The definition of gender is how one or more people believe a sex should behave socially.
— Philosophim

No, that is your definition, and it goes against commonly accepted research.

"Sex" is how you're built. "Gender" is a part of who you are.

According to the American College of Pediatricians:

Although often used interchangeably, the terms sex and gender are not synonyms. According to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), gender is defined as the “lived role” of male or female, resulting from the interaction of cultural and psychological factors with a person’s biological constitution. — Questioner

These definitions are complimentary, not contradictory. Mine is the colloquial version of the medical speak below.

"lived role" - Socially constructed expectation of behavior

of male or female - of a person's sex

cultural and psychological factors - subjective opinion from a group of people and the self

a person’s biological constitution - Their sex

Is that all? Do you have anything more to say to my last response?

I've been sitting back and letting others discuss as I feel I've already made my point in this thread. Your post was particularly excellent, well said.

Well, if I say that women wear their hair long, that's a gender (social) norm. Hair is biology (like left toes), yet the choice of how to wear it is social. — LuckyR

Correct. The definition of gender is how one or more people believe a sex should behave socially. There is nothing innate in being a sex that indicates one should wear their hair short or long, or even that how you wear your hair should have anything to do with your sex. That's gender. That's sexism.

Folks get plastic surgery to defy age. Facial skin is biology, but the choice to eliminate wrinkles is social. — LuckyR

This is not gender. Any sex can get these things done. If you believe only one sex should get them done, then its gender.

Thus it's established that certain manioulations of our biological physicality falls under social (gender) events. — LuckyR

Its if there is a subjective opinion that doing or not doing these things should be encouraged or limited by your sex.

Because gender is subjective and subject to the whims of an individual or group, and placing gender over sex in matters of importance matches the definition of sexism,
— Philosophim

I’ll bypass most of your OP and just say taking gender into account is not the same thing as “placing gender over sex.” — T Clark

Thank you for agreeing with me then. Glad you accept the premise of the OP.

There’s more to say about your obsession with transgender issues, but I guess that wouldn’t be philosophy. — T Clark

Correct my little passive aggressive bird. Your bias against me has nothing to do with philosophy or anything intellectual in the slightest.

To be clear, gender is purely a social expectation that has nothing to do with natural biology.
— Philosophim

This is clearly not true. For 99.7% of people, biological sex and gender match each other. — T Clark

Then you clearly did not read the OP. Oh wait, you already said you didn't. Way to go you!

Perhaps it is simplistic to say a male transgender person has a male brain, or a female transgender brain has a female brain – but the evidence that transgender brain structure and function are different from their biological (physical) sex is there if you care to investigate it.
— Questioner

The information included in his post puts the lie to just about everything you and Philosophim have to say on this subject. Maybe you guys will just lay off on your transgender obsession. Probably not. — T Clark

I just replied to his post. I think its customary to allow a rejoinder before declaring victory right?

Gender is one aspect of identity, and it’s our identity, produced by a brain, that determines how we perceive and react to the world. — Questioner

No one is arguing you can't have a sexist identity. You haven't argued that a gender identity isn't sexist.

No, gender is not determined by external expectations, but by biological factors - how the brain functions:

… the existence of brain phenotypes in line with the idea of a brain sexual differentiation seems to be confirmed by the … reported studies, including both cisgender and transgender individuals.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7139786/ — Questioner

You should quote the rest of the conclusion as well:

"However, the relationship between gender behavioural differences and brain dimorphic areas is still not clear, since such differences may be the result not only of anatomical features but also life experiences [34,35,36,37]. Furthermore, the popular explanation that there is a female and a male brain on the base of gender behavioural differences is not supported by a strong empirical background [11], as, for example, men and women share more similarities than differences [38,39,40,41,42,43]. Furthermore, a great variability in behavioural and psychological aspects is shown between genders [44]. Moreover, the size of the brain differences is usually small"

So no, you haven't proven anything. We both also need to be careful how you're defining gender. If gender is defined as a social expectation of behavior by a sex apart from biology, then you need to demonstrate that it is hard wired into the brain. For example, is it hard wired that "Men should wear top hats while women should not?" Of course not. Its just as likely that a society forms that claims the opposite. Which again, is just sexism.

Perhaps it is simplistic to say a male transgender person has a male brain, or a female transgender brain has a female brain – but the evidence that transgender brain structure and function are different from their biological (physical) sex is there if you care to investigate it. — Questioner

I have investigated it. The brain science is still quite nascient. The most important things I consider in any study which claims that transgender brains are different from cis, is if the study includes sexual orientation, and if the person has not been on any medication for transition. This is because male homosexual brains have some resemblence to female brains. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-says-brains-of-gay/

...and if this is not taken into account in trans studies, the gay brains shift the average to conclude, "Trans brains are more female". When sexual orientation is taken into account, there is no discernable difference in the brains of trans vs non-trans males prior to taking medication.

Gender is part of cognitive identity, so definitely gender. Why should “law and culture” force people to be something they are not? In what situations is this justified? — Questioner

I never said the law should force people into identities. I noted that when gender is elevated above sex in matters of culture and law, its sexism. You are free to identify in a sexist way, but we should not elevate a sexist viewpoint over the objective division of sex. So if you think you should be in sex separated spaces because you act, dress, or behave a certain way, that's a sexist viewpoint. Its much better to take an objective viewpoint for legal identity. Man and women can be seen as sexist roles, or they can be seen as objective descriptors of biology. In matters of law, the objective descriptor makes for better laws.

Of course, identity is subjective – it is produced in the brain of the subject. But subjectivity does not mean identity should be disregarded. Indeed, it should prevail. It is one’s lived experience – not an “opinion” - not a "belief" - but a reality. — Questioner

Should prevail? That's a statement, not an explanation. If I have the identity of a murderer, you're saying that should prevail? Everything you do is lived experience. That's not an argument about why gender isn't simply sexism.

No, gender is not a social belief. It is a state produced by a functioning brain, encompassing differences in cognition among individuals, which lead to differences in behavior. Here is one well-researched area that would produce different experiences of reality (and thus different reactions to it):

“You see sex differences in spatial-visualization ability in 2- and 3-month-old infants,” — Questioner

You're conflating 'gender' with 'sex' here. Sex differences are not gender. Gender is "I believe men should wear tank tops, and women shouldn't." Its completely subjective as to how I, another person, or a group of people believe a particular sex should behave in society.

Because gender is subjective and subject to the whims of an individual or group,
— Philosophim

No, gender is not based on a “whim.” — Questioner

Its not based on anything biological. And I can hold a completely different view of how males and females act than you with the same justification you have toward your views. Its just a prejudice.

I just can't see any good reason to consider gender as anything more than a prejudiced and sexist social pressure.
— Philosophim

But to not recognize the gender that one claims for themselves would be a prejudiced position, and put sexist social pressure on them. — Questioner

That statement does not address my points or have any explanation for why you think it is true behind it. You need to address the points I made in the argument explaining why gender is sexist, then demonstrate how it isn't.

Or – we can just accept one’s lived experience that they claim for themselves. Believe them. — Questioner

I believe when people have sexist views. I never said I didn't. And none of us should accept that a sexist outlook should take priority over actual biological differences in sex.

In summary, gender/identity should take precedence over the physical attributes of the body. — Questioner

I see no evidence of this in your points.

I think you are missing that genderroles were part of a culture that got us to where we are now. — ChatteringMonkey

So did war, ignorance, religion, and many other things that we have learned we can do without and still be successful. Just because something happened to accompany us while we furthered humanity does not mean that it was complicit in our success or needed anymore.

And that every modern society where they are being eroded seem to be experiencing problems replacing itself with a next generation. — ChatteringMonkey

Do you have any proof of this? What seems to be the case isn't the erosion of gender roles, its the enrichment of society vs the cost of having children combined with birth control. Many people opt out of having kids because they value their luxury time more as well. Some men stay at home and take care of the kids now while their wives work, which is an erosion of gender roles. I'm just not seeing evidence that the decision to not have kids is because of the removal of gender roles in marriage.

Misandry too.
— Philosophim

I don't think that's an issue. There is one sex that has been discriminated against in history and had to fight long and hard for their rights. — Malcolm Parry

You can be a man and be a misandrist. And there are women who hate men, but may not have the power to do much about it. Hating or loving one sex is irrelevant to the rights of that sex. One does not have to have power to be a misandrist or misogynist.

Sexism and misogyny — Malcolm Parry

Misandry too. Lets not be sexist ourselves and think this is only one sided. Also to be fair, sexism is not motivated only by negative aspects. Phiandry and philogyny, or the love of men and women can also be a drive for sexism and a desire to be the other sex.

Though folks who discuss these issues use terms like "I'm a man" and "you're not a man" casually (meaning that sex based language to describe either sex or gender identity at various times). — LuckyR

Right, its just sexist language when referring to gender. "Trans men are men" if you are referring to men in a gendered way, is incredibly sexist. It implies that there is some role or action that a person can do that makes them a 'man'. If you are saying a trans man is a man by sex, that's not a sexist claim, but one which is provably true or false. Sexism is very powerful, and its 'defeat' has only caused it to retreat and reshape itself into a new term, 'gender'.

In addition, some of the subjective gender markers include changing one's look, obviously including surgery. — LuckyR

To be clear, gender is purely a social expectation that has nothing to do with natural biology. If we said, "All men should get their left toe removed," that's changing your body for gender. There is no biological innate reason a man should get their left toe removed." If a person desires to cut their breasts off to resemble the chest of a man, that's someone trying to emulate sex expectations, not gender expectations of the other sex. That's trans sexual behavior, not trans gender behavior.

I would debate. — Mijin

Please do! Its important to explore different view points.

It seems to be more complex than just the set of presentations -- most of us have met "tomboy" like women, or men who dress quite femininely (or even cross dress) who nevertheless would never consider themselves trans. — Mijin

If you mean 'trans gender' that is because gender is subjective. If a person does not consider their behavior as only belonging to men, then they don't see themselves as trans gender. But there are people who think, "I'm aggressive, and only men are supposed to be aggressive. Maybe I'm a man?"

And, linking back to sex, why do some trans people choose to have a sex change, or even just hormone therapy. — Mijin

That's not a trans gender individual, but a trans sexual individual. Such a person wants to change their body either because they hate their own sex, or desire to be the other sex. Trans gender and trans sexuals are separate. A person can be trans gender and have no desire to change their body, while a trans sexual can change their body while having no desire to change their gender. Desiring to change the body also does not require sexism. Some people truly desire the physical traits of the other sex, but are not sexist. They just want a beard or breasts.

Even further, if William himself stated, "I cook in the kitchen, therefore I'm not a man", this would ALSO be sexist.
— Philosophim

No-one says that though.
No-one says "I like soap operas, therefore I am a woman". — Mijin

A dear friend of mine who is in the middle of transition has said such things as, "Going bald really bothers me, gender dysphoria is real isn't it?" and, "I keep finding things on the internet that I like are followed by lesbians. I must be a lesbian." He really believes he's a lesbian by the way despite the fact I've pointed out how 'sexual orientationist' his reasoning is. He can't even imagine a sexual encounter with someone else if he doesn't imagine himself as a woman being involved. Its pretty obvious that its a sexual desire he has as a male to be a woman, but he uses 'gender' to lie to himself and others that 'that's not what its about'. Even though he constantly reads lesbian romance novels. Even though I've seen how he looks at himself in discord, strokes his long hair enthusiastically and gets a moment of lust that crosses his face.

Remember that sexism is either ignorance enforced by culture, or a lie for power over something you often can't otherwise control. He can't control his sexual urges. Therefore he uses gender to lie and cover it up. I'm not saying that all trans sexuals want the other sex's body for sexual reasons, but if they claim gender is involved, its sexism. How do you think doctor's evaluate gender dysphoric kids? "I always wanted to be a girl, I played with dolls as a child, and always acted like a girl."

Lets looks at the DSM-5 diagnosis criteria for gender dysphoria.

"Some people who identify as transgender do experience “gender dysphoria,” a psychiatric diagnosis that refers to the psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity."

A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
In boys (assigned gender), a strong preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong preference for wearing only typical masculine clothing and a strong resistance to the wearing of typical feminine clothing
A strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play
A strong preference for the toys, games or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender
A strong preference for playmates of the other gender
In boys (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically masculine toys, games, and activities and a strong avoidance of rough-and-tumble play; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically feminine toys, games, and activities
A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria

All of that is sexism. You'll note there are other diagnosis of trans sexualism in the DSM-5. But none of the above stereotypes are required to desire the body of the other sex. If a person was confused by sexism however, they might think that they needed to align their body with the 'gender' they desired to be. There are people out there, especially young people, who believe that because they want to do things we prejudice as belonging to the other sex, that they need to change their body to match so they can do those things without societal rejection.

Sexism is powerful and has made people believe they should stick to certain 'roles' for centuries. There are people out there who believe in sexism, and believe because they do not behave like a normal person of their sex, that changing their body to match that will fix that problem.

Hindsight is 20/20. Literally the cheapest statement anyone could ever make. — Outlander

To be clear, this is nothing wrong with taking and exploring something proposed or claimed. My point was that if it was never peer reviewed or tested with repeatable results, it never should have been taken as more than something to look into.

You've never heard of case studies? They are always open to question. — Tom Storm

See above.

↪Philosophim Most of his famous work were case studies, interpretative narratives which you can’t really peer review. They were stories about what he saw, and heard from relatives, not scientific facts based on experiments which can be replicated. — Tom Storm

Then it was always circumspect and no one should have listened to them.

The important thing is if his body of work went through the proper scientific channels. Is it objective? Consistently repeatable? Its often that people will take a 'paper' or even a 'person' and make treat them as if they are representatives of the truth. His methods, peer review, and whether those conclusions were appropriately challenged are all that matter. His private life or personality is irrelevant.

I wouldn't debate too hard with Questioner. I get the feeling English is a second language
— Philosophim

That's funny, when it was you two who were confused by a simple post. — Questioner

Yep, I told you I was. That was right as you said, "You've misunderstood what I said." I could tell at that point you weren't here to discuss, you were here to argue.

I asked you if you had any questions and you didn't reply. — Questioner

I'm not sure how clear I can be by asking you to take a second look at your post and try to clarify your intentions. It was littered with unclear points and seeming contradictions. I was giving genuine feedback and a genuine person would have gone back, reviewed, and tried to clarify. I clarify what I mean all the time when asked genuinely because I understand the difficulty communicating through the internet and I'm trying to discuss, not argue. Not that I always succeed, but I do try. Your instant dismissal on genuine appeal meant that a discussion was impossible with you from that moment forward.

Again, you refuse to define (and maintain a constant definition of) "transgender people". I already caught you in one backtrack you won't own up to. — Outlander

I wouldn't debate too hard with Questioner. I get the feeling English is a second language, and they're unwilling to clarify their posts if you ask. You both could be going back and forth for a long time without any progress either way.

I'm feeling like this topic has also hit what it needed to and there doesn't seem to be much else to explore. I'll probably post another topic later this week that's going to explore another aspect of this.

100%. Its so odd that this one topic stymies people's ability to think clearly. — AmadeusD

Its why I keep seeing it as a secular religion. I grew up Christian and broke away on my own as I started questioning. I know the patterns of thought, avoidance, and behavior that come when you ask questions that violate the tenants of a religion. Otherwise intelligent people will double down on the weirdest and most logically deficient points if accepting it possibly threatens a core belief system. Its the same thing all over again here. I appreciate your accurate responses to the subject. Again, it doesn't mean you have to agree with me going forward, its just nice to see someone who isn't being weird about it.

Unless there are good reasons to believe that Michael is suffering from something like schizophrenia, it should be common sense to any rational person that C1 is a false conclusion. — Michael

Again, you're making a circular assumption.

Because the phrase is not ambiguous, only an idiot or dishonest person would interpret the phrase not in the way you want. Therefore its not ambiguous.

You're being very clear. I can use this, "Only an idiot or dishonest person would interpret the phrase in the way you do Michael," and it would be just as legitimate as your argument. Meaning, not legitimate at all. I'm done. You're just expressing the same thing again and again without addressing the arguments that the phrase is ambiguous. You assume it is not and declare it is not. That's not a discussion, that's circular preaching.

Genuinely, I'm having a difficult time understanding what you were trying to convey in that particular post.
— Philosophim

All I can suggest is to read it again and feel free to ask me questions about it. — Questioner

If you're not going to clarify a legitimate request for clarification, I'm not going to try to guess what you're saying. I've done that before in conversations and it never works out well for either party. Please continue to contribute to the discussion but I will bow out where it seems unclear.

If a phrase could possibly mean one of two things, but one of those things is utterly absurd, then unless you believe that the person who said it is suffering from psychosis, you ought use a little common sense and understand that they mean the non-absurd thing. — Michael

Unless you prove that everyone who uses the phrase in a way different than you feel its to be read is an idiot or dishonest, this in no way proves the sentence isn't ambiguous.

It's really simple. — Michael

I'm not going to answer anymore if you just repost the same point.

Although as referenced in a few articles above, there are studies that suggest that the transgender person's brain structure is dissimilar to both the typical "male" brain and the typical "female" brain. — Michael

Again, if those studies did not take sexual orientation into account, the study isn't valid as it is known that homosexual brains have some similarities with female brains. Finally, even though I feel this current understanding benefits my point, I also acknowledge that the brain science across the board is very much in flux and debatable. To my point though, you would need to eliminate the sexual orientation variable for it to be a worth while citation.

That's not what I've said.

What I've said is that if I say "trans men are men" and you think to yourself "Michael believes that humans with XX chromosomes who identify as men are humans with XY chromosomes" then either you're an idiot or you're being intentionally dishonest. — Michael

Oh, its EITHER you're an idiot or dishonest. My mistake. So basically people can't interpret the phrase wrong, because when they use it wrong, it due to stupidity or maliciousness. And yet that doesn't address my point that it could also be because its ambiguous. If you demonstrated that the phrase was always used correctly, that would be a counter to ambiguity. But you haven't even attempted that.

You see, I'm not denying those are possibilities, but those are possibilities for any phrase. That doesn't address the claims I've made about why it is ambiguous in terms of the arguments I've laid forth which you keep avoiding, something I've already mentioned twice and am tired of saying again. Either address the points in the thread, or be the straw man guy who's claiming that everyone who uses the phrase incorrectly must be an idiot or dishonest. Come on Michael. If you read a poster in another thread using that type of argument would you think they were coming to the discussion in good faith or a calm mind?

Thinking you're a man when in reality you're a woman is a delusional.
— Philosophim

This presents as a misunderstanding of the information I have shared. — Questioner

I don't doubt it. As I was reading your thread a few times I wasn't sure I understood your full intention.

This presents as passive-aggressive. My posts are well enough organized. — Questioner

Not at all. I even went out of my way to indicate that in no way is this a poor reflection on you. You even noted in your quote of me above that I misunderstood what you were saying. Genuinely, I'm having a difficult time understanding what you were trying to convey in that particular post.

I suspect that for all English phrases there is at least one person who has used a different interpretation to what is ordinary, but that doesn't mean that all English phrases are ambiguous. — Michael

Fantastic. We agree on a basic point that not everyone who uses the phrase means to indicate that the second 'man' in the sentence is only referring to gender.

A rational person should understand that people who say "trans men are men" are not saying "humans with a vagina who identify as men are humans with a penis" or "humans with XX chromosomes who identify as men are humans with XY chromosomes". You ought stop stubbornly insisting on this straw man. — Michael

You ought to stop using the implicit claim that anyone who doesn't use the phrase exactly as you say it is , is an idiot. You basically said, "Its used this way, and anyone who uses it the wrong way is incorrect. Therefore the phrase is not ambiguous." Considering an ambiguous phrase is one that can easily be interpreted incorrectly because its intention is not clear, you're not helping your case. You have not addressed the arguments I've given in this discussion as to why its ambiguous and demonstrated why they are false. You dodged the last point of discussion even after I gave you a day to calm down and think about it because you were too emotionally invested. And now you're just repeating the same points that didn't work. Please come up with a new approach Michael, or once again, please leave the thread.

Which logical fallacy?
— Philosophim

As I explained - mistaking a reality for a delusion — Questioner

Sure, but that that's the claim I'm making. Thinking you're a man when in reality you're a woman is a delusional.

Questioner, your post is a bit disorganized. I a couple of points that contrast with themselves. I feel it just needs a second pass to organize what you're trying to say a bit more please. This does not mean your wrong or imply any lack of capability on your part. I too sometimes don't organize my posts correctly and it confuses other people. Would you mind spending a little more time specifying your thoughts a bit? I'll answer then so that way I'm fairly addressing your points.

You've encountered people who believe that humans with a vagina who identify as men are humans with a penis?

I don't believe you have. — Michael

This is not an argument. You need to go talk to more people. Lets make this logical to remove the obvious emotional block you have. You are stating, "All people who ever use this phrase everywhere mean this one strict interpretation." I am stating "At least one person who has used this phrase has used a different interpretation."

It should be obvious now.

No person who says "trans men are men" is saying "biological women who identify as men are biological men". — Michael

Already pointed out that I've encountered people who intend this. There are some trans gender individuals who do use the word 'men' to indicate they have changed sex, not merely gender. You cannot know from the phrase alone what they intend without further clarification, therefore it is ambiguous.

It's quite absurd that this needs to be repeated and that this discussion has reached 19 pages. — Michael

Its quite absurd that you started calling people idiots who disagreed with you, and refused to answer my question as to why we shouldn't just clarify the phrase to "Trans gender men are adult human females who take on the gendered roles of men." Its also quite absurd that you come in and insult the discussion because the conclusion isn't what you want it to be. Obviously the results of 19 pages demonstrate this is something worth talking about unlike your desire to tell everyone they're stupid.

Philosophim would have a much stronger position if he were to just claim that without further context the sentence "John is a man" is ordinarily interpreted as "John is a biological man", but he's opted not to take this approach. — Michael

This is one of my many points that I've put forward in this discussion. You haven't even followed and make criticisms of things you don't know about.

The first three results in Google disagree. — Michael

Congrats on a quick google search. I've studied this issue for a while and have made comments that the brain science is still ongoing. Have you ensured that those studies separate homo and heterosexual brains? Because homosexual brains do appear to have features that are more associated with female brains. If your studies don't separate them, this skews the end results.

using this as a corollary of transgenderism is unsound reasoning - a logical fallacy - since thinking you are one particular person rather than who you are is a delusion. — Questioner

Which logical fallacy?

Transgender persons do not think they are someone who they are not - their brains truly are in reality male or female - and this is their reality, not a delusion. — Questioner

No, brain scans on transgender people prior to any medical intervention have brains that are no different than non-transgender brains. Currently the science implies that male homosexual brains do have some similarities between female brains. Does that mean we call a gay man a woman? No.

But there is ample evidence of the differences between a male and a female brain. — Questioner

No, there is none to my knowledge. Make sure you're looking at pre-medical trans gender studies and not post. The medications can change the brain.

BTW, transgender brains are normal. They just developed with a different sex than the body. — Questioner

If they are normal, and there's no evidence of any difference between a trans gender brain and a cis gender brain, then no, they don't have a sex different from the body.

I do take exception to the mention of "trans ideology and politics" - being transgender is not an ideology - but a recognition of a biological reality. And as far as "politics" go - do you mean the expectation that basic human rights are respected? — Questioner

Ah, that was just an intro paragraph line to explain where my interest in the subject came from. No, this conversation has no concern with rights, just language and phrasing.

I would say instead that the anti-transgender movement is based on ideology and politics — Questioner

Just as much as the pro-transgender movement is based on ideology and politics. To be clear, I am not anti-transgender. I am pro clear thinking, clear language, and avoiding ideology where possible.

You haven't followed the argument, missing the main point about privileging a sense. — Banno

He clearly has followed the argument. You don't want to let this one go Banno. May I suggest you might be a little ideologically captured here? You keep trying to use the word privilege when you know I had no rights based arguments for the conclusion. You are acting just like a religious person does when they can't quite prove that God is real. I don't know your religious outlook yourself Banno, but any person can be easily captured by ideologies that make them behave in ways they normally wouldn't.

You're generally an intelligent person who I believe has a genuine desire to do the right thing Banno. Take a step back and look at it again. Have we not both made our points? Have we not both come to areas of the discussion in which there is nothing further to be said? You keep coming back to this thread as if its some crusade, but just like the real crusades Banno, there's nothing worth the fight.

We're people who both love philosophy Banno. Isn't it a good time now to shake each other's hands, appreciate a good discussion, and move on? You don't have to agree with my conclusion. You don't ever have to state that I'm right. You are allowed to hold your own outlook of the debate, as am I. Lets let others judge for now.

Thank you for the defense Amadeus. Even if you had disagreed with my end views, I believe you've captured the points well.

I read of gender being referred to as an "expression" and as "cultural" - but insofar as transgender persons are concerned it is more accurately referred to as their identity. — Questioner

I have not addressed identity. A personal identity is simply an opinion of yourself. I have opinions of myself, but that doesn't mean people have to agree with it. My own sense of identity can also be objectively wrong. If I identify as Elvis Presley it doesn't actually make me Elvis Presley.

But, sometimes, the two processes do not result in the same sex. So, a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born. — Questioner

The real answer is that the science is still in flux. As of today, there is no identifiable brain difference between a transgender person and a normal person. At one point they thought there might be, but they didn't consider sexuality. Male homosexual brains have structures that resemble female brains in some way (though this is not completely settled either). Once sexuality was taken into account, hetero and homosexual male brains are no different besides a very slight difference in one area of the corpus collosum that was observed. So no, as of today being transgender is not identifiable in the brain.

But I'm curious, what do you think of the OP? Personal identity is not needed to discuss it.

Sorry Banno. Once you abandon answering the counter point, the counter point stands. And if you're not going to acknowledge that counter point after I pointed it out once already, then you are no longer a person worth engaging with, again. Answer the point and we can continue. Otherwise the point goes to me.

You privilege one meaning over others.

If you are not doing that, then you cannot maintain that "trans women are women" is false. — Banno

And again you ignore the part about 'privilege' including rights. My point stands.

Pretty simple stuff. — Banno

Philosophim Are you intent on playing Dictionaries for the remainder of this discussion? — Banno

I actually laughed at this one Banno. Yes, I am practicing in the fallacious art of "Posting the definition of terms so we both understand and can reference the meaning." :D

...advantage...
— Philosophim
...as, for example, you give the advantage to 'sex of the person' over 'gender of a person' when you say
I'm claiming the context of 'woman/man' unmodified is most rationally interpreted to mean 'sex of the person' — Banno

Quote the whole meaning Banno, not one word. Where is the mention of rights, exemptions, or immunity implied? While yes, gender vs sex have different rights, exemptions and immunity compared to each other, no where am I claiming if that is so or what they are in that sentence. Clarifying the difference between sex and gender also has nothing to do with privileges. But there is one point, and that is often ambiguous phrases intended to conflate two different terms with one another often want the rights, exemptions and immunity of the other for the term when the term itself cannot argue they deserve those things on their own. But you're not attempting to conflate right? And I'm sure not. So I fail to see where that sentence implies privilege at all.

Where have I ever advocated privilege?
— Philosophim

Exactly here:

I'm claiming the context of 'woman/man' unmodified is most rationally interpreted to mean 'sex of the person' — Banno

Privilege meaning: a right, exemption, or immunity granted as a particular benefit, advantage, or favor
OR
a right or benefit given to some people but not others
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privilege

Where in any of the sentence you quoted is there any implication of privilege?

Yours seems a pretty desperate account. — Banno

I'm not the one who keeps coming back every couple of days misrepresenting my point because they're more concerned with their outcome being seen than mine. I wouldn't mind if you decided to add something new, but its the same rehash and ignorant statements about my part of the discussion.

Your attempt to maintain polysemy while privileging a single biological sense is logically inconsistent. — Banno

"Priviliging?" Well this is new. Where have I ever advocated privilege? Mind clarifying what you mean by that considering its an argument I've never made?

A word is ambiguous when it has two or more possible meanings, and it is unclear which meaning is intended in a given context.

A word is polysemous when it has multiple related meanings that are all legitimate and established, and the word’s meaning shifts depending on context. — Banno

Basically what I said.

Woman is polysemous, not ambiguous. — Banno

Ok, I JUST told you I said the term was polysemous, while the phrase was ambiguous. You keep implying I've done otherwise because you're being dishonest. Banno, if you have to be dishonest to win an argument, you're not doing a good job.

And, in the gender-social sense, “trans women are women” is true. — Banno

If the context outside of the sentence itself is known. I'll post this again:

A term with multiple meanings. And in that case, if the meaning cannot be clearly gleaned from the phrase without outside context, it is by definition an ambiguous phrase. — Philosophim

There is no context within the sentence itself Banno. If I took the phrase and brought it to people without context, many people would rightly and logically assume due to the rules of English and normal culture that the second woman indicated 'adult human female'. That's what I've been noting all of this time. You should know that and be acknowledging that if you want to be an honest and good faith person in this discussion.

You're not adding anything new to this discussion, and you're actively ignoring or misrepresenting my position again. You're not being a good or noble person Banno, you're just being a troll at this point.

And I pointed out that it is polysemous rather than ambiguous. You conflate the two. — Banno

Banno, are you bored? I don't know how you can keep posting this and think this is a good argument.

Polysemous means, "A term which has multiple meanings". That's it. The 'phrase' is not a 'term'. What is often contained in an ambiguous phrase? A term with multiple meanings. And in that case, if the meaning cannot be clearly gleaned from the phrase without outside context, it is by definition an ambiguous phrase.

You keep conflating 'term' with 'phrase'. I do not.

Not at all. We went through this. There is no "context of 'woman/man' unmodified", no "true" meaning for such terms, beyond your preference for choose a "true" meaning in order to justify your claims concerning trans folk. — Banno

Again Banno, your entire dismissal of my points, either by pretending they didn't exist or ignoring them so you can spout an ideology is not what I'm interested in debating. But if you do come back later and imply a misspresentation of my stance, I will correct it for others to read. You know I never stated an essential meaning for woman, only rational arguments based on the rules of the English language, its history, and culture. And you also know my conclusion was that the phrase is ambiguous to most people, and thus should be clarified to more clearly impart its meaning.

Again, I'm no longer discussing with you on this issue, we already did that. I will not attempt to misrepresent your stance to my advantage long after our discussion, I ask you to return the same courtesy.

But "woman" is a polysemous term; one established meaning is biological, and another established meaning is gender-social. — Banno

Yes, it can have more than one meaning based on context which we've established already.

Contrary to the OP, in the gender-social sense, “trans women are women” is true. Insisting on only the biological sense is a misunderstanding of how language works, not a logical or empirical requirement. — Banno

You are ignoring the entire discussion we had earlier and not acknowledging that I'm claiming the context of 'woman/man' unmodified is most rationally interpreted to mean 'sex of the person', not 'gender of the person.' That's what the 'trans' and 'cis' modifiers are for.

Is this kind of like how "sick" "means" "impressive" and "hot" "means" "attractive" and/or "stolen", etc.? :chin: — Outlander

Very similar, yes.

I think it is interesting to see some confusion here in what is being said and what is meant: — I like sushi

Sure, pretty common with this topic. Why the link to a video about not having children though?

So I ask myself what's a good ethical metric. For me that's "everyone maximum wellbeing".
Which doesn't mean just happiness. It means potential for education, healthcare, truth and so on. — Jack2848

Not a bad metric.

Whereas a person's gender or sex is essential to one's identity.(Qualitatively). — Jack2848

I argue that gender is social stereotypes about he sexes. I do not believe that social stereotypes are should be essential to anyone's identity.

However. If a person truly believes they are a woman. And the cashier calls them a man even though they dress as a woman and have undergone surgery. Then although it looks irrational from the outside. From the inside it's not unreasonable that they ask to be called the sex or gender they believe to be or how they express. — Jack2848

I agree that it is not unreasonable to ask. It is unreasonable to expect that they oblige such a request. It is not a duty or moral obligation that people agree with your own internal view of yourself when it contrasts with what they observe.

On energy

The energy is easy. It takes less energy to say. Hi woman to someone wearing female clothes and who looks enough like one. — Jack2848

For you. If someone is asking that you refer them as a particular pronoun, then that is because you do not see them as you wish they did. Meaning you do not appear as that particular sex in their eyes, and you are asking them to lie. Its different if you are a particular sex and someone mistakes that. Then you're correcting a person to be aligned with the truth of the situation. If it would be a lie to ask someone to call me doctor when I am not, and that's just a job title, I don't see why its any less of an issue to ask someone to refer to me as the opposite sex that I am. I see gender as sexism and stereotypes, and I am not sexist nor agree to stereotype people.

Lying to people is hard. Asking you to ignore your eyes and ears and call someone something they are not is hard. Especially with those of a moral character who value honesty. It may be easy for you. But it is not for many people. Notice how I recognize it it easy for you. You should recognize and accept those who say it is not easy for them. No, they are not far right. They are not immoral. They are not bigoted. They are uncomfortable lying to people and being told its the right thing to do.

If tomorrow you fully believed that you were a woman. For years you are depressed. You make a vagina where your penis is. You dress like a woman and you take hormones and so on. And you fully belief that your brain or soul or whatever is a woman. — Jack2848

Your brain/soul is not a woman. Your body is. This is the confusion. How you feel about your body does not change its reality. It doesn't matter whether I feel like my face is scarred or not. It is. That is my body. Do you see why I disagree with your view here?

Then given that you would be asking to be called what you are rather than what you aren't when people mistakenly call you what you aren't in your reconstruction of the world. — Jack2848

We are not talking about letting people call you what they think you are. We are talking about people calling you what they know you aren't. If it doesn't matter that they call you something incorrect, there's no need to correct it. If of course someone interacted you in a way assuming you are a particular sex and it was important they be correct in that instance, you should correct them.

People are angry is universal claim. Technically i need only pick one person to prove it wrong. That would be me. But giving the claim some charity. I will take it to assume that most people in the world are angry that if they see a transitioned trans woman that if they meet them they would have to say "she" during conversation if they are near. — Jack2848

You are correct that is is a universal claim that I did not mean to apply as "all people". There are enough people angry about it in the world to be an issue. I won't even claim 'most' as I have no evidence of that. To be clear, they're not angry at being asked and being allowed of their own accord to call them he or she. They are angry at the demand. They are angry at the implication that transition makes you the other sex, and that there is some innate right to cross sex spaces. Anger alone of course is not a justification of that anger, but it is there enough to be a concern.

Additionally most people on the tv networks aren't angry. In fact. Most people that are annoyed , not angry with it. Would for far right. In my country. Yet only about 20% voted for the far right here. So again most people aren't annoyed enough let alone angry that they would vote for them. — Jack2848

I want to be clear I do not view this as a political issue. I have listened to people on the 'the left' also not like that this is an expressed social obligation. This is an intellectual and societal issue. Politics cause us to ignore this aspect and quickly make it a tribal issue. We should avoid that.

I would bet you thousands of euros and we go on the streets to ask people. If you see a transwoman. Would you be angry that there's a social not official expectation that you call them she while they are around? And I would take your money. — Jack2848

You mean i would take YOUR money. :) I don't think there's anything to debate on here. This is either true, or false, and I don't think either of us have the evidence for it. So lets not focus on people's anger, but the social obligation issue I've mentioned.

I am trying to communicate the idea that we should not be making special demands of society for individuals or pockets of cultures

I would say the opposite. We should help the less fortunate. — Jack2848

In polite culture, you are not obligated to help the less fortunate. No one has to donate to the homeless person on the street. What you should not do, is place undue burdens on the less fortunate. You don't yell or mock a homeless person who smells because they don't have access to a shower. It is nice to help the less fortunate, but it is not an obligation.

From my viewpoint, I do not consider transitioned or trans gender people less fortunate. Everyone has problems, that is theirs. We live in a modern society with good medical care, and they are largely able to get that care. They can still work, own a home, pay taxes, and go into public like everyone else. I owe them no more time or energy then I do any other person walking around. Should I place undue burdens on them because they're trans? Make fun of them, mock them, or any other horrible thing? Absolutely not. THAT is societies obligation. But I have no duty to lie to them, tell them something that isn't true, or treat them in any way differently than anyone else.

To be clear, I had an eye appointment one time and found the person taking it was a trans woman. It was very obvious this was a man, so how did I react? I didn't care. I spoke about the day, asked how things were going, dumb dad jokes, the works. They never asked me to call them a particular pronoun, and I treated them like I would anyone else. That's how a good society works. We all live and work together despite our differences without special treatment.

And if a person has gone through surgery to have a vagina. And they belief they have a soul or some brain composition that is female. Then I think we should take the option that takes less energy, creates more happiness and respect. And say "she" around them. — Jack2848

Absolutely not. A person can do whatever they want to themselves. I am under no obligation to agree with it. Someone can do facial surgery to look like Napoleon and earnestly tell me they are Napoleon. I am only under an obligation not to give them an undue burden over it, not to call or treat them like Napoleon. You are elevating a person's subjective view point as an obligation for other people to agree with. You can call them Napoleon if you think that is not. I am not denying you the right to call a person by their preferred pronouns. That is your choice. But it is a choice, not an obligation. And I am just as free and not morally obliged to agree with a person's subjective view of themself.

So yes they are regering to the cultural expectations they had for a sex. And I can imagine lesbian women getting annoyed. After hearing ''you're not a woman. You're a man''. — Jack2848

Correct. Lesbians and many men do not act in accordance with social stereotypes around their sex. That's the way it should be. No one is obligated to follow subjective social stereotypes. No one is obligated to agree with a person's subjective viewpoint.

It would then be even more horribly unfair. If the same people that would use or create such terms such as tomboy for woman qua sex. Would then claim that it is unfair to define gender mostly in cultural aspects and separate from genitalia. — Jack2848

No, it is unfair that people used gender to tell women they aren't women. And its equally unfair to use gender to tell other people that as a woman, you aren't actually a woman. Gender is prejudice and sexism, and about control. I am advocating freedom from sexism and social control based on subjective non-biological expectations of someone's sex.

I think I followed you well, but please correct me if I did not.