Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

[SigmatheZeta]

Transgender people were already being studied more than one hundred years ago. In fact, Magnus Hirschfeld, himself, studied transgender people at his Institut fur Sexualweissenschaft. I believe that one of the world's first attempts at a sex-change operation was conducted there. This was pre-World War II.

For Magnus Hirschfeld, it was very simple. A Herr was not happy with being a Herr and wanted to be a Frau. Since Magnus Hirschfeld was one of the most brilliant humanitarian thinkers of the 20th Century, he had the idea that those people would feel better if they were allowed to represent themselves as the sex that they identified with.

An entire century later, the accepted standard of care, for transgender people, is to provide them with gender-affirming care. This is the clinical norm all over the western world.

 

[KeepTalking]

I will try, let's see how open those ears of yours are. You said "There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female.""

That is simply incorrect. Merriam Websters, provides one such definition for man:
Merriam Websters - man
d(1): one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (such as courage, strength, and vigor)

Merriam Websters is in the business of defining words, so if it is good enough for them, it is good enough for this discussion.

That doesn't make sense as a definition because that implies women can't have courage, strength, or vigor. It also implies that if a woman does display those traits, she would have to be referred to as a man.

Take that up with Merriam-Webster.

Whether it makes sense to you, or not, it is an accepted definition of 'man', showing your assertion that "There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female."" is incorrect.

A good definition would be a definition that can include trans men and trans women.

Whether you think it is a good definition or not is irrelevant. Merriam-Websters is a reference which people all over the world use to provide definitions for words in the English language, you are not. If they did not provide good definitions they would not have remained in business for as long as they have.

The definition that merely describes attributes is not a definition because those attributes can apply to both men and women.

It is clearly a definition, and it is provided by one of the top reference works when it comes to providing definitions for English words. Your protestations otherwise are inadequate.

I can do the same thing: The definition of a man is someone who yells loudly. I have made a definition for a man, but this definition would exclude women who yell loudly, forcing you to refer to them as men.

Get back to me when your dictionary which includes this little gem gains anywhere near as wide an audience as Merriam-Websters. Until then you are just screaming into the wind.

The definition has to be all inclusive.

That is so clearly false that I am surprised anyone would try to use it as an argument. A definition does not have to be all inclusive, definitions can be general, specific, or anything in between.

We are almost going on 6 pages now and so far only one person has tried to make a definition of man and woman.

I did not make a definition, I provided a definition from one of the world's most well regarded dictionaries.

We need 2 questions answered:

What is the definition of "man" and "woman?"

There is not one singular definition of either word. As with most words in the English language, their definition will vary with context.

What is the difference between "men" and "women?"

Likewise, there is not one singular difference between "men" and "women". There are many differences, and the differences will depend upon the men and women (or man and woman) in question.

My position is that it is impossible to define these terms which include both trans men and trans women.

Your position is unnecessarily inflexible, and demonstrably incorrect.

I wish it wasn't this way, but I must yield to logic here along with the law of non-contradiction: something can not be both X and not X at the same time.

Your logic is flawed by an incorrect premise regarding certain definitions, and indeed, the nature of definitions themselves.

I really wish someone here would do it.

You're welcome.

 

[Generation55]

I will try, let's see how open those ears of yours are. You said "There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female.""

That is simply incorrect. Merriam Websters, provides one such definition for man:
Merriam Websters - man
d(1): one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (such as courage, strength, and vigor)

Merriam Websters is in the business of defining words, so if it is good enough for them, it is good enough for this discussion.

That doesn't make sense as a definition because that implies women can't have courage, strength, or vigor. It also implies that if a woman does display those traits, she would have to be referred to as a man.

Take that up with Merriam-Webster.

Whether it makes sense to you, or not, it is an accepted definition of 'man', showing your assertion that "There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female."" is incorrect.

A good definition would be a definition that can include trans men and trans women.

Whether you think it is a good definition or not is irrelevant. Merriam-Websters is a reference which people all over the world use to provide definitions for words in the English language, you are not. If they did not provide good definitions they would not have remained in business for as long as they have.

The definition that merely describes attributes is not a definition because those attributes can apply to both men and women.

It is clearly a definition, and it is provided by one of the top reference works when it comes to providing definitions for English words. Your protestations otherwise are inadequate.

I can do the same thing: The definition of a man is someone who yells loudly. I have made a definition for a man, but this definition would exclude women who yell loudly, forcing you to refer to them as men.

Get back to me when your dictionary which includes this little gem gains anywhere near as wide an audience as Merriam-Websters. Until then you are just screaming into the wind.

The definition has to be all inclusive.

That is so clearly false that I am surprised anyone would try to use it as an argument. A definition does not have to be all inclusive, definitions can be general, specific, or anything in between.

We are almost going on 6 pages now and so far only one person has tried to make a definition of man and woman.

I did not make a definition, I provided a definition from one of the world's most well regarded dictionaries.

We need 2 questions answered:

What is the definition of "man" and "woman?"

There is not one singular definition of either word. As with most words in the English language, their definition will vary with context.

What is the difference between "men" and "women?"

Likewise, there is not one singular difference between "men" and "women". There are many differences, and the differences will depend upon the men and women (or man and woman) in question.

My position is that it is impossible to define these terms which include both trans men and trans women.

Your position is unnecessarily inflexible, and demonstrably incorrect.

I wish it wasn't this way, but I must yield to logic here along with the law of non-contradiction: something can not be both X and not X at the same time.

Your logic is flawed by an incorrect premise regarding certain definitions, and indeed, the nature of definitions themselves.

I really wish someone here would do it.

You're welcome.

You still did not provide a definition. if I can break it down simpler, if I see a woman and I am talking to one, I know she is a woman because she is an adult human female. If I am talking to a trans woman, what definition would I appeal to if I also viewed her as a woman? I can not use adult human female. The word "woman" has to to have some definition beyond "adult human female" in order for the trans woman to be viewed as a woman. The same goes for the word "man" for trans men.

Answering this question is one of the most important things pertaining to this discussion.

 

[KeepTalking]

You still did not provide a definition.

I very clearly did provide a definition, complete with a link to resource from which the definition was obtained.

if I can break it down simpler, if I see a woman and I am talking to one, I know she is a woman because she is an adult human female. If I am talking to a trans woman, what definition would I appeal to if I also viewed her as a woman? I can not use adult human female. The word "woman" has to to have some definition beyond "adult human female" in order for the trans woman to be viewed as a woman.

Have you tried a dictionary? I obviously recommend Merriam-Websters:

Merriam-Websters : woman

3: distinctively feminine nature

The same goes for the word "man" for trans men.

I am happy to provide that definition for you again, since it didn't seem to take the first time:

Merriam-Websters: man

d(1): one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (such as courage, strength, and vigor)

Answering this question is one of the most important things pertaining to this discussion.

I'm glad I could help.

 

[Enigma]

You still did not provide a definition.

I very clearly did provide a definition, complete with a link to resource from which the definition was obtained.

if I can break it down simpler, if I see a woman and I am talking to one, I know she is a woman because she is an adult human female. If I am talking to a trans woman, what definition would I appeal to if I also viewed her as a woman? I can not use adult human female. The word "woman" has to to have some definition beyond "adult human female" in order for the trans woman to be viewed as a woman.

Have you tried a dictionary? I obviously recommend Merriam-Websters:

Merriam-Websters : woman

3: distinctively feminine nature

The same goes for the word "man" for trans men.

I am happy to provide that definition for you again, since it didn't seem to take the first time:

Merriam-Websters: man

d(1): one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (such as courage, strength, and vigor)

Answering this question is one of the most important things pertaining to this discussion.

I'm glad I could help.

Are there any definitions of man or woman that are consistently met by people who are transmen or transwomen?

 

[TomC]

A good definition would be a definition that can include trans men and trans women.

But we're up against the limits of the language and the culture the language derived from.

There is no single word that accurately and completely captures the usual meanings of the words we use.

How about this.
Use the words male and female to refer to an individual's sex. By "sex", I'm referring to an individual's physical characteristics. Use man and woman to refer to an individual's gender. By "gender", I'm referring to an individual's identity. Their mental image of themselves, and also the way that they present themselves to other people.

Instead of using individual words to describe the entirety of the complex human experience, we use terms. Like male woman, or female woman. Caitlyn Jenner is a male woman, Emily Lake is a female woman. I am a male man, @Jarhyn 's spouse is a female man.

How about that?
Tom

 

[bigfield]

A good definition would be a definition that can include trans men and trans women.

But we're up against the limits of the language and the culture the language derived from.

There is no single word that accurately and completely captures the usual meanings of the words we use.

How about this.
Use the words male and female to refer to an individual's sex. By "sex", I'm referring to an individual's physical characteristics. Use man and woman to refer to an individual's gender. By "gender", I'm referring to an individual's identity. Their mental image of themselves, and also the way that they present themselves to other people.

Instead of using individual words to describe the entirety of the complex human experience, we use terms. Like male woman, or female woman. Caitlyn Jenner is a male woman, Emily Lake is a female woman. I am a male man, @Jarhyn 's spouse is a female man.

How about that?
Tom

The English language already has terms that perform those same functions: cis and trans.

 

[KeepTalking]

You still did not provide a definition.

I very clearly did provide a definition, complete with a link to resource from which the definition was obtained.

if I can break it down simpler, if I see a woman and I am talking to one, I know she is a woman because she is an adult human female. If I am talking to a trans woman, what definition would I appeal to if I also viewed her as a woman? I can not use adult human female. The word "woman" has to to have some definition beyond "adult human female" in order for the trans woman to be viewed as a woman.

Have you tried a dictionary? I obviously recommend Merriam-Websters:

Merriam-Websters : woman

3: distinctively feminine nature

The same goes for the word "man" for trans men.

I am happy to provide that definition for you again, since it didn't seem to take the first time:

Merriam-Websters: man

d(1): one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (such as courage, strength, and vigor)

Answering this question is one of the most important things pertaining to this discussion.

I'm glad I could help.

Are there any definitions of man or woman that are consistently met by people who are transmen or transwomen?

Given that all non-trans men or women do not necessarily meet the definitions that Gen55 would have us all ascribe to as the only definitions for those words, I hardly see how your question is relevant.

 

[Jarhyn]

A good definition would be a definition that can include trans men and trans women.

But we're up against the limits of the language and the culture the language derived from.

There is no single word that accurately and completely captures the usual meanings of the words we use.

How about this.
Use the words male and female to refer to an individual's sex. By "sex", I'm referring to an individual's physical characteristics. Use man and woman to refer to an individual's gender. By "gender", I'm referring to an individual's identity. Their mental image of themselves, and also the way that they present themselves to other people.

Instead of using individual words to describe the entirety of the complex human experience, we use terms. Like male woman, or female woman. Caitlyn Jenner is a male woman, Emily Lake is a female woman. I am a male man, @Jarhyn 's spouse is a female man.

How about that?
Tom

You're almost there. All you have to do at this point is recognize that outing what people have in their pants, including the (male) or (female), is unnecessary. Making speculations at it is similarly unnecessary.

It only becomes necessary when the other person has expressed interest in you as the person they met, and wants to know more of the kind that nobody has an obligation to answer except when they wish.

For instance YOU, Tom, may be of sufficient psychic strength to divine what is in someone's pants but similarly you may have a binoculars to peer into their window. Either is an invasion of privacy, and doubly so were you to speak of what you saw there.

 

[TomC]

A good definition would be a definition that can include trans men and trans women.

But we're up against the limits of the language and the culture the language derived from.

There is no single word that accurately and completely captures the usual meanings of the words we use.

How about this.
Use the words male and female to refer to an individual's sex. By "sex", I'm referring to an individual's physical characteristics. Use man and woman to refer to an individual's gender. By "gender", I'm referring to an individual's identity. Their mental image of themselves, and also the way that they present themselves to other people.

Instead of using individual words to describe the entirety of the complex human experience, we use terms. Like male woman, or female woman. Caitlyn Jenner is a male woman, Emily Lake is a female woman. I am a male man, @Jarhyn 's spouse is a female man.

How about that?
Tom

The English language already has terms that perform those same functions: cis and trans.

I agree.

Unfortunately, there's a bunch of people who refuse to grasp the distinction. Emily Lake is cis. Caitlyn Jenner is trans.

Try explaining to the ideological purists that those aren't the same thing. They'll mischaracterize your posts and malign you.
Tom

 

[TomC]

For instance YOU, Tom, may be of sufficient psychic strength to divine what is in someone's pants but similarly you may have a binoculars to peer into their window.

Why do you keep insisting that I need to see what's inside someone's pants to tell the difference between my mom and Caitlyn Jenner?

Tom

 

[bigfield]

A good definition would be a definition that can include trans men and trans women.

But we're up against the limits of the language and the culture the language derived from.

There is no single word that accurately and completely captures the usual meanings of the words we use.

How about this.
Use the words male and female to refer to an individual's sex. By "sex", I'm referring to an individual's physical characteristics. Use man and woman to refer to an individual's gender. By "gender", I'm referring to an individual's identity. Their mental image of themselves, and also the way that they present themselves to other people.

Instead of using individual words to describe the entirety of the complex human experience, we use terms. Like male woman, or female woman. Caitlyn Jenner is a male woman, Emily Lake is a female woman. I am a male man, @Jarhyn 's spouse is a female man.

How about that?
Tom

The English language already has terms that perform those same functions: cis and trans.

I agree.

Unfortunately, there's a bunch of people who refuse to grasp the distinction. Emily Lake is cis. Caitlyn Jenner is trans.

Try explaining to the ideological purists that those aren't the same thing. They'll mischaracterize your posts and malign you.
Tom

Who cares.

 

[TomC]

Who cares.

How informed and moral.

Why does anyone care about this? Why are we even bothering with talking about the subject?

Why do I bother responding to such a dismissive post? I dunno. Maybe because I care about humans?
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

For instance YOU, Tom, may be of sufficient psychic strength to divine what is in someone's pants but similarly you may have a binoculars to peer into their window.

Why do you keep insisting that I need to see what's inside someone's pants to tell the difference between my mom and Caitlyn Jenner?

Tom

It's rare for me to see a new fallacy that I had not encountered before in the wild...

This fallacy exists in the form (condition for correctly handling corner cases) is unnecessary because (clear cases easy to distinguish).

You absolutely don't need to look in your mom's or Caitlin, in part because for either of those it is known, and also in part because either may constitute an "easy case", though most of the problem is the assumption in the first place. Personally, I don't care what is in either's pants.

For many others, no, it's not so clear.

More importantly, it's that part that you snipped: you may be unable to not look but just as with the person with binoculars, you have a responsibility to the privacy of others to not go talking about what you see there.

 

[bigfield]

Who cares.

How informed and moral.

Why does anyone care about this? Why are we even bothering with talking about the subject?

Why do I bother responding to such a dismissive post? I dunno. Maybe because I care about humans?
Tom

I see. In that case my sympathy for your previous grievances has multiplied.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I will try, let's see how open those ears of yours are. You said "There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female.""

That is simply incorrect. Merriam Websters, provides one such definition for man:
Merriam Websters - man
d(1): one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (such as courage, strength, and vigor)

Merriam Websters is in the business of defining words, so if it is good enough for them, it is good enough for this discussion.

By this definition, it is perfectly fine to refer to any transwoman who doesn't pass for a woman as a man, regardless of which gender they self-identify as since the definition makes no reference to gender self-identification whatsoever.

Simple reference to a definition does not in any way imply that usage of that definition is 'perfectly fine' in any given context. Those usages would need to be examined on their own merits.

It's not perfectly fine to refer to a man as a man?

I don't believe I made any such statement. Neither did I claim that it is 'perfectly fine', or not, for any one to be referenced by any specific noun. I very clearly stated that such usages would need to be examined on their own merits, and this would include taking into account the context in which they were used.

It may be that sometimes it is not perfectly fine to refer to a man as a man?

Please clarify. What exactly is potentially wrong with saying that a non-passing transwoman is a man?

Is there some factual inaccuracy in the statement?

If someone who you are inclined to call a man has asked you not to call them a man, and you intentionally call them a man regardless, that is exceedingly rude, and is not "perfectly fine" from the perspective of the person to whom you are being exceedingly rude. It is often considered rude to comment on things that are factually correct.

So your contention isn't that such transwomen aren't actually men, but rather that it can be rude to point out that they are, in fact, men?

To be precise, I am a transwoman, and that kind of implies the whole thing of being born with x/y chromosomes.

In the case of transgender women that started transition in adolescence, you probably would not know that they were ever anything besides women. If they have the option, then most transwomen prefer to go "stealth" as soon as possible, and from there, they are very selective about which people in their lives they tell about their natal sex.

I am an exception! .

 

[Generation55]

A good definition would be a definition that can include trans men and trans women.

But we're up against the limits of the language and the culture the language derived from.

There is no single word that accurately and completely captures the usual meanings of the words we use.

How about this.
Use the words male and female to refer to an individual's sex. By "sex", I'm referring to an individual's physical characteristics. Use man and woman to refer to an individual's gender. By "gender", I'm referring to an individual's identity. Their mental image of themselves, and also the way that they present themselves to other people.

Instead of using individual words to describe the entirety of the complex human experience, we use terms. Like male woman, or female woman. Caitlyn Jenner is a male woman, Emily Lake is a female woman. I am a male man, @Jarhyn 's spouse is a female man.

How about that?
Tom

I heard trans people find that highly offensive because they don't view themselves as a female man or a male woman. They view themselves as just a man or woman or they say "i am male to female" or "female to male." They would be very offended if you refereed to them as a male woman or a female man. So, this won't work.

We also need a definition because the Caitlyn Jenner situation becomes confusing. If someone never heard of Caitlyn Jenner before and someone said to them, "Kylie Jenner has 2 moms. They had sex with each other and had Kylie Jenner," this person would be highly confused as to what that means. They would ask, "How can 2 women impregnate each other?"

 

[Generation55]

3: distinctively feminine nature

How is that a good definition of "woman" though? This would mean masculine women bodybuilers would have to be referred to as men and people like Ben Shapiro would have to be referred to as women.

Both of those people would disagree with your definition. As I said, it is basically impossible to construct a definition that includes trans women and trans men but I am still hoping that someone can.

I have heard some people say, "A woman is anyone who says they are a woman" but this still does not suffice because we have not established what they mean by "woman." What is this thing "woman" that you claim to be? One can just as easily say, "A trotofont is anyone who says they are a tratofont." (I just made up that word) But in order for someone to claim they are a tratofont, we would have to establish a definition of a tratofont.

 

[Politesse]

A good definition would be a definition that can include trans men and trans women.

But we're up against the limits of the language and the culture the language derived from.

There is no single word that accurately and completely captures the usual meanings of the words we use.

How about this.
Use the words male and female to refer to an individual's sex. By "sex", I'm referring to an individual's physical characteristics. Use man and woman to refer to an individual's gender. By "gender", I'm referring to an individual's identity. Their mental image of themselves, and also the way that they present themselves to other people.

Instead of using individual words to describe the entirety of the complex human experience, we use terms. Like male woman, or female woman. Caitlyn Jenner is a male woman, Emily Lake is a female woman. I am a male man, @Jarhyn 's spouse is a female man.

How about that?
Tom

I heard trans people find that highly offensive because they don't view themselves as a female man or a male woman. They view themselves as just a man or woman or they say "i am male to female" or "female to male." They would be very offended if you refereed to them as a male woman or a female man. So, this won't work.

We also need a definition because the Caitlyn Jenner situation becomes confusing. If someone never heard of Caitlyn Jenner before and someone said to them, "Kylie Jenner has 2 moms. They had sex with each other and had Kylie Jenner," this person would be highly confused as to what that means. They would ask, "How can 2 women impregnate each other?"

Only for fairly stupid people, who become "confused" as a rhetorical technique that is convincing to no one but themselves. There are plenty of ways two women might come to have a daughter, and there's no reason why any of them would be anyone's business but their own. A mother is a mother, however they became a mother. Adoptions, previous marriages, and past medical therapies are not something anyone owes disclosure of to you or anyone else.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Should it be sufficient for someone to identify as being disabled in order to have the right to use the disabled parking spot?

Or should we have society somehow gatekeep the use of disabled parking spots to limit them to people whom society considers "actually" disabled? Should we do so even knowing that no matter what mechanism is used to determine whether or not someone is "actually" disabled, that mechanism will inevitably yield a non-zero number of false positives (i.e. The person with a disabled parking permit that just finished fully recovering from their disabling condition) and false negatives (i.e. The person who just fractured their knee 5 minutes ago and is limping into the drug-store for some painkillers to make getting to the nearest urgent care center bearable while they are waiting for an Uber to pick them up)?

The issue here is special privileges granted by the status. I have no problem with what you call yourself, but calling yourself an X doesn't grant the benefits that go to those confirmed to be X. Thus a doctor's certification that you're granted access to the reserved parking spots.