It seems to me that people switch the idea of the body and soul unknowingly. Soul is identity and maybe we can never know our own for sure but as Paul says in the Bible, we have no certainty in anything. I think everyone is either male or female in their true inner identity, but the body is not our direct identity. The body is us but we are not our body. If we are to say that the heights of our soul is beyond gender, then it is only the lower parts that feel gender identity and the person could never say what he is except as an example of God (genderless).

Are we to see gender disphoria as part of a social institution or it is part of people's spiritual lives? The priests of old who catrated themselves may have drawn the gender disphoric into their flocks

I think that it would be worth you doing some research into trans issues. The whole medical process of changing gender is to address the experience of gender dysphoria, which is the discomfort of one's experience of being a certain gender. It requires a whole assessment process by psychiatrists.

Jung's understanding of gender is coming from a different perspective altogether, and is more a perception of androgyny as a spiritual quest, or as an archetype. He was drawing upon Gnostic ideas and was writing from a historical context, and this is rather different from the modern day trans movement, although that may go back to the essential archetype of the androgyne, but mainly in a secular context

I think everyone is either male or female in their true inner identity, — Gregory

You look to be making stuff up. The difficulty is that you may then expect others to conform to your myth.

Take a look around, instead. There are people who do not conform to your made up stuff.

The notion that women are just castrated men is profoundly corrupt.

I think everyone is either male or female in their true inner identity, — Gregory

You really do not have any idea or understanding of your topic, do you. And what Banno said.

Or maybe you do and I'm wrong. Let's start with basics. You use the words "male" and "female." What do you imagine these words mean?

Males are those who have genitalia that is not necessarily male. Females have genitalia that is theirs, but without contradiction they could have either genital while the male is neither. Anyway someone can be female or male and maybe something else but I don't know what that other category would be

Can we say gender identity is impossible?

My heavens! It's a record for incoherence in few words! Try again. Male, female, what are they? What do these words mean?

A female form is whole and represents simplicity of soul. The male form does not. We need to settle that there forms in these matters

If I say "male form is like this" or whatever, is their a standard of what a home sapien is?

What is 'simplicity of soul'? I am not sure that many women would be happy with such an idea applied to them.

A female form is whole and represents simplicity of soul. The male form does not. We need to settle that there forms in these matters — Gregory

One more time. The question is of the form, "What is...?" Not what it represents or what represents it, not what it is not.

The notion that women are just castrated men is profoundly corrupt. — Banno

Come on. You know he didn't say that.

I think gender is made from identity but the body embodies it in two forms, make and female. The female is reversible in that it can have a vagina or penis but the male form has one. I don't see how we can have gender identity without concepts about the body

Gregory! Complete these two sentences:

1) A male is.......

2) A female is.....

It seems to me that people switch the idea of the body and soul unknowingly. Soul is identity and maybe we can never know our own for sure but as Paul says in the Bible, we have no certainty in anything. I think everyone is either male or female in their true inner identity, but the body is not our direct identity. The body is us but we are not our body. If we are to say that the heights of our soul is beyond gender, then it is only the lower parts that feel gender identity and the person could never say what he is except as an example of God (genderless).

Are we to see gender disphoria as part of a social institution or it is part of people's spiritual lives? The priests of old who catrated themselves may have drawn the gender disphoric into their flocks — Gregory

I don't have any opinion on the issues in this discussion. I will say this - I don't think what you are saying is disrespectful to men, women, or transgendered people. You are getting jumped on by people who can't stand you not using the exact acceptable words to express your opinions about a sensitive subject.

You are getting jumped on by people — T Clark

Who recognize that a reasonable discussion cannot take place without some preliminary aids being set out. I.e., he is asked to clarify his own usages. So far he has not and perhaps cannot. Nor is it a guessing game. He gets to decide for present purpose. If it works, good for him; or maybe the discussion will add some refinement and correction. Everything else in your post seems to me to be a projection.

I was referring to Platonic forms. Many think these are real only for numbers. I think they exist somehow in how they relate to sexuality

There seems there are too many qualities to the ideas of male and female to define them

I don't see why you started the discussion about transgender. Perhaps, it would have been better to start with the basis of gender because you are probably making it so much harder for yourself. I think that many discussions on this site focus on trans issues for some reason, and perhaps it is a way of avoiding thinking about what it means to be a man or a woman.

I was referring to Platonic forms. Many think these are real only for numbers. I think they exist somehow in how they relate to sexuality

There seems there are too many qualities to the ideas of male and female to define them — Gregory

Then it follows that 1) you don't know what you're talking, writing, thinking about, and 2) you have already given up on it, gave up on it, indeed before you even started.

No, you are able to talk about infinities although you don't understand infinity. We can something about sexuality perhaps but if these questions just frustrate people then its not fruitful and I'll go do something else instead

We can something about sexuality perhaps but if these questions just frustrate people then its not fruitful — Gregory

Well, go ahead. And I am not frustrated by the questions, but rather by someone who cannot or will not answer them - and apparently because he not only does not understand the words, but also does not understand "question" or the function of such things.

Who recognize that a reasonable discussion cannot take place without some preliminary aids being set out. I.e., he is asked to clarify his own usages. — tim wood

The forum is full of threads where the poster doesn't do a very good job of defining his terms. I would say it's the rule rather than the exception. In this case, I believe it is the possible political implications of the content that is setting off the horns. Gregory isn't toeing the acceptable line.

The forum is full of threads where the poster doesn't do a very good job of defining his terms. I would say it's the rule rather than the exception. In this case, I believe it is the possible political implications of the content that is setting off the horns. Gregory isn't toeing the acceptable line. — T Clark

You're quite right. But it's not imo a question of "acceptable lines," or at least for me it is not. But instead a basic question for some clarity. A question, then, that most folks ought make substantive reply to when asked. And a failure in basic clarity means there's more wrong with the topic than what is merely on the surface.

It's your fallacy that not knowing everything means not knowing anything. Might as well own that

Why put words in my mouth, or interpret my actions, when you get it wrong? What evidence do you have that I believe at all what you attribute me? Especially when this comes from my request to you to offer (coherent) clarifications of your words, that apparently you neither have at hand nor give a damn about thinking about and creating.

My questions to you still stand. Try responding to them.

I think we all have some idea of male and female. A female has breasts by form for example. But if you are saying its all just a blur because we can't understand it completely, there no point elaborating

A female has breasts by form for example. — Gregory

And what do you call what males have?

Must I finally conclude that Gregory, who wanted to talk about sex and sexuality and male and female couldn't, because he was incapable of making a coherent statement of any kind about his topic, or answering any basic questions about it?

We have some understanding of human male and female-ness. That breasts are female and not male is obvious, except you are saying that what breasts are is inherently blurry beyond recognition. Since you won't wonder about the subject, any description of a sexually individual body will, I feel, be dismissed.

I will add that in our abortion discussions in the past you've always retreated behind the idea that personhood is an inherently opaque concept. It seems you don't desire to find anything objective in these subjects

I mentioned trans individuals because people often say we can choose our gender but then turn around and say gender is not a thing. People get very confused about this. If its not something you can reach, why are trans individuals looking for the proper gender identification to start with? Post modern people want to whole subject to be blurry beyond repair

Nope. I just want to know what people mean when they use certain words. And are you really claiming that males do not have breasts? That's beyond ignorant, because of course males have breasts. Why do we not set that as our goal: go research whether males have breasts; return here with your results.