There certainly are more differences between bats and humans than there are between boys and girls, but they're still different. The differences are physical as well as social. There certainly is a "girl role" that is "imposed" on girls, but that role is part of their identity. A boy who'd like to live in that role will not have had the same experiences as the girl. — Relativist

Eh, I'm pretty much limiting myself to the more general question rather than digging into the specifics of gender theory, here. How this might work at with regards to specifics would be up to those people who identify as such and such, according to my theory. Not being transgender I'm fairly hesitant to begin generalizing in that area.

To be gay is to be homosexual, — Sapientia

Incisive, oh wise one!

which is to be sexually attracted to people of one's own sex — Sapientia

Gay-homosexual-attracted to people of one's own sex - mastery of the subject matter! I am learning!

or exclusively so — Sapientia

"or"? What is this "or"? It seems very much a "fish" in the punchbowl. What does it mean?

You could've gotten that from a dictionary. And yes, that definition could be pedantically picked apart like practically any other definition, with the words "game" and "chair" being good examples. But that doesn't mean that the meaning is a mystery or that there is no meaning at all. Get a grip, lad. — Sapientia

And that's rather the whole point, isn't it? We all seem to know, in some sense, what "gay" is - or is in our particular application it. And you're right, most definitions can be picked apart. Which just means that whatever you build your definition on, can be, will be washed away in a seaway. That "or" of yours above just blows it all up - but I think you've done the best you can do.

Maybe it's the best anyone can do. The considered judgment of my former colleagues, that you dismiss, was the result of thoughtful discussion over time. The general method was, they would offer a "standard." I would counter, "Does that mean if a male does/think/acts X that he is thereby a homosexual?" To their credit*, they had to acknowledge that all those criteria, whatever they were, taken separately or together, were not and could not be by themselves conclusive. That leaves self-identity or identity-by-others. By-others has got to be suspect. that leaves self-identity, for what its worth and the worth of any self-identification as anything at all, is open to question or at least qualification.

So I offer this as a definition of "homosexual": whatever a self-proclaimed homosexual says it is, whenever it should please him to say it.

*They had even less patience with my questions than you do. They were smart, educated, gay social workers providing services to the general community and the LGBTQ community in particular. In a sense they were experienced professionally gay people. Their answer to my question, then, could not have been "stupid."

Incisive, oh wise one!

Gay-homosexual-attracted to people of one's own sex - mastery of the subject matter! I am learning! — tim wood

Well, it's not rocket science, is it? What did you expect? You're basically asking me to teach you how to suck eggs.

"or"? What is this "or"? It seems very much a "fish" in the punchbowl. What does it mean? — tim wood

If you genuinely didn't know what "gay" is, then it wouldn't be so outlandish if you also didn't know what "or" is. What other common English words are you unfamiliar with? You seem to understand the words that I'm using in conversation with you well enough, and you don't seem all that surprised when I reveal the meaning to you. Could it be that you've had this knowledge all along, and are in fact just putting on a show, for some reason unbeknownst to me?

For your information, I used the word "or" to indicate that there is more than one interpretation.

The considered judgment of my former colleagues, that you dismiss, was the result of thoughtful discussion over time. — tim wood

Yes, philosophy can have that effect. Nothing remarkable there. Sometimes it's almost as though the more you think about something, the more stupid your conclusion will be. It's a phenomenon known as overthinking. I trust you have first-hand experience of it, so I shouldn't really need to explain it to you. Sometimes, and especially in philosophy, we fail to see what's right in front of us, and go searching for answers elsewhere. It's like a blind spot.

So I offer this as a definition of "homosexual": whatever a self-proclaimed homosexual says it is, whenever it should please him to say it. — tim wood

That's a good one! :lol:

*They had even less patience with my questions than you do. They were smart, educated, gay social workers providing services to the general community and the LGBTQ community in particular. In a sense they were experienced professionally gay people. Their answer to my question, then, could not have been "stupid." — tim wood

No, you're wrong there. One can be all of that and more, yet still come out with a stupid answer to a simple question.

So I offer this as a definition of "homosexual": whatever a self-proclaimed homosexual says it is, whenever it should please him to say it. — tim wood

You can't possibly believe this?

You can't possibly believe this? — Snakes Alive

It's philosophy. Nothing surprises me anymore.

You can't possibly believe this? — Snakes Alive

Well, according Sapientia, there's no rocket science here. Keeping in mind that all he offers is seat-of-the-pants navigation, what do you have that's better? We all seem to agree (I think) that there is no "acid" test.

Yes, there is no rocket science here. What I offer is common sense, and what you offer is absurdity as a result of overthinking. If Snakes Alive is a sensible fellow, then he'll agree with me and reject your nonsense. There's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as you have done. Just because we both might agree that seeking a perfect definition is a bit like seeking the philosopher's stone, that doesn't mean that we should therefore abandon our senses and conclude that there can be no definition or that anything goes.

Well, according Sapientia, there's no rocket science here. Keeping in mind that all he offers is seat-of-the-pants navigation, what do you have that's better? We all seem to agree (I think) that there is no "acid" test. — tim wood

I think that a homosexual is someone who is exclusively sexually attracted to members of their own sex.

But I do know what it is like to be myself. — Moliere

Do you?

Is there a thing that it is like to be Molie?

How would you tell? Since you can't know what it is like to be a bat, how can you differentiate what it is like to be Molie?

That is, the whole what it is like to be... is logically fraught.

This isn't right. There are simple answers one can give to the question – it sucks, it feels great, it's fun, it has its ups and downs, etc.

The principle appealed to here, that one can't know what it's like to be oneself without being something else, I see no reason to believe.

There are simple answers one can give to the question – it sucks, it feels great, it's fun, it has its ups and downs, etc. — Snakes Alive

So you are happy that there is no difference between "How are you feeling?" and "What is it like to be you?"

As if how you feel is not subject to change...

Your feeling of what it is like to be you changes without your noticing. Then it cannot be part of what it is to be you; and not what makes you who you are...

Because how you feel might change continually.

Existence precedes essence. So your individuality, your being that person, comes before any characteristics that you might later take on.

And that includes Gender. The fact of one's physique historically provided the expectation that one fulfil either of two gender roles.

Recognising that there is not a something-that-it-is-like-to-feel-male, not a something-that-it-is-like-to-feel-female, deflates this expectation, exposing it as a now-defunct social norm.

Or if you prefer an more analytic analysis, an individual is pointed out by a rigid designator, for whom no specific characteristics are necessary.

Including being a man or a woman.

Again, check out Rebecca Reilly-Cooper.

So you are happy that there is no difference between "How are you feeling?" and "What is it like to be you?" — Banno

The former seems to imply a stage-level or momentary inquiry, the latter an individual-level or habitual inquiry.

Hence the error here:

As if how you feel is not subject to change... — Banno

Because how you feel might change continually. — Banno

Nonetheless, there are patterns characteristic of the way one feels over time.

Ok. Put it like this. You cannot know what it feels like to be a woman, because you do not have access to how other women feel about themselves.

you do not have access to how other women feel about themselves. — Banno

Why not?

How?

They could tell you, you could notice their reactions to things, etc.

↪Banno They could tell you, you could notice their reactions to things, etc. — Snakes Alive

And how could you know that you understood them correctly?

Moreover, how could you be sure that you feel something that all other women also feel?

What is it like to be a woman/man?

Do all women feel the same way about themselves? Men? Do they all share the same beliefs?

Looks like the entire enterprise is based upon gross overgeneralization.

If more than one answer is acceptable, then...

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you expressing skepticism about the ability to communicate feelings through linguistic reports or actions?

Do you?

Is there a thing that it is like to be Molie?

How would you tell? Since you can't know what it is like to be a bat, how can you differentiate what it is like to be Molie? — Banno

Have you ever felt like you were not yourself? Or perhaps you felt you were not true to yourself. Surely if you know yourself, then you do know what it is like to be yourself.

I'm not sure there is a thing that it is like to be myself. But there is a what it is like to by myself. The "it" is a little more generic, and needn't be an actual thing. It's not like there is a chair which it is like to be myself.

It seems to me that you can tell what something is like by two means -- being it, or feeling it.

That is, the whole what it is like to be... is logically fraught.

I'm not so sure here. But it's not necessarily the greatest thing ever, either. It's just a common frame of reference, a decent enough way of talking about interiority.

Your feeling of what it is like to be you changes without your noticing. Then it cannot be part of what it is to be you; and not what makes you who you are...

Because how you feel might change continually. — Banno

Not to me, but worth noting for myself at least. I don't think I'm arguing for essence in the above. That's a side issue. That we change doesn't bother me -- of course we do. We aren't static beings, after all.

Listen to the red tent link.

Sure. Listening now.

All individuals possess an innate essential gender that is independent of both their biological sex and the gender they were raised as, and this innate essential gender is the sole definition of gender that should be recognized for social, political, and legal purposes.

Seems at odds with anything I'm saying, but I'm listening.

...and is exactly what Rebecca is arguing against... So do you agree wiht what she says?

Still listening to it. 25 minutes in.

All individuals possess an innate essential gender that is independent of both their biological sex and the gender they were raised as, and this innate essential gender is the sole definition of gender that should be recognized for social, political, and legal purposes.

Seems at odds with anything I'm saying, but I'm listening. — Moliere

Seems like a straw person to me. There is perhaps a solid stick hidden in the straw, which one might assent to, which is that "I" am independent (potentially) from both my biology and my socialisation; I am free to make up my own games, and do not have to play your games. And at that point, the long and tedious argument that my games are made up loses it's force, because societies' games are also made up.

It is a biological fact that people are 6 ft or over, or less than six ft. That some people wear high heels in an attempt to pass as tall, and others slouch in an attempt to pass as short, does nothing to undermine this; they do not have an innate essential height that is independent of their ...bla bla.

The protection offered by separate changing rooms for shorties is sacrosanct and slouching tallies must not be allowed to undermine it, even if they have had surgery to shorten their legs. Or to put it more plainly, why do we care so much? My answer is that it is a matter of identity, and identity is always defined in terms of difference. What it is like to be a man, is the way in which it is different from being a woman. So ambiguous, androgynous, mixed-up people are a threat to my identity - in effect a threat to my life. Hence the persecution of deviance of all kinds.