For clarity I am using sex, male, female; and gender, man, woman.

Hence a male who says they are female is ipso facto wrong. However there is nothing problematic in a male who says she is a woman.

When she says that her manner of speaking is an important part of who she is and would rather not be told how to apply 'Mr' and 'Mrs' but would rather the autonomy to apply them in the way that best expresses how she feels. — Pseudonym

It's a question of common curtesy to address someone as they prefer to be addressed. Mary's refusal to show basic respect for another person tells us something about Mary. Perhaps that she has far too great a concern for the contents of other people's underwear. But also a fear of people who are just a bit different.

It's a question of common curtesy to address someone as they prefer to be addressed. Mary's refusal to show basic respect for another person tells us something about Mary. Perhaps that she has far too great a concern for the contents of other people's underwear. But also a fear of people who are just a bit different. — Banno

No it isn't. If someone wishes to be addressed as 'lord' it is not common courtesy to comply with that request. If someone wishes to be addressed as 'bitch' it is not common courtesy to comply with that request. Language is a two-way process of agreeing how we should refer to things. The agreements we arrive a say a lot (some would argue, everything) about who we are and how we understand the world. It is disrespectful of autonomy for one person to consider they have the authority to determine language use alone in the exchange.

What tells us something is that you consider yourself to be sufficiently authoritative to suggest that Mary's 'concern' for the contents of other people's underwear is 'too great'. Maybe, in Mary's world-view, addressing people according to the contents of their underwear is an important part of how she sees the world, maybe not hugely important (that would be weird) but as significant as the clothes she wears or the style of her hair. It may be that Mary would prefer not to acknowledge the concept of 'feeling like' a woman, and for her, the only way to do this is to apply gender terms on strictly biological grounds. If that upsets people, then some kind of compromise is required, but this doesn't make Mary a bigot, it's just part of how we try to get on with one another despite our differences.

If someone wishes to be addressed as 'lord' it is not common courtesy to comply with that request. — Pseudonym

Sure it is.

You think there is a symmetry between John and Mary. There isn't.

It might be what you think of as courtesy but I can assure you it most certainly is not 'common'. Try it and see how many people comply.

To tell them that they are no longer allowed to express that world-view requires a discussion about relative harms, not a slagging match. — Pseudonym

To expand the discussion to "worldview" is making matters murkier, I think. To respect the way an individual chooses to be addressed is common courtesy. And each individual chooses that for themselves (although their parents give them their names when they're born, as has been noted). That's how it works. I determine how I would like to be addressed, and you respect this. In return, you decide how you wish to be addressed, and I (and everyone else) respect your wishes in return.

Worldview is a separate matter, and does not (IMO) have the same force as someone asking us to address them in a particular way. The latter is much more personal than the former, I think. And this discussion concerns the latter, not the former. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that introducing 'worldview' is at all helpful here. :joke:

That's not what is in my dictionary. But then, i'm using the Oxford, not one I wrote myself. — Banno

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/man
Man: An adult human male.
Woman: An adult human female.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/man
Man: an individual human; especially : an adult male human
Woman: an adult female person

As you can clearly see, I am using actual dictionaries. You have yet to provide any link to the definition you are using. So, who is it again that is making stuff up?

A man is a category for a particular sex/gender of a certain species, just as a buck and a bull are. Males are just a more general category that doesn't make a distinction between species - only between sex/gender.

It is physical, but it is not a sexual trait. It's not even a biological trait. Things like the maximum length hair can grow to are, but aligning short/long hair to masculine/feminine is not. There are myriad examples of non-sexual masculine/feminine entities. — Moliere

Again, if both men and women can do something, like grow/cut hair and wear/not wear makeup, then there is no point in making a distinction of masculine/feminine between these behaviors. Again, the distinction lies in the boundaries between cultures, not between sex or gender.

EDIT: Just to highlight -- feelings are the arbiters of truth with respect to identity, not all beliefs. — Moliere

We already went over this :roll: Again, I refer you to our friend that believes that they are Jesus. We're just going around in circles. How do you break out of this circle of inconsistency?

To respect the way an individual chooses to be addressed is common courtesy. And each individual chooses that for themselves (although their parents give them their names when they're born, as has been noted). That's how it works. I determine how I would like to be addressed, and you respect this. In return, you decide how you wish to be addressed, and I (and everyone else) respect your wishes in return. — Pattern-chaser

You're just reiterating what I've already discussed with Banno without actually addressing the arguments. It is definitely not a matter of common courtesy to address people how they would like to be addressed. If I asked people to address me a 'lord' because I felt I was a god, it would not be common courtesy to comply with that request. Absolutely no one would comply. If I asked to be called by some word other people found offensive, absolutely no one would comply with that request. I don't know where you're getting this idea from that normal courtesy is to use all words that refer to people in the way those people prefer. It's simply not the case.

Words like 'him' and 'her' are used in different ways by different people and their use reflects the world-view of the people using them. I think you're mistaking 'not helpful' with 'not agreeing with me'.

Again, if both men and women can do something, like grow/cut hair and wear/not wear makeup, then there is no point in making a distinction of masculine/feminine between these behaviors. Again, the distinction lies in the boundaries between cultures, not between sex or gender. — Harry Hindu

There may not be a point to you -- but it would be foolish to believe that there is no such distinction. And, in fact, the distinction is very important to some people.

How do you break out of this circle of inconsistency? — Harry Hindu

Well, this is where I pointed out that there are facts to the matter with Jesus, and you then said there are facts of the matter to gender -- but then proceeded to conflate sex with gender with gender-identity on the basis of, what I take from your above, that there was "no point" to these distinctions, and that I was offering something too vague for your taste -- that my view was "incoherent" on that basis.

The separation between the three being biological, sociological, and psychological facts and how we ascertain these things. There's nothing incoherent in applying different methods to determine different sorts of facts, though. It would be foolish to believe there was only one method for determining truth and to use other methods is inconsistent -- mostly because you'd miss out on the varied ways we do, in fact, determine the truth.

The separation between the three being biological, sociological, and psychological facts and how we ascertain these things. There's nothing incoherent in applying different methods to determine different sorts of facts, though. It would be foolish to believe there was only one method for determining truth and to use other methods is inconsistent -- mostly because you'd miss out on the varied ways we do, in fact, determine the truth. — Moliere

This I agree with. One cannot dispute the psychological fact of feeling, but feeling 'like you're a woman' applies a meaning to the term 'woman' that is not universal. So the psychological truth is that they feel something which they describe as "feeling like a woman". To understand and to be sympathetic to these feelings requires that we understand their meaning of the word 'woman'. But being sympathetic to their use of the term does not (should not) involve us using the term as they understand it in all our conversations with them. Conversations are a two way thing. One party does not simply dictate the meaning of the terms used to the other, and they certainly don't get to label anyone as a bigot for not complying.

John says "I'm a woman" - meaning that he feels like he is something which he would describe as 'a woman'. It's important to him that his feelings on this are respected because having other people acknowledge his feelings is an important part of being in a social group.

Mary says "you are not a woman" - meaning that the thing she associates with term 'woman' is something you're born with, it has meaning to her that womanhood is nothing more than your biological status because she (as a biological woman) wants to feel she can be anything she wants to be. She feels a bond with those previously oppressed for their biological status and its important to her to have her feelings about this definition respected.

How is one oppressed and the other a bigot?

Is it the meaning that's being dictated, or is it a demand to be treated with respect? A demand is being made -- I'll grant that. But I think there are circumstances where demands are warranted. And I think that the demand here is one of social recognition and basic respect.

Consider a man named William who prefers to be called Bill. Should someone else get to insist that since his legal name is William that they will continue to call them William on that basis? I'd say that Bill's demand to be referred to by his preferred nomination takes priority, in spite of the social nature of meaning. They just feel like a Bill -- down-to-earth, not making much fuss, not prissy; not like a William. Now in this example perhaps there is about one or two persons who he runs up against who are like this, and he finds them fairly annoying. But imagine a world where you have to argue for something as basic as your preferred nomination with a large percentage of the population. Might your demand, in those circumstances, often come across as a little bit brash out of sheer irritation for having to ask for this basic respect yet again?

But Bill and William are simply references, they have no other meaning, so the request is a neutral one. The meaning of the word William doesn't have any significant connotations, nor reflect any major world-view. This is not the case with - 'woman' or 'him/her', they are extremely loaded words with years of oppression, struggle and social demand packed into them. It is not a simple request to ask others to use them in the way you personally see fit.

If I asked people to address me a 'lord' because I felt I was a god, it would not be common courtesy to comply with that request. Absolutely no one would comply. — Pseudonym

Courtesy is a two-way thing. It requires 'decent' behaviour from all parties. So you, being courteous, would not make such an unreasonable request of others as to address you as "Lord". Courtesy allows plain speech without (?) it leading to violence. That's what it's for. And when someone makes a request - such as "please address me as she/her" - which harms no-one, there's no reason to refuse, is there? :chin:

when someone makes a request - such as "please address me as she/her" - which harms no-one, there's no reason to refuse, is there? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

But I've just given reasons to refuse, you've just ignored them without response. Why is it unreasonable to ask that I'm addressed as 'lord'?

Why is it unreasonable to ask that I'm addressed as 'lord'? — Pseudonym

If you don't know the answer to your question, there's little point in my explaining. Courtesy is a two-way thing, as I said, and it requires a little tolerance and flexibility on all sides.

Words like 'him' and 'her' are used in different ways by different people and their use reflects the world-view of the people using them. I think you're mistaking 'not helpful' with 'not agreeing with me' — Pseudonym

I hope not. :up: But the topic here and now is gender/sex, not worldview. There is no agreement here on how worldview relates to gender issues, or whether it's helpful in discussing them. You have introduced it as an external (to the OP) comparison, but why?

Some people's worldview leads them to want to address people with skin darker than their own using terms that are universally accepted to be offensive. In this case, worldview does not decide the matter. Perhaps this is also the case for gender issues? :chin:

If you don't know the answer to your question, there's little point in my explaining. — Pattern-chaser

Seems an odd response. I'd have thought that my no knowing the answer was pretty much the only case in which there would be any point in your explaining.

Still, the question was aimed to get at your reasons, I'm not assuming there's such a thing a the universal reason. My reason would be that 'lord' means something important to some people and I am not that thing. It would therefore be offensive for me to ask them to use the term in my way. But the same applies to 'woman' and you're happy for others to dictate how that term is applied. Hence I'm wondering what your reason could be.

the topic here and now is gender/sex, not worldview. There is no agreement here on how worldview relates to gender issues, or whether it's helpful in discussing them. — Pattern-chaser

Beliefs about gender and sex are part of one's world-view. I don't understand the distinction you're making between the two.

Some people's worldview leads them to want to address people with skin darker than their own using terms that are universally accepted to be offensive. In this case, worldview does not decide the matter. Perhaps this is also the case for gender issues? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

No, the difference is that those people wish to use terms which even they agree are offensive. Terms which they themselves would be offended by if they were used on them. The very purpose is to offend. Its not the same at all.

My reason would be that 'lord' means something important to some people and I am not that thing. It would therefore be offensive for me to ask them to use the term in my way. — Pseudonym

And I might observe that, as you say, lord describes a particular rank (or similar), and you don't hold that rank. It would not be offensive for you to ask to be called "lord", but it would be deceptive and misleading, and that's why it is unreasonable. Nothing to do (directly) with anyone's worldview.

Beliefs about gender and sex are part of one's world-view. I don't understand the distinction you're making between the two. — Pseudonym

Beliefs are part of one's worldview, just as sex and gender are. So are political persuasions, loyalty to football teams or one's employer, animal rights, environmental issues, and so forth. Worldview embraces a huge amount of stuff, of which sex/gender are just one small component. It isn't helpful trying to use such a big term in such a small arena as this one. I'm not making a distinction, I'm arguing that the inclusion of worldview, something that applies to half the universe, in a small and contained discussion like this one, is unhelpful.

, lord describes a particular rank (or similar), and you don't hold that rank. It would not be offensive for you to ask to be called "lord", but it would be deceptive and misleading, and that's why it is unreasonable. — Pattern-chaser

But that's only according to your definition of 'lord'. Mine is someone who is lordly as in 'our lord Jesus Christ' and so if I claim that's the way I feel, why would you (or anyone else) not address me ad such. And you haven't answered my point about offensive terms either. There's no 'fact of the mattter' about offensive terms so, if I asked you to refer to me by some word you find horribly offensive would you do so?

It isn't helpful trying to use such a big term in such a small arena as this one. I'm not making a distinction, I'm arguing that the inclusion of worldview, something that applies to half the universe, in a small and contained discussion like this one, is unhelpful. — Pattern-chaser

Firstly, I meant 'that part of a person's world-view which relates to sex and gender' I just didn't feel it was necessary to write the whole thing out, but secondly I also note you've still not explained how it was unhelpful. What is the task we're trying to achieve here, and how does mentioning world-views make it less likely we'll succeed?

But that's only according to your definition of 'lord'. Mine is someone who is lordly as in 'our lord Jesus Christ'... — Pseudonym

So we both use the term to denote a "particular rank (or similar)", as I wrote. :up: But you are no more God than you are a Lord of the land, so you would still be seeking to deceive or mislead, n'est ce pas? :wink:

I meant 'that part of a person's world-view which relates to sex and gender' I just didn't feel it was necessary to write the whole thing out, but secondly I also note you've still not explained how it was unhelpful. What is the task we're trying to achieve here, and how does mentioning world-views make it less likely we'll succeed? — Pseudonym

As for the task we're trying to achieve; ask @Banno, whose topic it is. :up: :smile: Bringing worldviews into a small and (one might think) contained discussion like this one is unhelpful because it's such a widely-applying thing. It applies to (nearly) everything. You might as well try to link-in living in a Western 'democracy', which would muddy the waters even further. :wink:

The 'fact of the matter' is that worldview is an external view, whereas I think we're discussing self-image here (or something pretty close to it), an internal or introspective viewpoint. The two might be seen as complementary, but that's their only relationship. On the one hand, we have the way someone sees themselves, and on the other, you introduce worldview, which is the way everyone else sees them. Two quite contrary perspectives, as I'm sure you agree. :up:

So we both use the term to denote a "particular rank (or similar)", as I wrote. :up: But you are no more God than you are a Lord of the land, so you would still be seeking to deceive or mislead, n'est ce pas? :wink: — Pattern-chaser

No, I'm using the term to describe someone who is deserving of that rank, not one who legally possesses it. So it remains possible for to request you refer to me as 'my lord' by my definition of 'lord'. Also, I note you still haven't answered the question about what you would do if I asked you to refer to me by a word you found deeply offensive. What about if I made up a new word with my own meaning, what about if I asked you to refer to my race as 'African' (I'm white, but I ultimately come from Africa), what about if I asked you to always describe me as very wise because I feel very wise and wisdom is not an objectively measurable thing? I could go on. The idea that I get to dictate how you use any language which refers to me is ludicrous.

On the one hand, we have the way someone sees themselves, and on the other, you introduce worldview, which is the way everyone else sees them. Two quite contrary perspectives, as I'm sure you agree. :up: — Pattern-chaser

Yes, so why do the conclusions from one dictate language use and the conclusion from the other must be ignored because they're 'unhelpful' ?

Yes, so why do the conclusions from one dictate language use and the conclusion from the other must be ignored because they're 'unhelpful' ? — Pseudonym

To start with, almost nothing dictates language use. In this topic, we are (I think) discussing how people request others to address them in a particular way. It is not helpful to list possible objections that others may have, as you have done, and are doing. Such things are not, and should not be, "ignored". But you are extending a discussion before its fundament has been properly understood, which just makes the whole thing a lot more difficult.

When we are clear on how people should be addressed, and under what circumstances it is reasonable for them to ask to be addressed in a particular way, maybe then we can proceed to considering whether others might have difficulties with this, and whether this is reasonable of them?

Also, I note you still haven't answered the question about what you would do if I asked you to refer to me by a word you found deeply offensive. — Pseudonym

I probably wouldn't do it. But why do you concentrate so heavily on breaking courtesy? It's not a difficult thing to do. But it is counter-productive. Courtesy is a two-way, co-operative, thing. It can't and won't work if all you want to do is to break it down. Courtesy is something we all must work at, because the alternative is a lot more violence, which achieves nothing.

If I ask you to refer to me as 'she/her', it's not like I'm demanding or mandating that you must call me "Pseudonym-is-a-fucking-prick"! I'm not looking to attack you, only to reflect the 'real' me, as I understand it. Will you not do me the courtesy, the favour, of doing as I ask? I will try hard to accommodate your needs in return, if that will help you decide? This is what courtesy is about, and this, I think, is what this topic is about.

[ Edited to add: I'm actually a cis male, and quite happy with being addressed as 'him/he', in line with the penis I carry in my trousers. But not everyone is happy with this, hence this topic. ]

I'm using the term to describe someone who is deserving of that rank — Pseudonym

Then they are entitled to be addressed accordingly. ... As long as they really are "deserving of that rank". :chin: :chin: :chin:

In this topic, we are (I think) discussing how people request others to address them in a particular way. It is not helpful to list possible objections that others may have, as you have done, and are doing. — Pattern-chaser

I really don't see anyone objecting to this first part, so we have almost universal agreement that people are entitled to make such a request. The part I'm concerned about is what happens next. When someone like Harry comes along and says, "no thank you, I'd rather not" and is labelled a bigot for doing so. The reasonableness of the objections of others to using the terms is the only point of debate.

When we are clear on how people should be addressed, and under what circumstances it is reasonable for them to ask to be addressed in a particular way, maybe then we can proceed to considering whether others might have difficulties with this, and whether this is reasonable of them? — Pattern-chaser

No, we can't work that way because the reasonable objection of some portion of the rest of the population surely must weigh in the decision about how people 'should' be addressed.

I probably wouldn't do it. But why do you concentrate so heavily on breaking courtesy? — Pattern-chaser

Because you said it was common courtesy to call someone by the term they prefer. You brought courtesy up and now your complaining that I'm focusing on it?

Courtesy is a two-way, co-operative, thing. — Pattern-chaser

Exactly, so why is your definition of courtesy that I call you by whatever terms you prefer without asking or caring how that might make me feel? That doesn't sound very two-way to me.

If I ask you to refer to me as 'she/her', it's not like I'm demanding or mandating that you must call me "Pseudonym-is-a-fucking-prick"! I'm not looking to attack you, only to reflect the 'real' me, as I understand it. Will you not do me the courtesy, the favour, of doing as I ask? I will try hard to accommodate your needs in return, if that will help you decide? This is what courtesy is about, and this, I think, is what this topic is about. — Pattern-chaser

No, that's not what's happening here at all. People are being told to refer to trans men as 'her', they are being mandated (by threat of ostracisation and insult), no one is asking how it makes them feel or listening to their concerns, no one is trying to accommodate their needs in return. None of this is happening in this discussion. The demand has been entirely that we should all refer to people by their chosen title and if we don't we're intolerant bigots. No one's even asked how it makes us feel or what they can do in return.

When someone like Harry comes along and says, "no thank you, I'd rather not" and is labelled a bigot for doing so. — Pseudonym

Now that is a creative way of stating it! Harry has repeatedly denounced and condemned (I use those terms after careful consideration) trans-gender people as "deluded", and their feelings as "delusions". He has stated over and over his outrage at being 'forced' to pander to the delusions of others. I rather think it's this that brands him a bigot, don't you? :chin: :razz:

Because you said it was common courtesy to call someone by the term they prefer. You brought courtesy up and now your complaining that I'm focusing on it? — Pseudonym

Not because you're focusing on it, but because you're trying to break it.

they are being mandated (by threat of ostracisation and insult) — Pseudonym

Social pressure is not reasonable or rational. It's red in tooth and claw, if I can steal a phrase from elsewhere. :wink: If we approve of it, we call it one thing, and if we don't, we call it another. In your case, mandation (??? :smile:) "by threat of ostracisation and insult". If we disapprove of the way our children are raised, we call it brainwashing, but if not, we call it education. It's the same thing. And social pressure is not subject to courtesy, sadly. :meh:

Harry has repeatedly denounced and condemned (I use those terms after careful consideration) trans-gender people as "deluded", and their feelings as "delusions". He has stated over and over his outrage at being 'forced' to pander to the delusions of others. I rather think it's this that brands him a bigot, don't you? — Pattern-chaser

No, not really. I've certainly no sympathy for his views in this regard, but I don't think anyone should be labelled a bigot for theorising that believing yourself to be a woman (despite being born a man) might be a delusion in the same vein as believing yourself to be fat when in fact you are thin. Men may well wish to wear dresses, or make-up, but again, no one, including Harry, is denying that. What concerns some people is that the conviction one 'is' something which requires surgery to realise might be a harmful delusion. I don't share that belief, but I don't see how it's bigotry.

Not because you're focusing on it, but because you're trying to break it. — Pattern-chaser

No, I'm arguing that it has already been broken by dismissing the concerns of feminists that the hundreds of years of fighting against being told they are some predetermined 'thing', might be undermined by pressure to use language as if gender was predetermined.

Social pressure is not reasonable or rational. It's red in tooth and claw, if I can steal a phrase from elsewhere. :wink: If we approve of it, we call it one thing, and if we don't, we call it another. In your case, mandation (??? :smile:) "by threat of ostracisation and insult". If we disapprove of the way our children are raised, we call it brainwashing, but if not, we call it education. It's the same thing. And social pressure is not subject to courtesy, sadly. :meh: — Pattern-chaser

Now you seem to be throwing up your hands to ethics. Which is it to be? Are we talking about they way people should behave, or they way they do? You can't argue that people should use the preferred terms of reference and then respond to my concerns about inappropriate social pressure with a shrug.

John says "I'm a woman" - meaning that he feels like he is something which he would describe as 'a woman'. It's important to him that his feelings on this are respected because having other people acknowledge his feelings is an important part of being in a social group.

Mary says "you are not a woman" - meaning that the thing she associates with term 'woman' is something you're born with, it has meaning to her that womanhood is nothing more than your biological status because she (as a biological woman) wants to feel she can be anything she wants to be. She feels a bond with those previously oppressed for their biological status and its important to her to have her feelings about this definition respected.

How is one oppressed and the other a bigot? — Pseudonym

Well, let's leave oppression to the side for now. My direct answer to the question would be that this isn't a dichotomy, that there are multiple classes of people who are oppressed, but this would take us pretty far astray.

Also, in the manner you are describing here -- in the hypothetical -- you're making the dispute about meaning, it seems to me. Where the argument is over the proper, right, or true meaning of the term "woman". So what we have is two people talking past one another. Naturally Mary is not a bigot. They're just confused about what's being talked about due to the phonetic similarities of the words they are using.

But I suspect that the phrases used in practice "I am a woman" or "You are not a woman" do not hinge on the meaning of "woman". They are words being put to use, and what is in dispute is the identity of a person.

Some aspects of identity are social. If I am a teacher then that means I hold a license to teach, I am given income and benefits for my efforts in teaching, and -- so we hope -- I actually do teach students.

Some aspects of identity are not social -- they are personal. They are impressed on and expressed by the person who is the identity. If I am a pluviophile it's something I know about myself, and I can tell you that I am a pluviophile but you won't feel the joy I feel when it rains. You can develop metrics of a sort to determine whether I am who I say I am -- perhaps you'd expect me to sit on the porch when it rains, or to treat you more kindly than average when it rains. But the metrics wouldn't be the feeling, and I would be the one in the best position to determine whether what I say about myself is true -- since I do, at least, feel my feelings, where you do not. After all perhaps I come from a culture where joy is expressed differently. I also may be wrong about my feelings, but I have the benefit of feeling them.



So I'd say the question here turns on one, how do we determine the personal identity, like the case of the pluviophile, of others?, and two, what is appropriate in such determinations? In short form my answer is: by asking to the former question and listening to the latter question. And that naturally leads me to say that Jane, formally called John, is in the right above, whereas Mary is in the wrong. Mary can say "I am a woman", just as Jane can say "I am a woman" -- and if they listened to one another they would both be able to express their identity and understand where they are coming from.

Transgender individuals being treated in accord with their gender-identity does not erase the very real struggles of women, or the identities of women. I'd say that it offers an expansion of identity that allows for the feelings of both the hypothetical Mary and John. Both Mary and John are accorded the respect they deserve as individuals with their own feelings on their identity.

But Bill and William are simply references, they have no other meaning, so the request is a neutral one. The meaning of the word William doesn't have any significant connotations, nor reflect any major world-view. This is not the case with - 'woman' or 'him/her', they are extremely loaded words with years of oppression, struggle and social demand packed into them. It is not a simple request to ask others to use them in the way you personally see fit — Pseudonym

I am sympathetic to looking at how words have and are used through time, to the specificity of individuals, to details. I think that this is why I've been drawing examples such as depression, pluviophilia, race, sexuality, and so forth with respect to transgender identity. There are enough similarities here to see a kind of grouping with respect to how it is we determine so and so is this or that, as well as to attempt a generalization towards an ethic of identity.

I'd say that transgender identity is so unlike the belief that you are Jesus, for instance, that this is a case that falls by the wayside -- for the technical reasons I specified, such as historicity and the methodology in determining the interior lives of others, but also in a more commonsense way. They just don't seem related at all.

Though I'll admit that if someone really pressed me to call them Jesus, and I came to believe that this is really how they felt and it makes them feel happier to be called Jesus, while I certainly wouldn't believe him to be that Jesus -- given the historical nature of the man -- I'd be willing to accommodate them.