That is a disingenuous line of questioning. I never said anything about ‘sacrificing truth’ I simply stated I am happy to you a ‘cunt’ if you so wished or ‘king of the world’ … well probably neither of those in all honesty :D there are extremes I would stop at.

I don’t believe the delusion of being a king is comparable. I have not been anywhere in the world where there was a predominate minority of people believing they are kings. Correct me if I am wrong? Whilst when it comes to gender issues there is a very obvious minority stretching back through human history who ‘feel’ like the opposite sex of what their genitals say.

If you wish to offend people for nothing go ahead. I have no issue with it really. If said people are my friends I would though. Point being there are boundaries and a reasonable degree of friendliness is not writ in law but it will be judged by people nevertheless.

I don’t care for the ‘law’ tbh. I just use my own judgment because I think I’m old enough and experienced enough to dictate what I believe it right or wrong (reasonably well at least!).

If some radical politically charged trans woman came up to me and started ranting that I should always call her a woman I would tell her to get the fuck out of my face and stop disgracing herself by accosting me when I was out and about minding my own business. In the same light I hope you wouldn’t march up to someone you perceived as ‘a man in a dress’ and start lecturing them about how delusional they are and that they are bothering you by silently suggesting they are a woman when you know they are a man.

Is that a silly enough place you were hoping to get to in this discussion?

I didn’t say you said anything about sacrificing truth, but you are willing to knowingly utter a falsity to preserve someone’s feelings, with little consideration to the feelings of others who identify as the opposite. I just think that behavior is less than ethical, more of a ploy to avoid confrontation than anything else.

I didn’t say you said anything about sacrificing truth, but you are willing to knowingly utter a falsity to preserve someone’s feelings, with little consideration to the feelings of others who identify as the opposite. I just think that behavior is less than ethical, more of a ploy to avoid confrontation than anything else. — NOS4A2

If the trans person is your superior at work, you must refer to them in whatever way they want to, and this has nothing to do with the trans issue per se, but with workplace hierarchy. Similar for other workplace policies.

It's only when the trans person is your socioeconomic equal that the trans issue comes up.

I’m not sure it is ethical to lie for my boss, or any other person above me in any hierarchy.

I don’t see any ‘falsity’? Why is referring to someone who has the outward appearance of a woman ‘she’/‘her’ a ‘falsity’ in your eyes?

Duck that! In that kind if situation I would strongly oppose any ‘demand’. As a basic common courtesy I am happy to refer to people as they wish to be referred to as long as a song and dance is not made about it (that would make me suspicious).

It's only when the trans person is your socioeconomic equal that the trans issue comes up. — baker

That is a weird lens you have on the world. People are people. What the hell has economic status got to do with how you treat people?

I say that because you said that you know they are not a woman, but are willing to treat them and speak about them as if they were. Have I read it wrong?

Most people who see someone dressed as a woman will call them a woman. — I like sushi

Interesting. I suppose that is the reason we should not put dresses on pigs

I didn’t say you said anything about sacrificing truth, but you are willing to knowingly utter a falsity to preserve someone’s feelings, with little consideration to the feelings of others who identify as the opposite. I just think that behavior is less than ethical, more of a ploy to avoid confrontation than anything else. — NOS4A2

There are a few thing going on here, as far as I can see.

If I accept that a person in the scenario being discussed is sacrificing the truth to protect someone's feelings, I don't think it is obvious that is unethical. There is long standing debate about the interplay between different ethical principles like "I shall not lie" and "I shall be kind." So I don't agree that uttering a falsity is necessarily unethical.

Secondly, and I think this is one that a trans person would use, is suggesting the use of he/she is referring to a social construct of gender vs a biological construct of sex. And hence they are not uttering a falsity, as they identify with the social construct of gender that is different to their biological sex at birth.

Yes. A trans woman is referred to as her/she because it makes sense to say that not because I believe they are female nor would I say they are female. ‘Woman’ is not how we refer to people anymore than man is in general conversation other than to say that ‘woman’/‘man’. In such a situation, for clarification, I would say that trans woman.

It is really not that complicated.

We’ve seen where that has gotten us, though. Men are being allowed to compete in women’s sports, or to disrobe in their change rooms, for example. We’re forcing people to use language we would never use otherwise. We’re cutting off people’s genitalia and feeding hormones to children. We are sacrificing much more than truth.

At what point do you say, “no, that’s not a woman”?

Yes. A trans woman is referred to as her/she because it makes sense to say that not because I believe they are female nor would I say they are female. ‘Woman’ is not how we refer to people anymore than man is in general conversation other than to say that ‘woman’/‘man’. In such a situation, for clarification, I would say that trans woman.

It is really not that complicated.

It’s complicated because such pronouns refer to women, not men.

An observation, not an argument.

“Case in point” is an illustrative example of your assertion “Stipulating a criteria, one way or the other, is a political act”. But you were unwilling or unable to say how that is the case. A poor argument.

You are demonstrating that it is a political act in each post you present.

Authoritarianism relies on pretending the world is clearly cut by distinct categories. the arguments they present are dependent on saying that certain uses of a word are wrong in themselves, as opposed to being incompatible with other uses.

Defining a woman as a person with a vagina sets up a different discussion to defining a woman as a person who adopts a certain social role. Hence it sets up a different politic.

Both are in a sense equally arbitrary, but one excludes reflection on the place of social considerations by reducing them to a physical condition. That is, a discourse in which the physical state of having a vagina is equated with being a woman effectively denies the worthwhile distinction between being a woman and being a female. Hence it arbitrarily restricts the possibilities, while distinguishing between being a female and being a woman allows for more nuanced discussion.

For the moment it is worth simply drawing attention to this aspect of your position.

To be honest, I really struggle in my (hypothetical, I really haven’t talked to a lot of them) arguments against TURFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists). — Paulm12

Indeed, this is a contentious and interesting issue. There is nothing like a consensus on the issue. A feminist group with which I have a long association has welcomed an increasing number of trans and queer folk, which I find both confronting and invigorating.

While the lack of consensus is well worth contemplation, the impact of the inclusion of trans folk also remains unclear. It is possible that the focus of feminist organisations will become less distinct, making them less likely to induce change; but it is also possible that the result will be a broadening of the range of possibilities.

Interesting times.

Interesting times — Banno

possible that the focus of feminist organisations will become less distinct — Banno

Here is an asymmetry. 'Trans men are men' is not a slogan. Nobody feels threatened by a person who lacks a penis using the men's changing room or taking up men's sport or entering a men's prison. This makes me think that the root of the problem is not about trans. If it were, we would see approximately equal anxiety about either or any direction of transition.

I think the source of anxiety is male violence and domination. A trans person might be bullied in the men's changing room. They should be able to go to the toilet without fear of harrassment. A woman might be raped in the refuge or the women's prison. A girl should be able to get changed without having to risk seeing a penis. Women's sport should not become dominated by male bodies. These are the problems. Take away the violence and domination and 'trans women are women' would be as unnecessary a slogan as the non-slogan 'trans men are men'. Meanwhile, the ridiculed terfs and and so-called tras get to fight it out and the patriarchy sits back and enjoys the show. It's tragic.

This 10 minute talk is an interesting view - unintended consequences of Queer Theory, sex as a social construct leading to buckling of the concept of 'sisterhood'

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12804/the-meaning-of-woman/p2

Broken link.

Yes, the lack of symmetry struck me, too, and is symptomatic of the power structure, as you suggest - not just violence, but the threat to perceptions of masculinity and selfhood such as those expressed here.

My resident expert in such issues pointed out that if the social categories of sex and gender were to dissipate in importance, those folk who rely on those social categories for personal power would be exposed. That's the threat that underpins the need for folk hereabouts to defend certain definitions. That is, the theory of definitions they prescribe has its cause in their perceived social standing, and not so much in due consideration of the way language is used.

So you propose a whole new set of pronouns for trans women? You think it is somehow bizarre to refer to someone who clearly looks feminine as ‘she’/‘her’? That makes no sense, especially if your intent is merely to cause needless conflict over an issue that hardly ever arises.

Anyway, you don’t seem to have a sensible/reasonable thing to say so I’ll leave you to it.

The word "woman" is as old as the hills. Perhaps we should look into what kinda data our ancestors were using to define "woman". My hunch is that to them a woman was simply someone with breasts, a vagina, and who was capable of bearing offspring. I'm sure there were trans-men back then too, but they probably flew under the radar and had only clandestine relationships to, you know, avoid persecution which seems a natural reaction to outliers which transsexuals are. Homosexualism, in its own way, also challenges gender identity.

What the hell has economic status got to do with how you treat people? — I like sushi

Socioeconomic status.

Pretty much everything. The class war is the only real war around.

The term woman, is short for wonder man.

I’m not sure it is ethical to lie for my boss, or any other person above me in any hierarchy. — NOS4A2

It depends on how much you want to keep your job ...

This is the talk, hope the link works

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00168s3

thanks, an interesting discussion. It's problematic.

I think people usually view the world through the lens of 'concepts'. Be it concept of science or concept of religion, etc.
While it does seem that some concepts are relatively successful, like the scientific method, some are just ludicrous, such as viewing the world through the oppressor versus the oppressed narrative or, moreover, chanting "trans women are women" that makes as much sense as a 'Chinese Rolex is still a Rolex!' or 'my Kia is a Mercedes!'

So if you want somehow useful philosophy, try reading anything from Stoics to Nietzsche. Postmodernists are just a bunch of nutjobs. ;)

I think people usually view the world through the lens of 'concepts'. Be it concept of science or concept of religion, etc. — stoicHoneyBadger

Is it possible that people act in the world without any concepts, but when they analyze their experiences, concepts enter as gears in the machinery of explanation?

And then maybe these explanations, arising from reflection, affect the form of future actions.

Is it possible that people act in the world without any concepts, but when they analyze their experiences, concepts enter as gears in the machinery of explanation? — frank

Most people are incapable to create their own concepts. They just have some instinctive feeling and would pick any random concept that clicks with it. Like if a person is bitter and resentful, he would be happy pick the 'oppressed' concept, as it alleviates the burden of responsibility.

I have no issue with it either but many many people do have an issue with shared gender public toilets.

Me as well. Though I have a close friend who is Muslim and she can't fix her hijab in a shared bathroom space with men. So then the solution to this would be individual stalls with toilets, sinks, mirrors, etc. But this also has an economic impact as well.

Yes. A trans woman is referred to as her/she because it makes sense to say that not because I believe they are female...‘Woman’ is not how we refer to people anymore than man is in general conversation other than to say that ‘woman’/‘man’.

Where I am confused is you also say

if trans women competed in physical sports...[t]hey would break all the women’s records and rank high...Women’s sport dominated by trans women is not women’s sport

In this case, from what I can see, you seem to be using women to mean something different in these two places. Do you mean for the term women's records/sports is actually (or referring to) female's or women who are not transwomen's records/sports? Or are you using the term woman out of politeness but depending on context can exclude trans women. To me, the complication is the use of the same word "woman" to mean "female + trans women" and "female but not trans women" in different places.