And one could argue the purpose of the word negro was to describe color of skin. — Joshs

I did note that. And I also agreed with you that it had grafted a connotation onto it that was entirely too negative as to ever be disregarded. I also noted however that the new word continued with the non-offensive use of the term which is simply describing skin color.

This is not a good analogy for the change of pronouns.

1. You aren't disregarding the old words to make a new word, you are using the same word. We're still using 'him' and 'her'. This would be like me still continuing to use negro but saying, "Yeah, but it doesn't mean slave or black anymore, don't think that way."

2. The disregard for negro was to regard what was offensive or oppressive. There is nothing offensive or oppressive about the part that pronouns were used primarily to identify sex.

So you are not creating a new word to keep the inoffensive part of an old word. You are saying we remove the inoffensive point of the word and replace the meaning of the word with something else entirely. Why erase a word describing sex? What's the benefit?

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. — Joshs

I would like to hear more specific examples then general claims. My understanding is that in most cultures for most uses of the use of pronouns, it refers to sex. This is also not argument against my point as to why pronouns are better used to describe sex than gender. Please address that point if you would.

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. — Joshs

Don't just tell me I should be careful. Tell me how I'm doing the same thing. Otherwise I'm going to handwave this away considering your analogy with negros doesn't work.

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. — Joshs

Correct. And as philosophers we should ask if their arguments are valid and helpful. If we started spreading telling all of the children in America that the president should be a king, does that make it right? Of course activism is happening. That's not an argument for it being right. Try to go back to my points that sex is a fine neutral term that crosses cultures, whereas gender creates cross cultural problems in communication.

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. — Philosophim

I'd still quibble over the language. I'd say now she knows how she's going to be judged there. And she doesn't really have a way to not be her, at least in the short term. She'd just be hiding who she was, and like feeling the aggression and hiding it. So, if the views make her something, she's still that something, but managing the camouflage it. If we shift to morals, for a moment. Morals vary culture to culture. I go somewhere where oral sex is consider immoral and in my hotel room engage in oral sex. Even though I am in that country and know their views, I wasn't immoral.
Or, at least [to black box moral realism/antirealism]I would not now be an immoral person, but back home I'm not. I'd rather couch the issue as I would be seen as immoral there. And even if housekeeping came in and caught us, I don't think I am now an immoral person. But, yes, absolutely, I will be seen as such. It's a kind of reification and simplification of the more complicated process. Or to shift to emotions. If I go from my usual day to day contacts with people who have some broad common views of how one interacts. I then end up at a wedding reception with people from a culture where insults are part and parcel of all rites of passage and they aim a lot of at me. I don't think it makes sense to say 'I am an angry person.' Better to me: I get angry when insulted. Insults mean something different to me which leads to......

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. — Philosophim

So, are you transgender as a transvestite when you dress that way, or all the time? What if you are traditionally male in your culture 99% of the time, but once in a while you dress up as a woman to get sexual pleasure? But then otherwise a violent, womanizing professional rugby player (on a men's team) who only talks about cars, sports and how to fix things with tools around the house. :grin: Apologies to anyone offended by my tongue in cheek ethnology example. And in a sense the reason it works is the sexual frisson this occasional behavior creates due to the contrast with his usual way of being. It's not finally showing his true nature in secret. Or, the same man otherwise who instead likes to be dominated sexually, sometimes. I suppose I am probing here because I think it might be better not to label people and in a binary way (not just that it's binary between male and female, but also binary between being transgender or not.) Not that it has the horrific moral overtones of the one drop of blood determination of race, but perhaps has a similar misleading binariness.

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". — Philosophim

But that's just the thing: to me, at least in general, they were not told that. It was not a term of insult, nor was it part of getting them back on the right side of the gender fence. It was a kind of minority normalness. Oh, she's a tom boy. Now that might have been in the subculture I was in, loosely urban U.S. But it was a fairly diverse group of children and people - well, that's urban. There was a qualititative difference between being called a tom boy and being called a 'fag' say. One could say, parent to parent, Oh your girl's quite the tom boy and not get into a fist fight.

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

My quibble has less problem with this last description - the actions are transgendered there, which they would be even if I never realized during my whole stay. Rather than become transgendered. And natives often understand that that's just the way people are from other cultures.

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. — Philosophim

I did understand that one wasn't changing sex in this situation. I just don't think you're changing anything at all. The new situation is what is happening in the way you are viewed. Just as the viewing one as male - if the other group thought you were actually male when you're not - doesn't make you male, the viewing you as transgendered doesn't make you differently gendered. I understand that the two judgments/situations are not the same, but me, I'd avoid labeling the person as going from X to Y, and rather describe it in terms of how the different players are viewing the situation.

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? — Philosophim

One could, I suppose come up with arguments why emphasizing statistical tendencies (different tendencies the different bodies have) might have been useful in tribal situations. But I'm not even sure that holds.

I believe people should be the gender they consider themselves to be. — Tom Storm

I'm trying to understand your position by posing questions to you that your position entails an answer to... Why does not extend to teh age, race, weight and height one 'considers' themselves to be? This exact logic is why 'adult babies' are a thing. I would assume you note the patent mental arrest involved in that notion? Why do you not apply the same logic to people who are, lets say, unique in their aberrant (socially speaking) perception of themselves? It just seems like you'v enot thought about htis at all, and rely on compassion for a position that has much, much deep implications than "i don't like to upset people"

I treat people as it seems reasonable to do so. If someone is commanding me to refer to them as female when they are patently male (and, in the two specific circumstances I'm recalling - aggressive and mildly violent about it) I'm not doing that. You can go fuck yourself. You are ill.
If someone politely lets me know that they prefer to be called x I have no problem with it. How one wants to be referred to is literally no moment for anyone but them. How they identify matters to everyone around them. And for this reason, your position seems to me obviously lacking in further considerations thank "Hi, I like to be refered to as 'she''

I really respect your responses to Joshs. Wanted to throw that out. He's playing a game, and you're not biting. It's great to see.

or some combination thereof, but because their gender is idiosyncratic and outside of the familiar categories. — Joshs

Hmm. Your account seems to suggest, as I would argue, and have done elsewhere, that the concept of being 'transgender' is actually twofold:

In one case, it's an individual claiming to be another gender. I.e, "I am a woman". They are identifying with an existing member of a binary. So, in those cases, I think we are right to say they are either correct or incorrect about what they actually are. Otherwise, calling yourself a woman means literally zero.. But, this leads me to scenario 2...
In this scenario, the person is claiming some identity other than man/woman simply because they think those labels are restrictive. The patent fact is they are not restrictive in traditional uses - no one thinks a woman in a suit is a man, or a man who cries at movies is a woman - the idea is that they are less effective members of their grouping in the binary. So, people who want to escape what they perceive as a restrictive label are attempting to invent a special identity that encompasses only their exact (current) psychological traits. To me, this is absurd in the sense that it makes the concept of 'gender' exactly the same as giving somoene a name, and then using hte name to refer to them. If you want 'other genders' they must be defined, to have any meaning.
So, if, and your account seems to take this as true, "gendered language" is constantly evolving to allow for infinite identities, we're talking about people naming themselves in contrast to everyone else. I have no problem saying that someone who is doing this is narcissistic and domineering.

There's also the fact that, on an account where gender is 1:1 tied to sex (lets, for a moment, accept that conception) - people whiney about not wanting to be in either group can just keep it to themselves. They are wrong, and its not encumbent on society to allow for people's grandiose self-image. That is nto my take, but it illustrates something that I think people are afraid of saying to avoid some kind of backlash. Which is cowardly, if the above were true and just as JS Mill rightly pointed out 200 years ago - social/public opinion is one of the strongest forms of oppression. The absolute shitshow of talking about trans issues in public is an extremely good reason to think opinions are stymied.

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

You are way too educated and too smart to let yourself get away with this sort of thing. I'm going to leave it there.

I believe people should be free to do what they want to do in life. There are people who also want to cut their arm off. If after a discussion they still want to, let them. — Philosophim

Are we really at such a point that a 'discussion' mitigates other such concerns that may have primacy with regards to such extensive/extreme modifications.

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

Perhaps they are all worried that the other side will convince you that your sins are virtues.

Perhaps they are all worried that the other side will convince you that your sins are virtues. — substantivalism

There seems a strong urge to define me (along with everyone else) and oversimplify me (and everyone else) on both sides.

Instead of having to learn via intuition and experience, everyone wants an adhered to label. One side thinks you can change your label, but once you have that label on your head we know you.

I think there's a huge fear of having to navigate reality, which is concrete and specific and detailed.

:up:

I'm trying to understand your position by posing questions to you that your position entails an answer to... Why does not extend to the age, race, weight and height one 'considers' themselves to be? This exact logic is why 'adult babies' are a thing. I would assume you note the patent mental arrest involved in that notion? — AmadeusD

A familiar argument from trans bigotry talking points. When people straw man trans using exaggeration to argue that - 'next people will want to identify as an air conditioning unit or a maidenhair fern' - that's just bigotry wrestling with social change.

The fact that there are some people who are delusional or make other strange claims is irrelevant to the crux of this issue. Trans depicted as a type of Pandora's box is a popular trope. I heard the same sorts of things said about decriminalising homosexuality (it will only encourage deviancy) and gay marriage (it's not natural). Some people still believe these things.

As I've said, I have no interest arguing against the anti-trans talking points and biological essentialism that are all over the internet and here in this thread. As I said, I'm not a biologist or a social theorist. Happy merely to support the trans community. I arrived at this through years of talking to trans people. And no doubt my view on this will continue evolve.

I accept that there are individuals whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. People who are denied the ability to express their gender suffer greatly and may even suicide. It's not a simplistic case of 'hurt feelings' that would be a trivialising of the matter.

Are there some trans people who are aggressive or mentally unwell? Sure. We would find this amongst almost any group of human beings. So what?

So I don't mind at all if you disagree with me. Your view is likely to have strong support. I have no interest in some interminable debate on this issue.

1. You aren't disregarding the old words to make a new word, you are using the same word. We're still using 'him' and 'her'. This would be like me still continuing to use negro but saying, "Yeah, but it doesn't mean slave or black anymore, don't think that way."

2. The disregard for negro was to regard what was offensive or oppressive. There is nothing offensive or oppressive about the part that pronouns were used primarily to identify sex. — Philosophim

I haven’t mentioned the move to discard black in favor of African American. What was behind this initiative? The concern was that black, in referring to a biological feature common to certain people , associated that group with the concept of race. Race is no longer considered by geneticists to be a coherent scientific notion, and has been used mainly to discriminate against individuals. It wasthought that African, on the other hand, would direct one toward a cultural rather than biological identification, just as indigenous or native peoples accomplishes relative to ‘Indian’. African American has not replaced black the way that black replaced negro and colored, partly because an increasing percentage of blacks in America were not born there, and partly because the term black was redefined away from its racial connotation in favor of culture and ethnicity.

The term ‘person of color’ achieves something similar but in a more inclusive way. It’s important to note that built into the embrace of blackness as a term is that it includes within its meaning the sense of being a minority in danger of marginalization. In other words, it is considered important that a word which distinguishes one group from others on the basis of the particular surface indicator of skin color should be used not only as a banner of pride but of continuing struggle for acceptance.

This strategy to knowingly keep using a term that in part connotes marginalization is seen in the embrace of the word ‘queer’. It has built into its sense both the recognition that certain groups have been considered as freaks, perverts or pathological by the dominant culture, and that these groups are turning that meaning into a positive by celebrating their non-conformity. By contrast , the term homosexual has been rejected because it is considered to be hopelessly compromised by years of medicalized pathologizing of gays.

You have argued that black means the same thing as negro or colored; they all refer to skin color. But the fact is all these words mean different things in different contexts for different people. What is relevant here is that there were predominant meanings associated with some of them that were damaging to the group they weren’t being applied to. The terms colored and negro weren’t phased out slowly, but all at once. In 1967 in the U.S. one could find the word negro used in almost all publications. In 1968 they all but vanished in favor of the new term ‘black’. Did black mean ‘skin color’ in 1968? It certainly could be used this way, but its emergence was associated with bold messaging such as ‘black is beautiful’ and ‘black power’. Beauty and power are concepts that were not generally associated with negro and colored. Blackness was designed to be as much a cultural as a physical concept, reflecting the rapid and dramatic changes in attitude that took place in the 1960’s.

Can we equate ‘he’ and ‘she’ with the damaging cultural stereotyping associated with colored and negro? Many women would say yes. But what evidence do we have that cultural stereotypes are ingrained within the word ‘she’ that have affected women on a day to day basis? For starters, applying for a bank loan, mortgage, credit card or job was a very different experience for a woman than for a man. But one might ask, is there a way to change attitudes about femaleness without eliminating she? Can’t we ameliorate the imbalance by substituting ‘humankind’ for ‘mankind’, and using the word she as often as he in generic descriptions? Or perhaps put an asterisk or something after the word she to catalyze the kind of shift in cultural presuppositions that swapping negro for black aimed for? Of course, it would require more than this to bring our language up to date with our cultural attitudes. Why do we refer to certain inanimate objects, like a ship, as ‘she’? Is it because a boat looks like a vagina, or because we apply a certain cultural notion of femininity to things? And what do we do about languages that use grammatical gender? Do such languages not color the whole world in terms of anti-feminine bias?

So far I’ve been arguing that harmful cultural prejudices make their way so frequently into what we mean when we use a word like ‘negro’ or ‘she’ that the groups affected by these uses felt it necessary to call attention to such uses by playing with the language. Your concern has been that, however we decide to re-educate ourselves concerning the detrimental cultural aspects, we must protect those words that provide a clear meaning of physical and biological differences. “Blackness” allows us to have our cake and eat it , too, by changing attitudes without getting rid of the physical meaning. But eliminating words that refer to the biological sex binary would seem to block access to such clarity.

But how many of the occasions when we reflexivity use the word ‘she’ involve a need to know the biology of the person we are dealing with? When we describe someone as being a black person, it may be a description that helps us and others to identify them, just as clothing and hair color, height and weight. But in social interactions we don’t insert the world ‘black’ into every sentence because it isn’t relevant anymore. (not that long ago, pronouns such as ‘Massah’ were used to different blacks from whites in a room). And yet , he and she are built into all social interchanges. I suggest the reason for this is our tacit belief that our cultural assumptions concerning the roles and behaviors of maleness and femaleness of those we are interacting with is relevant.

And perhaps it is. That is, sharply defined , binary differences in role and behavior were the way that so many of us lived our lives for long that we really didnt have the concept of alternative genders. They didnt exist because we weren’t ready to think of ourselves in such multidimensional ways yet. For older and more conservative people , that is still the case in their social circles .They don’t have a need for language that expresses gender fluidity when there is very little of it in their own circles. But for a younger , more progressive population, the old, simple gender categories seem artificial and constraining, since they no longer think or act in terms of these roles. So ‘he’ and ‘she’ need not be used in social interchange. And when there is a need to refer to biological sex differences, which is relatively infrequent, there are plenty of ways to do it. Some may accept a biological binary, some may not. For those that do, they can simply refer to it directly, leaving out all gender implications.

In sum, it seems to me that , on the one hand , you’re advocating for a split between cultural gender concepts and words pertaining to biological sex. But on the other hand, you’re in favor of elevating what should be an infrequently used, technical vocabulary (sexed plumbing and genes) to the status of everyday usage in all social conversations (he and she). It seems to me you confuse the fact that our culture has traditionally communicated this way with the reason they have done so. If you really want to keep biological and cultural ethnic or gender terms separate, then there is no earthly reason to force ‘blackness’, ‘he’ and ‘she’ into conversations where they are largely irrelevant, and that means most social conversations.

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.
— Philosophim
I'd still quibble over the language. I'd say now she knows how she's going to be judged there. And she doesn't really have a way to not be her, at least in the short term. She'd just be hiding who she was, and like feeling the aggression and hiding it. So, if the views make her something, she's still that something, but managing the camouflage it. — Bylaw

No denial that she's hiding what she is. Gender often asks us to behave, act, and dress in ways we would rather not. Much of gender is a holdover from a less technologically advanced and enlightened society, and is too often an undercurrent of sexism. Gender is a social construct, and a social construct that pressures you to act, dress, or behave a certain way.

So, are you transgender as a transvestite when you dress that way, or all the time? — Bylaw

All that it takes for a person to make a transgender action is to do something cross gender. What I think we in society label as a "transgender person' is someone who engages in cross gender behavior in public in their daily life. Everyone is going to cross some culture or group of people's idea of how a man or woman should act. If a person constantly and willfully crosses that line, despite knowing the culture would frown on it, that's being a 'transgender person' in that culture.

What if you are traditionally male in your culture 99% of the time, but once in a while you dress up as a woman to get sexual pleasure? — Bylaw

Sounds like a kink or fetish to me. Which is fine. In matters of sexual gratification, "You do you." :) Specifically why I wouldn't consider it a cross gender action is that society does not assume that women and men's expected dress is designed for their personal sexual pleasure.

Or, the same man otherwise who instead likes to be dominated sexually, sometimes. I suppose I am probing here because I think it might be better not to label people and in a binary way — Bylaw

See, this is one of the weirdest things to come out of the transgender community to me. Sexual orientation, sexual fantasies, and sexual practices, do not change your sex or are even transgender in my view. Sex is weird on so many levels I just don't blink an eye. Sexual pleasure and kinks are often about taboos or 'I shouldn't be doing this." Which is normal to both sexes. Its completely unsurprising that cross dressing or cross gender role play would turn some people on. We already processed that sexual orientation doesn't change your sex with gay people. That would be like saying, "As a man you had sex with a man, so you're a woman now." Its absurd to me.

But that's just the thing: to me, at least in general, they were not told that. It was not a term of insult, nor was it part of getting them back on the right side of the gender fence. It was a kind of minority normalness. Oh, she's a tom boy. Now that might have been in the subculture I was in, loosely urban U.S. — Bylaw

I think because you were not a tom boy, that you don't have the understanding of what tom boys went through. Further today we're seeing some tom boys being told they're transgender and should transition. Finally, I'm sure you understand you don't have to say specific words to understand that logically, you're implying something underneath. Calling someone a tom boy is expressing publicly that a woman is not behaving within the cultural gendered norm of their sex.

There was a qualititative difference between being called a tom boy and being called a 'fag' say. One could say, parent to parent, Oh your girl's quite the tom boy and not get into a fist fight. — Bylaw

Same with calling someone else's son a girly man or mama's boy. Being transgender doesn't have anything to do with your sexual orientation. The issues with sexual orientation and crossing the gender divide differ in societal importance, and in general there was a much bigger backlash to sexual orientation crossing than gender crossing.

My quibble has less problem with this last description - the actions are transgendered there, which they would be even if I never realized during my whole stay. Rather than become transgendered. — Bylaw

To be clear from earlier. Everyone makes transgendered actions. To be identified as 'transgendered' you must be someone who willfully violates gender norms consistently and willfully.

I did understand that one wasn't changing sex in this situation. I just don't think you're changing anything at all. The new situation is what is happening in the way you are viewed. Just as the viewing one as male - if the other group thought you were actually male when you're not - doesn't make you male, the viewing you as transgendered doesn't make you differently gendered. — Bylaw

Viewing you as transgendered doesn't make you differently sexed. Being transgendered by definition, is committing actions associated with the cultural expectations of the other sex, and not your sex. You do not own gender. Culture does. Gender is not genetic. You can be a girly boy or a manly man. Neither is gender. You can like painting your nails or not as a man. That is not gender. Gender is culture's expectation of how you should act based on your sex.

Good conversation Bylaw, I really appreciate you digging in. :)

↪Philosophim I really respect your responses to Joshs. Wanted to throw that out. He's playing a game, and you're not biting. It's great to see. — AmadeusD

While I appreciate the compliment, I caution against despairaging anyone here for their view. Josh's argument may be genuine, and that's what philosophy discussion should be about. Lets hear each others viewpoints and think about them. Josh is not insulting me nor do I believe he is trolling. Lets just give people the benefit of the doubt for productive conversations. :)

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

You are way too educated and too smart to let yourself get away with this sort of thing. I'm going to leave it there. — unenlightened

I also appreciate the compliment, but in my own understanding and assessment of morality, I really do not see it as a moral issue. If you want me to explain I will, but I also understand if you wanted to simply post your comment and leave it.

I believe people should be free to do what they want to do in life. There are people who also want to cut their arm off. If after a discussion they still want to, let them.
— Philosophim
Are we really at such a point that a 'discussion' mitigates other such concerns that may have primacy with regards to such extensive/extreme modifications. — substantivalism

Yes. People are more rationalizing than rational. It takes effort and often times training to truly think rationally. Rationalization is about creating arguments that give you what you want. A person who is rationalizing will not accept rational refutation of their rationalization easy, because the point wasn't to be rational, it was to give the mind a non-cognitive dissonance way of justifying getting what they want.

And before I or anyone else thinks they are above it all, we're not. We all do it on some basis and its easy to slip up even when actively trying not to.

Being transgendered by definition, is committing actions associated with the cultural expectations of the other sex, and not your sex. You do not own gender. Culture does. Gender is not genetic. You can be a girly boy or a manly man. Neither is gender. You can like painting your nails or not as a man. That is not gender. Gender is culture's expectation of how you should act based on your sex. — Philosophim

Do you think that the umbrella of transgender can include within it a notion of gender ( genderqueer) not tied to any knowledge of biological sex? For instance, those who believe that everyone has their own unique gender, just as everyone has their own personality dispositions, and that biological sex is not relevant to this fact.

I caution against despairaging anyone here for their view — Philosophim

I agree with this. I avoided doing so. His view is his view. His method of defending is a bit of a game. But also, you may not agree that's the case. I let you know how i felt, and I note you took that on board as well :)


However, as I read through your comments to others, i'd like to offer a caution back: Stop intermingling 'male/female' with gender language. Sex is immutable - you're correct. And even if there some "other categories" or something, male and female obviously refer to sex - and given your OP, it seems to be hampering your efforts to clearly enunciate what your meaning is.

Do you think that the umbrella of transgender can include within it a notion of gender not tied to any knowledge of biological sex? For instance, those who believe that everyone has their own unique gender, just as everyone has their own personality dispositions. — Joshs

As noted earlier, this is pretty silly. You're describing the function of names. People are allowed to choose their own names.

As noted earlier, this is pretty silly. You're describing the function of names. People are allowed to choose their own names — AmadeusD

What is it about ‘he’ and ‘she’ that make it important to use these terms in everyday conversation? If you are in a room with 5 white people and 5 black people, most likely none of the conversation will include terms that refer to skin color. Why not? Because skin color is not considered relevant or useful to what we need to be reminded about each other in the interchange. But such a conversation will be littered with he and she, his and her if it is a group of 5 men and 5 women. This is certainly a matter of habit, built into our language use, but is it any more relevant and useful than inserting skin color into the conversation of a mixed group? Can you see that the origin of the everyday use of he and she goes back to eras when there was a sharp difference in roles between men and women? Of you think it’s silly for individuals to invent their own roles, is it any less silly for an entire culture to impose binary roles?

A familiar argument from trans bigotry talking points. When people straw man trans using exaggeration to argue that - 'next people will want to identify as an air conditioning unit or a maidenhair fern' - that's just bigotry wrestling with social change. — Tom Storm

I'm sorry if you are not aware - I did not make this up. THe fact that you have some store of 'trans bigotry talking points' makes it absolutely clear you are not being reasonable or sensible here. You've taken a position, you're afraid to mvoe from it and you're now deploying buzz words of social opinion to impugn a position based on fact.

There are adult babies. They claim their identity in exactly the same way trans people do. It is a fact of life. If you are having trouble conconciling the two, that's for you to work on. I provided an actual example of where this type of social politic can land up.

The fact that there are some people who are delusional or make other strange claims is irrelevant to the crux of this issue. Trans depicted as a type of Pandora's box is a popular trope. — Tom Storm

It is extremely important to the crux of this issue. Ignoring the factor of mental illness, delusion and the violation of others rights based on it, is, ironically, the half of the story you refuse to acknowledge in the discussion. I pointed that out. And here we are.

I accept that there are individuals whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. — Tom Storm

As do I. This has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Are there some trans people who are aggressive or mentally unwell? Sure. We would find this amongst almost any group of human beings. So what? — Tom Storm

It is decidedly higher (including incidences of harm to others) among trans males. It's actually the maleness that matters, not the transness. Most people aren't capable of delineating the two.

What is it about ‘he’ and ‘she’ there make it important to use these terms in everyday conversation? — Joshs

Nothing. Most of hte time, people are referred to by their names. Which was what I was saying about that suggestion of yours. I'm not entirely sure why this question has come up?

but is it any more relevant and useful than inserting skin color into the conversation of a mixed group? — Joshs

Oh, yes, obviously. Men and women have on average very different experiences of hte world, even if you can conceptualise a socially equal 'treatment'. Though, we're definitely going to be differing on the extent to which we have moved toward that goal.

Of you think it’s silly for individuals to invent their own roles, is it any less silly for an entire culture to impose binary roles? — Joshs

I think that if there are children, and adults - and you're an adult of age 35 - claiming to be a child of age 10 - society has a right to either impose on you the role garnered by your literal status of being 35 (ie, you are not 10). Is age just a convention? Possibly but that seems wrong.
Analogously, if 99% of people can ascertain sex by facial features (seems to be true) and that the other thing, gender, is almost invariate with sex, is 99% of people, who can identify accurately, on sight, 99% of other people's sex and gender, I really dont see the onus as on society. Its on the odd ones out to conform, if they want to take part. This applies to myself in many ways, as I am a very unusual character. I have had to made decisions to step away from certain social activities and institutions because I don't fit in. Nor would I want to. And that's fine. 99% of peple are on their buzz, and I'll be on mine. What I wont do is command, or guilt other people into acquiescing to my odd, and usually somewhat irrational requirements. Likewise, If you're a female, and don't want to be, tough luck. Thats how you were born. Where I live, it is 100% the case you are allowed to be racist to white people in public, and sexist to men. Its awful to deal with. Am I supposed to start making demands from my society to respect my white, and maleness?

Can you see that the origin of the everyday use of he and she goes back to eras when there was a sharon difference in roles between men and women? — Joshs

There really still is. So, one thing I'm not really prepared to debate (at least in this thread) but is something I see as patently true, and sits behind at least some of my takes on this topic is that I think it is not reasonable to think males/females or in typical parlance 'men and women' are the same, or that they would be the same in any circumstances. They are biologically different, on average, in significant ways and require different things from the world, and provide different things to the world. That this is the case seems inarguable to me, and so attempting to minize the aspects that make people what they are seems odd to me, and counter to reality. Knowing whether someone is female will alter the way i speak with them, in light of what I can assume their experience has been in a world where females, on average, experience certain positives and certain negatives and male, a differing (and, obviously - though again, we'll disagree in degree - disproportionate) set of those.

If you don' think the above is reasonable, we're living in two different worlds and it may be that we're not able to aptly discuss the issues. To be clear, in this specific case I am decrying the ridiculous demand that i refer to you as a member of some group you've invented to represent some imaginary grouping, which includes only you,,,on some indeterminate set of personality properties. Just tell me your fucking name.

I think because you were not a tom boy, that you don't have the understanding of what tom boys went through. — Philosophim

I know what the one's called 'dyke' went through. I know what the guys called fag went through. Remember these names are not meant just for the target. They are meant as open gossip, telling others what to think of that person. I don't remember pressure to think there was anything wrong with tomboys. I certainly did with other names, even milder stuff like wimp.

Calling someone a tom boy is expressing publicly that a woman is not behaving within the cultural gendered norm of their sex. — Philosophim

Well, again, all I can say is it did not have a 'calling out' quality and there were terms that were a calling out and criticism.

No denial that she's hiding what she is. Gender often asks us to behave, act, and dress in ways we would rather not. Much of gender is a holdover from a less technologically advanced and enlightened society, and is too often an undercurrent of sexism. Gender is a social construct, and a social construct that pressures you to act, dress, or behave a certain way. — Philosophim

To me it then has little to do with the self. Unless it does. But if it doesn't. My wife wore a headscarf in one country, but she hadn't changed. Just a practical and perhaps safety issue. Some people on the other hand are transgendered. IOW for them they decide to shift over on what for them is an essential level and or they feel like 'really' they have been but his this essential nature. In those situations I feel comfortable given them a name that implies something essential. I just don't think it makes sense when most of what happens is in other people.

Same with calling someone else's son a girly man or mama's boy. Being transgender doesn't have anything to do with your sexual orientation. — Philosophim

-Sure, my point was that with names like these there is anger and negative judgment.

To be clear from earlier. Everyone makes transgendered actions. To be identified as 'transgendered' you must be someone who willfully violates gender norms consistently and willfully. — Philosophim

Well, we're all doing that, we're just at varied distances from the places that see them this way. And given subcultures and individuals, we're all probably near people who do this. Stuff happens when they see me. The do/feel/react in certain ways.

Viewing you as transgendered doesn't make you differently sexed. — Philosophim

Nor does it make you differently gendered. It doesn't do anything unless it leads to action on the part of that person making the judgment.

Viewing you as transgendered doesn't make you differently sexed. Being transgendered by definition, is committing actions associated with the cultural expectations of the other sex, and not your sex. You do not own gender. Culture does. Gender is not genetic. You can be a girly boy or a manly man. Neither is gender. You can like painting your nails or not as a man. That is not gender. Gender is culture's expectation of how you should act based on your sex. — Philosophim

That last sentence says it for me. The actually event is in the beholders. I act in way X in my city and people don't see me as transgendered, except in some neighborhoods. I travel to another land or enter a subculture's turf in my country or meet by partner's parents and her big family. They judge me differently. I didn't become transgendered. What I am like triggered a set of thoughts in people. Something happened in them. Their expectations got contradicted and this led to irritation, fear, confusion, hatred, whatever....in them. They changed. They didn't change gender. But something occurred in them.

My point isn't restricted to this term 'transgendered'. It would hold for many other terms where I would say that reifications of procceses into nouns coupled with misapplying the reification (the label) is aimed at the place where actually there was no change. Where the change process happened elsewhere.

Good conversation Bylaw, I really appreciate you digging in. :) — Philosophim

Thanks. I think we actually agree about many things, but, yeah, I'm being stubborn about a few points.

but is it any more relevant and useful than inserting skin color into the conversation of a mixed group?
— Joshs

Oh, yes, obviously. Men and women have on average very different experiences of hte world, even if you can conceptualise a socially equal 'treatment'. Though, we're definitely going to be differing on the extent to which we have moved toward that goal — AmadeusD

. I think it is not reasonable to think males/females or in typical parlance 'men and women' are the same, or that they would be the same in any circumstances. They are biologically different, on average, in significant ways and require different things from the world, and provide different things to the world. That this is the case seems inarguable to me, and so attempting to minize the aspects that make people what they are seems odd to me, and counter to reality. Knowing whether someone is female will alter the way i speak with them, in light of what I can assume their experience has been in a world where females, on average, experience certain positives and certain negatives and male, a differing (and, obviously - though again, we'll disagree in degree - disproportionate) set of those. — AmadeusD

I assume by biological differences between men and women you’re not referring to feminization of brain connections producing characteristic gender-related behaviors from birth. Rather, I take it the differences you have in mind are socially imposed due to women’s capacity for childbirth, their size and strength relative to the average man , etc.

So you think the use of he and she in everyday conversation, and the gendered grammar of many languages, arose due to their different social roles based on bodily differences? I think they arose just as much because of a belief shared by many cultures in history that women were mentally inferior to men, that they were biologically programmed to be too emotional, to have limited intelligence, to act in childlike ways , to not be responsible or capable enough to study religious texts, go to school, get a job or vote. I don’t think we perpetuate the ubiquitous use of he and she pronouns simply because of differences in life experiences between men and women

And yet , he and she are but into all social interchanges. I suggest the reason for this is our tacit belief that our cultural assumptions concerning the roles and behaviors of maleness and femaleness of those we are interacting with is relevant. — Joshs

A recent paper suggests that it is deeper than culture:

Deep learning models reveal replicable, generalizable, and behaviorally relevant sex differences in human functional brain organization

Significance
Sex is an important biological factor that influences human behavior, impacting brain function and the manifestation of psychiatric and neurological disorders. However, previous research on how brain organization differs between males and females has been inconclusive. Leveraging recent advances in artificial intelligence and large multicohort fMRI (functional MRI) datasets, we identify highly replicable, generalizable, and behaviorally relevant sex differences in human functional brain organization localized to the default mode network, striatum, and limbic network. Our findings advance the understanding of sex-related differences in brain function and behavior. More generally, our approach provides AI–based tools for probing robust, generalizable, and interpretable neurobiological measures of sex differences in psychiatric and neurological disorders.

Abstract
Sex plays a crucial role in human brain development, aging, and the manifestation of psychiatric and neurological disorders. However, our understanding of sex differences in human functional brain organization and their behavioral consequences has been hindered by inconsistent findings and a lack of replication. Here, we address these challenges using a spatiotemporal deep neural network (stDNN) model to uncover latent functional brain dynamics that distinguish male and female brains. Our stDNN model accurately differentiated male and female brains, demonstrating consistently high cross-validation accuracy (>90%), replicability, and generalizability across multisession data from the same individuals and three independent cohorts (N ~ 1,500 young adults aged 20 to 35). Explainable AI (XAI) analysis revealed that brain features associated with the default mode network, striatum, and limbic network consistently exhibited significant sex differences (effect sizes > 1.5) across sessions and independent cohorts. Furthermore, XAI-derived brain features accurately predicted sex-specific cognitive profiles, a finding that was also independently replicated. Our results demonstrate that sex differences in functional brain dynamics are not only highly replicable and generalizable but also behaviorally relevant, challenging the notion of a continuum in male-female brain organization. Our findings underscore the crucial role of sex as a biological determinant in human brain organization, have significant implications for developing personalized sex-specific biomarkers in psychiatric and neurological disorders, and provide innovative AI-based computational tools for future research.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2310012121 [Paywalled and I haven't read more than what I've quoted.]

I assume by biological differences between men and women you’re not referring to feminization of brain connections producing characteristic gender-related behaviors from birth. Rather, I take it the differences you have in mind are socially imposed due to women’s capacity for childbirth, their size and strength relative to the average man , etc — Joshs

Pretty much correct, although, I am not entirely unconvinced of the former.. .

arose due to — Joshs

This isn't what I'm speaking about in those passages. BUt that said, It seems to be that (insert my quip about 99% of people accurately recognizing 99% of 99% of 99% yadda yadda Here) is the reason the two language terms arose (or sets of "Him, he, his/Her, she, hers") due to the fact that 99% of people would find them useful for both grouping themselves and others.

because of a belief shared by many cultures in history that women were mentally inferior to men, — Joshs

This, to me, is quite bizarre either etymologically, practically or historically. There's nothing about the terms that imply this, noting that it is a fact that many cultures considered women inferior to men. You've, in this utterance, accepted that women is a distinct group. Men and women are different to degrees to make this distinction reasonable. You don't need anything negative or perniciious to make sense of htem, so i don't infer it.

I don’t think we perpetuate the ubiquitous use of he and she pronouns simply because of differences in life experiences between men and women — Joshs

We simply don't need any other reason. If you think there is one, you're free to think that. I can't see that it's the case, and it doesnt seem needed. Bit of Occam, i guess, seeping in.

A recent paper suggests that it is deeper than culture:

Deep learning models reveal replicable, generalizable, and behaviorally relevant sex differences in human functional brain organization — wonderer1

I’m actually sympathetic to this argument, but very carefully qualified. Let me ask you , to the extent that you think they’re onto something, would you agree that , since anything biology is capable of , it will do in many ways, it is reasonable to assume that a whole range of intermediate differences in functional brain organization are regularly produced? This would give biological justification not only for binary differences in gender behavior , but also for gay and transgender identities. Of course, all this would be intertwined in complex ways with culture.

it is reasonable to assume that a whole range of intermediate differences in functional brain organization are regularly produced? — Joshs

This is a really interesting question. Don't think there's any good answers currently.
From what I know of the neuroscience, you can fairly compare the brain differences between cis men and gay men, with trans women and non-trans, straight men. Clearly this is only going to cover one, even if albeit, a large one, slice of the population of trans women but it would be helpful, I think to understand some multiple causes of the different types of identity.

I haven’t mentioned the move to discard black in favor of African American. What was behind this initiative? The concern was that black, in referring to a biological
feature common to certain people , associated that group with the concept of race. — Joshs

An odd goal if you're going to make it about geographic locations which are strongly associated with race. It wasn't to eliminate the concept of race, it was an intention to remove the negative connotation people had with the word 'black'. That also failed. Many black people do not like the term african american. They don't have African ancestry, they've been in America for generations and find the term insulting. And people just take the negative connotation they have with the word black and carry it over to African American, making them a two word description that's that much different from a one word 'caucasion' or 'white'. Strange we don't say, "European American" for white people eh?

It was
thought that African, on the other hand, would direct one toward a cultural rather than biological identification, just as indigenous or native peoples accomplishes relative to ‘Indian’. — Joshs

Which again, is terrible. If you're a fifth generation black man in New Jersey, you have nothing culturally in common with Africa. Race does not dictate your culture. Its racist to think that way.

Race is no longer considered by geneticists to be a coherent scientific notion, and has been used mainly to discriminate against individuals. — Joshs

No, race is very important still. Both to combat racism, such as shunting all black communities into their own district despite odd geographical breakdowns in the district, and more objectively in the medical community. If you're black, you are more likely to have certain genetic diseases or issues that someone of another racial decent would have. Its difficult to impractical to erase race. We want to erase prejudice and racism associated with race. A person should be able to say, "I'm black" and that be no more impactful on someone's judgement about them then, "I have brown hair."

The term ‘person of color’ achieves something similar but in a more inclusive way. It’s important to note that built into the embrace of blackness as a term is that it includes within its meaning the sense of being a minority in danger of marginalization. — Joshs

Sounds like its about being afraid from calling out people who aren't white, but still get lumped in together as 'not white'. Isn't it odd that white is not a color with this phrase?

It’s important to note that built into the embrace of blackness as a term is that it includes within its meaning the sense of being a minority in danger of marginalization. In other words, it is considered important that a word which distinguishes one group from others on the basis of the particular surface indicator of skin color should be used not only as a banner of pride but of continuing struggle for acceptance. — Joshs

I'm going to preface this with some information about myself. I taught high school math at minority inner city schools for five years. Often times my kids and parents were 60% black and 40% hispanic. So my views on this are real world practical and not armchair theory. If you want to accept people, don't give them special words or terms. Also don't eliminate race, because black people are black, hispanic people look hispanic, etc. Neither shame NOR pride should be given about someone's race. Pride should be in your accomplishments and character in life. Educate people that race does not mean culture.

I also lived several years in an all black apartment complex as a white person. I got to know a few blacks over the years and I can tell you right now, being black does not mean you ascribe to 'black culture'. I would say off the cuff, 20% of people really liked stereotypical black culture, about 60% just went along with it, and 20% hated it. People are people and no different than any one else. There is no pride needed in being black, just like there is no pride needed in being white. Its just a biological aspect of yourself, nothing more.

Also, in places of economic success, you find there's really not a 'struggle for acceptance'. I've worked in high level jobs with middle class black workers who were popular or not based on their personality, not because they were black. We have to be very careful not to ascribe anything to skin color or race besides the biology, and how that was adapted for the climate their ancestors adapted to. Anything else flirts with prejudice and racism. I see the same flirtation with transgenderism and sexism when people assume gender affects sex.

This strategy to knowingly keep using a term that in part connotes marginalization is seen in the embrace of the word ‘queer’. It has built into its sense both the recognition that certain groups have been considered as freaks, perverts or pathological by the dominant culture, and that these groups are turning that meaning into a positive by celebrating their non-conformity. — Joshs

Correct because this word was a poorly defined word used to lump a group of people into a weird and negative context. The root meaning of 'queer' is 'strange'. I agree in this instance to change the word. Homosexual is more of a scientific identity, and I would think the slang term of 'gay' would have more negative connotation. I think in general because these words aptly and accurately describe the situation, "A person of one sex who has attraction to another person of the same sex," that its not innately offensive. The concern here is to make sure that people don't discriminate against homosexuals, no matter what we call them.

You have argued that black means the same thing as negro or colored; they all refer to skin color. But the fact is all these words mean different things in different contexts for different people. What is relevant here is that there were predominant meanings associated with some of them that were damaging to the group they weren’t being applied to. — Joshs

I understood your point about changing from negro to black. But did you understand my reply in how that does not apply to pronouns?

it’s emergence was associated with bold messaging such as ‘black is beautiful’ and ‘black power’. Beauty and power are concepts that were not generally associated with negro and colored. Blackness was designed to be as much a cultural as a physical concept, reflecting the rapid and dramatic changes in attitude that took place in the 1960’s. — Joshs

I still think this is a damaging solution. You are not beautiful because you are any type of color. You are beautiful because you are pretty to others. You should not have pride nor shame in your skin color. It shouldn't matter besides attraction preference. That's where we need to get to as emphasizing that your skin color or sex makes you more or less special is just another form of racism and sexism.

Many women would say yes. But what evidence do we have that cultural stereotypes are ingrained within the word ‘she’ that have affected women on a day to day basis? For starters, applying for a bank loan, mortgage, credit card or job was a very different experience for a woman than for a man. — Joshs

Which, if true, does not change my point about pronouns describing people's sex. If your name is Angela, a gendered name associated with being female, it doesn't matter if you mark, "he/him" on your application. People aren't stupid. A better solution is to not name your kid names highly associated with one gender so people don't know from your name alone. And if you notice on forms, people do not ask what sex or race you are except to keep it optional. Changing pronouns and clearly telling people what they are brings sexual connotations to situations that shouldn't require them.

Again, the more important part is to ensure that women are not discriminated against. That we educate society that barring certain biological general differences, one should take a person on the merit of their character and actions than their sex.

But one might ask, is there a way to change attitudes about femaleness without eliminating she? — Joshs

No. People are going to look for sex always. Just like people are going to see that a person is black or white. Pretending it doesn't exist, or saying, "I'm white" when you're clearly black, is not a rational way to solve the problem. The problem isn't with being a particular sex or race. Its about societies prejudices and isms in how race and sex are treated.

So far I’ve been arguing that harmful cultural prejudices make their way so frequently into what we mean when we use a word like ‘negro’ or ‘she’ that the groups affected by these uses felt it necessary to call attention to such uses by playing with the language. — Joshs

I don't think this happens frequently. It happens. And when it does, we should evaluate how to handle it.

Your concern has been that, however we decide to re-educate ourselves concerning the detrimental cultural aspects, we must protect those words that provide a clear meaning of physical and biological differences. “Blackness” allows us to have our cake and eat it , too, by changing attitudes without getting rid of the physical meaning. But eliminating words that refer to the biological sex binary would seem to block access to such clarity. — Joshs

Yes, that's basically my point. We can't ignore biological realities, and sexual biology is a reality that has real consequences in life. We need to work to stop sexism, not eliminate the identification of sex.

But how many of the occasions when we reflexivity use the word ‘she’ involve a need to know the biology of the person we are dealing with? — Joshs

Probably not many. In my own writing I generally avoid pronoun usage unless its pertinent. If I'm talking about a woman giving birth, I'm going to use the word she. If I'm talking about someone doing heavy lifting I'm going to use pronouns because physical labor is associated with strength, and it gives a picture of they type of men and women in that job.

People in general are not 'not a sex'. So when describing a person its fairly important in the written or spoken word. I can say, "He was wearing a dress," versus "She was wearing a dress," and different images come to mind. Its not a statement that makes any judgement values. Its just a statement of the situation that conveys the reality of what's going on clearly.

I suggest the reason for this is our tacit assumptions that our cultural assumptions concerning the roles of and behaviors don maleness and femaleness of those we are interacting with is relevant. — Joshs

While I agree people are going to ascribe cultural expectations, or gender to hearing about a sex, there are also practical and biological considerations as well. If I'm interested in a mate based on my sexual preference, I want to know the sex. And as mentioned earlier, its nigh impossible for most people to imagine a sex neutral person as that isn't the norm of day to day experience, or the reality of the people we are describing. Just as we should not be ashamed to mention a person is black as an attribute only, we should not be ashamed to mention sex as an attribute only.

Some may accept a biological binary, some may not. For those that do, they can simply refer to it directly, leaving out all gender implications. — Joshs

This is honestly what I'm going for. Let sexes be the sexes and understand that gender is a cultural construct that flirts with prejudice and sexism.

Do you think that the umbrella of transgender can include within it a notion of gender not tied to any knowledge of biological sex? For instance, those who believe that everyone has their own unique gender, just as everyone has their own personality dispositions. and that biological sex is not relevant to this fact. — Joshs

No. That's just an aspect of your personality. Gender is "Cultural expectations of your sex". Expectations from you apart from your sex are just cultural expectations of people. If you remove sex, you remove gender.

Also, I really appreciate your thoughts and replies. I can see your viewpoint articulated well and I hope the discussion is enjoyable. :)

I know what the one's called 'dyke' went through. I know what the guys called fag went through. — Bylaw

Right. And my point was that sexual preference has been treated much more harshly and in a different light than transgender. There is tacit acceptance of transgender actions up to a point. Even a hint of an incorrect sexual preference was often extremely villified. The grander point is they are two separate topics, so lets keep it that way if possible.

Well, we're all doing that, we're just at varied distances from the places that see them this way. And given subcultures and individuals, we're all probably near people who do this. Stuff happens when they see me. The do/feel/react in certain ways. — Bylaw

No disagreement. If you're separate from that culture, you're not 'transgendered'. And this is also my point in dividing transgender from transex. What gender is, can be so different from culture to culture that we can't use gender as a cross cultural description of a person's sex. Sex does not care about culture and should not be confused with gender.

Viewing you as transgendered doesn't make you differently sexed.
— Philosophim
Nor does it make you differently gendered. It doesn't do anything unless it leads to action on the part of that person making the judgment. — Bylaw

That is determined by the culture you are in. If you are viewed as transgendered, then you are in that culture. You can try to change their minds, but its ultimately their decision.

That last sentence says it for me. The actually event is in the beholders. I act in way X in my city and people don't see me as transgendered, except in some neighborhoods. I travel to another land or enter a subculture's turf in my country or meet by partner's parents and her big family. They judge me differently. I didn't become transgendered. — Bylaw

You became transgendered in that culture. I think this is the confusion some people have. You do not own gender. Gender is not a personal identity. Culture creates gender and you decide to act in accordance with those expectations, or not. If you understand those expectations, and go against them in public, then you are transgendered in your explicit violation of the cultural norms.

A man who wears a kilt in Scotland is not transgendered. A man who wears a kilt in a cultural setting where its seen as female gendered, they are transgendered in their specific dress. When you 'identify' as a gender, you are explicitly identifying your gender with what is regarded as gender within that specific culture. So if you're a Scottish man and get told you're "Dressing like a woman," you would claim, "No I'm not! This is a kilt that men wear!" Your gender you are referring to is the male gender in Scotland. You don't own gender. Gender owns you because it is an expectation from people other than yourself that they expect you to comply with.

Also, I really appreciate your thoughts and replies. I can see your viewpoint articulated well and I hope the discussion is enjoyable. :) — Philosophim

:up:

I’m actually sympathetic to this argument, but very carefully qualified. Let me ask you , to the extent that you think they’re onto something, would you agree that , since anything biology is capable of , it will do in many ways, it is reasonable to assume that a whole range of intermediate differences in functional brain organization are regularly produced? — Joshs

Absolutely. There is all sorts of evidence for that, along a variety of different spectrums.

This would give biological justification not only for binary differences in gender behavior , but also for gay and transgender identities. Of course, all this would be intertwined in complex ways with culture. — Joshs

Again. Absolutely.

I'm sorry if you are not aware - I did not make this up. — AmadeusD

I referred to this phenomenon already, so I must be aware, right?

And then you proceed to dismiss my awareness of this issue as per below. Are you in a hurry?

It is extremely important to the crux of this issue. Ignoring the factor of mental illness, delusion and the violation of others rights based on it, is, ironically, the half of the story you refuse to acknowledge in the discussion. — AmadeusD

Half the story? Or 35%. Or is it 10%, or...?

I've already said in my view the fact that there are people who are unwell and make other claims based on identify should not impact upon those people who are trans with their specific claim. I don't think this is hard.

There are adult babies. They claim their identity in exactly the same way trans people do. — AmadeusD

The key point you are missing is that they are not trans. So it actually has nothing to do with the specific claim of trans people. You're invoking a slippery slope fallacy again. Many people go to the doctor and claim back pain without having any in order to get out of work. This does not mean that there are people don't experience back pain and need support. As my doctor will tell you physical evidence for the cause of back pain is not always available.

THe fact that you have some store of 'trans bigotry talking points' makes it absolutely clear you are not being reasonable or sensible here. You've taken a position, you're afraid to mvoe from it and you're now deploying buzz words of social opinion to impugn a position based on fact. — AmadeusD

Nice attempt to turn it around. You are 'absolutely clear' about nothing in relation to my opinions on this issue. I was identifying that a well known anti-trans talking point was raised by you. How do I know it is a well worn anti-trans talking point? Because it comes up almost every time people have anti-trans conversations - on line, on TV, in the media, in person. You're not the only one to pull this out.

I also think that your attempt to psychologise my approach is unprofessional. You are in no position to know my motivations, so please don't do this. Stick to the arguments. I'll try to do the same.

But this discussion is interminable.

I'd be interested in understanding what is your opinion should society do in relation to transgender issues? Can you provide a few dot points regarding a useful framework. For me, the issue is trans is here, how do we support people?

I’m more interested in why this has become such an issue at all. More culture war stuff. I seem to remember it starting with bathroom bills, though obsessions with gender were already around long before.

There’s two sexes, male and female. Gender is more fluid, but is in many ways grounded in sex. “Identifying” is one’s own business, but identity doesn’t magically change reality. Also, if sex is “assigned,” then we’ve officially rendered these words meaningless.

I can’t wait when this social media-created nonsense goes away. Treating the (statistically) rare trans person with basic respect and dignity should be a given. That sex is a biological fact should also be a given. The rest is a stupid waste of time, which I now have unfortunately contributed to. Seems unavoidable these days.

I'm trying to understand your position by posing questions to you that your position entails an answer to... Why does not extend to teh age, race, weight and height one 'considers' themselves to be? This exact logic is why 'adult babies' are a thing. I would assume you note the patent mental arrest involved in that notion? Why do you not apply the same logic to people who are, lets say, unique in their aberrant (socially speaking) perception of themselves? It just seems like you'v enot thought about htis at all, and rely on compassion for a position that has much, much deep implications than "i don't like to upset people" — AmadeusD

It's so peculiar to permit forms of perceived abnormality to such an irrational degree. Where does this naïve compassion/entertainment end and a repression of a natural shaming mentality begin?