During the intrauterine period a testosterone surge masculinizes the fetal brain, whereas the absence of such a surge results in a feminine brain. As sexual differentiation of the brain takes place at a much later stage in development than sexual differentiation of the genitals, these two processes can be influenced independently of each other.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091302211000252?utm_source=chatgpt.com — Questioner

Please do better than chatgpt again. You need to make sure to include sexual orientation in your findings. To my knowledge, most of your papers are describing homosexuality formation, not gender identity.

"Thus, accounting for individual differences in sexual orientation, the transgender groups showed lower,
sex-atypical FA specifically in the right IFOF and left ILF. In all other tracts, FA values of the transgender groups became sex-typical after accounting for sexual orientation (see for comparison Supplementary Results when Kinsey scores were not co-varied)."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17352-8.pdf

Another general site with more studies demonstrating the brain science is still very much not settled. https://www.transgendertrend.com/brain-research/

HeM = Heterosexual Male
MtF-TR = Male to female transgender (post hormone therapy which is known to alter the brain)

"Like HeM, MtF-TR displayed larger GM volumes than HeW in the cerebellum and lingual gyrus and smaller GM and WM volumes in the precentral gyrus. Both male groups had smaller hippocampal volumes than HeW. As in HeM, but not HeW, the right cerebral hemisphere and thalamus volume was in MtF-TR lager than the left. None of these measures differed between HeM and MtF-TR. MtF-TR displayed also singular features and differed from both control groups by having reduced thalamus and putamen volumes and elevated GM volumes in the right insular and inferior frontal cortex and an area covering the right angular gyrus.The present data do not support the notion that brains of MtF-TR are feminized. The observed changes in MtF-TR bring attention to the networks inferred in processing of body perception."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21467211/

What is consistent between these papers is after sexual orientation is taken into account that at most the difference appears to be in the area in which a person process their own body. In other words, a misprocessing or misinterpretation of their body, not a case of a female or male brain in a person's body. This may not be innate either, but something developed. The jury is still very out on anything final at this time.

And Questioner, you still haven't indicated why gender itself isn't just prejudice, or why elevating it over sex isn't sexism. Go back to the OP again if you need to.

What DOES the possibility of a brain similarity between gay men and women mean to you? — Joshs

I don't know. What it does seem to imply is that sexual orientation is not a processing issue, its an innate brain function. The problem of course is that we don't yet quite have the brain issues for sexual orientation down in heterosexual brains. So at this point its a lot of guess work. The only thing we can say for certain is that gay men are not females in male bodies. They are males with a sexual orientation towards the same sex.

Do you think the region of the brain which differs between straight men and women is responsible for behavioral differences between the sexes? — Joshs

Behavioral differences in regards to sexual orientation. There are certain methods of flirting that are repeatable across cultures, implying biological origin. I would say you would be able to assess much better than I do, but 'flightiness' for example can be seen as an attractive trait in women to men, while it it often not seen as an attractive trait in men for women. To be clear, flirting which is socially learned would be gender. We're talking about innate attraction and flirting which is natural and unlearned.

Still, its a topic mostly outside of my wheelhouse so I don't have too much educated to say about it. What I do know from my research so far (and again, brain science is still very early and not yet conclusive) is that when trans individuals are examined based on sexual orientation, there is no difference. So homosexuals who are trans have the same brains as homosexuals who are not trans. Same with heterosexuals. There is one minor barely statistical difference in the corpus collosum in both, and that may be important as we continue to learn more. But this largely indicates gender is a processing issue, not an innate brain function.

And if not, what do you suppose is the function of that sex-related brain region? — Joshs

Unsure. But it could explain behavior that is associated more with women. Of course it doesn't mean you have a female brain. It means you have a brain that has aspects of it that would normally be associated with females. You're still a maie.

Delusion as false belief doesn’t necessarily describe the schizophrenic experience either. Thus the need for the ‘hearing voices’ movement. — Joshs

First, my apologies for all these separate posts on your topics, I'm catching up from vacation.

I have a major issue with this need to never say anything is 'wrong'. There are lots of things wrong with all of us, and maturity is admitting that. I have a very scarred face that often scares people. Its bad. Its a handicap in social settings. I am flawed because of it. Saying, "Oh but really you're not mangled, its an expression of blah blah blah" is both a diminishment of the reality of my situation, and an insult to myself as if I'm not mature enough to handle that I have things wrong with me. There are schizophrenics who fight daily to be normal despite their handicap. Saying their condition is normal is beyond insulting.

If you are hearing voices, there is something wrong with your brain, period. Its important to realize it, get help, and work to function normally in society despite one's delusion and handicap. The idea of transition is a coping mechanism for severe gender dysphoria. Its not a normal, healthy way of life. And that's ok. But it doesn't mean you latch onto sexism to make yourself feel better. I have something fundamentally wrong with me and cannot live a normal and healthy life without extra effort and work on my part. And that's ok. But it doesn't mean I get run around pretending I don't look like what I do.

If I went around pretending that I had a normal face and asked people to call me 'good looking' because otherwise my feelings would be hurt, I would have an infantile mind and be a pathetic individual. I do not encourage or endorse other people being infantile or pathetic. I encourage others to admit reality because that is the only way you really handle the arrows of life. I do not say this as some healthy normal individual safely behind a screen. I say this as an individual who has been through great physical and emotional difficulties. The truth is the only way to triumph. Lies and pretend only work temporarily, will always be shattered by uncaring reality and keep you weak. This is from personal experience.

You see, I have a great sympathy for fellow sufferers in life. And the last thing they need is pity, excuses, or lies to get over it. I believe in their strength of mind, constitution, and morals. I do not treat them like inferiors. I do not give them false sympathy or pretend their pain is not real and does not exist to make myself feel better. I do not treat you like an inferior because you went through the struggles of being gay. You're just a person like me. And I'll hold you to the same intellectual and moral standards I would hold anyone else despite those difficulties.

But, if you ask any cisgender male or female, they will tell you what it feels like to be a woman or a man.
— Questioner

We should ask Philosophim this question. I’ll bet you a twinkie he insists that there is nothing a priori it feels like to be a man or a woman, because these feelings are merely the result of arbitrary social conditioning, and the only feelings that aren’t socially imposed have to do with how a male body (not mind) feels different from a female body. — Joshs

No, there is a way of feeling like a man. Its sexual. I can grow a beard. I pee a certain way. I have more strength naturally. Its entirely 100% biological. I do have sociological pressures to act, dress, and behave a particular way because of my sex. But I don't have to follow them generally. True strength is realizing I can give the proverbial middle finger to everyone else in society and do what I want. But men or women can realize that.

How else would I 'feel like a man'?

I'm sorry that you face that prejudice and that ignorance. — Questioner

Most people face prejudice and ignorance in life. I have in spades. It does not make his position special or his ideas have any more merit or value, nor my own. Ideas have merit and value not in how we suffer with them, but if they rationally make sense.

I would say having surgery to appear as a (caricature, naturally) of the opposite sex is sexist pretty much by definition. I just don't think all sexism is bad. Clearly not, as law instantiates several instances of it. — AmadeusD

I actually don't. I think there are trans sexuals who desire the biological average sex expectations of the opposite sex, and I think desiring that and/or obtaining that does not fit the definition of sexism itself.

prejudice or discrimination based on sex OR
behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex — Philosophim

I'm not saying one couldn't be sexist and desire the body of the other sex, but I don't think desiring or shaping their body to the objectively normal biological expectations of the other sex is itself sexist.

Also fantastic discussion by you and Questioner while I was gone.

Many people are uncomfortable with the idea that innate brain schemes organize the processing of incoming stimuli such as to form a gender affective-perceptual ‘style’. Of course such a style, whether we label it with terms such as masculine, feminine or something other, is inseparably intertwined with cultural influences, but this doesnt negate the fact that we arrive into the world armed already with gender-based stylistic proclivities prior to our exposure to social influence. — Joshs

To be clear, anything biological that fits a sex expectation is not gender. Gender is ONLY sociological, and I think this is where the confusion comes in. As of yet, there is no brain evidence of gender. Gender is just an opinion or sociological construct in how a sex should act. It is a prejudice, and if it becomes more important than sex itself, sexism.

As a non-Kantian on the matter of gender. Philosophim would say that my awareness of my gayness as a gender was either concocted in my head by piecing together arbitrary fragments of behavior to force a narrative out of them , or forced on my via my unconscious exposure to some outside arbitrary narrative. — Joshs

No, I would say 'gay' is not a gender. Act however you want. There are prejudices in how a gay person should act, but that doesn't mean you actually are that way. That's like saying, "You don't like Lady Gaga, you can't be gay." or, "You're not gay enough." Its just prejudice. As for being gay, that's a sexual orientation, not a gender. Further, we actually have brain evidence that indicates a difference between male gay men and straight men. While nothing is conclusive, its been noted that some areas of the brain that are normally associated with women are more like women in gay male brains. Does that mean you're a female in a man's body? I would never insult or imply such homophobic tripe.

I'm glad you found people with your same sexual orientation you can relate with. I have nothing against that. But that's not gender. Someone saying, "I think men shouldn't be gay," is gender. Its just prejudice.

Would it then follow on your view that the woman who uses a woman's bathroom because she looks like a woman rather than because she is a woman, is engaged in sexism? Or it this incorrect because she is not acting "over and against" sex? — Leontiskos

Back from vacation. Seems like some good conversations happened while I was away.

To be clear we mean woman by sex, not gender. And I will not use "woman" by itself to mean gender as it leads to unclear communication. If a man wears some makeup and a dress because that's the way women are supposed to act, that's gender. If they think this makes them a woman this would be sexism.

We haven't really addressed trans sexualism. That is where one alters their body to match or resemble the sex expectations of the other sex. I do not see that as sexism. Sex expectations are biologically expected statistics and are not gender. Admiring and wanting the body of the opposite sex for yourself is an entirely different subject.

The question of whether a man of any type is allowed as a normal visitor in any cross sex space should consider why that cross sex space was created and the purpose it serves. There may be good reasons and arguments for allowing cross sex access, but sexism is not one of them. If gender is claiming the actions or inner feelings of a person make a sex, that's sexism. So if someone cross gender is not cross sex, I see no justified reason to allow cross sex space access from this alone.

To speak quickly, I think one difficulty with the position is that sex and gender actually are interrelated in a social sense, especially if we consider everything pertaining to appearance as pertaining to gender. — Leontiskos

To be clear, sex expectations of the body are not gender. Adornment of the body is. We are as of yet not talking about transsexuals, or those whose body may be on the extreme statistical end of those expectations. In an informal setting like a bathroom, culture will keep most trans gender people out, as sex expectations as markers for correct sex identification are usually extremely accurate and easy to identify. In the case where there is uncertainty, this will be incredibly low. Once trans gender people are out, it will go back to a low priority and likely be flexible like it was before all of this attempt to make bathrooms about identity instead of places you go where you blend in best.

Second, it's not clear what the error actually consists in, namely, "Elevating gender over and against sex." It seems to me that if we enforce that consistently, then we can never talk about gender in a way that does not presuppose sex. — Leontiskos

Gender is always about sex. It is the expectation for how a sex should act. I think that's the proper way to speak about it.

If not, what does it mean to elevate gender over and against sex? And instead of mere examples I would need an actual explanation of what this means. (Does it mean something like believing that one's gender is more important than one's sex, and is contrary to one's sex, and acting on that belief while at the same time requiring others to do the same? I.e. creating public policies that are gender-based rather than sex-based?) — Leontiskos

Correct. Anytime you think gender should shape anything sex related, you've elevated it over sex. Gender is a belief about how a sex should act. But its a subjective opinion. It does not shape sex, justify one as a sex, or shape sex in any way. Its just a prejudice or stereotype. Identifying as a 'gender' is really just saying, "I act like I or others expect that sex to act in society." Which again, is completely worthless in any sex identification itself.

I'm glad the discussion has continued on despite the timid early posters with their wrote and trite 'get help' — unimportant

Before you judge, most of us knew the OP from past posts. Darkness had not been doing well. His post was not coming from a purely intellectual place or morbid curiosity. I genuinely hope they are doing well.

Nobody has ever questioned their gender on the basis of thinking they're aggressive or whatever, so yes I believe you've either made up your anecdotes and/or horribly misunderstood what your friends were saying. — Mijin

Absolutely. Especially among children and adolescents. My advice is to seek more points of view than you've currently seen. Everything I'm advocating in this thread has been advocated by other trans gender and trans sexual people.

Go ahead and have the last word, I'm done. — Mijin

Farewell then Mijin. I'll be on vacation so will respond when I'm back if you change your mind down the road. Have a nice holiday!

If I view that the men should not cry, that is a gendered identity. If I view that women should always agree with men, that is a gendered identity.
— Philosophim

No. This is not at all how I have been using the term "identity." — Questioner

Ah, I'm glad you entered back into the conversation with more information, but you have to understand that I can't keep track of everyone's view of identity in the thread. As this is written by me, I've asserted a definition of identity and have stuck to that. Its ok if you disagree, but since it has been a moment and I don't know if your ideas have evolved further, please clearly define what you mean by identity, gender, and gender identity.

What you describe is sexist, but there is nothing linking these examples with the experience of a transgender person. — Questioner

Again, I'll remind you that being trans gender in of itself is not sexist. It is when the gender identity elevates itself over sex. For example, a woman personally being aggressive and thinking, "I'm acting like gender I attribute to men" is fine. If she then thinks, "Because I'm acting in a gendered way I attribute to a male, I should be treated like I'm the male sex", that is sexism. And yes, there are trans gender people who act this way. To your point, this is sexist.

To apply this to transgender persons, you would have to characterize their gender identity as a "prejudice" and I hope you can see that this is not the case. — Questioner

All gender by definition is a prejudice. Again, using the very definition of gender theory which is used in terms of both cis and trans gender discussion, gender is a social construct that conveys a belief in how a sex should act socially. Any time you pre judge how someone should act, that is a prejudice. To be clear, pre judging is not in itself wrong. Any intelligent being pre judges on almost anything based on their previous experience. A prejudice is only wrong if you extend it into an 'ism'. An ism is when we value our prejudices over objective reality. That is why elevating gender over the objective reality of sex is sexist.

is to propose a trans person claims an identity, then indicate why its true.
— Philosophim

To whom? the gender police? — Questioner

That's not an answer. This also was an incomplete sentence and I could not find what you were quoting in full. In philosophical discussions we talk about terms and their truth conditions. Its not about 'the police'. Its about clearly understanding what a term is, if it can be falsified, and under what conditions it would be true or false.

That keeps the logic organized and clear for both parties.
— Philosophim

I'm not clear why anyone should justify their identity to another party. — Questioner

If you are asking the other party to accept their identity, you absolutely have to justify that. You can view yourself however you want in your head. The moment you start implying that others have to agree is the moment you need to start justifying why.

o be transgender, you must first have a gendered opinion about the sexes. Men act like X, Women act like Y. Then, you have to pick the gender that is opposite to your sex and act that way while rejecting acting like the gender of your sex.
— Philosophim

Again, a profound misunderstanding of what transgenderism is — Questioner

This is not an argument. At this point you should be presenting what trans genderism is and why it is wrong. To be charitible towards yourself, are you sure you aren't mixing up trans sexualism with trans genderism? They are not the same thing.

Also, we do not take AI summaries on this board.
— Philosophim

Are you sure about that? I have seen them in other threads. And the rules simply state that members are not to use AI to write their posts. — Questioner

I may be misinterpreting the rules then. I'm not going to entertain AI summaries because they aren't your thoughts on the article. I'm not discussing with an AI, I'm discussing with you. Again, I will give you the same treatment back.

I've just noted that gender is a prejudice, and that elevating that prejudice over sex in importance fits the definition of sexism.
— Philosophim

Gender is most assuredly not a "prejudice" - again: — Questioner

This is a disagreement or dislike with what I stated. This does not give any argument or reason why it is not a prejudice.

Sexism is relational - anyone can be sexist - whether or not they are transgender - if they hold sexist views towards others - but transgenderism is about identity - it is not relational. Your point-of-view fails conceptually. Sexism is an attitude. Transgender is an identity condition. — Questioner

I've clearly pointed out examples of sexism towards oneself. Sexism does not require two people. You can can subject yourself as the object you apply sexism towards. I've also explained that you can have sexism as part of your identity. So again, saying that being trans gender is an identity does not indicate that this identity is not prejudice.

It doesn't mean that identity accurately represents reality, is healthy for the individual, or should be entertained. I loved speeding when I first drove. It was part of my identity. It was something I had to get under control because it was inappropriately expressed on public roads. You can be sexist, and that be a part of your identity. No break in diachronic unity.
— Philosophim

It appears you have no conceptual understanding of what I have been trying to explain to you. — Questioner

Then it is your job to clarify it and explain what I don't understand if you know that I have made pains to understand your viewpoint and am open to listening to it. An answer like this without explanation is a common tactic of someone who is avoiding answering the point because they don't have an answer. Maybe you do, but answering like this does not convey that.

My point that it is that my claim that gender elevated over sex is sexism has not been refuted by any of your arguments so far.
— Philosophim

No. Transgenderism in and of itself is not sexism. — Questioner

And neither do I. Read carefully please. Being trans gender is not sexist. Elevating gender of sex is. Having a prejudice that women should cook in the kitchen is fine. Asserting that they must when they see a woman working outside of the home without any other reason than their personal attachment to that prejudice is sexism.

Anyone's ideas about whether or not men should or should not cry is immaterial to the transgender experience. — Questioner

If I am a woman who wants to be a trans gender man, and I hold that men do not cry, isn't that pertinent to the trans gender experience?

Sexism exists in the attitude and the behavior, not in the very nature of being. — Questioner

Attitudes and behaviors come from the brain right? So its part of your being if you decide to be sexist. Its not a good part of a person's being, and I would suggest they work on changing it. Just like gender right? That's part of the brain too.

I am going on vacation for a while Questioner, but I will reply when I get back. Have a wonderful holiday despite our differences on this matter!

It's an extremely tired question, but I would need to know what a 'woman' or 'man' is before the discussion goes too far. — AmadeusD

The common definition is that a woman is an adult human female, and a man is an adult human male. It is a biological referent, not a sociological one. In context, someone can parse the words man and women to be a sociological role, but this is metaphor, and not an actual indicator of actual sex. If someone called me a 'parrot' because I talked a lot, we all understand its a metaphor, not an actual claim that I am in fact a biological parrot.

If I tell a woman, "Women shouldn't work" when they are clearly working and there is no reason why they shouldn't work besides my personal feelings on the matter, I'm telling them they shouldn't commit an action. Where's the object?
— Philosophim

The women who you think should not work. — Questioner

Women are subjects, not objects.

That would be interpersonal sexism between two subjects.
— Philosophim

Not quite. In any one example of interpersonal action, there is the sender of the action (the subject) and the receiver of the action (the object) — Questioner

Again, a person is not an object, but a subject. Unless you're talking English grammar? In which case we're talking about very different things.

But a subject can also be sexist towards themselves. There are men who think they can't cry. There are woman who think they should always agree with what a man says. You can absolutely have sexist perspectives of yourself.
— Philosophim

But this is something different than what we have been talking about. it's got nothing to do with gender identity and transgenderism. — Questioner

How so? If I view that the men should not cry, that is a gendered identity. If I view that women should always agree with men, that is a gendered identity. This sentence specifically is not addressing trans genderism, or 'crossing genders'. To first understand trans genderism, you need to understand 'cis' genderism. That is what this sentence notes.

Sexism is an attitude. Attitudes are formed in the brain. Are you suggesting that if a person claims a transgender identity they’re being sexist against their penis or vagina? — Questioner

Sexism is an action that elevates one's prejudices over the biological reality of the the person. I might believe that men shouldn't cry, and that in itself is a prejudice. If I then encountered a man crying and told them, "Hey, stop that right now. You're a man, you can't cry." that's sexism. There is nothing innate in being a man that indicates a man shouldn't cry. That's gender, or a sociological belief in how a particular sex should act in society apart from their biological reality.

When a transgender person claims their true identity, it is not so they can fulfill some expectations society places on this or that gender, or even expectations as that person might see them. It is about being who they are in their head, and a chief element of that is “diachronic unity.” — Questioner

One, assuming its 'true' is begging the question. How do we know it is true? A more honest approach (just teaching here, it has nothing to do with whether you are correct or not) is to propose a trans person claims an identity, then indicate why its true. That keeps the logic organized and clear for both parties.

First, I have not claimed why a person is trans gender. I have explained what being trans gender is. To be transgender, you must first have a gendered opinion about the sexes. Men act like X, Women act like Y. Then, you have to pick the gender that is opposite to your sex and act that way while rejecting acting like the gender of your sex. Every thought is in your head, so remember that a thought being in a person's head is nothing special from any other thought in a person's head.

Gender is a biological reality involving patterns of identity produced by the brain. The prenatal hormone environment during fetal development is crucial to this brain organization. Thyroid hormones, progesterone, and steroids are critical regulators of fetal neural differentiation. They direct development of the hypothalamus, the amygdala, and connectivity patterns. That’s the biology. — Questioner

As noted before, the brain science on trans gender is no where near settled. Also, we do not take AI summaries on this board. Its important that you understand the papers and explicitly mark the point that lead to your conclusion. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying that AI is not a trustworthy source for arguments. You need to do the work and cite lines that back your points. I do the same.

And gender is indeed part of identity. — Questioner

I never said it wasn't. I have never claimed that gender identity doesn't exist. I've just noted that gender is a prejudice, and that elevating that prejudice over sex in importance fits the definition of sexism.

Diachronic unity describes a stable sense of self across time, like a self-continuity. If the unity is intact, then memories linked with an internal narrative are able to say – “That was me then, this is me now, and I am the same person.” — Questioner

This is just a basic stability of self. Anyone without psychosis has this. I have changed roles many times in life but I understood that all of those roles were a part of me. I think you're implying that I don't think gender identity isn't part of a person's sense of self. Of course it is. Every thought can be a part of the sense of self. It doesn't mean that identity accurately represents reality, is healthy for the individual, or should be entertained. I loved speeding when I first drove. It was part of my identity. It was something I had to get under control because it was inappropriately expressed on public roads. You can be sexist, and that be a part of your identity. No break in diachronic unity.

The interesting thing is that gender transition does not fragment diachronic unity – it restores and strengthens it. Before transition, transgender persons feel alienated from themselves, and it’s hard to imagine a future self. But following transition, their internal narrative becomes more coherent and they feel more connected to their current self. They have reclaimed their identity. — Questioner

I felt really upset when I learned I couldn't speed. It sucked, I had to leave early, drive more carefully, and it was frustrating at times. If someone told me I could speed to my hearts content I would have been elated. "I get to do what I want without restriction," feels pretty good to most people. Tons of people like being jerks to others. Some people feel 'complete' while smoking ten packs of cigarettes a day. Or drinking. Your subjective feeling of 'completeness' and connection to the self is a bit odd.

Ever been in the fetish communities? I have through research. I'm mostly what you would consider 'asexual'. Its not a major interest of mine basically, but its something I was curious about. Want to know a pattern of speech that consistently emerges? "I feel like my true self." Uh oh. "Why did you leave your husband?" "I had to find myself" (The sex wasn't good anymore, needed more sexual excitement in life)

There are fetish communities where changing their body is a turn on. There is a weight gain fetish community where people gorge themselves into obesity and say, "I'm my true self now". And hate to break it to you if you're not aware, but there are people who also have a sexual and romantic attraction to emulating the other sex. They become enamored by it and want to be it all the time finding 'their true self'. I will link sites if you need, but I don't want to link smut on this forum, and I think its against the terms of service as well. Google it yourself, you'll find it.

My point is someone saying, "I'm connected with my current self" is a subjective feeling that can mean a lot of things. People can feel really good doing things that are objectively bad for them. And participating in sexism can also feel very good an 'natural' for people. Doesn't mean its not sexist or right.

when you elevate your gender over your sex, you make your sex inferior to gender. And that is where sexism occurs.
— Philosophim

This represents a profound misunderstanding of transgender identity, and the challenges they face as they seek a life in which they can live as who they really are. — Questioner

My point that it is that my claim that gender elevated over sex is sexism has not been refuted by any of your arguments so far. Thus I have not misrepresented a transgender individual who thinks that being the other gender means they are the opposite sex and deserve the same treatment. If a person is transgender and wants to act that way in their personal life, I have no objection if they aren't being sexist about it. I also don't care about the challenges a trans gender person faces. That's irrelevant to the discussion. Everyone has challenges in life. We're not exploring a person's particular challenges, we're exploring whether gender elevated over sex is sexism or not.

So to my point again, if you deny yourself the right to cry because as a man, you believe you shouldn't cry, you're making your bodies natural capabilities inferior to your gender identity of yourself. That is sexism. I don't see any way around it.

Enough about the strawman. If you're not going to discuss the OP anymore, I'm not going to have a never ending go around on this that isn't introducing new or different information. At this point we let other people judge.

Note that how we got into this tangent, was I was responding to your points before you went down this "prove a negative" requirement. — Mijin

You assumed I was asking you to prove a negative. I pointed out that in no way should you.

No, there is no survey result on specifically the claim of the OP. — Mijin

You may need to read the OP again. This is not a survey argument. This is a logical conclusion based purely on definitions.

However, actual definitions of transgender do not match the notion that it is acquired by virtue of noticing a predilection towards a behaviour associated with the other gender. — Mijin

No, that's actually what trans gender means. To be clear, no trans sexual. A trans gender person is a person who observes their own or a groups idea of how a particular sex should act socially, then says, "I act in the way of the other gender. Therefore I am trans gender." Trans gender people do not always transition, or even want to transition. Because they feel they match the gender of the other sex, some of them think this gives them a right to be in the opposite sex spaces of that gender. This is very real. There are people not on medication or desire surgery who think this is the way things should work. My argument is, this is sexism. If you think acting like the way you or others think the opposite sex should act in public makes you that sex, that is 100% sexist thinking.

Plus vast numbers of people exhibit at least some behaviours atypical for their gender -- orders of magnitude more people than the number of transgender. — Mijin

Yes, this is why gender is a prejudice and not a fact. Woman can actually wear top hats and everything will be ok. They're still a woman. Men can wear dresses, they're still men, and everything will be ok.

This is also another problem with someone claiming they are 'trans gender'. What do they feel the gender of a man and woman is personally? How many attributes do they match of that gender while shunning their own? Its honestly a prejudicial argument. You're a man or a woman no matter how you act. Just because you think a man or a woman should act a certain way socially, that doesn't mean your subjective opinion changes the reality of their sex.

Meanwhile, on the other side, we only have your anecdotes. — Mijin

What anecdotes? How do these anecdotes apply to the argument? If so, how are they wrong? A claim of, "You're wrong" is not an argument, its an expression of dislike. Liking or not liking an argument has nothing to do with whether its correct or not. 2+2=4 even if I hate that fact. If you want to demonstrate that my argument is wrong, you need to address the premises and demonstrate how your challenge invalidates either those premises, or the conclusion I've made.

Yes, but then you do seem to be agreeing with me that sexism qua gender is completely divorced from sexism qua sex in your view. No? — Bob Ross

Completely? Can you clarify what you mean? Its a version of sexism as sex is always involved. Maybe my answers below will help clarify what I mean.

And this is why such a divorce is problematic: gender isn’t about sex in your view but, rather, a expectation based off of sex that isn’t accurate about sex. — Bob Ross

Its just not my view Bob, its the view of gender theory. This isn't a debate about whether gender theory is correct or not. I'm assuming for the purposes of this argument, that gender according to gender theory is accepted. We did have a separate argument on whether it should be considered as valid or not, but this OP is assuming that it is.

So, either, by my lights, (1) all gendering is sexism qua gender in your view (because gender is always an inaccurate expectation of a person based off of an erroneous understanding of sex) or (2) gendering someone is not inherently sexist (because does not attribute anything about sex to the person but, rather, something else called ‘gender’). — Bob Ross

Gender is inherently a prejudgment, or prejudice. Prejudice in itself is not wrong. We pre judge about many things. I see a tall 300 pound guy and prejudge they'll have a deep voice. They do not. I prejudge that a nicely dressed individual will be polite. They are not. Sometimes prejudices are also affirmed.

"Isms" happen when we stick with our prejudices despite evidence to their contrary. So if a tall and heavy man had a heavy voice and we said, "Impossible. You can't be tall or that weight. No man of that height and weight would ever have a voice that high pitched." You're sticking with your prejudice over reality.

Sexism happens when our prejudices become more important than the reality of the situation. Gender is of course prejudice about sex. I might have the prejudice that men should wear top hats and women should not. If a woman wore a top hat, I could realize, "Oh, women can wear top hats." If I insisted she was wrong, that she should take it off, etc., I'm valuing my prejudice over the reality of the situation. In this case, the prejudice evolves from gender into sexism.

If I say you are feminine because your voice is high, then either that is a purported gender fact or a sex fact. If it is a sex fact because voice pertains to sex, then I am not elevating gender over sex. — Bob Ross

Correct, because you aren't making a gendered judgement. You're making a sex expectation judgement based on biological statistics. Its not prejudiced to claim that most women have a higher pitched voice, that's just a reality. Its gender when you say, "Even if a woman naturally has a lower pitched voice, women should speak with a higher pitch anyway." Then when a woman naturally speaks in a lower pitch, it becomes sexism when we say, "You can't do that, that's not what women do!" You're not quite separating the biological expectation from gender expectation here.

If it is a gender fact because voice pertains to gender, — Bob Ross

There is no gender fact. Gender is subjective and by consequence is not a fact about reality, only a fact that it exists as a subjective viewpoint. Sex expectations are facts grounded in biological reality. They are not gendered judgements in themselves.

If I say you are ‘floppy’ because your voice is high and a high voice is a trait we rightly associate with the gender ‘floppiness’ (which has no association with your sex) — Bob Ross

All gender is an opinion about how a sex should act socially. It can not refer to sex is some way. The floppy thing doesn't quite work, so I'm not going to address it further down either. If there's something I'm missing though in not addressing this, please try again using another example closer to sex and gender if you could.

This is why I noted, and I dare say correctly (: , that you are equivocating sex and gender internally given your terms as if they are the same while also claiming they are divorced from each other. — Bob Ross

I don't think so. I think you're missing that I've also defined that sex expectations based on biology are not gender. Once you truly divorce gender from the biological expectations of the person, and understand its purely sociological, these problems don't occur.

I underlined the portions that use gendered terms in the sense of sex and bolded the ones that are using the gendered terms in the sense of gender. — Bob Ross

I intended all terms to refer to sex. The opinion on how the sex should behave is gender. I do not see man or woman as a role unless I explicitly point that out. Mostly because a 'role' is a subjective prejudice, and I generally try not to give credence to that.

With all due respect, without having read every post you have made, I don’t know of any that you have posted that are threatening to the liberal ideology. My point was not that one cannot have controversial conversations on TPF: it’s that if the topic is too disapproved of by the liberals on here then you get banned or censored even if it doesn’t violate the TPF’s rules and guidelines. — Bob Ross

I would say that this post I've made pretty much invalidates any idea that trans gender people should enter cross sex spaces. That is would I would call a far left viewpoint, and yet I have no warnings or threats of banning. I understand you've had a few posts banned, but the conservative viewpoint would be to first look inward and see if there were mistakes made on your part to see if they could be improved to not be banned. I did review one of your posts and agreed it should be banned Bob, even on a conservative forum. I say this with great respect towards you, and apolitically. When one is on a social platform the way one approaches a subject is just as important as what you're trying to say.

Let me give you an example. So my point here about gender applies to everyone. Its not religious, angry, or based on bias. Its a simple definition of the terms, a reasoning of how they intermingle together, and a conclusion based on those terms and logic. Now, someone could come to the same conclusion as myself but not approach it this way. A person could simply be disgusted by or hate trans people and just say, "Its sexist because its gross!" The later is not a discussion or approaching the idea in a way that invites discussion, but in a way that is invective. Whether its right or not, in a social philosophy discussion board, its not an appropriate way to address the topic in a thoughtful manner.

Perhaps being invective is a conservative trait, but I propose that it isn't. I've known many wise and respectable conservatives who challenge a person to think without using words or phrases that stoke controversy. Now in our conversations, I don't see you being invective. I want to be clear, you're one of my favorite people to chat with on this forum. You have passion, insight, and are eager to explore any possibility. You make me think in ways I haven't before Bob, and that is wonderful.

I would propose that if you are being banned on your topics that it is not because you are conservative. To be clear, you may get a lot of push back from people because it has a conservative bent, but I don't think you'll be banned if you can convey your points without being invective. And what I mean is ask yourself, "Will a person respond to this in anger looking for a fight, or despite not liking it, will they be inclined to at least discuss it?" If I had to note anything in the last post of yours I reviewed, I would caution very much against assuming controversial topics are true without lead up. If it helps, if someone started a post with, "Conservatives as we know are all selfish individuals who think nothing of others," its not going to spur debate, just a fight. Again, I have a lot of love for you Bob, so on this one look inward first before accusing others for your recent difficulties in posts.

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man"), instead of the opponent's proposition.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, as though an argument against Y were an argument against X.

And what did you say?

No, that's irrational. No-one has demonstrated that the oogie-boogie monster doesn't exist and isn't feared by millions. Therefore, you need to accept that claim as true? — Mijin

Again, considering I have no idea how this is supposed to relate to the argument because you don't mention the actual argument, that's a straw man.

But then I remembered that of course there are many debates now with the format of "[claim], prove me wrong!". So it is worth just pointing out that that format is almost always bad faith. — Mijin

But not always in bad faith. Have you demonstrated why this is in bad faith? No. You have to demonstrate that first.

It's a shift of the burden of proof, and the idea of such debates is to pander to an audience that just wants to see an opposing view get pwned. — Mijin

Not at all. The burden of proof is on me. I've put forth an argument. All you have to do is demonstrate why I have not risen to that burden of proof. But you keep arguing around that because...you know you can't. You're not the first person in history to not like the outcome of an argument but can't actually address it. Look at Leontiskos' previous posts. They address the OP straight on, challenge it at parts, ask questions, and are obviously thinking about it. You aren't, and that's because you're afraid you can't. So typical tactics of avoidance. All it tells me and everyone else is that you don't have anything.

I always give a person a few chances though because occasionally people come around and try. I'm certain you'll shrink from the challenge again. Its probably best anyway, I'm heading out for vacation for a while and won't be able to respond after today.

The null hypothesis is that a claim may or may not be true. No empirical claim is true by default. — Mijin

This is when I knew you were done. Go look up what the null hypthesis means. When you start throwing around technical words that make no sense to the discussion, that's a person who's just flailing as they continue to realize they don't have anything substantial.

Hello, I'm back. I see you are still incorrectly defining gender, but I will proceed... — Questioner

Welcome back Questioner! Remember that my definition of gender is aligned with gender theory and you have not shown any credible evidence or argument that would demonstrate I have not.

I have figured out another aspect of your theory that is troubling.

You’ve been using the word “sexism” to describe a transgender person’s insistence that they put their gender above their sex.

But – sexism is not a solitary feature. It is relational. It requires both a subject and an object. — Questioner

Sexism requires a subject, I agree. But an object? If I tell a woman, "Women shouldn't work" when they are clearly working and there is no reason why they shouldn't work besides my personal feelings on the matter, I'm telling them they shouldn't commit an action. Where's the object?

The subject would be the person (or group or institution) that expresses sexist beliefs or practices.

The object would be the person (or group) that is being devalued because of sex (or gender). — Questioner

That would be interpersonal sexism between two subjects. But a subject can also be sexist towards themselves. There are men who think they can't cry. There are woman who think they should always agree with what a man says. You can absolutely have sexist perspectives of yourself.

So, a person (the object) has to be positioned as inferior because of their sex or gender, by the person (or group) applying the belief (the subject). Sexism is not a private belief, but exists in power and practice. — Questioner

To be clear, when you elevate your gender over your sex, you make your sex inferior to gender. And that is where sexism occurs. "I'm a man who's incredibly sad because my mother died, but I believe that men shouldn't ever cry (gender), so i won't." "I'm a woman who clearly sees that this man's statement is wrong. Its 2+2=4, not 5, but I'm going to stay silent and agree because that's what a woman does." In both cases there is nothing in their sex that would imply they had to do any of those things. It is their subjective expectation of how they should behave as that sex which has elevated their gender over their bodies freedom, and is sexist.

I think you make a formidable argument to the effect that all gender-based identifications at bottom implicate sex, and are therefore also sex-based. I think that's probably right, and I understand your position much better after reading this post. :up: — Leontiskos

Thank you! That's a rare compliment. Also thank you for drilling into it more, its good to test it further.

I am not saying holding a gender or gender preference makes you a sexist.

Which sex or gender does the trans activist prefer? Which do they discriminate against? Which are they prejudicial towards?

The answer seems to be "none of them," and this is why I'm not sure the trans activist is sexist. — Leontiskos

I agree with you.

The trans activist does not opt for any of the positions outlined <here>; they show no favoritism with respect to individuals of a particular sex or gender. — Leontiskos

I also agree with this. To be clear, trans genderism in itself is not sexist. It is only sexist when it elevates itself as being more important than the sex of an individual.

For example, lets say a man gets turned on by femininity. They wear women's clothing and it feels wonderful. They like it enough and wear it enough that it becomes less immediately sexual, and evolves into the romantic comfort of a long time girlfriend. This is neither sexist, nor wrong. This is someone wearing and dressing themselves a particular way for their particular enjoyment.

Because they like it so much, they decide to go out in public dressed in this way. They don't dress provacatively or indicate in any way a sexual undertone, it really is just like taking a walk with their girlfriend. This isn't sexist or wrong either.

But suddenly the man thinks because they've dressed a particular way, and that they enjoy doing this so much, that they must be an actual woman. That is sexist. That is taking an expectation of how women should act, then identifying yourself with the sex of that woman. If the man thinks, "I should be able to go where women are because I'm a woman," that's sexist. The reality is this is a man who enjoys certain behavior some would prejudice towards women. But the enactment of that behavior in no way makes that man a woman.

So I think we are in agreement to your point, but I hope I've shown how the sexism of the situation doesn't involve that point.

Whatever sexism is, it is based on sex. Yet the trans activist is relying on a basis other than sex... — Leontiskos

But gender is based on sex. Its a belief that a person should act in a certain way in society without regards to biological limitations. "Women should not wear top hats, men should". Its really just a fancy encapsulation of a cultural prejudice against a sex. Calling it gender doesn't suddenly make what's going on any different.

...But the other strange thing about the trans activist is that although their position is based on gender, it does not involve "prejudice or discrimination" in the way that those words are commonly understood. — Leontiskos

I would argue its definitely prejudice, but gender alone is not sexism. That is why I've specifically stated "It is the elevation of gender over sex that is sexism." Let me explain.

Everyone has pre judgements. A pre judgement, or prejudice, is not inherently wrong. Maybe you were raised in a community where only men worked and women stayed home and took care of household duties. As such, you would become prejudiced to thinking the next woman you meet is a stay at home care taker.

Prejudices can be challenged, and it is how the person responds to that challenge that determines whether a prejudice is upgraded to an 'ism'. Lets say our sheltered man leaves his community and goes to the city where he finds that women often work. The man might be surprised, or even think at first, "That shouldn't be done." But if they adapt and realize, "Women can work too," their prejudice did not become an 'ism'.

An 'ism' happens when someone insists on their prejudices despite clear facts to the contrary. "Women CAN'T work outside of the home! This is crazy!" There's not any real reason the man finds that they can't, despite his mere dislike and discomfort that they can. This is when sexism occurs.

So to be clear, I don't think its sexism to declare gender, or even declare a gender identity. It is when the prejudice of gender elevates itself above the reality of sex that it becomes 'sexism'. Going back to our previous example. If the man said, "Since you work outside of the home, you aren't a woman, you're a man." this is obvious sexism. In the same way, if the man saw another man being a home caretaker and said, "You're not a man, you're a woman because you stay at home and take care of the house," this is also sexism. There is nothing inherent in one's sex that gender ever has any right to supercede. It is this superceding that is sexism.

The way those words are commonly understood, one is only discriminating on the basis of gender if they prefer one gender over the other (and they are only discriminating on the basis of sex if they prefer one sex over the other, or act in a way that ends up favoring or controlling based on sex). — Leontiskos

Hopefully with the above you see that this is not categorized as sexism. Having a preference for one sex or the other is not sexism. Sexism would be if you had a preference for one sex, and treated that sex better in ways that were only backed by your personal like, disregarding merit, capability, or objective good of the person.

The trans activist effectively says, "It doesn't matter whether you are male or female; what matters is how you self-identify, and that is what should be the norm for policy." — Leontiskos

This is clearly sexism. Its saying, "Because I do things that I expect a man should do that have nothing to do with their biology, I should be considered a man." To be clear, this is not the trans sexual argument, only the trans gender argument.

As I said in my last, this is a form of nominalism, where human constructs are being elevated over reality-based concepts. — Leontiskos

And sexism can be a form of nominalism. This doesn't denote that its not sexism.

I think the Merriam-Webster is too broad for a moral concept of sexism, given that it would vilify even things like, "Men are better boxers than women." But maybe we really do need a non-pejorative usage of sexism. — Leontiskos

This is actually a sex expectation based on objective data. However, if a woman boxed and fairly beat a man, insisting its not possible because of the sex expectation, is again sexism.

So the question is whether, "favoring gender-based categorizations over sex-based categorizations," can be called a form of sexism. In a traditional sense it would not given the way that it differs from the traditional possibilities that constitute sexism. — Leontiskos

Hopefully my deeper dive demonstrates why it would still be sexism. But of course, please disagree if you see something more.

I more or less agree that gender should not be elevated over sex, but I don't agree that this is sexism. — Leontiskos

Thank you, I'm grateful for someone addressing the OP.

I actually don't like this definition as grounding a moral argument, but let's accept it for the sake of argument. — Leontiskos

That's fair. We can say at this point that even if it is sexism, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. We can address it after we resolve if it fits sexism first.

The examples you give will not allow us to distinguish (1) from (2), but other examples would. For example, suppose someone says, "Men are better boxers than women." This claim is sexism on (1) but probably not on (2), given that the social expectation is not counter to biological reality. — Leontiskos

Ah ok. Bob pointed this out earlier and I had given it some thought as well. I thought at first there might be a better term for what I was describing and thought, "genderism". Turns out that word is taken and means something very different.

genderism -Also called gender binarism. the belief that there are only two genders, that a person’s gender is fixed at birth, and that gender expression is determined by gender assigned at birth.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/genderism — Philosophim

Sexism is therefore also defined to include both sex and gender.

'Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on one's sex or gender.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

To your point though, it feels like sexism by gender is a version of sexism that seems different enough to support a unique identity. I proposed the following:

Do I think we could call discrimination against gender a subset of sexism? Yes. Gender at the end of the day is still targeted at a person's sex, just sociologically instead of biologically. If you want a clearer separation, biological and sociological sexism might suffice. — Philosophim

Both delineations are sexism, but we can now categorize them by types: biological vs sociological. So keen insight. Does this suffice? If not, feel free to counter more. If so, feel free to propose that despite it being sexism, that is not inherently wrong in itself.

A "straw man" is when someone misstates an argument for the purposes of attacking it more easily. I was not misstating your argument, I was trying to explain a logical point to you. — Mijin

No, a straw man is when you build up an idea that the presenter never argued for or backed, then attack it.

The point that you are not getting is that the idea that a claim is true by default, until someone can prove it false, is irrational. It's trivial to show this with claims that cannot be falsified. — Mijin

No, its not irrational at all. That's how arguments work. Falsification means that there is a situation in which the claim could be false. For example, my definition of sexism is wrong. Or the elevation of gender over sex does not fit the definition of sexism. Or gender is wrong. Its absolutely falsifiable. Can you prove it to be false however? If you can't, then its true.

No, that's irrational. No-one has demonstrated that the oogie-boogie monster doesn't exist and isn't feared by millions. Therefore, you need to accept that claim as true? — Mijin

Straw man, as I have no idea what you're talking about. You're attacking something that doesn't relate to the OP. Cite the argument of the OP and address why it is wrong please.

Yes, because firstly I showed that people regularly exhibit traits that are somewhat emblematic of the other gender while maintaining their own gender. — Mijin

I also agree with this. This does not counter the claim of the OP in any way.

And secondly the association between transgenderism and transsexuality demonstrates that gender dysmorphia is not as simple as wanting to wear a dress or whatever. — Mijin

The OP does not address gender dysmorphia. That is irrelevant. Further I noted that trans genderism and trans sexualism are separate things that do not require both to exist in a person. I have not see any counter claim to this. Present one and you'll have a point that we can explore.

So far, the OP stands.

Because you're asking me for a cite that most people don't consider your very specific claim to be true. It's obviously not a reasonable request -- the only evidence would be the result of a survey asking "Do you believe that transgenderism is sexism?" but there is no such survey. And you conclude that I must accept your claim. — Mijin

Not at all. I've posted what gender is, what sexism is, and demonstrated why when gender is elevated over sex, it meets the definition of sexism. There's a clear argument being made here that is open to discussion and is not a matter of opinion. And its not that you must accept my claim. Its that my claim, if uncontested, is correct by fact. If you don't answer it, I'm right. Emotions are irrelevant.

I have given arguments for why your concept of transgenderism does not reflect reality. — Mijin

Can you demonstrate why these arguments counter the point of the OP? Again, if not, then what I've posted stands. If it were so simple to counter, you would. Walking away generally means, "I don't like what you said, but I can't prove its wrong." I want you to imagine for a second that I have power in real life to make actionable change, and this argument is the basis upon which that change is made. Are you satisfied walking away, knowing that you could have demonstrated I was wrong? Its your last chance.

I think it was correct for Wayf to suggest not to get into these threads. Not because they aren't meaningful (they are meaningful and obviously important), but because they just end up like this. — AmadeusD

This will always happen when discussing meaningful yet highly emotional subjects. We can't be turn away from topics just because some people have emotional difficulties with them. If anything, we need to address those topics more. I'm glad you've joined in and given your viewpoint, its very valuable for good discussion.

If you want a clearer separation, biological and sociological sexism might suffice.

Would you agree, though, semantics aside, that sexism in the sense of sex would be divorced from sexism in the sense of gender given your definitions of sex and gender? — Bob Ross

I actually meant that more than semantics. Biological sexism would be treating a man with a voice within the range of an average female like they aren't a man. While its not the average biological sex expectation that a man have a voice range that high, it does happen. Treating them as a woman because they have a rare, but perfectly normal expression of being male would be biological sexism.

Gender sexism, or sociological sexism, would be what we've been talking about. Tophats and all. :)

To go back to gender, my point is that gender becomes sexism when elevated above sex.

Before I respond, I think I need to grasp better what you are conveying here. Am I correct in thinking that ‘elevation’ here refers to contradiction? — Bob Ross

No, elevation means favoring gender as indicating that a person is a sex over the fact of their sex. So if a woman wore a top hat and you called her a man, that's sexism due to the woman defying a gender expectation.

Exactly, it is shame that this forum doesn't support free speech and the free exchange of ideas about philosophy; as we could have productive conversations that help further the knowledge base. — Bob Ross

I disagree with this Bob. I've been able to post this topic, and I've seen a wide variety of topics that cover things which might be taboo or difficult to talk about. There still needs to be some moderation which handles approach and tone. It may be the case that people who read it may not want to discuss it properly, but that's a far cry from it being banned to be discussed at all.

You're asking me to prove a negative, otherwise your claim stands? — Mijin

No. I'm asserting that if gender is elevated over sex, its sexism. That's not proving a negative, that's disproving an affirmative.

This is a philosophy forum; if there's one place such sloppy reasoning wouldn't fly, it's here. — Mijin

I'll let the first claim be a pass. If you insist that I'm asking you to prove a negative, please point out specifically where and why its a negative. This requires more than an assertion.

If you are concerned that I am somehow immoral, therefore you don't need to talk to me, realize that is a tactic of thought suppression.
— Philosophim

I made no such claim or insinuation. — Mijin

Not a worry. It can be difficult to glean what a person is feeling over text, so I try to spell things out as clearly as possible.

So it's quite a leap to suggest I was calling you immoral, let alone advocating that your speech should be suppressed. — Mijin

Relax, its not a hard accusation. Would you like to engage with the topic then? You seem to have some feelings and thoughts on the matter, and I think its important that those thoughts and feelings are expressed. I don't want to go around thinking I'm right when I'm wrong. But if no one points out where its wrong...then I have to assume that I'm right.

I don't think massive numbers of people agree with the specific claim of this thread, but go ahead and cite me wrong: I'm happy to hear it. — Mijin

And you have equally zero claim that massive numbers of people don't agree with the specific claim of this thread. In fact, its irrelevant. You have a claim presented to you. Are you able to demonstrate why it is false? If not, then it stands as true. Lets not worry about what other people think, what do you think? Why is the premise of the thread wrong? Practice philosophy with us.

If you are concerned that I am somehow immoral, therefore you don't need to talk to me, realize that is a tactic of thought suppression. If it helps, one of my closest friends has been transitioning for several years now. We stay in touch regularly, and I would take a bullet for him. Its important that you realize that just because there is a narrative out there that is against trans individuals for the wrong reasons, does not mean that everyone who is against a particular trans ideology is immoral and cannot be reasoned with.

For clarification, my understanding of the terms trans sexual and trans gender seem to differ from your usage here. That is, to my understanding transgender is an umbrella term for all folks whose (internal) gender identity does not completely conform to their biological sex, which includes those who take hormonal and surgical steps (which describes trans sexuals), but also folks who don't take those steps. — LuckyR

No, we are not using slang and colloquial language. Part of what philosophy should be doing is finding clear words and concepts that allow clear thoughts. A massive issue with 'trans' is that it is trying to unite two separate concepts that are different enough that it needs to be pointed out. There is much confusion over the topic for many people, and adding in these distinct terms erases a lot of the confusion. A trans gender person does not have to think they are the same as a trans sexual. Being trans gender does not mean you have to align your body with how you want to act in the world. Act in the world as you wish. It is sexist to think that your social behavior implies that you are not your sex.

Thus why my postings have tried to delineate the borderline between sexual and gender motivations, as described in the OP. — LuckyR

I think this is good btw. Please keep pushing that boundary. Maybe there is a blur that I'm not seeing, but I think for the large part they are very separate things.

But the more I think about it, the blurrier that borderline becomes, to the point that the umbrella term of transgender seems most accurate, since it's an umbrella term, ie all TS are TG, but not all TG are TS. — LuckyR

I don't see it that way. First, its not true that all trans sexuals are trans gender. There are people who only want the body of the opposite sex, but do not want to act in the stereotypical way that the other sex usually acts. With that body they may feel the need to 'perform' but genuinely want the body of the opposite sex and would rather be left alone afterward. There are men who want breasts for example, but keep their beards. Women can also grow beards and have facial hair. Because it is rare, there is a social push to keep it shaved or have hair removal. So they defy gender for their biology in this aspect.

But, I would love to hear examples of this blurring. Again, maybe you're right. While I do think there is a clear division from my observations, maybe there is some place where the division blurs and maybe a third term should be invented to capture that point.

Again, why? You may be right. But without a good reason we can't know that. For a claim about reality to be valid, there needs to be a situation in which the claim is correct, and a situation in which the claim is incorrect. Otherwise we're not talking about something real.
— Philosophim

I have sufficiently answered these questions in previous posts. — Questioner

I don't believe you have. If you aren't going to add any more, its been a nice conversation.

Not according to my research:

The most common reasons cited (for regret) were pressure from a parent (36%), transitioning was too hard (33%), too much harassment or discrimination (31%), and trouble getting a job (29%). — Questioner

First, that didn't prove that no transgender people cited that they had their identity wrong. Here

"“There are so many reasons why people detransition,” said Sinead Watson, aged 30, a Genspect advisor who transitioned from female to male, starting in 2015, and who decided to detransition in 2019. Citing a study by Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, published in 2021, Ms. Watson said the most common reasons for detransitioning were realizing that gender dysphoria was caused by other issues; internal homophobia; and the unbearable nature of transphobia.

Ms. Watson said the hardest part of detransitioning was admitting to herself that her transition had been a mistake. “It’s embarrassing and you feel ashamed and guilty,” she said, adding that it may mean losing friends who now regard you as a “bigot, while you’re also dealing with transition regret.”

“It’s a living hell, especially when none of your therapists or counselors will listen to you,” she said. “Detransitioning isn’t fun.”"
https://blogs.the-hospitalist.org/content/doctors-have-failed-them-say-those-transgender-regret

What you cited is ' cross-sectional nonprobability study'. Lets break down why that is a problem:

"Surveys of people's opinions are fraught with difficulties. It is easier to obtain information from those who respond to text messages or to emails than to attempt to obtain a representative sample. Samples of the population that are selected non-randomly in this way are termed convenience samples as they are easy to recruit. This introduces a sampling bias. Such non-probability samples have merit in many situations, but an epidemiological enquiry is of little value unless a random sample is obtained."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4817645/

Further, lets add up your percentages: 36, 33, 31, and 29, That adds up to 129%. Notice that it only reports, "The most" as well. So its not reporting all. Meaning that your study does not counter my point.

The detransitioning rate is actually pretty low. — Questioner

Irrelevant to my point. My point was that people can be wrong in their gender identity. You did not counter this.

In any case, it seems we cannot agree on the most basic definitions and facts and have fallen into repeating ourselves, so I will bow out of the conversation now. — Questioner

And this is why you have my respect Questioner. Thank you for bringing your view points, politely exchanging with me, and understanding when we've both said our side and there might not be any more to cover. You and I do not have to agree on the outcome, but I hope you enjoyed thinking about it with me. I hope to see you around again on the forums!

Just because we can identify ourselves as "X" it doesn't mean we actually are "X".
— Philosophim

This does not apply to transgender persons. — Questioner

Its fine to disagree, but why? In every other case it applies, what makes trans gender special?

In other words, an identity claim can be incorrect.
— Philosophim

This does not apply to transgender persons. — Questioner

Again, why? You may be right. But without a good reason we can't know that. For a claim about reality to be valid, there needs to be a situation in which the claim is correct, and a situation in which the claim is incorrect. Otherwise we're not talking about something real.

If it helps, there are people who detransition who claim they had their identity wrong. There are also people who go through therapy and might think they are transgender, then find out it was some other issue. I want to be clear, the fact that an identity can be wrong, means it can also be right. So the possibility of someone mistaking themselves as being transgender means they can also correctly identify as trans gender with the proper definitions.

There is nothing innate in one's identity that has any value apart from an emotional feeling
— Philosophim

But there is. It's a mental understanding of who you are. — Questioner

If it is a correct objective assessment of who you are, then it is knowledge. If it is a subjective assessment, then it is simply a belief of who you are.

So if I identified as a female, when its objectively true that I'm a male, I would be wrong. My feelings or desire that it be true are irrelevant.
— Philosophim

No. Your identity is produced by your brain, not your body. — Questioner

Remember that I already agreed that every thought is produced by your brain. But we also realize that our thoughts assessments about reality can be wrong.

To be transgender is not based on a wish that it be true - it is true. — Questioner

Again, this has to be proven, not merely asserted.

Do you not understand that to declare yourself transgender makes things a lot harder for a person, not easier, and one would only do so if it was the only way they could be their authentic self? — Questioner

Incorrect. People often times believe things that are wrong, and stubbornly so. Many times a belief in something wrong is to their own detriment, because the feeling of being right is more important than acknowledging you're wrong and adjusting.

Gender is again, a subjective belief that a sex should act in a particular way in society.
— Philosophim

No. Gender is an internal, emergent property of the brain. — Questioner

Every thought is an emergent property of the brain. This doesn't describe what gender actually is. Further, my definition of gender is the common definition of gender used in gender theory.

"The social sciences have a branch devoted to gender studies. Other sciences, such as psychology, sociology, sexology, and neuroscience, are interested in the subject. The social sciences sometimes approach gender as a social construct, and gender studies particularly does"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

What is sex to you? What is gender?
— Philosophim

Sex is the biological differentiation to male or female of physical structures in the human body. — Questioner

This is close enough. As long as we both understand it is an intended reproductive role of the species.

Gender is the male or female differentiation in the brain. — Questioner

If you mean biological, that would be a sex difference, not gender. If you mean gender as used in gender theory, then there is no evidence of any physical brain difference. Meaning gender is not an innate biological reality, but a social construct built upon thoughts and beliefs. Basically its information the brain processes, not something native to the brain itself.

Should gender ever be elevated over sex?
— Philosophim

It sounds like you're asking for permission to deny transgender persons their authenticity. — Questioner

This is an avoidance of the question. True thinking does not desire a conclusion, then construct premises that support that conclusion. That is called 'rationalization' and is not intelligent. Real reason thinks through the premises and comes to a conclusion that it cannot doubt. Meaning even the first conclusion should be questioned severely.

What you seem to be telling me is that you think gender should be elevated over sex only when a transgender person wants this. First, you haven't demonstrated why this isn't sexism. Second, why does it apply only to trans gender people? Why couldn't a cis person want this? "I don't believe women should be anywhere but the kitchen (gender), therefore I'm going to disown my daughter if she ever works a job." Is that right?

Finally, I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'authenticity'. No one is doubting that there aren't trans gender people who believe they are the other gender. I'm just noting it is sexist if they think their gender should be elevated over their sex.

Thank you for the kind words Bob. :)

I thought about this very thing when I was first mulling this over, but it turns out 'genderism' has a different meaning.

The problem, though, with this is that you are purposefully equivocating discrimination based off of gender vs. sex (in your own definitions) because ‘genderism’ is already taken. — Bob Ross

I understand your concern, and I had that very same concern as well. It is not out of line for sexism to apply to both sex and gender.

'Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on one's sex or gender.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

Do I think we could call discrimination against gender a subset of sexism? Yes. Gender at the end of the day is still targeted at a person's sex, just sociologically instead of biologically. If you want a clearer separation, biological and sociological sexism might suffice.

When words are already taken, there should be a good reason to use them for something that means something contrary or wildly different to the original meaning. While the gender community has attempted to equate woman and 'woman' as a gender, I would never do such a thing in my own philosophy as that's a clear attempt at conflation and equivocation. The 'first to market' often wins, and the gender community knew what it was doing when they quickly captured 'genderism' to imply that anyone who doesn't believe there are only two genders should have a negative connotation to them.

When we shift the focus from sex to gender, in your terms, then it gets interesting to me because your definition of gender seems to imply, by my lights, that maybe you consider it just sociological, irrational expectations that we have of a sex which we shouldn’t; so this makes us wonder what is wrong with misgendering someone in your view if it all just irrational expectations based off of tastes. — Bob Ross

I'll adjust this caveat a little. "Irrational" might be a little strong. While I also wouldn't call them 'rational' either, it doesn't mean that gender roles may form based on lived experience. If you were raised in a household where all men worked and all women stayed home, you might be surprised one day when you leave the house and find a man who stays at home and a woman who works. Its a pre-judgement. And pre-judgements in themselves are not wrong. They're simple adaptations of expectation that are common to our environment. Pre judgements become 'isms' when we find facts that contradict our prejudices and then insist that our prejudices must be right.

So a man could be surprised that a woman works, but accept that. While a sexist person would see a woman working and insist that she should not simply because of a belief, and not because of any fact in front of them.

. Now, imagine I thought that all stereotypes about pizza lovers is purely relative to tastes; and someone tells me I’m a cheesy because I am currently eating cheese-pizza. However, they do not understand that eating cheese-pizza does not thereby implicate one as considering cheese a topping: little did they know I’m a crazy; and so I do not really fit the stereotype of a cheesy—they mispizza’d me. Now, the central question is this: what did they do that was immoral there by mispizza’ing’ing me? — Bob Ross

Nothing. They made an assumption about you based on their past experience and what you were doing.

However, what we couldn’t say is that they are being sexist. — Bob Ross

Correct. Nor were they being "pizza-ist". :)

What I would say you have done here, unless I am misunderstanding, is, by analogy, shifted mispizza’ing a person to discriminating against them based off of sex; for if I discriminate against someone because of their pizza stereotype then I have not thereby discriminated based off of there sex. — Bob Ross

To go back to gender, my point is that gender becomes sexism when elevated above sex. So if you as a man think that men cannot like the color pink, even though every objective fact demonstrates there is nothing preventing a man from liking pink, insisting that a male who likes pink isn't a man is sexist.

But maybe you have a general approach that "Men should be tough". You find a man who's not tough. You might not like that he's not tough, but you don't assume he's not a male or treat him like a female. You have a prejudgement, but you don't let your prejudice become sexism.

then it follows logically that a person who voluntarily identifies with a gender (such as 'femaleness') is being sexist against themselves.— Bob Ross

Correct.

I honestly didn’t think you would accept that (: . This means that, by analogy, anyone who self-identifies with any stereotype of pizza-loving is thereby being sexist against themselves. — Bob Ross

I neglected to add, "If the person elevates their gender over their sex". I hope the above clarifies it. Good dive into this!

I was a battle rapper for some years. I had a totally different identity then. Similarly when I was a stand up comedian. Similarly when I was a fairly robust figure in the psychedelic space. Similarly when I was a depressed, teenage rocker. These things all change throughout life and hte idea that there is a fixed identity when it comes to gendered behaviours (i.e claiming 'a gender') seems erroneous. I've spent long periods wearing make up and womens clothes and behaving as they say, as a soy boy. I was not trans. — AmadeusD

Awesome! You've lived a neat life.

If we look at this from a biological standpoint, we can consider the human brain in terms of its structure and function. The brain is the structure, and the function of that structure is to produce the mind. The mind consists of all the mental output of one's brain — Questioner

Sure. Lets view identity apart from gender for a moment. I don't believe in a soul, so all of our thoughts come from the brain. Identity is one type of thought in the brain that asserts something. "I am X". What is that X? It could be sex, gender, job, family member, club member, race, species, etc. Our brain has the remarkable ability to claim that "I am X" and attach an emotional affirmation to that which makes us feel that its good or true.

Just because we can identify ourselves as "X" it doesn't mean we actually are "X". As before I mentioned a person who believes they are a doctor without a phd. But perhaps they correctly identify that they are a brother. Because "Identity" as a whole, is often comprised of parts. We can be correct in some of those parts, and incorrect in others.

In other words, an identity claim can be incorrect. There is nothing innate in one's identity that has any value apart from an emotional feeling, or whether its correct or incorrect. Having a positive emotional feeling about an identity that is incorrect, doesn't mean we should elevate the feeling over the objective reality of the identity. That is one of the few times we can clearly say, "That would be wrong."

I did want your definition of sex and gender, and if you find it different from what I will provide, please provide it. Sex is simply the biological expression of reproductive intent of a species. In humans, there are two sexes that are needed to join to reproduce, a male, and a female. I could be a male, and personally identify as a female. But sex is an objective reality. So if I identified as a female, when its objectively true that I'm a male, I would be wrong. My feelings or desire that it be true are irrelevant.

Gender is again, a subjective belief that a sex should act in a particular way in society. That might be what they like, clothing, hair style, speech patterns, or body language. When you have a gendered view of the world, you believe that a man should be like Y, and a woman should be like Z. But this isn't based on any biology besides their sex. Its based on what you personally attach as emotionally positive vs emotionally negative to a sex's behavior in public.

So then what is a personal gender identity? First, you have to have a gender identity. You need to believe that men should be like Y, and women should be like Z. Then, if you mostly favor Y, or Z, you say, "I like to behave in public like Y or Z." Therefore I fit the gender of my choosing.

Now can one's gender identity be wrong? No. If you believe that men should be like Y, and you act like Y, then you have 'the gender of a male'. But all this means is, "I believe men should act like Y, and I act like Y." The moment you cross into the idea that a prejudiced belief in how a man should act, means that acting that way overrides your actual sex, you have crossed into sexism. Sexism is objectively incorrect. Therefore there is nothing wrong with believing that a sex should act a certain way, but it is an incorrect jump to believe that acting or not acting that way has anything to do with whether you are that sex or not.

That is elevating gender over sex. And that fits the definition of sexism. So then, if you believe in different definitions, please spell them out. What is sex to you? What is gender? Are your definitions backed by the literature? Should gender ever be elevated over sex? If so, how is it not sexism?

And it’s just part of the culture war nonsense that tries to subliminally attack trans, gays and every other LGBTQ person in society. — Christoffer

That's a very biased take without evidence. Would you like to explain where in the OP I'm trying to attack trans or gays?

My opinion is that these discussions are very low quality for this forum. I’m not sure we should entertain the level of discourse that comes out of the rising hate we see in society. — Christoffer

If its low quality, please point out why this specific OP is low quality. If you think I am hateful, please point out where. You don't silence or suppress hate. It only grows, festers, and comes out in underhanded ways down the road. You shine a light on it. Point out to people why they're expressing hate. You don't change all minds, but some minds can be changed. I particularly don't want to be a hateful person, but if I am unknowingly it would be great if someone pointed it out correctly.

If we’re talking about the science around transsexualism, — Christoffer

The topic is about trans gender, not transsexualism. I view them as two different discussions.

We can easily have a civil discussion between each other who aren’t transsexuals, but a civil discussion that isn’t having insights and perspective from the people it’s about is seriously lacking in being able to have a qualitative level. — Christoffer

My good friend of many years is several years into transition. I have immersed myself in the trans community for quite some time now. I've also read papers, seen debates, and many different approaches to the subject. So I do include the insights and perspectives of trans gender and trans sexual people. Feel free to voice where you think I'm wrong, include your own perspectives, or demonstrate where the argument specifically needs more than what is provided.

If any in this discussion are are trans, that’s good, but it risks just becoming a bunch of hetero males discussion LGBTQ topics through a very narrow lens. — Christoffer

Everyone is welcome to the discussion. And gender is not owned by LGBTQ. Gender applies to every single human being. The idea that it is owned by a certain group of people is wrong.

I'm not going to question the legitimacy of these personal anecdotes.
I will just say that, if you're wondering why few people agree with your conclusion, that putting gender over sex is sexism, it's because few if any people can relate to your personal experience. — Mijin

More than fair. Trans people make up anywhere from 1-5% of the population, and that rise is mostly among the young people of this generation. Most adults will likely not talk in such terms, but kids and the very young who are still learning about the world make this conflation. And of course you still meet an old timer every so often that has a view that seems contrary to what you would expect.

My friend is in their early 40's. They've been interested in exploring being female since I met them decades ago. I've never judged their desires fyi, and have always accepted them for who they are.

↪Philosophim So if a flat chested woman gets breast augmentation to look "feminine", that's succumbing to social norms that women should have large breasts. — LuckyR

I like this example because it lets us break down the terminology. If the woman is getting breast augmentation because society tells her its the way women should look like, that's succumbing to social norms. If she gets it because she thinks that what a woman should look like to her, that's also gender, or her own prejudice.

But, if she wants to get them because she genuinely wants them for herself and doesn't care about whether she should or not because of her sex, that's not gender but simply doing what they want.

The identical surgery in a transwoman should also be social, right? — LuckyR

Again, not necessarily. There is a difference between a trans sexual and a trans gender person. If the person is a trans sexual, this is not gender. This is the desire to embody the other sex, and changing their secondary sex characteristics to resemble the other sex is not gender. They would get whatever they desired for themselves without regards to what society would expect as 'reasonable'.

If a trans sexual wanted large implants because they ALSO fell for societies pressure for large implants against their better judgement, then they also succumbed to social pressures. If a person wasn't interested in changing their body, but felt that society expected them to and that they couldn't have the 'gender' of a woman if they didn't get them, that is also succumbing to social pressures.

In each case the seemingly only justification for breast augmentation is if the person simply wants it for themselves without any consideration that 'this is what society expects a woman to look like' beyond the statistical norms of sex expectations. (Read the first post up top for definitions if needed). I would also argue that a person can get body changes done due to normal biological expectations. So while a woman may be on the .01% of tiny breast size, they don't like being outside of the statistical biological norm. I feel that is a more complicated subject then mere societal pressure, but we can tackle that in a follow up post if you're interested.

I'm sorry, but to use the example of calling yourself what you do for a living is to indicate to me that you have not processed a single word I have said. — Questioner

I apologize then. Let me read over what you've written and see if I understand what you're saying. Please correct me where I am wrong.

First, you speak about identity. What is identity to you?

Identity can have a few meanings within the scope of the discussion:

the distinguishing character or personality of an individual
the condition of being the same with something described or asserted
sameness in all that constitutes the objective reality of a thing
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identity

But if I'm following what you're saying, you seem to view identity more as identification:

a: psychological orientation of the self in regard to something (such as a person or group) with a resulting feeling of close emotional association

b: a largely unconscious process whereby an individual models thoughts, feelings, and actions after those attributed to an object that has been incorporated as a mental image
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identification

A personal identity is a subjective notion of our distinguishing characteristics. But what is a personal gender identity? I think to you it seems like its largely an unconscious process that comes from the brain and is something that is innate to a person's being. Do I have that correct? Again, please correct me if I'm not, I'm not trying to misrepresent you.

Now, I'm going to ask you to define what sex is. Then if you could, define what gender is please. Are they the same to you? Different?

Once you differentiate sex and gender, what is the difference between a sex identity and gender identity? I'll try to listen the best I can.

We have a poster with a little over 100 posts. They come in, they're polite. They post great arguments and points. They cite papers. They run absolute intellectual and moral circles around you. A fantastic human being.
— Philosophim

You know I can read this, right? — Questioner

Yes, I hope you took it as a compliment. Disagreement with another person on an issue is the most common thing in the world. I find it very nice to discuss with someone who is respectful about it and brings in ideas you can see they've thought about and believe in. That's where real discussions are.

I’m surprised you’re disappointed—we’ve been through all this before. I’m not disappointed, I’ve heard these arguments from you before. — T Clark

So look at that T Clark. We have a poster with a little over 100 posts. They come in, they're polite. They post great arguments and points. They cite papers. They run absolute intellectual and moral circles around you. A fantastic human being.

And what do you do? Are you inspired and think, "I should do better." Nope. You come in with this little sad sentence that has nothing to do with the argument and everything to do with your sad state of bias and possible need for attention. How does it feel to be a troll? Someone who contributes nothing positive at all to an intellectual discussion and fills up the space with irrelevance? How is what you're holding onto made you into a better person today?

If you don't mind, I'm going to answer some of your points you've been making to other posters. I normally don't, but you seem genuinely pleasant to converse with. If you find this an intrusion into other's discussions, please feel free to tell me and I will not do it again.

I'm going to ask you to put on your thinking hat - and ask yourself - where is the seat of my perception of myself? Is it in the brain? Does your perception of yourself - which is constructed by putting together all your thought processes - tell you that you are one particular gender rather than another? — Questioner

To the point, you learn what sex you are. Then you have to decide if a sex should act a particular way in society. Some people don't. Some people think along the lines of society. Some people think uniquely. If you have constructed in your head that only men should act in a particular way, then you don't behave like that, you can start to think, "I'm not acting like a man."

Of course, if there was a young man who came to me and said, "My baseball team thinks, I'm not a man because I like ballet," I would tell him, "You don't have to act any particular way to be a man. You are a man because you were born one. Do not worry about the expectations from society, be your own person." Basically I would teach them that such views of the sexes is unhealthy. Gender is something we should grow out of, not grow into.

The reality is that you can act and be whatever you want in a free society. Some people will think its cool, and some will think its not. Some people will tie it to your height, your weight, skin color, hair color, or sex. Part of growing up and maturing our minds is realizing these are superficial judgements of ourselves and others that limit us. You can be white and like rap. You can be black and not like rap. You can be a woman and hate kids. You can be a man and adore kids. Find what you like and how you want to live without basing it on other's or your own expectations of how a body like yours should act.

I think we really need to get a firm understanding of what identity is, and accept that gender, in most cases, is part of that identity. Yes, outside perceptions may influence our identity - but they trigger an internal dialogue - and then how they are analyzed, processed, and responded to are determined by our brains. — Questioner

My point is that its not a healthy identity, and if elevated over the sex that we are, over the body that we are, is sexist. Just because we have a personal identity of ourselves, it doesn't mean the rest of the world sees us that way, or that such an identity is actually healthy for ourselves either. No one is debating that you can have a gender identity. My point is that when it is elevated in importance above sex, it becomes sexism.

No, I would say that only transgender women who have completed their transition should be allowed in female changing rooms. — Questioner

So interestingly, trans gender and trans sexual are separate situations. A trans sexual desires specifically to change their body to resemble or be as close to the opposite sex as much as possible. You can be a trans gender person who is also a trans sexual, but be a trans sexual who is not trans gender. I believe the conversation about trans sexuals is very different from trans genders. I do not believe trans sexuals are sexist, and I believe it is this portion of people that we should be studying more closely and helping to fit into society better.

But I have presented you with a compelling argument and much evidence that it is not. What you may be defining is cultural mores, or accepted practices, but gender is part of a person's identity, and an identity is an internal feature of who we are. It is one's mental construct of themself. — Questioner

Everyone has a personal identity, but that doesn't mean its more than a subjective identity. For example, I can have a personal identity that I am a doctor. To be a doctor objectively, I must have a Phd. No one is required, and I am not entitled to other people recognizing my subjective identity as a doctor if I do not have a Phd. People are only required to recognize that I am a doctor if I have a Phd.

Gender is specifically an expected set of behaviors that we attribute to a particular sex in society. So for example, "Only men wear top hats. Only women wear flower hats." Of course, someone else could just as easily say, "Only men wear flower hats. Only women wear top hats." We would both be right because gender is not objective, it is subjective.

What then is a gender identity? First, you have to have a gendered view. You believe "Women/men should do X." "Women/Men should not do Y." You are one of those sexes. You look at the gender you have established and think, "Even though I am sex A, if I follow my expectations of how sex A should act, I really feel like acting like sex B" Basically, "I'm a man, I feel like acting the way I think a man should act." Or "I'm a man, I feel like acting the way a woman should act." Which are all fine. But the moment you go, "The way I think a man/woman should act makes a person a man/woman" is the point that you enter into sexism, or elevate gender over a person's sex.

What a disappointment that one of my favorite posters isn't any better than some fresh face single digit poster.
— Philosophim

If you mean me:

I have 168 posts (169 with this one) and my face is not as fresh as it used to be.

If you don't mean me, sorry for the misunderstanding. — Questioner

No, not at all. I'm talking to T Clark. You sir/ma'am are excellent. Wonderful posts, citations, and polite discussion. You have my respect whether we agree on the outcome of this discussion or not. :)

E.g. a "transwoman" (typical XY) is a gender dysmorphic, modified (mutilated) adult male in drag and not a woman (typical XX). Afaik, "she" is almost never attracted to (or found attractive by) a "transman" (typical XX), I suspect, because usually "she" (and/or "he") is also gay (XY-XY / XX-XX). — 180 Proof

There are plenty of straight men who transition as well. I believe there are more straight men who've transitioned today than gay men. The majority of them often have an inward sexual orientation to being female.