No, a straw man is when you build up an idea that the presenter never argued for or backed, then attack it. — Philosophim

...which I am not doing. I am trying to explain a logical point to you about the burden of proof and null hypothesis.

I mean, that isn't the definition of straw man anyway -- a straw man necessarily includes suggesting the argument is what the other person is saying; beating up on a random thing would be irrelevant -- but even under your definition, that's not what I am doing.

No, its not irrational at all. That's how arguments work. Falsification means that there is a situation in which the claim could be false. For example, my definition of sexism is wrong. Or the elevation of gender over sex does not fit the definition of sexism. Or gender is wrong. Its absolutely falsifiable. Can you prove it to be false however? If you can't, then its true. — Philosophim

I've been puzzled as to why you aren't getting this simple point, and wondered if you were trolling...

But then I remembered that of course there are many debates now with the format of "[claim], prove me wrong!". So it is worth just pointing out that that format is almost always bad faith. It's a shift of the burden of proof, and the idea of such debates is to pander to an audience that just wants to see an opposing view get pwned.

The null hypothesis is that a claim may or may not be true. No empirical claim is true by default.

You purposefully omitted answering if you are a woman, which makes me think you are a man. This makes your argument self-undermining and paradoxical; because if I accept your argument that men shouldn’t have an opinion on anything that only directly affects women, then I shouldn’t take your own opinion seriously about this because it pertains something that directly affects women and is being professed by a man. Therefore, if your claim is true, then I must take it as false; and if it is false, then I am back to the idea that I have no good reasons to accept this line of logic.

All I'm saying is, let's put it to a vote then. Ask every free woman on Earth right now: "Should women be in charge of women's rights or should men make decisions for you?" I don't think the answer will come at a surprise to anyone

Let’s put it to a vote: “should people who have never own guns be in charge of gun rights or should gun owners be?”. Should people who have never been a cop be in charge of what cops should be doing or just cops? You didn’t address the obvious flaws with your argument. I don’t see why we should accept that only those that are within the group affected by the vote should be the only ones voting on it. Irregardless, voting is different than having an opinion; and everyone has the right to an opinion that should be taken seriously, intellectually, when formulating laws.

Do we call it "technically irrelevant" because it can be framed against semi-tangential alternate situations and scenarios, even though it's clearly not?

How is it “clearly no” tangential? If you believe that women should be the only one’s with a voice on aspects of law that only affect women directly, then this means you believe that the group affected is the only one that should be able to vote. This applies to laws about police brutality, gun rights, property taxes, conscription, etc.

I am not seeing why we should accept this.

 One that happens to be timelessly and famously relevant in the context it was lifted from. Mob rule i.e. "the will of the people" (just the way things are).

I don’t support an ochlocracy. Are you saying that if men get to vote on women’s rights that this is mob rule?

Why should a sane, rational adult person not be the one chiefly in charge of their own experience and ultimate quality of life? Answer me that, and I'll show you a green dog. :wink:

No one is absolutely in control of their way of life nor can that ever happen. Depending on your view of voting, some people (whether that be all citizens of the nation or some subset) get a direct voice in some aspects of the government for checks and balances.

Even in an ochlocracy, no one has an absolute voice over themselves: it’s everyone’s vote counts equally and every aspect of law is voted directly on by the people.

Again, let's put that to a vote. You'll find the resounding answer is something about "ingrained male patriarchy" and "historic systemic abuses and ultimate deprivation of personhood toward women" and all sorts of other phrased goodies like that. I mean, they're not wrong. Do you think history is made up or fabricated in terms of oppression and violence against women?

I am failing to see your point here. Are you saying that if enough people vote that men shouldn’t have an opinion on X that they shouldn’t have an opinion on X? My point was that everyone has a natural right to an opinion on everything; and to deny that on the basis of sex is sexist.

You've never been a minority in "the real world" (AKA a non-civilized country), have you? It's hell, mate. Absolute hell. You have no idea how grateful you should be for your apparent ignorance in that particular area. Hopefully you'll live out the rest of your days in such a blissful state of not knowing. I mean that sincerely.

Firstly, you know nothing about me; nor is this relevant to our topic.

Secondly, women are not a minority in the West; so this makes no sense to bring this up.

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man"), instead of the opponent's proposition.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, as though an argument against Y were an argument against X.

And what did you say?

No, that's irrational. No-one has demonstrated that the oogie-boogie monster doesn't exist and isn't feared by millions. Therefore, you need to accept that claim as true? — Mijin

Again, considering I have no idea how this is supposed to relate to the argument because you don't mention the actual argument, that's a straw man.

But then I remembered that of course there are many debates now with the format of "[claim], prove me wrong!". So it is worth just pointing out that that format is almost always bad faith. — Mijin

But not always in bad faith. Have you demonstrated why this is in bad faith? No. You have to demonstrate that first.

It's a shift of the burden of proof, and the idea of such debates is to pander to an audience that just wants to see an opposing view get pwned. — Mijin

Not at all. The burden of proof is on me. I've put forth an argument. All you have to do is demonstrate why I have not risen to that burden of proof. But you keep arguing around that because...you know you can't. You're not the first person in history to not like the outcome of an argument but can't actually address it. Look at Leontiskos' previous posts. They address the OP straight on, challenge it at parts, ask questions, and are obviously thinking about it. You aren't, and that's because you're afraid you can't. So typical tactics of avoidance. All it tells me and everyone else is that you don't have anything.

I always give a person a few chances though because occasionally people come around and try. I'm certain you'll shrink from the challenge again. Its probably best anyway, I'm heading out for vacation for a while and won't be able to respond after today.

The null hypothesis is that a claim may or may not be true. No empirical claim is true by default. — Mijin

This is when I knew you were done. Go look up what the null hypthesis means. When you start throwing around technical words that make no sense to the discussion, that's a person who's just flailing as they continue to realize they don't have anything substantial.

I actually meant that more than semantics. Biological sexism would be treating a man with a voice within the range of an average female like they aren't a man. While its not the average biological sex expectation that a man have a voice range that high, it does happen. Treating them as a woman because they have a rare, but perfectly normal expression of being male would be biological sexism.

Yes, but then you do seem to be agreeing with me that sexism qua gender is completely divorced from sexism qua sex in your view. No?

No, elevation means favoring gender as indicating that a person is a sex over the fact of their sex

And this is why such a divorce is problematic: gender isn’t about sex in your view but, rather, a expectation based off of sex that isn’t accurate about sex. So, either, by my lights, (1) all gendering is sexism qua gender in your view (because gender is always an inaccurate expectation of a person based off of an erroneous understanding of sex) or (2) gendering someone is not inherently sexist (because does not attribute anything about sex to the person but, rather, something else called ‘gender’).

In the case of #1, all gendering is an ‘elevation of gender over sex’ because attributing a gender is always to attribute falsely facts about them based off of erroneous understandings of sex; and this is always incongruent with their sex they have. Viz., if by definition my gendering of you as a woman or a man is always factually false because gender has to do with attributing traits to a person based off of sex when it is illegitimate, then no matter what I say about your gender I am attributing to you ‘gender facts’ that are always incongruent with your sex.

We can play with this with your example of voice:

If I say you are feminine because your voice is high, then either that is a purported gender fact or a sex fact. If it is a sex fact because voice pertains to sex, then I am not elevating gender over sex. If it is a gender fact because voice pertains to gender, then I am attributed to you something that is not entailed (according to your theory) by your sex; which means I am elevating your gender over sex (in the way you described) even if you are female (because your I am saying you have a female trait which is not entailed by femaleness, thusly giving an expectation of you that is not endowed by your sex).

In the case of #2, we could get out of #1 (in your theory) by saying that gender is not intrinsically sexist qua gender because there are genders and it is distinct from sex. However, then, gender, when properly understood and attributed, is not elevating gender over sex despite attributing things to a person that are not entailed by their sex which may include non-sex based expectations.

Going back to the the voice example:

If I say you are ‘floppy’ because your voice is high and a high voice is a trait we rightly associate with the gender ‘floppiness’ (which has no association with your sex), then I am not falsely attributed a sex-based expectation of you given erroneous facts about sex (such as that you should have a masculine voice because you are male). Thusly, I am not elevating gender over sex (in your phraseology) and consequently am not being sexist even if I tell you that you are not being a good floppy because you have a deep voice instead of a high one. If gender is divorced from sex, then legitimate gender expectations would not entail sexism in the sense of having unwarranted sex expectations.

This is why I noted, and I dare say correctly (: , that you are equivocating sex and gender internally given your terms as if they are the same while also claiming they are divorced from each other. When you say:

So if a woman wore a top hat and you called her a man, that's sexism due to the woman defying a gender expectation.

I underlined the portions that use gendered terms in the sense of sex and bolded the ones that are using the gendered terms in the sense of gender. Since you have divorced sex and gender, these terms cannot be treated as if they are referring to the same things such as male and male (one in the sense of sex and the other in the sense of gender).

I can rewrite your quote like this to demonstrate it potently:

So if a woman wore a top hat and you called her a floppy, that's sexism due to the woman defying a gender expectation.

See how now it has become abundantly clear that floppiness is not the same as maleness; and the onus is on you to demonstrate how they are connected to each other if they are truly divorced. I could legitimately be right that she is a floppy for wearing a top hat and simultaneously agree with you that she is not a biological man (male).

I disagree with this Bob. I've been able to post this topic, and I've seen a wide variety of topics that cover things which might be taboo or difficult to talk about. There still needs to be some moderation which handles approach and tone. It may be the case that people who read it may not want to discuss it properly, but that's a far cry from it being banned to be discussed at all.

With all due respect, without having read every post you have made, I don’t know of any that you have posted that are threatening to the liberal ideology. My point was not that one cannot have controversial conversations on TPF: it’s that if the topic is too disapproved of by the liberals on here then you get banned or censored even if it doesn’t violate the TPF’s rules and guidelines. Race realism and anti-LGBTQ+ topics are the most notable; and I don’t think your posts on transgenderism and gender/sex have really opposed the liberal views on it. Mine suggested they might be wrong, and that’s why they got taken down.

Again, considering I have no idea how this is supposed to relate to the argument because you don't mention the actual argument, that's a straw man. — Philosophim

If it doesn't relate to the argument, and I am not trying to attribute it to you, then it's not a straw man, right?
Next time, instead of just cutting and pasting the response that AI gave you, actually take the time to read it.

I made an argument -- it's not a straw man.

Not at all. The burden of proof is on me. I've put forth an argument. All you have to do is demonstrate why I have not risen to that burden of proof. But you keep arguing around that because...you know you can't. — Philosophim

Note that how we got into this tangent, was I was responding to your points before you went down this "prove a negative" requirement.

No, there is no survey result on specifically the claim of the OP. However, actual definitions of transgender do not match the notion that it is acquired by virtue of noticing a predilection towards a behaviour associated with the other gender. Plus vast numbers of people exhibit at least some behaviours atypical for their gender -- orders of magnitude more people than the number of transgender.

Meanwhile, on the other side, we only have your anecdotes. I don't think even in this thread anyone has backed up your anecdotes with similar ones (though I could be wrong about that, it's IIRC)

Yes, but then you do seem to be agreeing with me that sexism qua gender is completely divorced from sexism qua sex in your view. No? — Bob Ross

Completely? Can you clarify what you mean? Its a version of sexism as sex is always involved. Maybe my answers below will help clarify what I mean.

And this is why such a divorce is problematic: gender isn’t about sex in your view but, rather, a expectation based off of sex that isn’t accurate about sex. — Bob Ross

Its just not my view Bob, its the view of gender theory. This isn't a debate about whether gender theory is correct or not. I'm assuming for the purposes of this argument, that gender according to gender theory is accepted. We did have a separate argument on whether it should be considered as valid or not, but this OP is assuming that it is.

So, either, by my lights, (1) all gendering is sexism qua gender in your view (because gender is always an inaccurate expectation of a person based off of an erroneous understanding of sex) or (2) gendering someone is not inherently sexist (because does not attribute anything about sex to the person but, rather, something else called ‘gender’). — Bob Ross

Gender is inherently a prejudgment, or prejudice. Prejudice in itself is not wrong. We pre judge about many things. I see a tall 300 pound guy and prejudge they'll have a deep voice. They do not. I prejudge that a nicely dressed individual will be polite. They are not. Sometimes prejudices are also affirmed.

"Isms" happen when we stick with our prejudices despite evidence to their contrary. So if a tall and heavy man had a heavy voice and we said, "Impossible. You can't be tall or that weight. No man of that height and weight would ever have a voice that high pitched." You're sticking with your prejudice over reality.

Sexism happens when our prejudices become more important than the reality of the situation. Gender is of course prejudice about sex. I might have the prejudice that men should wear top hats and women should not. If a woman wore a top hat, I could realize, "Oh, women can wear top hats." If I insisted she was wrong, that she should take it off, etc., I'm valuing my prejudice over the reality of the situation. In this case, the prejudice evolves from gender into sexism.

If I say you are feminine because your voice is high, then either that is a purported gender fact or a sex fact. If it is a sex fact because voice pertains to sex, then I am not elevating gender over sex. — Bob Ross

Correct, because you aren't making a gendered judgement. You're making a sex expectation judgement based on biological statistics. Its not prejudiced to claim that most women have a higher pitched voice, that's just a reality. Its gender when you say, "Even if a woman naturally has a lower pitched voice, women should speak with a higher pitch anyway." Then when a woman naturally speaks in a lower pitch, it becomes sexism when we say, "You can't do that, that's not what women do!" You're not quite separating the biological expectation from gender expectation here.

If it is a gender fact because voice pertains to gender, — Bob Ross

There is no gender fact. Gender is subjective and by consequence is not a fact about reality, only a fact that it exists as a subjective viewpoint. Sex expectations are facts grounded in biological reality. They are not gendered judgements in themselves.

If I say you are ‘floppy’ because your voice is high and a high voice is a trait we rightly associate with the gender ‘floppiness’ (which has no association with your sex) — Bob Ross

All gender is an opinion about how a sex should act socially. It can not refer to sex is some way. The floppy thing doesn't quite work, so I'm not going to address it further down either. If there's something I'm missing though in not addressing this, please try again using another example closer to sex and gender if you could.

This is why I noted, and I dare say correctly (: , that you are equivocating sex and gender internally given your terms as if they are the same while also claiming they are divorced from each other. — Bob Ross

I don't think so. I think you're missing that I've also defined that sex expectations based on biology are not gender. Once you truly divorce gender from the biological expectations of the person, and understand its purely sociological, these problems don't occur.

I underlined the portions that use gendered terms in the sense of sex and bolded the ones that are using the gendered terms in the sense of gender. — Bob Ross

I intended all terms to refer to sex. The opinion on how the sex should behave is gender. I do not see man or woman as a role unless I explicitly point that out. Mostly because a 'role' is a subjective prejudice, and I generally try not to give credence to that.

With all due respect, without having read every post you have made, I don’t know of any that you have posted that are threatening to the liberal ideology. My point was not that one cannot have controversial conversations on TPF: it’s that if the topic is too disapproved of by the liberals on here then you get banned or censored even if it doesn’t violate the TPF’s rules and guidelines. — Bob Ross

I would say that this post I've made pretty much invalidates any idea that trans gender people should enter cross sex spaces. That is would I would call a far left viewpoint, and yet I have no warnings or threats of banning. I understand you've had a few posts banned, but the conservative viewpoint would be to first look inward and see if there were mistakes made on your part to see if they could be improved to not be banned. I did review one of your posts and agreed it should be banned Bob, even on a conservative forum. I say this with great respect towards you, and apolitically. When one is on a social platform the way one approaches a subject is just as important as what you're trying to say.

Let me give you an example. So my point here about gender applies to everyone. Its not religious, angry, or based on bias. Its a simple definition of the terms, a reasoning of how they intermingle together, and a conclusion based on those terms and logic. Now, someone could come to the same conclusion as myself but not approach it this way. A person could simply be disgusted by or hate trans people and just say, "Its sexist because its gross!" The later is not a discussion or approaching the idea in a way that invites discussion, but in a way that is invective. Whether its right or not, in a social philosophy discussion board, its not an appropriate way to address the topic in a thoughtful manner.

Perhaps being invective is a conservative trait, but I propose that it isn't. I've known many wise and respectable conservatives who challenge a person to think without using words or phrases that stoke controversy. Now in our conversations, I don't see you being invective. I want to be clear, you're one of my favorite people to chat with on this forum. You have passion, insight, and are eager to explore any possibility. You make me think in ways I haven't before Bob, and that is wonderful.

I would propose that if you are being banned on your topics that it is not because you are conservative. To be clear, you may get a lot of push back from people because it has a conservative bent, but I don't think you'll be banned if you can convey your points without being invective. And what I mean is ask yourself, "Will a person respond to this in anger looking for a fight, or despite not liking it, will they be inclined to at least discuss it?" If I had to note anything in the last post of yours I reviewed, I would caution very much against assuming controversial topics are true without lead up. If it helps, if someone started a post with, "Conservatives as we know are all selfish individuals who think nothing of others," its not going to spur debate, just a fight. Again, I have a lot of love for you Bob, so on this one look inward first before accusing others for your recent difficulties in posts.

Enough about the strawman. If you're not going to discuss the OP anymore, I'm not going to have a never ending go around on this that isn't introducing new or different information. At this point we let other people judge.

Note that how we got into this tangent, was I was responding to your points before you went down this "prove a negative" requirement. — Mijin

You assumed I was asking you to prove a negative. I pointed out that in no way should you.

No, there is no survey result on specifically the claim of the OP. — Mijin

You may need to read the OP again. This is not a survey argument. This is a logical conclusion based purely on definitions.

However, actual definitions of transgender do not match the notion that it is acquired by virtue of noticing a predilection towards a behaviour associated with the other gender. — Mijin

No, that's actually what trans gender means. To be clear, no trans sexual. A trans gender person is a person who observes their own or a groups idea of how a particular sex should act socially, then says, "I act in the way of the other gender. Therefore I am trans gender." Trans gender people do not always transition, or even want to transition. Because they feel they match the gender of the other sex, some of them think this gives them a right to be in the opposite sex spaces of that gender. This is very real. There are people not on medication or desire surgery who think this is the way things should work. My argument is, this is sexism. If you think acting like the way you or others think the opposite sex should act in public makes you that sex, that is 100% sexist thinking.

Plus vast numbers of people exhibit at least some behaviours atypical for their gender -- orders of magnitude more people than the number of transgender. — Mijin

Yes, this is why gender is a prejudice and not a fact. Woman can actually wear top hats and everything will be ok. They're still a woman. Men can wear dresses, they're still men, and everything will be ok.

This is also another problem with someone claiming they are 'trans gender'. What do they feel the gender of a man and woman is personally? How many attributes do they match of that gender while shunning their own? Its honestly a prejudicial argument. You're a man or a woman no matter how you act. Just because you think a man or a woman should act a certain way socially, that doesn't mean your subjective opinion changes the reality of their sex.

Meanwhile, on the other side, we only have your anecdotes. — Mijin

What anecdotes? How do these anecdotes apply to the argument? If so, how are they wrong? A claim of, "You're wrong" is not an argument, its an expression of dislike. Liking or not liking an argument has nothing to do with whether its correct or not. 2+2=4 even if I hate that fact. If you want to demonstrate that my argument is wrong, you need to address the premises and demonstrate how your challenge invalidates either those premises, or the conclusion I've made.

Remember that my definition of gender is aligned with gender theory and you have not shown any credible evidence or argument that would demonstrate I have not. — Philosophim

Well, I disagree, but I'll try to add more to it here in this post.

If I tell a woman, "Women shouldn't work" when they are clearly working and there is no reason why they shouldn't work besides my personal feelings on the matter, I'm telling them they shouldn't commit an action. Where's the object? — Philosophim

The women who you think should not work.

That would be interpersonal sexism between two subjects. — Philosophim

Not quite. In any one example of interpersonal action, there is the sender of the action (the subject) and the receiver of the action (the object)

But a subject can also be sexist towards themselves. There are men who think they can't cry. There are woman who think they should always agree with what a man says. You can absolutely have sexist perspectives of yourself. — Philosophim

But this is something different than what we have been talking about. it's got nothing to do with gender identity and transgenderism.

Sexism is an attitude. Attitudes are formed in the brain. Are you suggesting that if a person claims a transgender identity they’re being sexist against their penis or vagina?

When a transgender person claims their true identity, it is not so they can fulfill some expectations society places on this or that gender, or even expectations as that person might see them. It is about being who they are in their head, and a chief element of that is “diachronic unity.” More about that later, but first a little background info:

Gender is a biological reality involving patterns of identity produced by the brain. The prenatal hormone environment during fetal development is crucial to this brain organization. Thyroid hormones, progesterone, and steroids are critical regulators of fetal neural differentiation. They direct development of the hypothalamus, the amygdala, and connectivity patterns. That’s the biology.

It’s important to remember that fetal body sex-differentiation (during the first trimester) is a separate process from brain organization and differentiation (in the third trimester). Studies show that transgender persons’ brain patterns align more closely with their experienced gender than with the brains of cisgender persons of the same physical sex. These patterns - related to emotional processing, body perception, self-representation, and social cognition – emerge from neurological networks and influence gender identity.

And gender is indeed part of identity. Lots of research into gender identity has been done, including investigating the relationship between transgender transition and “diachronic unity.” Diachronic unity describes a stable sense of self across time, like a self-continuity. If the unity is intact, then memories linked with an internal narrative are able to say – “That was me then, this is me now, and I am the same person.”

The interesting thing is that gender transition does not fragment diachronic unity – it restores and strengthens it. Before transition, transgender persons feel alienated from themselves, and it’s hard to imagine a future self. But following transition, their internal narrative becomes more coherent and they feel more connected to their current self. They have reclaimed their identity.

I found three research papers supporting these conclusions. Here are AI summaries of the three papers:

Autobiographical memory phenomenology in transgender and cisgender individuals

Finds that transgender participants rate memories from after coming-out with higher phenomenological quality than memories from before coming-out, and that these changes relate to well-being — i.e., coming-out/transitioned periods are experienced as more connected to the current self, supporting phenomenological continuity

The phenomenology of gender dysphoria in adults

Synthesizes qualitative literature showing that gender dysphoria often produces alienation from one’s life narrative and body prior to transition, and that many respondents describe transition and affirmation as restoring coherence and ownership of their life story. (Qualitative evidence that transition often repairs disrupted self-continuity.)

Exploring trans people’s narratives of transition

Qualitative interview study in which participants narrate transition as a process of re-emplotment of life events; many describe the post-transition narrative as the one that best fits their autobiographical story — again, consistent with increased diachronic unity after transition.

How would you reconcile these findings about restored diachronic unity in transgender persons who have transitioned to your theory that transgenderism is sexist?

when you elevate your gender over your sex, you make your sex inferior to gender. And that is where sexism occurs. — Philosophim

This represents a profound misunderstanding of transgender identity, and the challenges they face as they seek a life in which they can live as who they really are.

It's an extremely tired question, but I would need to know what a 'woman' or 'man' is before the discussion goes too far.

I do not think this can be answered by the gender-is-not-sex crowd. What is it then? Stereotypes. Identity isn't inherent.

If I tell a woman, "Women shouldn't work" when they are clearly working and there is no reason why they shouldn't work besides my personal feelings on the matter, I'm telling them they shouldn't commit an action. Where's the object?
— Philosophim

The women who you think should not work. — Questioner

Women are subjects, not objects.

That would be interpersonal sexism between two subjects.
— Philosophim

Not quite. In any one example of interpersonal action, there is the sender of the action (the subject) and the receiver of the action (the object) — Questioner

Again, a person is not an object, but a subject. Unless you're talking English grammar? In which case we're talking about very different things.

But a subject can also be sexist towards themselves. There are men who think they can't cry. There are woman who think they should always agree with what a man says. You can absolutely have sexist perspectives of yourself.
— Philosophim

But this is something different than what we have been talking about. it's got nothing to do with gender identity and transgenderism. — Questioner

How so? If I view that the men should not cry, that is a gendered identity. If I view that women should always agree with men, that is a gendered identity. This sentence specifically is not addressing trans genderism, or 'crossing genders'. To first understand trans genderism, you need to understand 'cis' genderism. That is what this sentence notes.

Sexism is an attitude. Attitudes are formed in the brain. Are you suggesting that if a person claims a transgender identity they’re being sexist against their penis or vagina? — Questioner

Sexism is an action that elevates one's prejudices over the biological reality of the the person. I might believe that men shouldn't cry, and that in itself is a prejudice. If I then encountered a man crying and told them, "Hey, stop that right now. You're a man, you can't cry." that's sexism. There is nothing innate in being a man that indicates a man shouldn't cry. That's gender, or a sociological belief in how a particular sex should act in society apart from their biological reality.

When a transgender person claims their true identity, it is not so they can fulfill some expectations society places on this or that gender, or even expectations as that person might see them. It is about being who they are in their head, and a chief element of that is “diachronic unity.” — Questioner

One, assuming its 'true' is begging the question. How do we know it is true? A more honest approach (just teaching here, it has nothing to do with whether you are correct or not) is to propose a trans person claims an identity, then indicate why its true. That keeps the logic organized and clear for both parties.

First, I have not claimed why a person is trans gender. I have explained what being trans gender is. To be transgender, you must first have a gendered opinion about the sexes. Men act like X, Women act like Y. Then, you have to pick the gender that is opposite to your sex and act that way while rejecting acting like the gender of your sex. Every thought is in your head, so remember that a thought being in a person's head is nothing special from any other thought in a person's head.

Gender is a biological reality involving patterns of identity produced by the brain. The prenatal hormone environment during fetal development is crucial to this brain organization. Thyroid hormones, progesterone, and steroids are critical regulators of fetal neural differentiation. They direct development of the hypothalamus, the amygdala, and connectivity patterns. That’s the biology. — Questioner

As noted before, the brain science on trans gender is no where near settled. Also, we do not take AI summaries on this board. Its important that you understand the papers and explicitly mark the point that lead to your conclusion. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying that AI is not a trustworthy source for arguments. You need to do the work and cite lines that back your points. I do the same.

And gender is indeed part of identity. — Questioner

I never said it wasn't. I have never claimed that gender identity doesn't exist. I've just noted that gender is a prejudice, and that elevating that prejudice over sex in importance fits the definition of sexism.

Diachronic unity describes a stable sense of self across time, like a self-continuity. If the unity is intact, then memories linked with an internal narrative are able to say – “That was me then, this is me now, and I am the same person.” — Questioner

This is just a basic stability of self. Anyone without psychosis has this. I have changed roles many times in life but I understood that all of those roles were a part of me. I think you're implying that I don't think gender identity isn't part of a person's sense of self. Of course it is. Every thought can be a part of the sense of self. It doesn't mean that identity accurately represents reality, is healthy for the individual, or should be entertained. I loved speeding when I first drove. It was part of my identity. It was something I had to get under control because it was inappropriately expressed on public roads. You can be sexist, and that be a part of your identity. No break in diachronic unity.

The interesting thing is that gender transition does not fragment diachronic unity – it restores and strengthens it. Before transition, transgender persons feel alienated from themselves, and it’s hard to imagine a future self. But following transition, their internal narrative becomes more coherent and they feel more connected to their current self. They have reclaimed their identity. — Questioner

I felt really upset when I learned I couldn't speed. It sucked, I had to leave early, drive more carefully, and it was frustrating at times. If someone told me I could speed to my hearts content I would have been elated. "I get to do what I want without restriction," feels pretty good to most people. Tons of people like being jerks to others. Some people feel 'complete' while smoking ten packs of cigarettes a day. Or drinking. Your subjective feeling of 'completeness' and connection to the self is a bit odd.

Ever been in the fetish communities? I have through research. I'm mostly what you would consider 'asexual'. Its not a major interest of mine basically, but its something I was curious about. Want to know a pattern of speech that consistently emerges? "I feel like my true self." Uh oh. "Why did you leave your husband?" "I had to find myself" (The sex wasn't good anymore, needed more sexual excitement in life)

There are fetish communities where changing their body is a turn on. There is a weight gain fetish community where people gorge themselves into obesity and say, "I'm my true self now". And hate to break it to you if you're not aware, but there are people who also have a sexual and romantic attraction to emulating the other sex. They become enamored by it and want to be it all the time finding 'their true self'. I will link sites if you need, but I don't want to link smut on this forum, and I think its against the terms of service as well. Google it yourself, you'll find it.

My point is someone saying, "I'm connected with my current self" is a subjective feeling that can mean a lot of things. People can feel really good doing things that are objectively bad for them. And participating in sexism can also feel very good an 'natural' for people. Doesn't mean its not sexist or right.

when you elevate your gender over your sex, you make your sex inferior to gender. And that is where sexism occurs.
— Philosophim

This represents a profound misunderstanding of transgender identity, and the challenges they face as they seek a life in which they can live as who they really are. — Questioner

My point that it is that my claim that gender elevated over sex is sexism has not been refuted by any of your arguments so far. Thus I have not misrepresented a transgender individual who thinks that being the other gender means they are the opposite sex and deserve the same treatment. If a person is transgender and wants to act that way in their personal life, I have no objection if they aren't being sexist about it. I also don't care about the challenges a trans gender person faces. That's irrelevant to the discussion. Everyone has challenges in life. We're not exploring a person's particular challenges, we're exploring whether gender elevated over sex is sexism or not.

So to my point again, if you deny yourself the right to cry because as a man, you believe you shouldn't cry, you're making your bodies natural capabilities inferior to your gender identity of yourself. That is sexism. I don't see any way around it.

It's an extremely tired question, but I would need to know what a 'woman' or 'man' is before the discussion goes too far. — AmadeusD

The common definition is that a woman is an adult human female, and a man is an adult human male. It is a biological referent, not a sociological one. In context, someone can parse the words man and women to be a sociological role, but this is metaphor, and not an actual indicator of actual sex. If someone called me a 'parrot' because I talked a lot, we all understand its a metaphor, not an actual claim that I am in fact a biological parrot.

Women are subjects, not objects. — Philosophim

I'm using the terms here metaphorically and structurally, not literally or grammatically

“Subject” = locus of agency and perspective
“Object” = target of action without agency

Again, a person is not an object, but a subject. Unless you're talking English grammar? In which case we're talking about very different things. — Philosophim

See above

If I view that the men should not cry, that is a gendered identity. If I view that women should always agree with men, that is a gendered identity. — Philosophim

No. This is not at all how I have been using the term "identity."

What you describe is sexist, but there is nothing linking these examples with the experience of a transgender person.

Sexism is an action that elevates one's prejudices over the biological reality of the the person. — Philosophim

To apply this to transgender persons, you would have to characterize their gender identity as a "prejudice" and I hope you can see that this is not the case.

is to propose a trans person claims an identity, then indicate why its true. — Philosophim

To whom? the gender police?

That keeps the logic organized and clear for both parties. — Philosophim

I'm not clear why anyone should justify their identity to another party.

o be transgender, you must first have a gendered opinion about the sexes. Men act like X, Women act like Y. Then, you have to pick the gender that is opposite to your sex and act that way while rejecting acting like the gender of your sex. — Philosophim

Again, a profound misunderstanding of what transgenderism is

Also, we do not take AI summaries on this board. — Philosophim

Are you sure about that? I have seen them in other threads. And the rules simply state that members are not to use AI to write their posts. I have written my own posts.

I've just noted that gender is a prejudice, and that elevating that prejudice over sex in importance fits the definition of sexism. — Philosophim

Gender is most assuredly not a "prejudice" - again:

Sexism is relational - anyone can be sexist - whether or not they are transgender - if they hold sexist views towards others - but transgenderism is about identity - it is not relational. Your point-of-view fails conceptually. Sexism is an attitude. Transgender is an identity condition.

This is just a basic stability of self. Anyone without psychosis has this. I have changed roles many times in life but I understood that all of those roles were a part of me. — Philosophim

yes, diachronic unity is something to be maintained, even with life changes

It doesn't mean that identity accurately represents reality, is healthy for the individual, or should be entertained. I loved speeding when I first drove. It was part of my identity. It was something I had to get under control because it was inappropriately expressed on public roads. You can be sexist, and that be a part of your identity. No break in diachronic unity. — Philosophim

It appears you have no conceptual understanding of what I have been trying to explain to you.

My point that it is that my claim that gender elevated over sex is sexism has not been refuted by any of your arguments so far. — Philosophim

No. Transgenderism in and of itself is not sexism. I've provided you will ample counter-arguments to this, but you're holding on to your prejudice with both hands, and maybe one foot.

So to my point again, if you deny yourself the right to cry because as a man, you believe you shouldn't cry, you're making your bodies natural capabilities inferior to your gender identity of yourself. That is sexism. I don't see any way around it. — Philosophim

Anyone's ideas about whether or not men should or should not cry is immaterial to the transgender experience. Yes, any individual can be sexist - cis or trans -

But sexism is about some people reducing others - not about which identities exist. Sexism exists in the attitude and the behavior, not in the very nature of being.

If I view that the men should not cry, that is a gendered identity. If I view that women should always agree with men, that is a gendered identity.
— Philosophim

No. This is not at all how I have been using the term "identity." — Questioner

Ah, I'm glad you entered back into the conversation with more information, but you have to understand that I can't keep track of everyone's view of identity in the thread. As this is written by me, I've asserted a definition of identity and have stuck to that. Its ok if you disagree, but since it has been a moment and I don't know if your ideas have evolved further, please clearly define what you mean by identity, gender, and gender identity.

What you describe is sexist, but there is nothing linking these examples with the experience of a transgender person. — Questioner

Again, I'll remind you that being trans gender in of itself is not sexist. It is when the gender identity elevates itself over sex. For example, a woman personally being aggressive and thinking, "I'm acting like gender I attribute to men" is fine. If she then thinks, "Because I'm acting in a gendered way I attribute to a male, I should be treated like I'm the male sex", that is sexism. And yes, there are trans gender people who act this way. To your point, this is sexist.

To apply this to transgender persons, you would have to characterize their gender identity as a "prejudice" and I hope you can see that this is not the case. — Questioner

All gender by definition is a prejudice. Again, using the very definition of gender theory which is used in terms of both cis and trans gender discussion, gender is a social construct that conveys a belief in how a sex should act socially. Any time you pre judge how someone should act, that is a prejudice. To be clear, pre judging is not in itself wrong. Any intelligent being pre judges on almost anything based on their previous experience. A prejudice is only wrong if you extend it into an 'ism'. An ism is when we value our prejudices over objective reality. That is why elevating gender over the objective reality of sex is sexist.

is to propose a trans person claims an identity, then indicate why its true.
— Philosophim

To whom? the gender police? — Questioner

That's not an answer. This also was an incomplete sentence and I could not find what you were quoting in full. In philosophical discussions we talk about terms and their truth conditions. Its not about 'the police'. Its about clearly understanding what a term is, if it can be falsified, and under what conditions it would be true or false.

That keeps the logic organized and clear for both parties.
— Philosophim

I'm not clear why anyone should justify their identity to another party. — Questioner

If you are asking the other party to accept their identity, you absolutely have to justify that. You can view yourself however you want in your head. The moment you start implying that others have to agree is the moment you need to start justifying why.

o be transgender, you must first have a gendered opinion about the sexes. Men act like X, Women act like Y. Then, you have to pick the gender that is opposite to your sex and act that way while rejecting acting like the gender of your sex.
— Philosophim

Again, a profound misunderstanding of what transgenderism is — Questioner

This is not an argument. At this point you should be presenting what trans genderism is and why it is wrong. To be charitible towards yourself, are you sure you aren't mixing up trans sexualism with trans genderism? They are not the same thing.

Also, we do not take AI summaries on this board.
— Philosophim

Are you sure about that? I have seen them in other threads. And the rules simply state that members are not to use AI to write their posts. — Questioner

I may be misinterpreting the rules then. I'm not going to entertain AI summaries because they aren't your thoughts on the article. I'm not discussing with an AI, I'm discussing with you. Again, I will give you the same treatment back.

I've just noted that gender is a prejudice, and that elevating that prejudice over sex in importance fits the definition of sexism.
— Philosophim

Gender is most assuredly not a "prejudice" - again: — Questioner

This is a disagreement or dislike with what I stated. This does not give any argument or reason why it is not a prejudice.

Sexism is relational - anyone can be sexist - whether or not they are transgender - if they hold sexist views towards others - but transgenderism is about identity - it is not relational. Your point-of-view fails conceptually. Sexism is an attitude. Transgender is an identity condition. — Questioner

I've clearly pointed out examples of sexism towards oneself. Sexism does not require two people. You can can subject yourself as the object you apply sexism towards. I've also explained that you can have sexism as part of your identity. So again, saying that being trans gender is an identity does not indicate that this identity is not prejudice.

It doesn't mean that identity accurately represents reality, is healthy for the individual, or should be entertained. I loved speeding when I first drove. It was part of my identity. It was something I had to get under control because it was inappropriately expressed on public roads. You can be sexist, and that be a part of your identity. No break in diachronic unity.
— Philosophim

It appears you have no conceptual understanding of what I have been trying to explain to you. — Questioner

Then it is your job to clarify it and explain what I don't understand if you know that I have made pains to understand your viewpoint and am open to listening to it. An answer like this without explanation is a common tactic of someone who is avoiding answering the point because they don't have an answer. Maybe you do, but answering like this does not convey that.

My point that it is that my claim that gender elevated over sex is sexism has not been refuted by any of your arguments so far.
— Philosophim

No. Transgenderism in and of itself is not sexism. — Questioner

And neither do I. Read carefully please. Being trans gender is not sexist. Elevating gender of sex is. Having a prejudice that women should cook in the kitchen is fine. Asserting that they must when they see a woman working outside of the home without any other reason than their personal attachment to that prejudice is sexism.

Anyone's ideas about whether or not men should or should not cry is immaterial to the transgender experience. — Questioner

If I am a woman who wants to be a trans gender man, and I hold that men do not cry, isn't that pertinent to the trans gender experience?

Sexism exists in the attitude and the behavior, not in the very nature of being. — Questioner

Attitudes and behaviors come from the brain right? So its part of your being if you decide to be sexist. Its not a good part of a person's being, and I would suggest they work on changing it. Just like gender right? That's part of the brain too.

I am going on vacation for a while Questioner, but I will reply when I get back. Have a wonderful holiday despite our differences on this matter!

Enough about the strawman. If you're not going to discuss the OP anymore, I'm not going to have a never ending go around on this that isn't introducing new or different information. — Philosophim

You brought up the idea of a straw man, and then you carried it on.
If you had just said "I misspoke, I didn't mean straw man" that would have been it, and I would not have held anything against you. We all misspeak.

Anyway, I'm going to leave this one for people with more patience. I think the premise of the OP is absurd and it's a bad faith thread.
Go ahead and have the last word, I'm done.

Nobody has ever questioned their gender on the basis of thinking they're aggressive or whatever, so yes I believe you've either made up your anecdotes and/or horribly misunderstood what your friends were saying. — Mijin

Absolutely. Especially among children and adolescents. My advice is to seek more points of view than you've currently seen. Everything I'm advocating in this thread has been advocated by other trans gender and trans sexual people.

Go ahead and have the last word, I'm done. — Mijin

Farewell then Mijin. I'll be on vacation so will respond when I'm back if you change your mind down the road. Have a nice holiday!

I mean, I take that view (as does the UK supreme court, and it seems a majority of hte US government too). My point is more that for this thread, I want the definitions being used. I use that one because its clear and there are words for other configurations of body/identity.

I think using clear, easy-to-parse language is good. But that doesn't make it right. If I can be given a decent definition by an opponent, ill use it in the arguments.

Thank you! That's a rare compliment. Also thank you for drilling into it more, its good to test it further. — Philosophim

You're welcome.

But suddenly the man thinks because they've dressed a particular way, and that they enjoy doing this so much, that they must be an actual woman. That is sexist. That is taking an expectation of how women should act, then identifying yourself with the sex of that woman. If the man thinks, "I should be able to go where women are because I'm a woman," that's sexist. The reality is this is a man who enjoys certain behavior some would prejudice towards women. But the enactment of that behavior in no way makes that man a woman. — Philosophim

Would it then follow on your view that the woman who uses a woman's bathroom because she looks like a woman rather than because she is a woman, is engaged in sexism? Or it this incorrect because she is not acting "over and against" sex?

To speak quickly, I think one difficulty with the position is that sex and gender actually are interrelated in a social sense, especially if we consider everything pertaining to appearance as pertaining to gender. If we get away from the rule which says that everyone who looks like a woman should use the women's bathroom, and everyone who looks like a man should use the men's bathroom, then it's not clear how we will "police" bathroom use without invasions of privacy.

Second, it's not clear what the error actually consists in, namely, "Elevating gender over and against sex." It seems to me that if we enforce that consistently, then we can never talk about gender in a way that does not presuppose sex. I guess I'm okay with that, but is that what you're saying? If not, what does it mean to elevate gender over and against sex? And instead of mere examples I would need an actual explanation of what this means. (Does it mean something like believing that one's gender is more important than one's sex, and is contrary to one's sex, and acting on that belief while at the same time requiring others to do the same? I.e. creating public policies that are gender-based rather than sex-based?)