Men are men, women are women. East is east, west is west, and never the twain shall meet. (Kipling. Not a serious quote) — Bitter Crank

The ballad reveals its fuller meaning in subsequent lines.

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!

In the end distinctions of geography, breed, birth, or sex, do not matter at all when those with integrity meet. If you met Caitlyn Jenner would you refuse to use her preferred pronouns? It would seem rude to do otherwise.

I would use her preferred pronoun because I am at least semi-civilized, and and would not want to make a scene. That doesn't mean I think she has changed her sex.

I have know several transsexuals well, and I know that they go through a LOT of sturm and drang on their way to a satisfactory conclusion. A lot of homosexuals go through a lot of sturm and drang before they reach self-acceptance. Making any major change in life can be quite difficult.

There are two questions here:

a) Does the trans individual believe what they are saying about their sex/gender?
b) Can one change one's sex/gender in fact?

I think the adult transsexual believes what they are saying.

I do not think that transsexuals can change their sex/gender, but they can, through 'art', appear to have done so, without close examination.

Is transsexualism a delusion? Yes. That's not as dismissive as it sounds. Human beings maintain a variety of "necessary delusions" to get through life. Hard hearted/hard headed examination reveals delusions, but it doesn't make them less necessary.

Example: I think I am an exceptionally good person--fair, honest, kind, etc. A closer examination will reveal instances of unfairness, dishonesty, cruelty, etc. A mentally healthy person can admit their serious flaws, at least in private, but they will want to give priority to the delusions which make them feel like they are decent human beings.

My guess is that the delusion of trans people requires an unusually strong commitment to maintaining the delusion.

People have equally strong commitments to political and religious positions Strong though their commitments may be, they may be altogether mistaken.

Is transsexualism a delusion? Yes — Bitter Crank

Eh. Some say homosexuality is a just a state of confusion that can be remedied by good medical care.

I don't have x-ray vision into people's souls so that I can sort out who's deluded and who's living their truth by the their lifestyle choices. Why do you think you do?

Some say homosexuality is a just a state of confusion — frank

In some cases it is. As you know, only a small percentage of men are exclusively homosexual--about 2.5%. They are not confused. (One group that is confused about this is gay advocates who want to inflate the number of gay people as possible for political purposes.) A much larger share are exclusively heterosexual; they aren't confused either. Most men, though, are somewhere in the range described by Kinsey, varying in what they fantasize about and what they actually do. The confusion is a conflict between what they are doing and what they fantasize about. So married fathers may fantasize about sex with men, but perform sex with women. That (seems to be) much more common than men who have sex with men but fantasize about sex with women. A prison setting comes to mind.

Bisexuality, which is perhaps the norm for a large number of people, has a "bad reputation" among both gays and straights, because they fail gay and straight individual's expectations (not in terms of performance but in terms of group identification). "B" was added to "GL" early on. That's probably less of an issue now than say, 40 years ago, because the "gay community" as such has become more vague and amorphous.

Then there is polymorphous perversity, but that's difficult to pin down and analyze. I am not sure how, but I am absolutely sure that Donald Trump lives on many levels of polymorphous perversity.

I don't have x-ray vision into people's souls so that I can sort out who's deluded and who's living their truth by the their lifestyle choices. Why do you think you do? — frank

Well, fuck. You should have gotten the upgrade of Soul Vision when it was on sale! It will cost you an arm and a leg, now.

I believe there is an objective reality, but one important aspect of reality is that humans are delusional. My theory is that everybody is deluded to varying degrees. It is a question of "how much" and "about what". Delusions and illusions are the human stock-in-trade. "Mental health" means having some awareness of how much distance there is between our de- and il-lusions (derived from ludere, play) and harsh reality (that 'reality' is soft, rose-tinted, and gauzy is a delusion). Merely knowing that we are deluded doesn't make the delusions go away.

Freud thought that religion was one big fat delusion.

I have known several transsexuals well...
...
Is transsexualism a delusion? Yes. — Bitter Crank

I've only been acquainted with a couple, who I don't really know at all. They never seemed delusional to me. I find it extremely hard to believe that a transsexual doesn't realize what they are. I would think that they would tend to be keenly aware of themselves and their sexuality, much more so than ordinary folk at least, who have less of a reason to be self-conscious. If a trans person somehow forgot their transness I imagine that other people would remind them, and perhaps not always politely.

Most men, though, are somewhere in the range described by Kinsey, varying in what they fantasize about and what they actually do — Bitter Crank

It’s interesting and perhaps revealing that your description of gender mentions only who one is sexually attracted to, and nothing about what I would consider to be a more central aspect of gender for many in the gay community , which has to do with a global perceptual-affective style, of which sexual attraction is merely one small aspect. For those who dont grasp this , it is incoherent to talk about gayness outside of sexual attraction, and I think that is part of the problem.

interesting and perhaps revealing that your description of gender mentions only who one is sexually attracted to, and nothing about what I would consider to be a more central aspect of gender for many in the gay community, which has to do with a global perceptual-affective style — Joshs

I will have to plead guilty to your charge.

When it comes to "being gay" which as you say involves a global perceptual-affective style, I find myself with a deficient vocabulary to adequately express what I experience. I meet men in ordinary social settings and we may immediately recognize each other as gay, but I find it difficult to pin down exactly what the signals are. This may be one reason I have always preferred to look for sexual partners in places where "pre-sorting" had taken place--bath houses, gay bars, night-time cruising areas in parks. Some people seem to be able to walk through a figurative Grand Central Station and reliably find prospective partners.

These is something abut deportment, grooming, details of dress, speech patterns, interests, and so forth that together add up to a strong signal. It's like art -- I know it when I see it. Some people are better at this than others, and some people with sharp gaydar are actually pretty straight. An some very gay guys (part of the 2.5%) don't signal their gayness very strongly. And some straight people see gay, but are not. But, gay signals and gaydar work well enough most of the time.

Gay men perhaps display a less guarded posture with perhaps more relaxed musculature; they seem a bit more carefully groomed; slightly better put together clothing -- regardless of what they are wearing; a more open sort of verbal expression. Perhaps one is more likely to find gay men at an art gallery than a used car auction, but I know people who contradict that. Gay men do seem to regard (see, evaluate) other men more carefully than straight men.

A devout Christian can believe in his or her own salvation, know well the theology of their faith, perform worship and good works splendidly, and still be deluded. What they are deluded about is the truth of what they believe in. The delusion is invisible.

Many Americans believe their country is the home of the brave, land of the free, the best place on earth -- by objective standards. That is a delusion (maybe one of those 'necessary delusions').

find it extremely hard to believe that a transsexual doesn't realize what they are. I would think that they would tend to be keenly aware of themselves and their sexuality, much more so than ordinary folk at least, who have less of a reason to be self-conscious. — praxis

Under ordinary circumstances, transsexuals are not deluded about how they feel, what they wish to accomplish trough therapy, the kind of sexual experiences they have. What they are deluded about is the idea that one can change one's sex from male to female or visa versa. What they can do is change their appearance, but not the underlying biology.

A successful trans person is not deluded about their fully passing as a woman or man (or, unhappily, failing to pass). Other people provide the evidence that one is passing, or (possibly very cruelly) that one is not.

Nor are they deluded about wanting to change from one sex to another. The delusion is thinking that one can change their biology.

As I said above

I believe there is an objective reality, but one important aspect of reality is that humans are delusional. My theory is that everybody is deluded to varying degrees. It is a question of "how much" and "about what". Delusions and illusions are the human stock-in-trade. — Bitter Crank

I believe there is an objective reality, but one important aspect of reality is that humans are delusional. My theory is that everybody is deluded to varying degrees. It is a question of "how much" and "about what". Delusions and illusions are the human stock-in-trade. — Bitter Crank

This doesn’t really make sense, does it? If we are deluded and delusion is our stock-in-trade then “objective reality” must be part of our delusion, being that delusion is all that we have to work with. We can certainly have faith in objective reality, just as anyone can have faith in their religion, or faith in the possibility of changing their sex.

This doesn’t really make sense, does it? — praxis

Yes, it make sense. First, there is objective reality. Second there is us, the observers. We are both capable of observing objective reality (which is why we have science) and we can delude ourselves and others in various ways. Delusions are objectively observable in people. Donald Trump and a few million Republicans have "stolen election delusions". Most Republicans and Democrats are not affected by "stolen election delusions". They recognize that Trump lost the election.

We name "delusion" for beliefs which have no objective support. A belief in an afterlife (hell or heaven) is delusional because there is zero evidence that such a thing exists. A belief in a 6 day creation is delusional because there is extensive evidence that the stars first shone 13 billion years, and so on.

It seems that I have much more faith in the idea that we’re all deluded (cannot know reality) than you do.

It seems that I have much more faith in the idea that we’re all deluded (cannot know reality) than you do. — praxis

That's probably so, especially if you say it. Delusions are, as I said, our stock-in-trade. Why, if we can perceive reality, do we cling to delusions? Because reality is often harsh, cold, and in ever so many ways, unpleasant. We literally can not bear an unrelenting diet of harsh reality without some sort of comforting delusions. To what extent delusional thinking is a feature or a bug varies, depending.

Take happiness: Freud summed up our situation this way (paraphrasing): "Happiness just isn't in the cards." We long for happiness but it evades us. We respond with delusional thinking to cover over our serious disappointments and painful experiences. Delusions help many people carry on, doing what needs to be done.

reality is often harsh, cold, and in ever so many ways, unpleasant. — Bitter Crank

Perhaps that is an unpleasant delusion.

No, there is ample, hard evidence that life sucks. Reality is a bitch and then you die. And the dead stay dead, nothing more. So in the meantime, gather ye roses while ye may. or whatever it is you like.

I think the only worthwhile discussions to be had are what to do about bathroom stalls, sports and spa and the like. I think that particularly with sports there's a good argument to insist on classification by birth sex irrespective of gender expression. That's more about keeping it fair.

The rest can be a decision by the establishment and should be clearly communicated. Either by gender self-identification or sex, both are, from what I understand at this point, valid positions. I personally can't give two shits about being surprised at a urinal because someone shows up and whips out a dick when I thought she was a woman.

I think the only worthwhile discussions to be had are what to do about bathroom stalls, sports and spa and the like. — Benkei

Bathroom stalls are easy (cubicles for all), sports are easy (who gives a fuck).

Of far more importance, I think, is addressing the concerns of women about safe spaces, reporting of crimes against women, the security of lesbians (and gay men) as protected identities...

Society doesn't discriminate against dresses and long hair, it discriminates against women. Right from birth. If that discrimination remains then redressing it requires the identification of the oppressed group and the limiting of measures of redress to that group, not to anyone who might want to join later, after all the privileges of their birth sex have been enjoyed.

Notwithstanding, the more urgent issue is the degree to which the resolution of such issues is being dealt with in an increasingly hostile and partisan way, ensuring that moderate voices on both sides are muffled in favour of the more media-friendly dogmatists who seem to be increasingly the only voices given air.

Bathroom stalls are easy (cubicles for all) — Isaac

All the toilets at a nightclub I go to are unisex.

Of far more importance, I think, is addressing the concerns of women about safe spaces, reporting of crimes against women, the security of lesbians (and gay men) as protected identities... — Isaac

That is important but not quite the subject of this thread. Or am I missing something you're alluding to that I'm not understanding?

Notwithstanding, the more urgent issue is the degree to which the resolution of such issues is being dealt with in an increasingly hostile and partisan way, ensuring that moderate voices on both sides are muffled in favour of the more media-friendly dogmatists who seem to be increasingly the only voices given air. — Isaac

That's the nature of news. The news reports on negative divergences from the norm. Nobody cares about what the silent majority thinks. It's why complaints about "cancel culture" from right wingers who then turn around and prohibit the teaching of evolution theory or critical race theory should simply be ignored. Unfortunately, the narrative that appears to stick is that "right-wingers get cancelled by neo-Marxists" which they then get all the room in the world for to lie about.

The other nature of news nowadays is a lot reporting on opinions, instead of facts. "such-and-such said X" (OMG! SHOCK! HORROR!) without any consideration of whether it's true.

I try to not read the news anymore unless it's an investigative journalism piece.

All the toilets at a nightclub I go to are unisex. — Michael

Yeah, compared the efforts (though still woefully inadequate) to ensure disabled access to buildings, baulking at putting up a few MDF partitions seems like a manufactured problem to me.

That is important but not quite the subject of this thread. Or am I missing something you're alluding to that I'm not understanding? — Benkei

Reading through, there seems to be a central issue about the tri-fold difference between self-identification as a criterion for 'womanhood' vs identification on the basis of various indicators of biological origin vs the deliberate medical creation of those indicators. It's the resolution of this issue that impacts the concerns I mentioned. For example, if 'womanhood' is universally measured by self-identification, then redress for discrimination (based on biological features of birth) becomes impossible.

Of course, a very simple solution exists, which is to have criteria for 'womanhood' vary by context. Which is why I mentioned the toxic environment in which these matters are discussed, an environment which essentially excludes nuance and contextualisations.

complaints about "cancel culture" from right wingers who then turn around and prohibit the teaching of evolution theory or critical race theory should simply be ignored. — Benkei

Should they? I'd rather both than neither. If you ignore their complaints are you not handing them ammunition to ignore ours. The issue seems to be about whether we 'cancel' on the basis of intent to harm or mere disagreement. The moment we set the criteria to mere disagreement (from a left wing agenda), we put in place social structures to do exactly that same thing (from a right wing agenda) depending entirely on who has most social capital at the time. I think that's a dangerous place to be.

The other nature of news nowadays is a lot reporting on opinions, instead of facts. — Benkei

The threshold of justification at which an opinion can be declared 'fact' is a social agreement and as such vulnerable to political influence. We've seen (in this topic, and others recently) considerable leverage applied to redefine that agreement and render a range of propositions as 'fact' because of political expediency.

I try to not read the news anymore unless it's an investigative journalism piece. — Benkei

Likewise. The sycophancy makes me sick.

Yet you accepted that someone who is XX male is male and so clearly it's false to say that "in humans, XY is male, XX female". It may be that incidentally 99.9% of men have XY chromosomes, but given that there are men who don't have XY chromosomes it follows that having XY (or XX) chromosomes isn't a measure of biological sex. It certainly may influence biological sex, but the reality of genetics is that other things can influence it as well, even if they don't occur as often.

There are people who have XX chromosomes (which you admit is possible for men), that have high levels of testosterone and low levels of estrogen, do not have breasts, and do have facial hair. What determines whether or not such a person is a man or a woman? Does it depend on them having a penis and testes? What if they lost them in an accident? — Michael

YOU were the one that used the term "male" to refer to someone with XX chromosomes:

Would you refer to someone with XX male syndrome using "he" or "she" (or both or neither)? — Michael

Why did you use the term "male" if ONLY having XX or XY makes one a female or male? It's a combination of these attributes and not necessarily all of them, but most of them, that one possesses that makes one a female or male. Since YOU were the one to label someone with XX chromosomes as "male", what would YOU refer to them as?

People are born with abnormalities. Some people can be born with extra fingers, or missing fingers, or born with a tail, etc. All of these cases are very rare. They are outliers. This is not to say that they don't deserve the same rights as everyone else. It is only to make the observation that these cases are uncommon or rare. We don't then create new categories of hands with or without 10 fingers, or categories of people with or without tails. We're only trying to do that with sex. Why? What makes sex so special? Who is it that is really concerned about what is in who's pants here? It seems that the left are the ones with a fetish for sex.

An easy way to think about it; if your brain were transplanted into a body with breasts, a vagina, a womb, ovaries, etc., would you identify as a man or a woman? I'd still identify as a man. — Michael

Is that what transpeople are saying - that their brain was transplanted into another body?

There are a few problems with your example, not to mention how outlandish it is and your use of Wikipedia to support your claims.

You seem to be missing the part of how hormones affect the processes of the brain and is why some trans-people take hormone treatments so that they're brain operates more like the opposite sex. So I find it hard to believe that you would still identify as a man if you had estrogen in your system and you observed your body as that of a woman. Have there been any studies that show that trans-people have the body of one sex and the brain of another? If that were the case, then why would trans-people need hormone treatments to feel more like the opposite sex if they already felt like the opposite sex?

Not only that but this flies in the face of your example above because now you're saying that having breasts, vagina, womb and ovaries is a body of a woman, while your brain is a man. You seem to be adding a characteristic to what makes one a man or a woman - the structure and functioning of the brain.

And in your example, you have memories of being a man. Transgenders don't have prior memories of being one sex that conflict with their actual sex. They claim to have always had these feelings. So you seem to be saying that doctors transplanted their brains just after birth.

Sex is distinct from gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of a person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).[1][2][3][4] While in ordinary speech, the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably,[5][6] most contemporary social scientists,[7][8][9] behavioral scientists and biologists,[10][11] many legal systems and government bodies,[12] and intergovernmental agencies such as the WHO[13] make a distinction between gender and sex. — Wikipedia

The two types of gender described above are contradictory. One describes a social construction, which is an agreement between two or more people to fulfill expectations of the others in the group by abiding by the roles that were agreed on (wearing a dress if you're a woman and wearing pants if you're a man). Because we have to wear clothes, we need ways to identify the sex of others when performing mating games.

This is the complete opposite of a personal feeling - one that isn't agreed upon with the rest of the group when playing mating games. Not only that, but they are identifying as the opposite sex, not a different sex than the two we know. So they are reinforcing binary gender roles by stating that wearing a dress makes you a woman or wearing pants makes you a man. If gender neutrality is the goal, this is not how we reach it. The goal is realized when we stop expecting women to wear dresses and men to wear pants. Men can wear dresses and still be men. Wearing a dress doesn't make you a woman. That would be sexist and abandoning the goal of realizing gender neutrality.

Are you kidding me? If I were to snap my fingers and change your gender-related brain dynamics, you would be astonished at the huge variety of ways in which your perceptual-affective style of processing your world , including but far exceeding sexual attraction, would change in an instant. You would still be you, but a significant aspect of your personality would undergo a shift. — Joshs

Who is kidding who here? How does this answer my question? Both you and Michael seem to be saying that trans-genders had brain transplants at birth. Are you both conspiracy theorists?

The critical difference between your example and that of a transsexual is that your claims of dysphoria are in bad faith. In fact, they're not meant to be taken seriously, but are meant as mockery and are contemptuous.

So, there's that. — Hanover

No. It's an example of a slippery slope. Your faith in transgender's claims are what is being questioned here. It is very possible that some of them make their claims for attention. Some people crave attention and don't necessarily care whether it is good or bad attention - just that they are getting attention (many celebrities come to mind). This isn't to say that there might be some that actually have a condition that they can't help, just like anyone with delusions. What I'm saying is that we're going about addressing the problem the wrong way, like reinforcing the ideas a person with anorexia has by agreeing with them that they do look fat and should loose more weight.

Is a schizophrenic mocking and being contemptuous when making claims stemming from their delusions? How do you know that I'm not delusional or schizophrenic? You'd be mocking a person with a biological condition that they can't help.

I could have used a host of other examples as a slippery slope. People can identify as another race, or even species. Again, what makes sex so special?

Transsexuals are dysphoric, meaning they're at unease with their physical state of being because their mental state tends to the feminine, and so they attempt to bring alignment of their mind and their body. There is (again) a critical distinction to be made. They are not delusional, but are dysphoric. If they were delusional, a man might actually think he was indistinct from a woman and then go about calling himself what he clearly was not. That would be like if you thought yourself a Sith, the problem wouldn't be a dysphoria, but it would be a delusion, meaning you had lost touch with reality.

To the extent there is actually a person out there who is dysphoric and so intimately identifies as a Sith that he insists upon being referred that way, then you might have an analogous situation, but the thing is, that's not really a thing. It's just the joke you wanted to tell, and so you told it. — Hanover

How would a person of one sex know what the mental state of the other sex is like? You seem to be confusing the wide variety of behaviors of humans with specific behaviors of the sexes. Men can behave in feminine ways but still be men. Not only that, but how did they come to believe that their mental states are the opposite sex? Were their brains transplanted at birth like MIchael and Joshs believes? Or were they raised by parents that wanted a child of the opposite sex so they raised their child as if they were the opposite sex? In other words, are the causes biological or cultural?

Ask yourself: why is the above laughable rationalization more important to me than being friendly and somewhat accomodating to transsexuals? Why don't I want to be friendly and somewhat accomodating to transsexuals?

You don't care if all the transsexuals think you're a dick - and they do. They do and that's fine with you. — ZzzoneiroCosm

It seems to me that you are more concerned about what people that you don't know and have never met, and probably never will, think of you.

The fact that you and Hanover dismiss my example is just evidence of what I am saying - that you easily dismiss the claims of anyone that says that they are something that they aren't except if it were sex. How do you and Hanover know that my claim is "not to be taken seriously, but are meant as mockery and are contemptuous."? How do you know a trans-gender person isn't doing the same - mocking social roles in a society where it is a law to wear clothes and that we have agreed that certain sexes behave in certain ways so that we can tell who is who when playing mating games?

What would gender be in a society where there are no clothes, or social roles expected by the sexes?

Both you and Michael seem to be saying that trans-genders had brain transplants at birth. Are you both conspiracy theorists? — Harry Hindu

But what about gay men and lesbians? Do you think that they had , if not ‘ brain transplants’, then a gender-determining event prior to birth that makes their brains , in many cases, different than heterosexuals i. terms of a robust and stable perceptual-affective style?
I recognize that whether someone should surgically alter their body as a result of this is a separate question.

YOU were the one that used the term "male" to refer to someone with XX chromosomes: — Harry Hindu

I linked to an article about a condition known as "XX male syndrome" and asked you if you would refer to a person with such a syndrome using "he" or "she". You said that you would refer to such a person using "he".

If you prefer then I'll rephrase the question. Is a person with XX chromosomes but also an SRY gene that is responsible for the development of a body that is typically associated with a person with XY chromosomes a man or a woman?

Is that what transpeople are saying - that their brain was transplanted into another body? — Harry Hindu

No, but I suspect that the way they feel about themselves and their body is analogous to the way that I would feel about myself and my body were my brain to be transplanted into a body with different genitalia.

So I find it hard to believe that you would still identify as a man if you had estrogen in your system and you observed your body as that of a woman. — Harry Hindu

Yet trans-men exist, so it shouldn't be hard to believe.

And in your example, you have memories of being a man. Transgenders don't have prior memories of being one sex that conflict with their actual sex. They claim to have always had these feelings. — Harry Hindu

My feelings of being a man would be a product of having lived as I did before my brain transplant; their feelings of being a man would be a product of whatever it is that is responsible for transgender people feeling the way they do. Both of us have an inner sense of being a man that is incongruent with the actual body we have.

So regardless of why we feel the way we do, the fact that you can understand that I can identify as a man even after having my brain transplanted into a body with breasts, a womb, ovaries, a vagina, etc. shows that you can understand gender as distinct from biological sex.

What would gender be in a society where there are no clothes, or social roles expected by the sexes? — Harry Hindu

It would be what it is, a robust and stable perceptual-affective style that subtly accompanies all of our behavior. It is what allows dog experts and breeders to quickly recognize make from female dog personality features. The same gender-associated behavior distinctions can be seen in most other mammals, including us. If such powerful, global perceptual-affective effects can be produced between biological males and females, then we already know that there can be all sorts of intermediate forms of gender.

I know the solipsistic consequences of infinite doubt. That's the slippery slope you reference and it's not interesting or enlightening.

I trust the man who tells me he prefers men despite the lovely argument I could offer him that he's just choosing to act that way to be shocking.

The same holds for the man who identifies as female or the female who identifies as male. To the extent you can accommodate their situation without damaging another's, tell me why you need to intervene.

l

The same holds for the man who identifies as female or the female who identifies as male. To the extent you can accommodate their situation without damaging another's, tell me why you need to intervene. — Hanover

Because doesn’t grasp ( and is perhaps threatened by) the concept that his brain, like every other human , has been perceptually organized from birth along a gender dimension that dictates a ‘certain’ personality’ style. He can likely get the concept of personality traits like temperament, shyness or extraversion being inborn, but he has no category for gender as also a kind of personality trait. It is invisible to him because he has never had the experience of being a make among a community of makes who from his earliest memories sensed that he was different in all sorts of subtle ways, beyond his control, that where somehow all interconnected on the basis of a perceptual-affective style that marked him as more ‘feminine. Harry would argue that these were all socialized, much the way Skinner argued that language was all about s-r associations until Chomsky showed an innate patterning to language. There is an innate patterning to gender also.

How do you and Hanover know that my claim is "not to be taken seriously, but are meant as mockery and are contemptuous."? How do you know a trans-gender person isn't doing the same - mocking social roles in a society where it is a law to wear clothes and that we have agreed that certain sexes behave in certain ways so that we can tell who is who when playing mating games? — Harry Hindu

I know you don't think you're a dark sith. But, if I'm wrong, convince me otherwise. Swear to it. Put your personal integrity on the line and tell me you do. Show me examples of how you've lived your life that way. Give me names of those who can verify this for me. Prove your seemingly absurd claim and shame me for my rush to judgment

You act like deciphering intent and motive is all that difficult. We each do it 1000s of times a day. For someone so interested in human nature and what it entails, the abilities of social animals in social settings seems to be something you think non-existent.

They seek no gain from making you believe they're a woman. — Hanover

Of course they do! That's the whole point!!

They make themselves look like a woman in order to get the social and economical benefits that women have.

Some examples:

In poor Asian countries, many young men transition into women because this way, they can more easily find work as female(-looking) singers, dancers, and prostitutes.

A petite, balding man is generally not considered attractive as a man; but if he transitions into a woman, he makes for an average or even above average good-looking woman with the psychological, social, and economical perks that come with that.

If a woman is stuck in a lowly job or doesn't climb up in her career, nobody bats an eyelid; but expectations are higher for men. So some men, afraid of career failure, transition into a woman where career failure is not so heavily stigmatized.

Male-to-female athletes: those men couldn't cut in the men's league, but they can outperform women. (How about female-to-male athletes??)

What makes it unethical for a person to knowingly consent to the procedure? — Hanover

By consenting to such a procedure, they express their disdain for social norms, and they want their disdain to be respected by those who hold to the social norms.

They want to have a special place. They want to be one of the special categories of people who do not have to engage in mutually reciprocating and mutually acknowledging relationships with others. Historically, these categories have been the royals, the aristocracy, the clergy, and the generally wealthy and powerful. They could look down on the commoners and the plebeians and despise and abuse them, and it wasn't considered problematic to do so, they got away with it. Who wouldn't want to be in such a special category?!