience-of-identity

How does this apply to, say, women's sports? — RogueAI

Good question. Since sports involve physical attributes, rather than mental, I think it's pretty apparent that transgender women should not be allowed in female sports, since with their male bodies they would have an unfair advantage.

Good question. Since sports involve physical attributes, rather than mental, I think it's pretty apparent that transgender women should not be allowed in female sports, since with their male bodies they would have an unfair advantage. — Questioner

What about traditional women's spaces? Suppose you have a man who identifies as a woman walking around in the women's locker room at 24 Hour Fitness with their junk hanging out? I don't think women should have to put up with that.

Suppose you have a man who identifies as a woman walking around in the women's locker room at 24 Hour Fitness with their junk hanging out? — RogueAI

No, I would say that only transgender women who have completed their transition should be allowed in female changing rooms.

But I have presented you with a compelling argument and much evidence that it is not. What you may be defining is cultural mores, or accepted practices, but gender is part of a person's identity, and an identity is an internal feature of who we are. It is one's mental construct of themself. — Questioner

Everyone has a personal identity, but that doesn't mean its more than a subjective identity. For example, I can have a personal identity that I am a doctor. To be a doctor objectively, I must have a Phd. No one is required, and I am not entitled to other people recognizing my subjective identity as a doctor if I do not have a Phd. People are only required to recognize that I am a doctor if I have a Phd.

Gender is specifically an expected set of behaviors that we attribute to a particular sex in society. So for example, "Only men wear top hats. Only women wear flower hats." Of course, someone else could just as easily say, "Only men wear flower hats. Only women wear top hats." We would both be right because gender is not objective, it is subjective.

What then is a gender identity? First, you have to have a gendered view. You believe "Women/men should do X." "Women/Men should not do Y." You are one of those sexes. You look at the gender you have established and think, "Even though I am sex A, if I follow my expectations of how sex A should act, I really feel like acting like sex B" Basically, "I'm a man, I feel like acting the way I think a man should act." Or "I'm a man, I feel like acting the way a woman should act." Which are all fine. But the moment you go, "The way I think a man/woman should act makes a person a man/woman" is the point that you enter into sexism, or elevate gender over a person's sex.

What a disappointment that one of my favorite posters isn't any better than some fresh face single digit poster.
— Philosophim

If you mean me:

I have 168 posts (169 with this one) and my face is not as fresh as it used to be.

If you don't mean me, sorry for the misunderstanding. — Questioner

No, not at all. I'm talking to T Clark. You sir/ma'am are excellent. Wonderful posts, citations, and polite discussion. You have my respect whether we agree on the outcome of this discussion or not. :)

What a disappointment that one of my favorite posters isn't any better than some fresh face single digit poster.
— Philosophim

If you mean me:

I have 168 posts (169 with this one) and my face is not as fresh as it used to be.

If you don't mean me, sorry for the misunderstanding.
— Questioner

No, not at all. I'm talking to T Clark. — Philosophim

I’m surprised you’re disappointed—we’ve been through all this before. I’m not disappointed, I’ve heard these arguments from you before.

If you don't mind, I'm going to answer some of your points you've been making to other posters. I normally don't, but you seem genuinely pleasant to converse with. If you find this an intrusion into other's discussions, please feel free to tell me and I will not do it again.

I'm going to ask you to put on your thinking hat - and ask yourself - where is the seat of my perception of myself? Is it in the brain? Does your perception of yourself - which is constructed by putting together all your thought processes - tell you that you are one particular gender rather than another? — Questioner

To the point, you learn what sex you are. Then you have to decide if a sex should act a particular way in society. Some people don't. Some people think along the lines of society. Some people think uniquely. If you have constructed in your head that only men should act in a particular way, then you don't behave like that, you can start to think, "I'm not acting like a man."

Of course, if there was a young man who came to me and said, "My baseball team thinks, I'm not a man because I like ballet," I would tell him, "You don't have to act any particular way to be a man. You are a man because you were born one. Do not worry about the expectations from society, be your own person." Basically I would teach them that such views of the sexes is unhealthy. Gender is something we should grow out of, not grow into.

The reality is that you can act and be whatever you want in a free society. Some people will think its cool, and some will think its not. Some people will tie it to your height, your weight, skin color, hair color, or sex. Part of growing up and maturing our minds is realizing these are superficial judgements of ourselves and others that limit us. You can be white and like rap. You can be black and not like rap. You can be a woman and hate kids. You can be a man and adore kids. Find what you like and how you want to live without basing it on other's or your own expectations of how a body like yours should act.

I think we really need to get a firm understanding of what identity is, and accept that gender, in most cases, is part of that identity. Yes, outside perceptions may influence our identity - but they trigger an internal dialogue - and then how they are analyzed, processed, and responded to are determined by our brains. — Questioner

My point is that its not a healthy identity, and if elevated over the sex that we are, over the body that we are, is sexist. Just because we have a personal identity of ourselves, it doesn't mean the rest of the world sees us that way, or that such an identity is actually healthy for ourselves either. No one is debating that you can have a gender identity. My point is that when it is elevated in importance above sex, it becomes sexism.

No, I would say that only transgender women who have completed their transition should be allowed in female changing rooms. — Questioner

So interestingly, trans gender and trans sexual are separate situations. A trans sexual desires specifically to change their body to resemble or be as close to the opposite sex as much as possible. You can be a trans gender person who is also a trans sexual, but be a trans sexual who is not trans gender. I believe the conversation about trans sexuals is very different from trans genders. I do not believe trans sexuals are sexist, and I believe it is this portion of people that we should be studying more closely and helping to fit into society better.

No, I would say that only transgender women who have completed their transition should be allowed in female changing rooms. — Questioner

As who? A male? That's nice. But you're not a female. And unless you transition, never will be. So your male opinion is not welcome in the arena of female comfort. How arrogant must one be to think they're allowed to make decisions for not just random individual women, but ALL women, who they've never even met?

I recommend some male boundary therapy. Stat. :cool:

Check your male privilege mate. It's just not welcome.