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.

I'm not even given to saying sexuality is mutable. One can be unaware of their sexuality, or an aspect of it, but it seems to me saying that its either fictional or constructed is wrong and both violates my intuitions, and my understanding of fight for rights.

That said, I wouldn't care much if it was. It would make it easier to convince homophobes to shut up. I just think this is another sort of Critical Theory conversation that was never meant to have us bring down everything considered immutable.

I am again surprised to see it resurrected here. It is the zombie strawman that will not die. — Mark S

Very much unluckily for you, I didn't do that and expressly addressed the fact that you're system is not scientific, or derived from science. It takes your assertion and then massages the 'science of morality' to support points it is not apt to support. That you have not picked that up does not mean I didn't say it. :) However, it is clear you will continue with this, ad infinitum, regardless fo response - and more power to you!

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.

Is the experience (G) different to the perception? Some might say that perception refers to our sensory experience of the worl — Luke

That's true, some might say that. But it makes no sense to me... If that's the 'ordinary usage' of those words (which, I don't think it is) they don't work for their purpose.

Perception isn't in the same category as G. It is hte set of A-B-C-D-..G as a process, to my mind.

And yet you seem to be completely incapable of saying why I am wrong. — Janus

You had the option to quote where I pointed out the reason for this statement. But you did not :)

you seem to be saying that colours and seeing colours are the same thing. — Janus

I would have thought it clear i was using your term here, hence the inverteds. What you term 'seeing colour' is, on my account, the experience of the visual sensation of xyx tone/hue combination. So, i'm happy to use your terms while talking to you, but describe my account if you see what I mean. But i understand the confusion nevertehless.

However, the part of the process that is prior to awareness seems irrelevant to the question of whether we see things or merely representations of things. Of course, we can say either and there is no matter of fact there but just different interpretations. — Janus

While I think the latter portion of this is a good way forward, generally, the former seems wrong to me. It definitely is irrelevant to me in practice, even on a totally Indirect account. I don't think thats what's being claimed, though. It's important insofar as it is the indirect cause of sensation (it, being whatever objects or set of objects, or plenum, one interacts with in the world). I think it's a litle hard to jettison that from the discussion. On most accounts, with out it, we get no sensation to be discussed as direct or indirect.

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.

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.

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 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''

a perception because nothing is being perceived. — Janus

DO you not see the patent ridiculousness of the dual use of 'perception' yet?

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

It appears to me both are still apt - (this is merely 'a take' from myself, not an intended outright claim)..morality is what one believes about how to act, and Ethics is the framework which leads one there. In this way, morality is general, and Ethics can be context-bound (business ethics, procreative ethics etc...). Still, behaviours there are moral - but informed by the, usually somewhat formalized, Ethical system informing it.

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.

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.

your ad hominem is duly noted

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.

WE? until when? say it becomes a scenticfic pos — Kizzy

It isn't one, by its elaboration. Like - he isn't using science to support this system. So, your question is somewhat nonsensical, on that account. The rest of your comment seems non sequitur talking to yourself..

You are incorrect. Can you say why you think it is not? — Mark S

Because it flat-out isn't. You are trying to prove something. I am denying it. You need to present something to support it. It flat-out isn't a universal. Do your best...

How is someone's preference for the moral principle that is most harmonious with people's moral sense a "shotgun to the foot"? Please explain. Are you saying they should not prefer it? — Mark S

This proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the basis for this theory lives in your head.

(which studies why moral norms and our moral sense exist), only provides instrumental oughts. — Mark S

No it doesn't. It provides descriptive narratives about existing moral behaviour. It gives absolutely nothing by way of 'ought'. It gives us what some people think that means currently and nothing else. Which is what you've run with. What you think morality is - and then carried it forth into a logical system. Again, fine, but not in any way science, or derived from it.

Morality as cooperation is silent regarding ultimate moral goals (utilitarianism's focus). — Mark S

No. It is aimed at co-operation. This also goes to the above., You are flat-out ignoring basic facts about what you're saying - whicih stem from your own account. Contradictory.

Morality as cooperation only deals with moral means as defined by our moral sense and cultural moral norms, not moral ends. — Mark S

No, Your moral sense. Which, it seems, is 'harmonious co-operation toward well-being' or some such.

There is no "moral science" except as a strawman. — Mark S

Then your entire premise is false and I am happy to leave it here for you to play with :)

If perception is the entire process “of getting from an object to an experience”, then in what sense is that entire process indirect? — Luke

It is not A-B. It is A-B-C-D-E-F and maybe G is the experience. This isn't complicated...

It's very simple—are you saying colours and seeing colours are the same thing? — Janus

I've addressed this. Restating the question in terms i've noted make no sense isn't helpful my guy.

hese are causal physical processes which give rise to perception, but which are themselves prior to perception — Janus

They are the process, and i've provided four citations to show that this is how the term is used. It explains the entire problem you're having with an extremely obvious and basic way understanding "direct" and "indirect" with regard to perception - which is the bodily process of getting from light to experience. As i've source-quoted. So, on this you're just wrong.

What I guess I am saying is that your demand for clear language to me seems like it's trying to fence in some complex ideas that have no convenient solution. — Tom Storm

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

Compassion without analysis is bereft of effectiveness.

I noted earlier that your point about the SRY gamet was fine. Our only disagreement at this point is that sex must necessarily be defined as being only two. There are good reasons to do so, but I can also see other reasons not to. That's all. — Philosophim

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. I will insert quotes to show that this is the case at every step of this exchange. It is not worth my time to continue speaking with you on a topic through which you remain impossible to converse with..

For the above:
We didn't disagree about that. Whcih i've pointed out. I've given several copies of the scenario in whci teh word can be redefined You have utterly refused to point out how you've come to conclusions counter to the exact things I have said, continually. This is example 1.

Here's an article in scientific America talking about the idea of making more than two sexes.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ — Philosophim

I have already dealt with even this specific article in this thread. It expressly points out that there are two determined sexes and variations within them. I have also point out, elsewhere inthis thread, that it is the exact same scenario as when SA posted an infographic by a Social Media manager that claimed the same - and concluded that there are indeed two sexes. The problem you seem to be 100% ignoring is that you are foregoing any attempt whatsoever to label (what we currently call) sex correct. I don't give a hoot if you think 'sex' can be redefined. Sure. But then WHAT REPLACES IT TO ACCURATELY DENOTE THE TWO *what we currently call* SEXES? You're just straight-up ignoring half of the conversation you're trying to have.

you can't understand my point and you believe I've misunderstood yours. — Philosophim

Neither of these things are true, and neither of them are intimated by anything elther of us has said - other than you constantly pretending that you haven' read direct replies to your insistence on redefinition etc.. which is have AGREED TO MULTIPLE TIMES. THIS is why I can't grasp what you think is going on. It is utterly insensible in light of the actually exchange being had. If i said "Hey, how're you doing?" and you reply "Uh, it's about 11:45 i think" you need to be told you didn't address teh question. That is eaxctly what's happening here.

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. Same with transgendered individuals. Look, my friend wrote lesbian fan fiction for years (Nothing I'm interested in). I've never once thought it was a mental condition. — 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. You can do better.

My entire point is that "transgenderism" is a condition, and that liking certain fashion is not. HOw could you possible be this horrible at reading plain English? This si why I asked you to go back and poinmt out how you got to these conclusions. YOu've refused. I have to assume you are not actually reading these replies, now that i've given you the chance to show otherwise.

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.

I apologise but this frustration is 100% warranted. You are not engaging whatosever. You are either being dishonest, or not reading my replies, you're bringing up things that aren't related to points, you're misattributing utterances and you're making claims about things you're quoting that aren't supported by the quotes.

Ok. Thanks mate.

Relax. :) — Philosophim

I literally do not know what you're reading into my comments, but 'worked up' is not something I'm willing to accept about them. I've explained, in non-emotional terms that you appear resistance. Take it as you will my dude. You have laid out contradictory statements attempt to reject the assertions I've made. I was trying to make sense of this. Unfortunately, this isn't too helpful :P

There is no existent thing out there that decrees 'sex must be defined this way'. — Philosophim

That is precisely not what i addressed or talked about in any of my comments.

As 'sex' is defined — AmadeusD

See above. You seem to be arguing with something i've not said. Sex as defined gives no wiggle room to some third appendage. That's my point. And it's flatly true. I also gave an avenue for another culture adding to that - by redefinition, entirely, of the notion of 'sex', and attributing a different symbol to what we understand to be an immutable binary. That this isn't landing seems odd to me. Could you perhaps point out what's getting away from you there?

What is more important is coming up with definitions that serve purposes of being logical, clear, accurate, and useful to the most people. — Philosophim

Which is the only aim I took, and exactly the one all my comments have pushed toward. Again, can you point out where you think that might not have been the case?

You have to understand that your view that there should only be two sexes is an option. — Philosophim

This is not 'my view'. Sex as defined is restricted to two. It is a binary. It is a term which was designed to signify the reproductive binary of male/female in dimorphic animals. If you want to redefine, I have given an option for that to happen. As it is, your position here is nonsensical as it uses the word 'sexes' (which is restricted to two, by definition) and then calls into question 'my opinion'.

my opinion isn't engaged, whatever, in the above conflict of terminology.

Words are agreed upon by communities, not dictated from above. — Philosophim

I really, seriously, cannot grasp what you think is happening here. I'd really, really like for you to go back to the requests for outlining how you could come to the interpretations you have - I am nearly certain you are either wilfully misinterpreting or not reading my entire comments (this, because I've addressed, directly and at-length, many of your points here..)

No one, anywhere, has suggested that this is the case. I have even given a perfectly reasonable scenario in whcih the word 'sex' could be redefined to mean something other than in currently it. Can you remember what that was?

Another community than the one which designed and deployed the term. So we're in agreement. But you're still being extremely resistant to the asserted system (if you don't like it, that's fine. I'm talking about your inapt responses to my comments).

Next response is unrelated - starting a different track of enquiry on your positions:

The reality is they liked dressing up in women's clothing, painting their nails, and putting their hair in a pony tail. They could do all this and be happy. — Philosophim

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).

The underlying immutableness of sex as chromosomes remains. — Philosophim

While i disagree, pretty vehemently, with this claim, the rest of your post was perfect to explain what I saw as contradiction. Thank you very much :)

Meaning, both the definition of sex cannot change, and one's sex cannot change. — Philosophim

Hey mate, I'm not editing this back into my more substantive reply, incase you're reading it right now - or, it's not particualrly relevant because I've missed something further on in the thread But:

The above quote seems to indicate that you're not open to the position you're currently taking. Has the position on the above changed, in a way that would explain the current acceptance of redefinition?

reveals — Mark S

It does not.

Yes.

Ok. Thanks mate.

What exactly is the problem with the work environment? In what sense it is unethical and why? — Alkis Piskas

I have the same problem you do, but it has been put to me that I was supposed to infer a load of historical context into OP before replying.
My position remains the same "the work environment" is not something apt for ethical discussion. Moliere feels different - but seems to think that context I mentioned is patent, and unavoidable.

My reply would just be an exact restating of my previous. You haven't engaged it. No worries.

The above principle is universal to the direct and indirect reciprocity strategies that are encoded as our moral sense and cultural moral norms. It is universal to what is descriptively moral in societies with the exception of favoritism for kin. — Mark S

No it isn't.

2) Maximize harmony with everyone’s moral sense. — Mark S

This is a shotgun to the foot. This is an emotive position.

It is an instrumental ought — Mark S

Then I have no issues. I just reject that anything you've posited is any way 'moral science'. It appears, patently, your assertion carried forth into a logical framework where you get the desired result of a self-consistent system. This is just utilitarianism with 'co-operation' instead of 'happiness' as its aim. Nothing wrong with that, but it certainly falls short of anythign we could consider a scientific position or train of thought.

Ok, is this still just ‘pop sci’? — Joshs

Yes. The article also notes the SRY-functional determination of sex and then just ignores it to wank on about phenotypical aberrations post determination. This is akin to that infographic SA posted (made by a social media manager) which claim sex wasn't binary, yet points out that the variations only occur within the determined sex groups.

For your second link, I need only look at your quoted passage:

" the term “biologic sex” is understood by many to be an outdated term, due to its longstanding history of being used to invalidate the authenticity of trans identities." that is literally politics. Not science. You can also tell this is the case with the following:

". Although sex is typically misconceptualized as a binary of male (XY) or female (XX), many other chromosomal arrangements, inherent variations in gene expression patterns, and hormone levels exist. "

The claim (that sex is typically misconceptualised) relies on the further assertions of the sentence to even be viable. That's again, not science, but politics. Those further elements don't affect one's sex determination. It affects ones 'sex expression' as it was put by Timothy.

And more;
"Moving forward, we should consider implications of sex beyond the binary categories of male (XY) and female (XX). "

That hasn't been the standard for a long time. Most TRAs are arguing with a ghost on this particular topic. Anyhow, this is an opinion piece. It is not supportive of a scientific claim about what sex is.

Relax, we're trying to do the same thing. — Philosophim

AS noted, you seem absolutely resistant to a fool-proof grammatical way of solving your problem. What would you have assumed, If i had rejected the same?

I'm just making sure its clear, unambiguous, and not based on phenotype. — Philosophim

That was the case from teh go - which is why the resistance seems to obtain, from my perspective. I'm not 'accusing' you of anything, i'm letting you know how it's coming across to me.

"There are two sexes." — Philosophim

Can only mean anything other than referring to the patent fact that dimorphic species reproduce by the existences of two sexes - if that other culture has usurped teh term and inculcated it into an entirely different system that represents exactly the same thing. Otherwise it is both grammatically, and empirically incorrect at worst, and misleading at best. So, while point is somewhat taken, it is so vanishing in this context I'm not seeing why its being addressed.

I can see the viability in declaring more than two, and I don't see any problem in noting this. — Philosophim

As 'sex' is defined, there is no viable option other than male or female. Again, if another culture usurps this word into a system that has a different word for sex(as we understand it) fine. But that's a ridiculous reason to accept that usurping.

By the way, Michel Foucault's "History of Sexuality," has some good insights for you. — Vaskane

It doesn't. Foucault was and remains risible, along with Nietzsche. You explain yourself with every name-drop.

I'm unsure what exactly you're trying to ask. Colours are a sensation (well, a class of sensations, anyway). Read into that what you will, using your own grammar, as I don't think yours is adequate or helpful.

I disagree — Luke

Fair enough. I'm unsure that's supportable, or helpful.
Here, here and here make it plain (to me, at any rate) that 'perception' is the word used, in normal language situations, to refer to the process and faculty of getting from an object to an experience (those particular terms, mine).

And here at 1.1 and 1.4 seems to outline that, even in a philosphically-bounded use of the word, we are referring to "perceptual experiences" in the conflict between IDR and DR. Both positions, apparently, accept that 'perception' is a process which results in something that we are arguing is either indirect or direct. But, it is not at all posited that 'a perception' is the end-result of a process of perception. Beucase that's... frankly, stupid.

In conclusion, for those who have faith in logic, my argument is that Socrates did not know that he knew nothing; he had faith that he knew nothing, whereas I have faith that he actually knew at least some things. — Echogem222

This seems to forego what his point actually was - to remain humble in the face of apparent knowledge.

I doubt many, if any, would claim Socrates actually claimed to know no things whatever. Then again, some claim he didn't exist.. so..

We lack evidence to assert that our awareness of anything is truly awareness of anything with 100% certainty. — Echogem222

This seems standard.

Everything you've said is hollow and rests on multiple logical fallacies, to include anchoring, confirmation bias, and false dichotomy to name a few. There really is no point in engaging with that. — Vaskane

You said you wouldn't reply anyway. But you have, and not provided anything relevant. Not. My. Circus.

Seeing colours is a visual sensation, colours are not visual sensations. — Janus

This is exactly what Michael pointed out you getting lost in. You literally further complicated the grammar he provided (incorrectly, too - colours are obviously visual sensations. 'seeing a colour' is that sensation) and it now makes little sense for hte discussion (that pesky term 'seeing' being the main problem). But that is not to say is precludes you from being right in your actual point. This is a clarifying comment.

Then again, the experience itself feels like you ARE experiencing distal stuff. You don't feel like you're watching a baseball game in your head, you feel like you're watching a baseball game out there. And both senses are true in their own contexts, I guess. — flannel jesus

:ok:

If those images are your perceptions, then your sentence means "I perceive perceptions". If those images are your perceptions — Luke

Hmm, point taken.
Using "a perception" is a bit misleading though as 'perception' is symbolizing the process, which we do not grasp fully, of getting from object to experience. The resulting images are one aspect, and likely the final result, of perception as a process. If that final product then labeled 'a perception', i think its a bit incoherent. Maybe that's an issue here.

What you perceive is the world, not the images. — Luke

IN some sense, I agree, but it is indirect, in any sense, unless it refers to those images outlijne above.

I think you're asking too much of a perception if you expect it to present objects, instead of to represent objects. — Luke

I'm rejecting that it's a reasonable expectation, too. This is what the Direct Realist demands of it and given this rejection, I can't commit to direct realism, largely because of this chasm between the object and the experience. Which is why I suggested that if 'direct' only relates to the images ("the perceptions") then sure, it's direct. But we don't 'directly perceive' any objects, even on this conception because of the indirect nature of sight, even precluding final 'images' from the process. The objects have only an indirect causal relation to the bodily process of perception.

Maybe that's enough to reject naive realism, but naive realism isn't hard to reject. — Luke

This might be the case - but i would then accuse the indeterminant nature of 'Direct Realist's talking about their view as a reason to reject it also, with Naive realism. A 'Direct Realist' who doesn't hold that we are interacting directly with worldly objects, it appears to me, is arguing for indirect realism under a guise.

fact remains that the biological sciences are moving away from the male-female binary. — Joshs

Hmm. I don't think it does. It never really was, either

Bringing in a single speculative quote does not overturn the sex binary.

And in any case, some subset of biologists 'calling into question' something doesnt' represent a trend. I would also posit that in science, trends come and go. So, I hear your point - I think its very weak, and doesn't serve the claim you're making.

In fact, the paper I quoted from disagrees with the non-binary view. — Joshs

Seems to me, a rather odd conclusion given the claim quoted above. But, neither of us are biologists and I am open to your postion being hte case. I simply see no evidence for it. This type of stuff only turns up in pop sci.

Again, like I said, you're just bias towards your faith in science, and ignore the historical sense of things. I'm going to refer to you as a woman now too, since you don't care about what your friends think, they are either male or female based off your judgement. Hell you're neither man nor woman, don't have the intelligence. See how bias works? Obviously goes to show they're nowhere near your friends. So instead of constantly reverting back to your objective bias -- as men of resentment do -- perhaps ease up a little and consider your "friends," preferences. Otherwise, I say that gives everyone free game to ignore your preferences. Which I generally do ignore objective dogma.

That said, think we've beaten this topic to a pulp. Say whatever you want I won't be replying to it anymore, you probably can't even perform the sciences you have faith in. — Vaskane

Ok, well this is not much more than a rant and engages literally nothing i've said - including the fact that you're continually lying about what i've said. Feel free. Dummy-spitting is quite common. Your position makes no sense and you've contradicted yourself multiple times in service of making yourself feel better about condescending to someone who sees through your position as purely emotive. Not my circus.

I'm surprised to hear you say this. So if I'm XX I can be male? Have you really thought this one through? What is your alternative and why is that better than genetics? — Philosophim

Yep. Its called de la Chapelle syndrome.
Fwiw, "my" alternative doesn't derive from me but its certainly true that I 'prefer' a factor other than genetics to determine sex (largely, because of the problems you're dealing with in this thread). It is a standard used by biologists attempting to do exactly what you are - avoiding language complications to prevent productive research or discussion. Two names that come to mind are Colin Wright and Zach Elliot . These are not given as case-closers, just evidence i'm not bringing these things out of either an unrelated field, or my own mind.

The alternative, which is covers every human ever, and categorises into precisely two categories without (known) exception, and with full utility in the sense that once categorised, it gets set aside unless medically relevant, is to use the activation of the SRY gene as a marker for sex, given that this is determinant of which cascade of sexual development is engaged. This version actually lends far more support to intersex individuals as it posits that we should actually pay attention to one's sex, and no one's phenotype, as closely as we have. Also, aberrations down the track abound (sort of.. they're actually very rare) but cannot affect the determination, previous in time, of which sexed hormonal cascade was engaged. This would be the "potential" part of the whole gamete argument, if that was preferred by someone. The potential to produce each gamete is absolutely determined by which cascade is triggered.

Where is this established? — Philosophim

First, have a go at making sense of this piece: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658794/ (the misuse of Gender here is palpable).

Then this https://www.sciencealert.com/a-baby-s-sex-is-about-more-than-just-its-x-and-y-chromosomes-new-research-reveals

And my point is, "How do we determine what is male?" I — Philosophim

have covered, multiple times throughout thread. And in this context, that the person has Klinefelter, as defined, means they are male. Like, someone experiencing menstruation is female. That's not arguable, is it?

What does matter is blending gender and sex together, as there are clear logical distinctions between sex and gender that lead to poor logical thinking when blended. The two are distinct enough to warrant their own words. — Philosophim

Absolutely. Am trying to establish how this delineation works - you seem resistant.

So if a culture wants to call Klinefelter syndrome a new sex, makes sense. — Philosophim

No it doesn't. Because that term belongs to a culture in which is it bounded to Males experiencing a certain genetic expression. That is what it symbolises in the culture in which it arose.

Another culture coming along and misappropriating the word isn't helpful, or sensible. At the very least, it violates, entirely hte premise of your attempt to solve the problem that exact thing causes. I'm unsure how this is not obvious.

Sense? Sure. Provides a basis for ought? No.

Just so, my friend.

You don't directly perceive images formed by your brain. Those images are your perceptions — Luke

That is, in fact, what that sentence means. I do not see the distinction you're trying to make here. My brain conjures up images of objects - which aren't the objects. And my experience is of that. The idea that the images conjured by my brain are distinct from my perceptions may be misguided, but it's not relevant to the position. I can only experience those images. I cannot experience anything but (in the realm of vision). That's what matters.

What makes them "indirect representations of distal objects"? — Luke

A representation is indirect. It is something re-presented. Unless you're positing that looking at an apple causes an apple to appear physically in my, physical mind.. I'm unsure how this question is sensible. Also:

between the objects and my sense organs and further, my photo receptors, and further my nerves, and further my visual cortex, and even further my experience of such.. — AmadeusD

Answering the question "How could this be direct, given there are several way-points - one of whcih we don't even understand, and at least one of which changes the actual form of the 'message'.

The relevant intermediary is between the objects and your perceptions, not the objects and your sense organs. — Luke

They are all relevant. It is literally enough to say that my sight is caused by light bouncing off an object an entering my body to reject Direct Realism. It is very strange that no one has even attempted to deal with this, but still maintains their positions.

On a direct realist account, its not even an open move to claim direct perception - because you take it that empirical knowledge is direct. Therefore, If you 'actually know' that sight is indirect (if you're a direct realist, it is because you wholesale accept the empirical evidence as infallibly direct) then it defeats your position. Which is an interesting conundrum.

The point is, you have to have another system of sight to get around the known system of sight, to claim direct perception. But again,. it seems to me fairly clear that you are arguing a position you couldn't hold.

Surely, the intermediary - whatever it is - does not provide a direct perception of its distal object, and allowsonly a representation of the object to be perceived without allowing the distal object to be immediately perceived. — Luke

If the above isn't actually your position, and i'm missing context, I am sorry.

But heck, even if you were to read this and go "Ah fuck, I was wrong. Direct Realism is obvious nonsense"...Indirect Realists get ding-en-sich, though. So. Fuck.