Your response seems contradictory - on the one hand you want to affirm the flexibility of language in responding to different contexts, yet on the other hand you want to affirm the utter inflexibility of language as tether to certain context and not others. But if you admit the former, I don’t see how you can hold the latter. You say that genitalia is ‘hugely important’ for nothing rooms - why? There’s nothing, literally nothing, about language that makes this so.

Language does not proscribe how we act: we, in our actions, proscribe how language is used. Linguistic use is an action. Reversing the relation to perversive some imaginary ‘markers of progress’ (what ‘progress?’ Toward what? Some ideal? Of what? But language does not mirror any ideal, not even provisionally, as Wittgenstein pointed out over and over) is nothing other than arbitrarily reifying some uses of language because - what? - that’s how we currently use words? But who cares? The point is to change the use. If you or anyone else is so threatened by gender unintelligibility that others must pay the price for your intellectual confusion speaks not to the problems of others, but to problems that are yours and yours alone.

You say that genitalia is ‘hugely important’ for nothing rooms - why? There’s nothing, literally nothing, about language that makes this so. — StreetlightX

It's not the language that makes it so, it's the people using it. Someone using the word 'women' on a toilet door is doing so with the intention that the word use will do something (in this case cause people with non-female genitalia to exclude themselves from the room). He can only reasonably expect the word use to have the desired effect if others respond to it predictably, if they too know what effect it was intended to have.

But the something that people want the word to do varies with context. In the 'women's' section of the clothes shop they don't want it to do the same job as with the toilet door. But years ago they did, that's the progress I'm referring to. Years ago one would be expected to exclude oneself from the 'women's' section of the clothes store on the same grounds as the toilets. Now we have a more nuanced and varied criteria in different circumstances.

What concerns me when I hear, for example, about trans people wanting to change the wording on their birth certificate, wanting to enter the toilet room of their chosen gender etc is that we're losing this variety. 'Woman' no longer means different things in different contexts, it means "the gender role I identify with" in every single context. That's a step backwards in the progress to gender nihilism.

If you or anyone else is so threatened by gender unintelligibility that others must pay the price for your intellectual confusion speaks not to the problems of others, but to problems that are yours and yours alone. — StreetlightX

Are you suggesting that no one but me takes issue with the trans agenda with regards to gender terms? If so, I can refer you to some feminist authors who have similar concerns. If not, then they're not mine and mine alone, are they? So those who must "pay the price" are not a clearly distinguished group. The whole concern here is over who will pay the price and what that price will be.

It's not the language that makes it so, it's the people using it. — Isaac

Then to hell with those people.

What concerns me when I hear, for example, about trans people wanting to change the wording on their birth certificate, wanting to enter the toilet room of their chosen gender etc is that we're losing this variety. — Isaac

I don't care about 'variety' of words. I care about people. If words are getting in the way of treating human beings decently, then so much the worse for words.

I don't personally care about whether it's a choice or not. To me that looks like the wrong framing entirely. Harry Hindu is framing things that way, and I'm trying to follow him down his personal rabbit hole and place some landmines. — fdrake

I never said it was a choice. Having a mental or social disorder isn't a choice. Being born a man or woman isn't a choice. It was Artemis that was mentioning that it was a choice.

Now... what if instead of disowning the entire social construction of gender and throwing the baby out with the bathwater, a person came to disown the gender associated with their birth sex? — fdrake

Using your own example of a person disowning their socially constructed family, a man can't disown his mother and father and then start calling himself a daughter. It makes no sense, but according to you it does. How?

Using your own source of Google for definitions, "man" and "woman" are biological entities, not social constructions. So it makes no sense to say "man" and "woman" are genders if genders are social constructions and not biological entities.

Using your own source "social constructions" are shared assumptions about reality. If gender were a social construction, then gender isn't "man" or "woman". Those would be the biological realities. The assumptions (and therefore gender) would be "women wear dresses and makeup and have long hair". You are confusing biological realities with shared assumptions about those realities.

Using your own example of a person disowning their socially constructed family, a man can't disown his mother and father and then start calling himself a daughter. It makes no sense, but according to you it does. How? — Harry Hindu

I find it hard to understand that you don't understand. Samantha is born a girl with girl bits. Her birth sex is female. Samantha is gender non-conforming. Eventually Samantha identifies as a man and changes her gender expression and gender identity to male. He changes his name to Sam to reflect this. As an adult, Sam has gender identity of male, gender expression of male, but Sam's birth sex was female, Sam's anatomy might still be female; that of Sam's birth sex; and even if Sam did take gender transition surgery or hormone therapy, nothing about that would change that Sam's birth sex was female.

This is pretty simple, no? It looks to me like you're being wilfully ignorant of the distinction between birth sex and gender identity, then reading everything I've written as if that distinction made no sense. The only thing this reveals is that you either don't understand it, or don't want to understand it.

Using your own source of Google for definitions, "man" and "woman" are biological entities, not social constructions. So it makes no sense to say "man" and "woman" are genders if genders are social constructions and not biological entities. — Harry Hindu

I mean the Google definition of gender also says:

either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

Why is this so hard for you?

Using your own source "social constructions" are shared assumptions about reality. If gender were a social construction, then gender isn't "man" or "woman". Those would be the biological realities. The assumptions (and therefore gender) would be "women wear dresses and makeup and have long hair". You are confusing biological realities with shared assumptions about those realities. — Harry Hindu

This is just nonsense. Gender expression, gender identity and sex are distinct, but correlated. The UN characterisation says that, the definitions I presented are consistent with this.

Eventually Samantha identifies as a man and changes her gender expression and gender identity to male. — fdrake

Gender, as defined by your source, is a shared assumption. She identifies with an shared assumption, but her assumption isn't shared by others. Incoherent.

You're also saying that shared assumptions are identities. Incoherent.

either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female. — fdrake

It says that "gender is either of the two sexes (male and female) especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones."

If gender is either of the two sexes, then gender is biological, yet the definition contradicts itself by saying its in reference to social and cultural differences instead of biological. Incoherent.

And what kind of social and cultural differences is talking about. Differences within a culture or between cultures? Differences within a culture wouldn't be a social construction!

So are you and Google being sexist and claiming that to be a woman, you must wear a dress, makeup and have long-hair?

Gender, as defined by your source, is a shared assumption. She identifies with an shared assumption, but her assumption isn't shared by others.. — Harry Hindu

I dunno, I'm going to use my fiat powers to remove you from the collective and now what I'm saying has to be true.

So are you and Google being sexist and claiming that to be a woman, you must wear a dress, makeup and have long-hair? — Harry Hindu

No. Quote me where I said that.

I dunno, I'm going to use my fiat powers to remove you from the collective and now what I'm saying has to be true. — fdrake

Huh -what?

No. Quote me where I said that. — fdrake

It is necessarily implied by your argument. I pointed it out with your quote. Are you blind?

Samantha is born a girl with girl bits. Her birth sex is female. Samantha is gender non-conforming. Eventually Samantha identifies as a man and changes her gender expression and gender identity to male. He changes his name to Sam to reflect this. As an adult, Sam has gender identity of male, gender expression of male, but Sam's birth sex was female, Sam's anatomy might still be female; that of Sam's birth sex; and even if Sam did take gender transition surgery or hormone therapy, nothing about that would change that Sam's birth sex was female. — fdrake

Even here, you are talking about changing one's sex, not gender. Male and female are sexes according to you. You seem to be confusing your own distinction between sex and gender. Your distinction was incoherent so it is no surprise that you are confused by your own terms.

If she changes into a male by simply changing what she wears then you are saying that in order to be a male, you have to wear a particular style of clothes. That isn't what Google is saying at all. Google is saying that there are biological sexes in which people have shared assumptions about. Is it your stance that all assumptions are correct?

And whatever happened to your socially constructed family example? Here you are talking about being born as a biological entity instead of being born into a social construction. So your family example is a poor example, and again, you are confusing biological realities with social constructions.

So again, you are confusing biological realities with social constructions. — Harry Hindu

I dunno, saying you're unable to follow:

Samantha is born a girl with girl bits. Her birth sex is female. Samantha is gender non-conforming. Eventually Samantha identifies as a man and changes her gender expression and gender identity to male. He changes his name to Sam to reflect this. As an adult, Sam has gender identity of male, gender expression of male, but Sam's birth sex was female, Sam's anatomy might still be female; that of Sam's birth sex; and even if Sam did take gender transition surgery or hormone therapy, nothing about that would change that Sam's birth sex was female

while simultaneously being aware of which bits are social construction and which aren't to the extent where you're pointing them out as a contradiction? Yeah. I don't think you're confused either, you're just pretending to be.

while simultaneously being aware of which bits are social construction and which aren't to the extent where you're pointing them out as a contradiction? Yeah. I don't think you're confused either, you're just pretending to be — fdrake

Samantha is born a girl with girl bits. Her birth sex is female. Samantha is gender non-conforming. Eventually Samantha identifies as a man and changes her gender expression and gender identity to male. He changes his name to Sam to reflect this. As an adult, Sam has gender identity of male, gender expression of male, but Sam's birth sex was female, Sam's anatomy might still be female; that of Sam's birth sex; and even if Sam did take gender transition surgery or hormone therapy, nothing about that would change that Sam's birth sex was female. — fdrake

Look at the bold text.

Is "male" and "female" sex or gender? Is "man" and "woman" sex or gender? You said that the female is a sex but male is a gender. So either you are confused by your own terms, or gender and sex are the same thing.

either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female. — fdrake

Here you just provided the definition of "man" and "woman" as sexes. It then goes on to say that the sexes/genders aren't biological, or that sex/gender is a social construction. Is sex and species a social construction, because Googles does define "man" and "woman" as species-specific males and females?

If the differences between gender are cultural, then in order to change your gender, you'd have to change your culture, not your clothes.

Samantha is born a girl (sex) with girl bits. Her birth sex is female (see sentence 1). Samantha is gender non-conforming. Eventually Samantha identifies as a man (gender identity) and changes her gender expression and gender identity to male (see previous bracket). He (zomg, respecting the pronoun change of a fictional character!) changes his (see previous bracket) name to Sam to reflect this. As an adult, Sam has gender identity of male (see previous sentence), gender expression of male (see previous sentence), but Sam's birth sex was female (see sentence 1), Sam's anatomy might still be female (see sentence 1); that of Sam's birth sex (further reference to sentence 1); and even if Sam did take gender transition surgery or hormone therapy, nothing about that would change that Sam's birth sex was female — fdrake

Here you go.

Eventually Samantha identifies as a man (gender identity) and changes her gender expression and gender identity to male (see previous bracket). — fdrake

You just said that both "man" and "male" are gender identities. So you're saying that sex and gender are the same thing and they are both social constructions? Why don't you just answer the questions as I posed them? Repeating the same BS that I'm questioning doesn't move the ball forward.

So you're saying that sex and gender are the same thing and they are both social constructions? — Harry Hindu

No. Sex is anatomical. Gender is social. Sex and gender correlate. The processes that give someone a gender are not the same as the ones that give them a sex. We agree that sex is anatomical, I think. We do not agree that gender is social. If you think that 'women wear dresses' as a norm is governed by anatomical or developmental characteristics, I don't know what to tell you; sperm meets egg => wear pink?

The anatomical is the body, sex is social. Sex is a category into which someone placed or belongs. To be a man or woman on account of having a certain body is no less a norm than the question of wearing a dress, having long hair or partaking in a certain role in society.

In the sex/gender spilt, people ignore the biggest criteria cited for being a man or women of the all: the body. Sex (which is an identity) is supposed to have an immutable connection to the body, when it it is no more grounded in defining the presence of a man or woman than wearing dresses or not. Why does a man have to have a penis to be a man? It's just another individual characteristic, like wearing dresses or not.

The sex/gender split does not genuinely allow for recognition of many trans identities. Sex being understood as setting the identity or male or femle, it always leaves behind an idea trans people aren't truly men or women because their body means "they really are" their rejected identity-- "Ah yes, they say their gender identity is female, but look at their male body.."

The sex/gender split is outright saying trans women are really male (they have a "male body"). It does not recognise the trans woman is female, and so has a female biology, even if she has penis and no breasts (to use the crude example).

It's really gender secret way of maintaining itself in the face of its obvious contradiction. By keeping male and female identity essential to the body, it allows the social forces which want to distribute bodies, in certain ways (e.g. only those with penises get to be in charge) to continue, even after it's been shown to be incoherent. The expectations males must do one thing, women another is maintained, for the supposedly immutable bodies are still there assigning who someone is or not.

Do you not understand what a homonym is? Words with the same spelling and pronunciation can mean different things depending on context. Sometimes "man"/"male"/"woman"/"female" are used to refer to biological sex and sometimes they're used to refer to gender.

It's really gender secret way of maintaining itself in the face of its obvious contradiction. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Is gender now a supervillian with consciousness and everything?

I don't see how it makes sense to claim that differentiating female and male bodies is somehow establishing hierarchy. I can tell the difference between red and blue and not think one is superior over the other.

I also don't think it makes anymore sense to claim a female body is male just because that person would prefer it to be that way. Many people would like to change their bodies in a myriad of ways (be taller, lose weight, be younger, regrow limbs, defeat cancer, change skin color, etc) but I think it's pretty obvious that sans actual physical change, the physical doesn't change.

The sex/gender split is outright saying trans women are really male (they have a "male body"). It does not recognise the trans woman is female, and so has a female biology, even if she has penis and no breasts (to use the crude example). — TheWillowOfDarkness

I think you're privileging gender over sex; specifically, I think you're making gender conceptually dependent upon sex illegitimately, whereas sex and gender 'only' ontically correlate (most people are cis) and socially couple (anatomical dicks are male sex and count as male gender) through norms. Moreover, the norms that partition bodies into anatomical characteristics are not the same norms that gender bodies socially.

Though, I do think it's unfortunate culturally/politically (for the acceptance of trans identities) that sex and gender are so correlated, and accept this as a fact of our social norms while doing what I can to highlight distinctions. It's true that anatomies within sex categories vary very much, and intersex people exist which implodes the partition of human bodies into only anatomically male and anatomically female representatives, but it's nevertheless true that there are male sexed bodies and female sexed bodies. Even if male sexed and female sexed do not jointly exhaust the possible sex characteristics of human bodies, and even if there are indeterminate cases. Analogically, the placement of orange on the colour wheel does not destroy the placement of red and yellow.

There are norms of judgement in categorising bodies into sex characteristics, 'this is a dick' 'this is a demipenis' 'this is a clitoris','this is a vulva' but I see no more reason to doubt the existence of clusters of anatomical properties (that allow of variation in their representative parts, a dick's a dick if it's a schode or a schlong, but a dick is not a demipenis) that correspond to the usual anatomical categories. If we see something different, we invent medical categorisation on the fly.

What's important is that these norms of medical categorisation of bodies or cells or bodily functions are not the same norms which associate gender with bodies.

You've missed the distinction I was going for. The partioning of an anatomical parts is not sex either. A penis+certain chromosomes, etc., no more equals sex than a penis does. That's just a reference to which body parts someone has.

Sex has an identity claim over the top of this. It's not pointing out existence of anatomical features, but asserting only certain anatomy can occur with an identity of male or female.

My point here is not that gender is dependent on sex (though that is true of notions of gender defined through an indexical of sex category), but that sex is, like gender, a social category of identity and relation. Sex is not about describing anatomy. It's about forming an order in which bodies take on a given identity or property in our understanding.

The reason the sex/gender split cannot recognise trans people properly is in how it distinguishes sex. It cordones of identities of male and female only to bodies of certain characteristics. People being unable to separate gender from sex is not the problem. Plenty of people do exactly that, conceive of gender in a way where sex is no longer it's foundation.

The problem lies in the social ordering in reference identity aren't just about gender. Many of them are about the signifcance of the body in relation to identity. Sex itself is the problem here, entirely on its own terms. If we have an account that only certain bodies can be an identity, we have system of sex roles in effect.

Sexes are terms to describe actual physical attributes, the constellation of which is really not arbitrary at all. Certain attributes go together with x or y chromosomes because that's how reproduction works best. A woman's body is shaped and works a certain way because it's better for child-bearing and nursing. Humans have only recognized these biological differences and given them names. It's as benign and normal and accurate as recognizing the difference between a cat and a dog. It's just descriptive.

Gender is the only place where proscriptions come in.

Do you not understand what a homonym is? Words with the same spelling and pronunciation can mean different things depending on context. Sometimes "man"/"male"/"woman"/"female" are used to refer to biological sex and sometimes they're used to refer to gender. — Michael

This isn't the argument that has been made. Go back and read the definitions provided by fdrake.

either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female. — fdrake

It doesn't make that kind of distinction. Fdrake's definition of "man" and "woman" says that they are sexes. Now is it saying that the sexes are biological, or social in this context? It then goes on to say that "especially with reference to social and cultural differences than biological ones." Is it talking about the differences between cultures? If so, then in order to change your gender, you'd have to change your culture instead of your clothes, and changing your body doesn't seem to entail changing one's sex or gender.

It then goes on to say that "especially with reference to social and cultural differences than biological ones." Is it talking about the differences between cultures? I — Harry Hindu

Sex characteristics are associated with gender archetypes. Gender archetypes are associated with sex characteristics.

Clearer?

No. Sex is anatomical. Gender is social. — fdrake

Eventually Samantha identifies as a man (gender identity) and changes her gender expression and gender identity to male (see previous bracket). — fdrake

Then why did you say that male is a gender identity? You simply won't answer the question directly because you won't admit that you got confused with your own use of terms.

Sex and gender correlate. The processes that give someone a gender are not the same as the ones that give them a sex. — fdrake

Can you have a gender without having a sex? If not then how does one get a gender - by others labeling them, or by an individual searching their feelings? Is gender a shared assumption about a particular sex, or is it an individual feeling that someone has?

We agree that sex is anatomical, I think. We do not agree that gender is social. If you think that 'women wear dresses' as a norm is governed by anatomical or developmental characteristics, I don't know what to tell you; sperm meets egg => wear pink? — fdrake

NO! That is your position! It is you and transgenders who put women in boxes and labeling them as a "woman" not because of their anatomy, but because of their clothes. Women don't have to wear dresses to be a woman. They are women as a result of how they were born. "Women wear dresses" is the gender binary, sexist position that you have and that transgenders reinforce.

It then goes on to say that "especially with reference to social and cultural differences than biological ones." Is it talking about the differences between cultures? I
— Harry Hindu

Sex characteristics are associated with gender archetypes. Gender archetypes are associated with sex characteristics.

Clearer? — fdrake

That didn't answer the question! You have a serious problem with answering questions. How does one change their gender - by changing their sex, culture, or clothes?

Explain the association and correlation between sex and gender in detail. Isn't the association/correlation sexist?

I made a thing for you.

How is that detailed? How does one move from one circle to another? You're not answering my questions and it looks pitiful. :roll: Just give up fdrake.

Forget about intersex people and the other proposed gender identities for now.

People with male natal sex never have female natal sex.
People with female natal sex never have male natal sex.
People with male natal sex sometimes have female gender identity.
People with male natal sex sometimes have male gender identity.
People with female natal sex sometimes have female gender identity.
People with female natal sex sometimes have male gender identity.

How do you 'change gender identity', you adjust your gender expression to become more comfortable with your gender identity. You can't change your natal sex.

Is the association between natal sex and gender identity a source of social tension and mental pain? Yes.
Does the association between natal sex and gender identity aid in propagating sexism?
Maybe. Specifics matter here.
Does that mean the distinction between natal sex and gender identity is sexist?
No.

The anatomical is the body, sex is social. Sex is a category into which someone placed or belongs. To be a man or woman on account of having a certain body is no less a norm than the question of wearing a dress, having long hair or partaking in a certain role in society. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Sure we categorize the world with words. Sex is an anatomical category, not a social identity. "Sex" refers to those differences of anatomy and their related functions and behaviors that exist in 99.9% organisms of all species that use sex to procreate.

"Man"/"Woman" are terms that refer to differences in species and not just sex.

People with male natal sex never have female natal sex.
People with female natal sex never have male natal sex.
People with male natal sex sometimes have female gender identity.
People with male natal sex sometimes have male gender identity.
People with female natal sex sometimes have female gender identity.
People with female natal sex sometimes have male gender identity. — fdrake

Here we go again repeating myself. We're going in circles because you keep forgetting the other points I already made.

If "gender" is a "social construction", then that means that their identity is a shared assumption of others, not personal inclination, and something that they can't change themselves, unless they move to a different culture where people assume different things about one's natal sex.

If "gender" is a social construction, then that means that their identity is a shared assumption of others, not personal inclination, and something that they can't change themselves, unless they move to a different culture. — Harry Hindu

People don't like the taste of marmite.
Therefore no one can develop a taste for marmite.