He must remain risible for you in order for you to maintain your way of understanding the basis of scientific fact. — Joshs

He was a poor sociologist. This is risible, also. There are two sexes. I'm engaging with the responses.

I can do no more.

This will be my last reply. The reason why, is that you are wilfully ignoring almost everything I have said to service a continuation of your point, which has been dealt with ad nauseum throughout several thorough replies. — AmadeusD

Again, I think you're misreading my intentions, and I can't seem to read yours. You're coming across as angry and hostile. Which is fine. But I'm not seeing this as a productive conversation right now. I genuinely don't understand where you're coming from with your last few replies, and that tells me something is crossed in the communication that isn't going to be resolved over the forums this time.

So I think its best that you've said your piece, I've said mine, and we go our own way at this point. Makes sense right? You're battling a lot of other people in this thread, so have the gift of one less. :)

Where did I state this was a mental condition? Do women have a mental condition for wanting to wear dresses and paint their nails? No. — Philosophim

I did not intimate that you did. If you read what I wrote and took that you from it you literally had to make up a load of words that I didn't write. Apart from this, this utter strawman you want me to reply to is insulting. — AmadeusD

Does it not strike you as pathologising to label enjoying certain fashion as some kind of mental condition? (transgenderism is a mental condition, whether or not you think its an illness - its a condition of hte mind, if you see what i mean). — AmadeusD

So you can see why I'm confused here. And you're confused that I'm confused. And I'm confused that YOU'RE confused. And now you're yelling and saying things like, "How can you be so bad at English?!" I feel like you're juggling too many conversations at this point and getting things crossed up.

I'm not seeing the contradiction,
— Philosophim

Sorry, are you actually having trouble understanding plain English here? You literally quoted where i said i saw a contradiction and you cleared it up. — AmadeusD

Have you considered your English isn't as clear as you think? I have to redo and clarify what I've written all the time. When communicating with other people its often true that things which seem clear to us in our head are not conveyed as we wish when it meets other minds. Notice, I'm not putting the entire blame on you, but also noting that what I'm writing to you seems to keep being misinterpreted as well.

So I think the issue is unresolvable, we should tip our hat to each other, and try this again another day.

Transsexualism is a condition. A transsexual may present as their assigned gender (especially before they begin HRT), so they may not be transgender at that point. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sure I would call transexualism a condition. Transexualism is an action of bodily modification. Your statement is like saying, "I'm a body builder" but you've never lifted a weight in your life. You are a body builder after you start body building. You are a transexual after you start modifying your body.

If you have not transitioned your sex, but practice aspects of gender that you perceive as being associated with the other sex, then you are still just trasngendered. Once you transex and practice as that sex, I would say you are no longer transgendered, but acting as the gender your have changed your sex to. Does that make sense?

[

your ad hominem is duly noted

they are all male or female, as pointed out.

There are two sexes into which every single human fits neatly. If they don’t fit your definitions, thats an issue for you.

A transgendered person exhibits cultural actions that defy the cultural expectations of their sex.
— Philosophim
That, then, would be everyone, given that different cultures and individuals have different criteria and also given that pretty much everyone will have exceptional moments in their lives where they exhibit 'out of character' traits (in crisis, when tired, for fun, in private with someone they trust and so on.) — Bylaw

Then let me clarify. It is intentional and continual exhibition of cultural actions within one's culture that defy the cultural expectations of their sex. For example, If in a culture it is acceptable for men to wear a particular type of skirt, a kilt for example, but a woman decided to wear one, she would be making an intentional transgendered action.

In America there is a term for women who act like men in terms of aggression, actions, and language. Its called a "Tom Boy". That's a transgendered woman in her actions. Of course, in a culture where aggressive women are the norm, she would not be transgendered. Transgenderism is the stereotypes, prejudice, and social enforcement of behavior actions based on your biological sex. It is highly mutable and can differ not only from culture to culture, but from person to person.

In fact, we can break 'transgendered' up into several different types. There could be 'self identified transgender' vs 'accidental transgender' vs 'local culturally transgendered' etc. As noted, gender is highly mutable and can differ wildly from person to person.

I also feel like we are giving to much power to the observer when we say someone changes gender when others judge that they have done something that doesn't fit cultural expectations. Like if I take a trip to Malaysia and suddenly on a street in a village I become a transgendered person. I don't think that makes sense. — Bylaw

Yes, you would be transgendered in that culture. You would not be transgendered in your culture. Anytime we talk about culture, we involve at least one other person, or observer. The only way we remove other people from culture is if we have a completely personal opinion as to what a gender is. So for example, lets say that I believe wearing a dress as a woman is transgender. In my culture, every woman wears dresses. But in my mind, only boys should, so I say that all women are transgender. This is fine for my personal idea of transgenderism. But the moment I involve one other person, my own personal identification can be disagreed with by other people.

Are there personality traits that entail one is REALLY a woman or REALLY a man, or not? — Bylaw

The only way this is possible is if only a man, or only a woman, could exhibit a personality trait. If even one man or woman exhibited a personality trait that we associated only with the other sex, then that would dispel the notion that that particular personality trait was derived from being that particular sex.

To say otherwise is sexism.

I see no safe haven to be ourselves on any part of the political spectrum. — Bylaw

Which is what we have philosophy for! We can remove politics and discuss freely the definitions and nature of the issue. Here we are allowed to question and wonder without judgement or threat. I honestly feel this is where the issue can be resolved, not in politics.

quote="AmadeusD;888011"]↪Joshs your ad hominem is duly noted[/quote]

But from one hominem to another, I have a point, no? Did you form your opinion by reading Foucault’s texts or listening to your prof? Btw, what do you think of Thomas Kuhn’s view of how science works?

↪Joshs I love how people are like "Ad hominem" So what, an attack is an attack, it's only fallacious when you're using it like "It rains outside when AmadeusD cries," "AmaduesD Cries a lot," "Therefore it rains a lot."

Not when making a basic observation. — Vaskane

Rationalists have a grab bag of ‘em for all occasions : ad hominem, false equivalence, category error. They whip them out like a crucifix to ward off the idea that the rational is a species of the irrational.

Transsexualism is in the DSM-5. It is an actual medical condition that one can get diagnosed with. Upon receiving the diagnosis the patient receives a prescription for HRT.

Yet one can be diagnosed as a transsexual and still perform/behave as their assigned gender.

↪Philosophim Transsexualism is in the DSM-5. It is an actual medical condition that one can get diagnosed with. Upon receiving the diagnosis the patient receives a prescription for HRT. — BitconnectCarlos

Ah, there has been a trend to move away from transsex as a mental disorder. I do not attribute it as a mental disorder here. But, if you want to attribute it as a mental disorder, than you are correct.

Yeah, I would also rather call it a condition rather than a "mental disorder." Do not stigmatize it as a "mental illness." And this applies across a number of conditions.

Why the resistance to clearer definitions and language? Why the resistance between the division of sex as embodied, and gender as culture? What advantage does that give? Doesn't it seem dishonest to coach your words in ambiguity as if you're hiding something? Honesty is straight forwards and unambiguous. So lets have some honesty. — Philosophim

It's always refreshing to be asked what one thinks instead of being told. I resist clear definitions because they over-simplify life.

Firstly, as has been pointed out, the genetic picture is subject to various anomalous and exceptional conditions that have been somewhat discussed by others. This does not altogether prevent one from establishing an absolute rule such that there are exactly two kinds of human genome that we could call male and female, and we could then extend this from the genotype to the phenotype.

But then, apart from declaring that an individual falls genetically into one or other camp, what does it actually say about the individual? If it says nothing, then it it becomes completely trivial, and uncommunicative in almost every circumstance outside of the gene lab. But if it says something significant about the individual, it falls into exactly the generalising and potentially prejudicial vagueness you are trying to avoid.

I have mentioned sports, where men and women of either sex are sometimes separated on the basis of hormone levels, and prisons, where genitalia would seem to me to be the thing to be mainly concerned about.

"...men and women of either sex..." this is the sort of cumbersome usage that results from your definition of sex. I don't like it, but it seems to follow from your definition that we would have to talk in some way about hormones, genitalia, physique and social grouping in 'sex-neutral' ways.

Or, and this is my suspicion, the whole idea is, that having made the ruling and established its writ, that it should be applied universally and enforced and imposed, limiting folk to 'what their genes say'.

You being wrong has nought to do with me, my dude. There are two sexes, and all intersex people fit into those two categories. Further complicating it for yourself is up to you.

So for me I can infinitely understand other people greater than you can. — Vaskane

hehe. Keep it up!

But from one hominem to another, I have a point, no? Did you form your opinion by reading Foucault’s texts or listening to your prof? Btw, what do you think of Thomas Kuhn’s view of how science works? — Joshs

To begin, I didn't make one. Foucault isn't a scientist or an expert on sex development, so I approached his work with that in mind. It is lacking. If i impugned your position, it was to do with your reliance on a single person (as presented - I take it for granted thats not hte extent of your position, heh). A quip, if you will, with no comment on you personally.

But, with that, no, I don't think you did. Pointing out that 'Foucault has some insights for you' isn't really a point, in this sense anyway. Its just a suggestion i read a writer. Which is fine. I replied with my position on that writer. No sure where there's an issue.

It appears you two are under the impression that facts don't exist, or that fallacies don't occur? An odd way to get out of the weird holes you're in, intellectually. Ah well.

Yeah, I would also rather call it a condition rather than a "mental disorder." — BitconnectCarlos

This was the point i made earlier, duly ignored. It is a mental condition, whether or not you consider it aberrant, an illness or anything else - it's a condition of the mind. And apparently, a somewhat unique one.
I also, though, have no problem calling someone who literally believes they are, or can become, the opposite sex, mentally ill. I don't see any issue with that. The way you deal with the individual can't be that, though.


Is your position that sex, per se, is not a binary, or that it varies independently of biology? Not a loaded question, I just can't understand where you place yourself... some of waht you're saying seems to support a position as above, and some appears to be pushing toward a clear-cut notion of sex as definite, but somewhat unimportant.

Firstly, as has been pointed out, the genetic picture is subject to various anomalous and exceptional conditions that have been somewhat discussed by others. This does not altogether prevent one from establishing an absolute rule such that there are exactly two kinds of human genome that we could call male and female, and we could then extend this from the genotype to the phenotype. — unenlightened

You may have missed my discussion with AmadeusD, but we went over that. I have no issue with more than 2 sexes. I also have no issue with someone saying, "There are two sexes, and this is a genetic variant with different phenotypical expression". The point that I care about is that sex is tied to something beyond culture and opinion. Makes sense right? Just for the act of sex alone based on your orientation. People sleep with bodies, not personal identities.

But then, apart from declaring that an individual falls genetically into one or other camp, what does it actually say about the individual? If it says nothing, then it it becomes completely trivial, and uncommunicative in almost every circumstance outside of the gene lab. — unenlightened

Correct. No disagreement here. It only matters in specific cases that are tied completely to biology. So men can't menstruate for example. There are certain diseases and conditions that can only happen to men or women. Sex is about biology, and nothing else.

But if it says something significant about the individual, it falls into exactly the generalising and potentially prejudicial vagueness you are trying to avoid. — unenlightened

Right, this is gender. And yes, you're correct. Gender is often prejudicial, and can sometimes cross into sexism. My point is when you tie gender as necessarily coming from sex when it clearly doesn't, for example saying you're a biological woman if you paint your nails, its sexism. We have bodies, and gender is our opinion about how those bodies should behave and express themselves within a particular culture.

I have mentioned sports, where men and women of either sex are sometimes separated on the basis of hormone levels, and prisons, where genitalia would seem to me to be the thing to be mainly concerned about. — unenlightened

I really haven't waded into the sports discussion, as I'm more concerned about clarity of language first. Sports to me is about bodies. Therefore there should be questions about transexuals in sports, not transgendered people in sports. If I'm a biological male who has done nothing to become transex, I should not be allowed in a woman's sport. I leave it to the medical community to determine how far a man should transsex to be viable competition in woman's sports.

Prison is the same. Do we separate women and men because of gender, or because of the physical realities of their sex? Its sex. Therefore a man who expresses their gender associated with their idea of a woman, should still be in a male prison. A transexual women could be in a female prison after an evaluation has been done to determine how much transex has occurred for the safety and sexual protection of the other sex.

"...men and women of either sex..." this is the sort of cumbersome usage that results from your definition of sex. I don't like it, but it seems to follow from your definition that we would have to talk in some way about hormones, genitalia, physique and social grouping in 'sex-neutral' ways. — unenlightened

That wasn't my intention and perhaps I wrote that poorly. Sex would be biological, so clear. You would be a female on hormones, or a male on hormones. I think what makes more sense is that such things would be stated in 'gender-neutral' ways, as gender is not sex or the body, it is an aspect of culture.

Or, and this is my suspicion, the whole idea is, that having made the ruling and established its writ, that it should be applied universally and enforced and imposed, limiting folk to 'what their genes say'. — unenlightened

Do not be suspicious, say what you mean. Treat me as an honest person until I show you otherwise. We need honest and trusting discussion to be productive. Say what you feel, I will take no offense. This is philosophy, not politics. Here is where we should be willing to say and explore every facet without judgement (ideally anyway).

My point is that sex is bodily, so areas of the world that are separated by bodies should not consider transgenderism. Like I noted with sports and prisons above. And on the flip side, areas of the world that are separated by gender, should not concern themselves with differences of sex. So a woman who wears a suit is still a woman. How she expresses, dresses, or behaves, has no impact or change on her sex.

Is your position that sex, per se, is not a binary, or that it varies independently of biology? Not a loaded question, I just can't understand where you place yourself... some of waht you're saying seems to support a position as above, and some appears to be pushing toward a clear-cut notion of sex as definite, but somewhat unimportant. — AmadeusD

My position is that there is not a thing "sex" that is or isn't binary, nor do I want there to be. We talk about men and women and it is uncontroversial for me (or you) to say "I am a man" and there is no need to enquire as to my hormones my genitalia or my genes. I also talk about "my wife", but if pressed, I cannot produce a marriage certificate, yet I think everyone understands well enough. (We held hands and jumped over a broom.)

My position is that there is not a thing "sex" that is or isn't binary, nor do I want there to be. — unenlightened

Thank you for clarifying

So a woman who wears a suit is still a woman. How she expresses, dresses, or behaves, has no impact or change on her sex. — Philosophim

This is you imposing your morality on the world. It may be your ideal, and how you would like it to be, but it is a long, long way from the actual.

The actual is that a woman with a beard is a freak. Therefore, a woman with a beard might prefer to 'pass as a man'. And in that case, your insisting on referring to her with the female pronoun is not merely oppressive, but dangerous and possibly life-threatening.

So a woman who wears a suit is still a woman. How she expresses, dresses, or behaves, has no impact or change on her sex.
— Philosophim

This is you imposing your morality on the world. It may be your ideal, and how you would like it to be, but it is a long, long way from the actual. — unenlightened

I don't think this is morality, this is just a proper way to identify people.

The actual is that a woman with a beard is a freak. Therefore, a woman with a beard might prefer to 'pass as a man'. And in that case, your insisting on referring to her with the female pronoun is not merely oppressive, but dangerous and possibly life-threatening. — unenlightened

This is a case of morality. First, I'm not saying people can't emulate other sexes and attempt to pass in casual settings where sex does not matter. I'm only noting that when sex does matter, emulation should be deemed good enough. Growing a beard does not mean a woman has a prostate exam for example.

Calling a woman who is emulating as a man is not dangerous. What's dangerous is if people think they should commit violence against a woman who is emulating as a man, or has secondary sex characteristics that are typically associated with a man. We have not yet discussed pronouns yet, but we may here.

The problem with pronouns is they have traditionally been sex driven, not gender driven. In old times if I was told I was going to meet my future wife and I would love her, everyone knew she meant 'female sex'. Now, that doesn't mean this tradition needs to continue, but there should be a good reason to change it.

So, lets think about it. Gender is a cultural construct, or an expectation of how a particular sex should act. Is this consistent across all cultures? No. In fact, this might not be consistent across even small groups of people or individuals.

The purpose of communication is to convey an idea clearly and efficiently. When I say a 'car' you don't think a 'truck'. When pronouns mean sex, the conveyance is clear. Bodily female or male. Pronouns, which are not culturally bound, must remain culture neutral to keep their clear conveyance. Since different cultures have different ideas of gender, it is not rational for pronouns to be used to match culture, to keep their clarity.

What you're looking for is 'slang'. Slang happens when we take a word that means one thing in a language, and repurpose it within a culture. Thus the word 'drip' can mean more than water droplets trickling, but 'snazzy dress'. If I call someone a snazzy dresser instead of saying, "You have drip", I am not participating in slang, but cross culture language.

This means that if a group of people, or a sub culture wants to call a transgender person a pronoun that doesn't fit their sex, its fine. But that's slang, not official. Requiring other people to use slang is of course, wrong. Being offended that people do not use slang is also wrong. I don't have to use the word 'drip' or 'jelly' or 'cool' if I don't want to. Can people who use slang push it to become part of the vernacular? Of course. But that doesn't erase the other meanings of the word in the culture either. I have no issue with people using pronouns as slang. But if they insist that pronouns as slang should eliminate the normative use of the term, I'm going to reject that. Pronouns as sex identification is far more valuable as a culturally neutral term than as slang.

They do. Though. The ambiguous language is what leaves open all of the routes of harm.

Compassion without analysis is bereft of effectiveness. — AmadeusD

This is very grand wording and may sometimes even be true. It doesn't seem useful in the case of my position on trans.

I believe people should be the gender they consider themselves to be. I have no theory of sex or trans and don't need one.

I agree with that definitions can be limiting.

Then I'm sure you understand now why I'm trying to make words more specific and don't have a disagreement with that. — Philosophim

I understand but I choose not to take that approach on this issue.

Clearer and easily understood terminology is better for the community then ambiguous opinionated terminology. — Philosophim

You've made that point several times. Here's my point again, which only applies to this particular matter.

In culture, the matter of trans identity is still finding its way. Trans people themselves have a range of views and approaches. For now my opinion is that we need to remain open to a range of understandings in the space and not police the language and conceptual frameworks too much. That's all.

Then let me clarify. It is intentional and continual exhibition of cultural actions within one's culture that defy the cultural expectations of their sex. For example, If in a culture it is acceptable for men to wear a particular type of skirt, a kilt for example, but a woman decided to wear one, she would be making an intentional transgendered action. — Philosophim

So, if it is not intentional then it's not transgendered? Do we mean intentionally deciding to cross gender traits or intentional in any way? And, not an example of the same question, is a transvestite, transgender?

n America there is a term for women who act like men in terms of aggression, actions, and language. Its called a "Tom Boy". That's a transgendered woman in her actions.

Perhaps today some people would call a Tom Boy transgendered, but when I was growing up those girls were not considered transgendered and things were vastly more conservative about gender roles then. It was one of the types of normal girls. If someone had thought they were truly transgendered they would have used a much harsher name.

Yes, you would be transgendered in that culture. You would not be transgendered in your culture. Anytime we talk about culture, we involve at least one other person, or observer. The only way we remove other people from culture is if we have a completely personal opinion as to what a gender is. So for example, lets say that I believe wearing a dress as a woman is transgender. In my culture, every woman wears dresses. But in my mind, only boys should, so I say that all women are transgender. This is fine for my personal idea of transgenderism. But the moment I involve one other person, my own personal identification can be disagreed with by other people. — Philosophim

Of course other people can disagree. But saying that the Malaysians disagree, doesn't mean I am transgendered. I haven't become something else. I am in a place where some people would think I am outside the proper role/set of traits. I'm not saying they are wrong and I am right. I may not even be thinking I am anything in particular. But I don't become something else because of how they see me.

The only way this is possible is if only a man, or only a woman, could exhibit a personality trait. If even one man or woman exhibited a personality trait that we associated only with the other sex, then that would dispel the notion that that particular personality trait was derived from being that particular sex.

To say otherwise is sexism. — Philosophim

I think I agree with this. It makes me think of how people who have very rigid ideas about what a boy then man should be like and what a girl then woman should be like often put in a lot of effort training boys and girls to fit their roles. If they are right that boys are like X and girls are like Y you shouldn't need all that training. Boys will be boys and girls will be girls. All the training and shaming to form correct roles is a sign that they are precisely NOT natural, or you could let nature take its course.

In culture, the matter of trans identity is still finding its way. Trans people themselves have a range of views and approaches. For now my opinion is that we need to remain open to a range of understandings in the space and not police the language and conceptual frameworks too much. That's all. — Tom Storm

This I can understand. My counter, and you may disagree with me, is that trans people are people, not a specialized group. We all speak English and share language. It is the responsibility of those that want to move beyond their isolated culture to invite us all in and allow our input as well. I appreciate your viewpoints Tom, we'll catch you another time!

Since different cultures have different ideas of gender, it is not rational for pronouns to be used to match culture, to keep their clarity. — Philosophim

Why do you think it has become important for those advocating for changes in the way society thinks about gender to alter the traditional association of pronouns with plumbing? Isnt it because they believe that the use of these pronouns has evolved in most cultures to associate maleness with power and privilege not accorded to femaleness? You may believe that these pronouns only refer to plumbing, but centuries of self-justifying oppression against a group that is categorized on basis of plumbing shows that most have not understood the relation between plumbing and gender roles the way you do. So how do we define what it means for the meaning of a word to be used accurately?

The etymological history of language shows that the meaning of words continually shifts over time. Shouldn’t accuracy of words be defined on the basis of the dominant way they are actually understood by a culture, rather than by recourse to categorization based on a presumed authority ( such as biological plumbing) that the culture is not paying attention to? Why was the word negro changed to black? After all, one could argue that it is merely a translation of the French word for black into English. But those who advocated for a change knew that this is not how negro was understood by the dominant culture of the U.S. in the mid 20th century. The word black was chosen as a more accurate verbal representation of a being with equal social status to whites than the word negro symbolized.

Similarly, allowing individuals to chose their preferred pronouns over ‘he’ or ‘she’ is designed to offer a more accurate verbal representation of what they consider as their gender and/or how they want their social status to be perceived. To what extent they succeed in achieving this through their chosen pronoun will vary from person to person, and I’m sure some will try out different variations to see if they achieve the desired response. The ongoing reinvention of gender-related language is a an experiment still in progress. Like all etymological changes that have taken place in history, we will likely go through a number of permutations before society settles down for a time with a consensus on what ‘accurately’ reflects the emerging understanding of the relation between sex, gender, status and power. But I am assuming we will not be returning to ‘he’ and ‘she’ for the same reasons that ‘negro’ is not likely to be making a comeback any time soon.

This I can understand. My counter, and you may disagree with me, is that trans people are people, not a specialized group. We all speak English and share language. It is the responsibility of those that want to move beyond their isolated culture to invite us all in and allow our input as well. I appreciate your viewpoints Tom, we'll catch you another time! — Philosophim

:up: No worries. Disagreement is fine. We're not all the same. Thanks for the chat.

So, if it is not intentional then it's not transgendered? Do we mean intentionally deciding to cross gender traits or intentional in any way? — Bylaw

Great question that I'll try to clarify. Lets say a woman acts 'aggressive' and no one blinks an eye. Within that culture, its accepted that someone of her sex can act that way. However, she enters into a culture where aggressiveness is seen as male. People tell her, "You're acting like a man with that aggression." At this point she understands within that culture that her behavior is seen as belonging to the male gender, not the female gender. If she says to herself, "I don't care, I'm still going to be me." she is transgendered in that culture.

Basically, its understanding the gender of a culture, then not being pressured by that culture to follow the gender expectations.

And, not an example of the same question, is a transvestite, transgender? — Bylaw

Yes. To be a transvestite is to dress in the manner as the opposite sex that clearly conveys this to other people. This does not mean they are transex, just transgender.

Perhaps today some people would call a Tom Boy transgendered, but when I was growing up those girls were not considered transgendered and things were vastly more conservative about gender roles then. It was one of the types of normal girls. If someone had thought they were truly transgendered they would have used a much harsher name. — Bylaw

Just because we use the term transgendered more today doesn't mean it can't be applied retroactively to the past. Telling someone, "You're acting like a boy," is telling someone, "You're acting like the wrong gender".

Of course other people can disagree. But saying that the Malaysians disagree, doesn't mean I am transgendered. I haven't become something else. I am in a place where some people would think I am outside the proper role/set of traits. I'm not saying they are wrong and I am right. I may not even be thinking I am anything in particular. But I don't become something else because of how they see me. — Bylaw

To be clear, being transgender does not mean you've changed your sex. You have not become, "Something else". You are simply dressing, acting, or behaving in a way that a particular culture expects people of a particular sex to do. If I'm a male that likes putting on nail extenders and painting them hot pink, I'm still a male. The action I'm doing is transgender, as normative American culture expects that only women do this.

Here's a more historical example:

“It was related to the mother color of red, which was ardent and passionate and more active, more aggressive. Even though you reduce the shade level, it was a color that was associated with boys,” Eiseman said.

An article titled “Pink or Blue,” published in the trade journal The Infants’ Department in 1918, said that the generally accepted rule is pink for boys and blue for girls. “The reason is that pink being a decided and stronger color is more suitable for the boy,” it said."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/12/health/colorscope-pink-boy-girl-gender/index.html

As you can see the colors which are escribed to modern genders were once reversed. Did men suddenly become women and vice versa once we switched colors? Of course not.

It makes me think of how people who have very rigid ideas about what a boy then man should be like and what a girl then woman should be like often put in a lot of effort training boys and girls to fit their roles. If they are right that boys are like X and girls are like Y you shouldn't need all that training. Boys will be boys and girls will be girls. All the training and shaming to form correct roles is a sign that they are precisely NOT natural, or you could let nature take its course. — Bylaw

I agree! I think we can take questions of 'transgender' and look at them more in depth. If your boy is open with their feelings, why do you think that shouldn't be? They're still a boy whether they hide their feelings or not, so what's the reasoning behind a gendered idea that they should be stoic and unsharing? Separating the body and gender continue to show more benefits and clearer points then blending them together.

To be clear, being transgender does not mean you've changed your sex. You have not become, "Something else". You are simply dressing, acting, or behaving in a way that a particular culture expects people of a particular sex to do. If I'm a male that likes putting on nail extenders and painting them hot pink, I'm still a male. The action I'm doing is transgender, as normative American culture expects that only women do this. — Philosophim

This isnt quite accurate. ‘Trans’ isn’t simply slot ratting within an already defined and culturally familiar binary. It can mean ‘transcend’ as well as ‘transition between’. It can just as well be true that a transgender perceives themselves to be acting in a way that defies all gender expectations of a culture. Not because they are acting like either a male or a female , or some combination thereof, but because their gender is idiosyncratic and outside of the familiar categories.

Why do you think it has become important for those advocating for changes in the way society thinks about gender to alter the traditional association of pronouns with plumbing? Isnt it because they believe that the use of these
pronouns has evolved in most cultures to associate maleness with power and privilege not accorded to femaleness? — Joshs

Wouldn't it be far easier to get people to stop associating maleness with power and privilege? Do you think changing the meaning of pronouns is going to erase this? No, that's stilly. People associating more to a word than its meaning and general use are using slang. If there is slang that implies being a 'he' means power, then the slang needs to be addressed, not the culturally neutral term of the pronoun.

So how do we define what it means for the meaning of a word to be used accurately? — Joshs

'He' is a biological mail, 'she' is a biological female. That's it. Anything more attributed to that then this is slang, and an issue with the people involved not the language.

The etymological history of language shows that the meaning of words continually shifts over time. Shouldn’t accuracy of words be defined on the basis of the dominant way they are actually understood by a culture, rather than by recourse to categorization based on a presumed authority ( such as biological plumbing) that the culture is not paying attention to? — Joshs

Of course words can change over time, but there is still the question of whether this is a positive or negative change. What you're talking about is stereotyping and sexism. First, the entire culture is not using pronouns as a form of oppression. Most of us are just using it to identify sex.

Second, anyone who uses them as a form of oppression is adding more to the word than intended. They are 'genderfying' the word. And as you can see, that creates a problem doesn't it?

Third, there are multiple cultures who all have their own uses of words, but when we communicate cross cultures we understand we need common ground. The minority culture may ask the majority culture to use the minorities terms, but they may not demand it. Makes sense right? If most people used the word 'cool' to describe something awesome, and a minority demanded that the majority stop using it that way, I don't think it would go so well.

Why was the word negro changed to black? After all, one could argue that it is merely a translation of the French word for black into English. But those who advocated for a change knew that this is not how negro was understood by the dominant culture of the U.S. in the mid 20th century. The word black was chosen as a more accurate verbal representation of a being with equal social status to whites than the word negro symbolized. — Joshs

Excellent point. But we have a very objective reason. Slavery. A difference of use that was so controversial an entire war was fought over it because negro was synomyous with 'inferior person'. But pronouns don't have an objective abuse like this. Further, the color change had the same underlying meaning it was trying to get to, "that they had black skin". The idea that pronouns change to gender defies the entire purpose of the underlying word, which is to describe sex.

Similarly, allowing individuals to chose their preferred pronouns over ‘he’ or ‘she’ is designed to offer a more accurate verbal representation of what they consider as their gender and/or how they want their social status to be perceived. — Joshs

Society is not obligated to view you how you view yourself. This is what a child does. "I'm strong!" "No you're not" *Child gets mad and storms off* Part of maturing is realizing that you exist in society and other people see you differently than you see yourself. Part of existing in society is learning how to get others to see you the way you want, which requires effort on your part. No one is every obligated to see you as you see yourself simply because you tell them they should.

If I want others to see me as strong, I need to lift heavy weights. If I want others to see me as kind, I'ld better act kind. Even then, people will have their own opinions. "Nah, they're not that strong, that's just 120 pounds" "Kind? All they did was listen to another person's problems, that's basic."

Now, can someone tell a local group, "Hey, would you mind calling me he or she? It makes me happy." That's fine. People can say "No" or they can say, "Yes". Its up to them. But it is using the word differently as initially intended, asking them to covert it to a slang which describes gender in that group. No one is obligated to participate in your slang. No one is obligated to see you as you see yourself. It may be kind to. Some people may not mind. But it is never an obligation or something that should be enforced as being official.

The ongoing reinvention of gender-related language is a an experiment still in progress. Like all etymological changes that have taken place in history, we will likely go through a number of permutations before society settles down for a time with a consensus on what ‘accurately’ reflects the emerging understanding of the relation between sex, gender, status and power. — Joshs

That is what we're doing here. Appreciate your input to the discussion. :)

But I am assuming we will not be returning to ‘he’ and ‘she’ for the same reasons that ‘negro’ is not likely to be making a comeback any time soon. — Joshs

I disagree, on the points I addressed earlier.

This isnt quite accurate. ‘Trans’ isn’t simply slot ratting within an already defined and culturally familiar binary. It can mean ‘transcend’ as well as transition within. — Joshs

I'm not sure I understand. Gender is a cultural expectation for how each sex should act within that culture. But culture doesn't make all actions about gender. For example, all people wear shoes. All people breath. Its not transcending gender, its just being a human.

Maybe you mean in a case in which there is an expected way for one gender to act, but not an opposite in the other gender? Can you give me an example, I think that would help.

It can just as well be true that a transgender perceives themselves to be acting in a way that defies all expectations of a culture. — Joshs

See, if a man or a woman started to walk around barefoot, I wouldn't see that as transcending gender. That's just defying cultural expectations for people.

Slavery. A difference of use that was so controversial an entire war was fought over it because negro was synomyous with 'inferior person'. But pronouns don't have an objective abuse like this. Further, the color change had the same underlying meaning it was trying to get to, "that they had black skin". The idea that pronouns change to gender defies the entire purpose of the underlying word, which is to describe sex. — Philosophim

And one could argue the purpose of the word negro was to describe color of skin. But it was likely never simply a neutral label, because it was shaped right from the start by the cultural context of its use, just as pronouns were never purely about biological sex. The modern scientific concept of sex didnt even exist until recently. Tracing the etymological history of male-female pronouns through different cultures would produce in every case meaning in which whatever ‘natural’ sense of the binary was hopelessly and inextricably entangled with cultural understanding of gender roles.

Society is not obligated to view you how you view yourself. This is what a child does. "I'm strong!" "No you're not" *Child gets mad and storms off* Part of maturing is realizing that you exist in society and other people see you differently than you see yourself. Part of existing in society is learning how to get others to see you the way you want, which requires effort on your part. No one is every obligated to see you as you see yourself simply because you tell them they should.

If I want others to see me as strong, I need to lift heavy weights. If I want others to see me as kind, I'ld better act kind. Even then, people will have their own opinions. "Nah, they're not that strong, that's just 120 pounds" "Kind? All they did was listen to another person's problems, that's basic." — Philosophim

You want to be careful here , because look how easily we could insert the word ‘negro’ into your account. In fact , conservatives like William F . Buckley used a justification not unlike your argument for not supporting the civil rights movement. Society was supposedly not ready for such changes. The burden was upon the negroes to convince the larger population of the need for the changes they advocated. I agree that whether one’s cause is worthy ultimately will be decided not simply by our own desires but by convincing others. And I would argue that this is precisely what we are now seeing across Western cultures. Advocates have put enormous effort and passion into changing minds, and as a result today’s culture, especially the young, are showing a desire to change their vocabulary.

:up: