Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

[Politesse]

I'm confused by this as well. I understand that it doesn't determine whether you like sports or math and whatnot. But, why do most men enjoy sports more than women? If gender was something that is more or less random, why don't we see more a higher percentage of men loving dolls and stereotypical women stuff and a higher percentage of women enjoying football and stereotypical guy stuff? Even young boys as young as 6 will say stuff to girls, "I don't play with dolls! That's for girls!" and girls would say, "Yuck football? That's for guys!" Why is this?

I just feel like if gender was more or less random, then we should have a similar percentage of guys walking around wearing dresses and skirts and make up and girls walking around wearing stereotypical male clothing. But there is a very high correlation that if you are born make, you won't be interested in dresses and make up and if you are born female, you won't be interested in male clothing and behavior. it should be more in the 50/50 range instead of 95/5 range or something like that. In my opinion, there would be nothing wrong if all males wore dresses and make up everywhere, but the question is, why don't more males do this? Why do most males view dresses and make up as a turn off for them to wear? Something just "feels off" to them about wearing that stuff. How can this be if it's there's not anything to this biologically?

Gender isn't random, it's a culturally constructed category; you would expect most people to largely conform to its expectations, because they were raised within the same culture from which those categories emerged. You don't intuit how to be a man or woman, it's taught to you. This is easily demonstrable, since different cultures apply different characteristics to gender, and indeed disagree on the number of expected genders, but people nonetheless usually fall into the gender categories they and others in their community expect. But no one ultimately finds that every aspect of their culture appeals to them, and questions of identity are especially fraught due to their emotional and psychological weight. We are also taught not to fidget, for instance, but many people fidget regardless, and interestingly, they do so in culturally predictable ways. The connection to biological sex is a further complication, as even if no one ever challenged cultural categorization, all communities would still have to deal with the reality of persons of ambiguous sex periodically, due to normal biological variation in sex expression.

Yes, I've heard the culturally constructed argument before. I understand it but I don't know if it can explain everything. I heard someone say a while ago, "Money is a social construct as well. But, this doesn't mean you can write on a piece of paper, "100 hundred dollars" and take that piece of paper to a store and use it."

Likewise gender could be a social construct, but this doesn't mean everyone will take your word for it. So when a trans woman says, "I am now an adult human female" or a trans man says, "I am now an adult human male" it makes some people not understand how that is possible. If a trans woman asked me in person, "Do you think I am a woman?" I wouldn't be able to say "yes" to this question, much in the same way if a person asked, "Do you think this piece of paper is real money?" I wouldn't be able to say yes.

I wish more people would respond because I think this is getting very interesting now. I really want to understand this.

Construct as in "something that was constructed". Not as in "fake". Cultural categories are as real as our behavior makes them. That doesn't mean they are intrinsic to us, or that they cannot change.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, I've heard the culturally constructed argument before. I understand it but I don't know if it can explain everything. I heard someone say a while ago, "Money is a social construct as well. But, this doesn't mean you can write on a piece of paper, "100 hundred dollars" and take that piece of paper to a store and use it."

You have to rely on some government doing it for you until people decided to start doing it for themselves. And suddenly. BITCOIN!

 

[TomC]

I'll put it the way I normally do: sex is the thing you need to consider when you wish to make babies.

That's clearly not true.

I have a clear and unambiguous sex. I am male. Nothing to do with making babies.

I also have a clear and unambiguous gender, man. I am a man, even if you don't like it. No doubt about that and there never was. I'm also gay.

Sex is different from gender. Sex and gender are different from orientation.

You aren't very good at recognizing these distinctions.
Tom

 

[Keith&Co.]

But every time you say "trans people" you are admitting that there is a right way to be a man or woman, otherwise why have the label of trans in the first place?

No. At the least, it admits there is a way (typical, popular, traditional, whatever) to determine man/woman, and this individual declines that way.
The fact that they disagree with the (tptw) way means they also disagree that it's the right way. The term acknowledges the disagreeance.

 

[Metaphor]

Hi I am new here but I have been reading for about a month. I hope this is the right forum for this because it has become a political issue. If it's the wrong forum, I apologize.

With that said, I am looking to see if any of you guys can help me understand sex and gender and transgender people because it has been driving me nuts when I think about it. I want to say first off that I have no problem with trans people. If someone wants to dress or act a certain way, that is fine by me. My issue is with the gender/sex subject.

I have been reading the subject and I hear, "Sex and gender are different. They have nothing to do with each other." This confuses me because people say around 99% of people are "cisgender", which means your gender and sex match. But how can gender and sex "match" if they have nothing to do with each other? Saying they match is implying that sex and gender are the same thing and there is a right way and a wrong way, yet people insist on saying they have nothing to do with each other. For example, if someone is a born male and identifies as a man, people say they are cisgender because their sex and gender match. This implies there is a right way to be male and a right way to be female. Otherwise, how can you say they match?

Transgender people are "people whose gender identity differs from their birth sex." But if sex and gender have nothing to do with each other, how can someone state that "my gender differs from my birth sex?" This implies that a person's gender should be the same as their birth sex. But, this is in direct contradiction to the fact that people say, "sex and gender are different and have nothing to do with each other." But for 99% of people, sex and gender are the same. For example, when people find out the sex of their baby, they say, "it's a boy" or "it's a girl." But how can they say this when they only know the baby's sex and not their gender? We are told that only the person themselves can decide what gender they are. So this implies parents should say, "I found out my baby will be born with a penis. But, I have no idea if it will be a boy or girl because they haven't decided their gender yet." Nobody says this. They all say "boy" or "girl" and give the baby "he" and "she" pronouns before they are even born. This implies sex and gender are the same thing. So if 99% of people are comfortable with their gender and sex being the same thing, how can people still claim gender and sex have nothing to do with each other?

So when trans women say, "I was assigned male at birth but I now identify as a woman," this implies that people who are assigned male at birth are supposed to identify as a man. But, how can this be if sex and gender have nothing to do with each other? If someone is assigned male at birth and identifies as a woman, how can this even be considered "transgender" if sex and gender are supposed to have nothing to do with each other? One can just as easily say, "I was born male and I identify as a man and I am transgender becuase sex and gender have nothing to do with each other. Being a man doesn't have anything to do with my penis." The term "transgender" implies that gender and sex should match each other. But if they match this implies gender and sex are the same thing despite the fact people say they are completely different.

Can you guys see the point I am trying to make here? I am trying to explain it as best as I can. Let me summarize: On one hand, people say gender and sex are completely different and have nothing to do with each other. Yet, 99% of people are "cisgender," which means that your gender and sex are the same thing. Can anyone solve this contradiction? I've been trying to for a while and I can't think of a good answer. This is why I'm asking you guys. As I said, I have no problem with trans people. I just feel like there is a big contradiction here with these definitions. I hope you guys can answer these questions for me. I've been driving myself nuts thinking about this.

Perhaps you could elucidate the source of all these quotations? They all sound iffy to me.

It isn't that sex and gender are unrelated, the general consensus of the social sciences is that gender is fundamentally a construction or portrayal of "appropriate" sex-linked behavior, disposition, and social status. Gender is, to put it another way, very much about sex. But as a social construct, it is not synonymous with biological sex. Your Y chromosome determines whether or not testes will develop. It does not determine whether you will like sports, excel at math, beat on women, or be naturally proficient at hunting. Those are cultural protrayals of maleness, not inherent qualities of being biologically male and we know this to a certainty partly because perspectives on gender vary by culture, and differ wildly between different cultures.

99% simply isn't correct. Self-declarations of gender aren't necessarily trustworthy where severe persecution meets those who confess to a non-cis gender identity , but in the US where trans identity is becoming more open, the number of openly trans people is rapidly increasingly, hovering somewhere around 4% at present and expected to continue to increase as oppression and violence decrease.

Transgender people generally consider themselves to have been misassigned a gender at birth, not that they are at odds with their genetic sex. Hence why a trans woman would correctly say "I was assigned male at birth", not "I was a male at birth".

Nobody is assigned a gender at birth. A baby's sex is observed and recorded.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'll put it the way I normally do: sex is the thing you need to consider when you wish to make babies.

That's clearly not true.

I have a clear and unambiguous sex. I am male. Nothing to do with making babies.

I also have a clear and unambiguous gender, man. I am a man, even if you don't like it. No doubt about that and there never was. I'm also gay.

Sex is different from gender. Sex and gender are different from orientation.

You aren't very good at recognizing these distinctions.
Tom

Let's consider this, then: what difference does your "clear and unambiguous" sex make?

Now, you obviously have some concept of what it is to be a man and you play to that. You feel that you ought.

The geometry of "sex" relates explicitly to making babies.

Note that word "need". You don't "need" to consider it for any other thing, not even for an orgasm, unless you are hopelessly fetish locked. Most people can masturbate without there being an immediately available genital of some specific shape other than their own.

There are certainly wants and hangups people have, but considering it of any person is not a need other than in the consideration of (me+them=kid?).

You don't need to consider it at any other moment of your life.

 

[Generation55]

But every time you say "trans people" you are admitting that there is a right way to be a man or woman, otherwise why have the label of trans in the first place?

No. At the least, it admits there is a way (typical, popular, traditional, whatever) to determine man/woman, and this individual declines that way.
The fact that they disagree with the (tptw) way means they also disagree that it's the right way. The term acknowledges the disagreeance.

But now we are getting down to definitions. Words mean things. This is why we have definitions:

The definition of man is "adult human male"
The definition of woman is "adult human female."
The definition of trans man is "a man who was assigned female at birth." This makes the technical definition "an adult human male who was assigned female at birth."
The definition of trans woman is "a woman who was assigned male at birth." This makes the technical definition "an adult human female who was assigned male at birth."

Do these definitions make sense to you? They don't to me.

There is no way to define "man" or "woman" that includes trans woman or trans men. Many have tried and end up tying themselves in knots and going in circles. It just can't be done. If a trans woman asked, "Do you consider me a woman?" you guys would say "yes, of course." But then the question becomes, "What do you mean by the word 'woman'?" Likewise, If a trans man asked, "Do you consider me a man?" you guys would say "yes, of course." But then the question becomes, "What do you mean by the word 'man'?"

It is not possible to answer these questions with a definition. Trust me, I've been reading about this for a long time online and also thinking about it in my mind and there is just no way you can do it. However, I am hoping someone can do it for me. There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female."

Please try, guys. I am all ears. This is another very hard part about this. You don't understand how much this is driving me nuts.

 

[Generation55]

Hi I am new here but I have been reading for about a month. I hope this is the right forum for this because it has become a political issue. If it's the wrong forum, I apologize.

With that said, I am looking to see if any of you guys can help me understand sex and gender and transgender people because it has been driving me nuts when I think about it. I want to say first off that I have no problem with trans people. If someone wants to dress or act a certain way, that is fine by me. My issue is with the gender/sex subject.

I have been reading the subject and I hear, "Sex and gender are different. They have nothing to do with each other." This confuses me because people say around 99% of people are "cisgender", which means your gender and sex match. But how can gender and sex "match" if they have nothing to do with each other? Saying they match is implying that sex and gender are the same thing and there is a right way and a wrong way, yet people insist on saying they have nothing to do with each other. For example, if someone is a born male and identifies as a man, people say they are cisgender because their sex and gender match. This implies there is a right way to be male and a right way to be female. Otherwise, how can you say they match?

Transgender people are "people whose gender identity differs from their birth sex." But if sex and gender have nothing to do with each other, how can someone state that "my gender differs from my birth sex?" This implies that a person's gender should be the same as their birth sex. But, this is in direct contradiction to the fact that people say, "sex and gender are different and have nothing to do with each other." But for 99% of people, sex and gender are the same. For example, when people find out the sex of their baby, they say, "it's a boy" or "it's a girl." But how can they say this when they only know the baby's sex and not their gender? We are told that only the person themselves can decide what gender they are. So this implies parents should say, "I found out my baby will be born with a penis. But, I have no idea if it will be a boy or girl because they haven't decided their gender yet." Nobody says this. They all say "boy" or "girl" and give the baby "he" and "she" pronouns before they are even born. This implies sex and gender are the same thing. So if 99% of people are comfortable with their gender and sex being the same thing, how can people still claim gender and sex have nothing to do with each other?

So when trans women say, "I was assigned male at birth but I now identify as a woman," this implies that people who are assigned male at birth are supposed to identify as a man. But, how can this be if sex and gender have nothing to do with each other? If someone is assigned male at birth and identifies as a woman, how can this even be considered "transgender" if sex and gender are supposed to have nothing to do with each other? One can just as easily say, "I was born male and I identify as a man and I am transgender becuase sex and gender have nothing to do with each other. Being a man doesn't have anything to do with my penis." The term "transgender" implies that gender and sex should match each other. But if they match this implies gender and sex are the same thing despite the fact people say they are completely different.

Can you guys see the point I am trying to make here? I am trying to explain it as best as I can. Let me summarize: On one hand, people say gender and sex are completely different and have nothing to do with each other. Yet, 99% of people are "cisgender," which means that your gender and sex are the same thing. Can anyone solve this contradiction? I've been trying to for a while and I can't think of a good answer. This is why I'm asking you guys. As I said, I have no problem with trans people. I just feel like there is a big contradiction here with these definitions. I hope you guys can answer these questions for me. I've been driving myself nuts thinking about this.

Perhaps you could elucidate the source of all these quotations? They all sound iffy to me.

It isn't that sex and gender are unrelated, the general consensus of the social sciences is that gender is fundamentally a construction or portrayal of "appropriate" sex-linked behavior, disposition, and social status. Gender is, to put it another way, very much about sex. But as a social construct, it is not synonymous with biological sex. Your Y chromosome determines whether or not testes will develop. It does not determine whether you will like sports, excel at math, beat on women, or be naturally proficient at hunting. Those are cultural protrayals of maleness, not inherent qualities of being biologically male and we know this to a certainty partly because perspectives on gender vary by culture, and differ wildly between different cultures.

99% simply isn't correct. Self-declarations of gender aren't necessarily trustworthy where severe persecution meets those who confess to a non-cis gender identity , but in the US where trans identity is becoming more open, the number of openly trans people is rapidly increasingly, hovering somewhere around 4% at present and expected to continue to increase as oppression and violence decrease.

Transgender people generally consider themselves to have been misassigned a gender at birth, not that they are at odds with their genetic sex. Hence why a trans woman would correctly say "I was assigned male at birth", not "I was a male at birth".

Nobody is assigned a gender at birth. A baby's sex is observed and recorded.

Yes, so how can someone say their gender differs from their birth sex? Sex would just be sex. Gender would just be gender. So if someone is born and doctor says, "this is a male" and later on in life they say "I am a trans woman," why do they say they are trans? Sex and gender are supposed to be different. If they are different, how can they be trans? This implies gender and sex are supposed to be the same.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But every time you say "trans people" you are admitting that there is a right way to be a man or woman, otherwise why have the label of trans in the first place?

No. At the least, it admits there is a way (typical, popular, traditional, whatever) to determine man/woman, and this individual declines that way.
The fact that they disagree with the (tptw) way means they also disagree that it's the right way. The term acknowledges the disagreeance.

But now we are getting down to definitions. Words mean things. This is why we have definitions:

Now? No, we got to 'definitions' when you tried to impose one on 'trans' that is not part of the definition.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'll put it the way I normally do: sex is the thing you need to consider when you wish to make babies.

That's clearly not true.

I have a clear and unambiguous sex. I am male. Nothing to do with making babies.

I also have a clear and unambiguous gender, man. I am a man, even if you don't like it. No doubt about that and there never was. I'm also gay.

Sex is different from gender. Sex and gender are different from orientation.

You aren't very good at recognizing these distinctions.
Tom

Let's consider this, then: what difference does your "clear and unambiguous" sex make?

Now, you obviously have some concept of what it is to be a man and you play to that. You feel that you ought.

The geometry of "sex" relates explicitly to making babies.

Note that word "need". You don't "need" to consider it for any other thing, not even for an orgasm, unless you are hopelessly fetish locked. Most people can masturbate without there being an immediately available genital of some specific shape other than their own.

There are certainly wants and hangups people have, but considering it of any person is not a need other than in the consideration of (me+them=kid?).

You don't need to consider it at any other moment of your life.

But every time you say "trans people" you are admitting that there is a right way to be a man or woman, otherwise why have the label of trans in the first place?

No. At the least, it admits there is a way (typical, popular, traditional, whatever) to determine man/woman, and this individual declines that way.
The fact that they disagree with the (tptw) way means they also disagree that it's the right way. The term acknowledges the disagreeance.

But now we are getting down to definitions. Words mean things. This is why we have definitions:

The definition of man is "adult human male"
The definition of woman is "adult human female."
The definition of trans man is "a man who was assigned female at birth." This makes the technical definition "an adult human male who was assigned female at birth."
The definition of trans woman is "a woman who was assigned male at birth." This makes the technical definition "an adult human female who was assigned male at birth."

Do these definitions make sense to you? They don't to me.

There is no way to define "man" or "woman" that includes trans woman or trans men. Many have tried and end up tying themselves in knots and going in circles. It just can't be done. If a trans woman asked, "Do you consider me a woman?" you guys would say "yes, of course." But then the question becomes, "What do you mean by the word 'woman'?" Likewise, If a trans man asked, "Do you consider me a man?" you guys would say "yes, of course." But then the question becomes, "What do you mean by the word 'woman'?" and "What do you mean by the word 'man'?"

It is not possible to answer these questions with a definition. Trust me, I've been reading about this for a long time online and also thinking about it in my mind and there is just no way you can do it. However, I am hoping someone can do it for me. There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female."

Please try, guys. I am all ears. This is another very hard part about this. You don't understand how much this is driving me nuts.

No, words don't mean things. All meanings of words are explicitly imaginary and arbitrary. Otherwise "god" being defined would mean "god" exists or is real.

Man and Woman are imaginary, and can mean and be formed however they may become useful.

You are here and as expected in the first page of one of your first posts here in which you claim faith in wishing to understand reveal out of the other side of your mouth bad faith in proclaiming certainty. You are not here to discuss, were I to judge by your post, but here to engage in a form of Rhetoric of JAQing Off; this is all you have done this far.

Help me understand otherwise?

 

[Trausti]

It would be nice if gender scholars could pinpoint the exact stage in the evolution of our species when all our innate predispositions and psychological adaptions shaped by millions of years of sexual selection were magically erased.

 

[TomC]

No, words don't mean things.

Got it.

This rather creates a problem for any conversation, much less an internet conversation.

But I have noticed that about your posting on subjects like this one. Words only mean what suits your agenda, nothing more and nothing less.
Tom

 

[Generation55]

I'll put it the way I normally do: sex is the thing you need to consider when you wish to make babies.

That's clearly not true.

I have a clear and unambiguous sex. I am male. Nothing to do with making babies.

I also have a clear and unambiguous gender, man. I am a man, even if you don't like it. No doubt about that and there never was. I'm also gay.

Sex is different from gender. Sex and gender are different from orientation.

You aren't very good at recognizing these distinctions.
Tom

Let's consider this, then: what difference does your "clear and unambiguous" sex make?

Now, you obviously have some concept of what it is to be a man and you play to that. You feel that you ought.

The geometry of "sex" relates explicitly to making babies.

Note that word "need". You don't "need" to consider it for any other thing, not even for an orgasm, unless you are hopelessly fetish locked. Most people can masturbate without there being an immediately available genital of some specific shape other than their own.

There are certainly wants and hangups people have, but considering it of any person is not a need other than in the consideration of (me+them=kid?).

You don't need to consider it at any other moment of your life.

But every time you say "trans people" you are admitting that there is a right way to be a man or woman, otherwise why have the label of trans in the first place?

No. At the least, it admits there is a way (typical, popular, traditional, whatever) to determine man/woman, and this individual declines that way.
The fact that they disagree with the (tptw) way means they also disagree that it's the right way. The term acknowledges the disagreeance.

But now we are getting down to definitions. Words mean things. This is why we have definitions:

The definition of man is "adult human male"
The definition of woman is "adult human female."
The definition of trans man is "a man who was assigned female at birth." This makes the technical definition "an adult human male who was assigned female at birth."
The definition of trans woman is "a woman who was assigned male at birth." This makes the technical definition "an adult human female who was assigned male at birth."

Do these definitions make sense to you? They don't to me.

There is no way to define "man" or "woman" that includes trans woman or trans men. Many have tried and end up tying themselves in knots and going in circles. It just can't be done. If a trans woman asked, "Do you consider me a woman?" you guys would say "yes, of course." But then the question becomes, "What do you mean by the word 'woman'?" Likewise, If a trans man asked, "Do you consider me a man?" you guys would say "yes, of course." But then the question becomes, "What do you mean by the word 'woman'?" and "What do you mean by the word 'man'?"

It is not possible to answer these questions with a definition. Trust me, I've been reading about this for a long time online and also thinking about it in my mind and there is just no way you can do it. However, I am hoping someone can do it for me. There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female."

Please try, guys. I am all ears. This is another very hard part about this. You don't understand how much this is driving me nuts.

No, words don't mean things. All meanings of words are explicitly imaginary and arbitrary. Otherwise "god" being defined would mean "god" exists or is real.

Man and Woman are imaginary, and can mean and be formed however they may become useful.

You are here and as expected in the first page of one of your first posts here in which you claim faith in wishing to understand reveal out of the other side of your mouth bad faith in proclaiming certainty. You are not here to discuss, were I to judge by your post, but here to engage in a form of Rhetoric of JAQing Off; this is all you have done this far.

Help me understand otherwise?

Absolutely not. I already stated I don't have a problem with trans people. However, I am afraid if they ask me, "Do you think I'm a man/woman?" I can't answer "yes" to the question. This means they will get angry at me and say I am being disrespectful and hateful, but this is not my intention. For example, we all know there are drag queens who look like women and dress in extravagant dresses but still say they are male/men. I have no problem with this.

But when you have 2 people dressed as a woman and one says "I'm a woman" and another says, "I'm still a man" it becomes insanely confusing. It would be so much easier if trans woman/trans men viewed themselves like drag queens do. I understand they don't want to view themselves this way and want to be viewed as a man or a woman, but we have no way of understanding what those words mean when it applies to trans women/trans men.

We don't have adequate definitions of these words. I have no idea what a trans woman means when they say, "I am a woman" or when a trans man say, "I am a man." These words have to mean something to them otherwise there's no point to say you are a trans man/trans woman. This is simply a matter of definitions, it's not a matter of disliking them or hating them. Far from it. I want to understand what they mean by these terms so I don't get looked at as a hateful lunatic if I encounter one in person. Can you understand this?

 

[Jarhyn]

I'll put it the way I normally do: sex is the thing you need to consider when you wish to make babies.

That's clearly not true.

I have a clear and unambiguous sex. I am male. Nothing to do with making babies.

I also have a clear and unambiguous gender, man. I am a man, even if you don't like it. No doubt about that and there never was. I'm also gay.

Sex is different from gender. Sex and gender are different from orientation.

You aren't very good at recognizing these distinctions.
Tom

Let's consider this, then: what difference does your "clear and unambiguous" sex make?

Now, you obviously have some concept of what it is to be a man and you play to that. You feel that you ought.

The geometry of "sex" relates explicitly to making babies.

Note that word "need". You don't "need" to consider it for any other thing, not even for an orgasm, unless you are hopelessly fetish locked. Most people can masturbate without there being an immediately available genital of some specific shape other than their own.

There are certainly wants and hangups people have, but considering it of any person is not a need other than in the consideration of (me+them=kid?).

You don't need to consider it at any other moment of your life.

But every time you say "trans people" you are admitting that there is a right way to be a man or woman, otherwise why have the label of trans in the first place?

No. At the least, it admits there is a way (typical, popular, traditional, whatever) to determine man/woman, and this individual declines that way.
The fact that they disagree with the (tptw) way means they also disagree that it's the right way. The term acknowledges the disagreeance.

But now we are getting down to definitions. Words mean things. This is why we have definitions:

The definition of man is "adult human male"
The definition of woman is "adult human female."
The definition of trans man is "a man who was assigned female at birth." This makes the technical definition "an adult human male who was assigned female at birth."
The definition of trans woman is "a woman who was assigned male at birth." This makes the technical definition "an adult human female who was assigned male at birth."

Do these definitions make sense to you? They don't to me.

There is no way to define "man" or "woman" that includes trans woman or trans men. Many have tried and end up tying themselves in knots and going in circles. It just can't be done. If a trans woman asked, "Do you consider me a woman?" you guys would say "yes, of course." But then the question becomes, "What do you mean by the word 'woman'?" Likewise, If a trans man asked, "Do you consider me a man?" you guys would say "yes, of course." But then the question becomes, "What do you mean by the word 'woman'?" and "What do you mean by the word 'man'?"

It is not possible to answer these questions with a definition. Trust me, I've been reading about this for a long time online and also thinking about it in my mind and there is just no way you can do it. However, I am hoping someone can do it for me. There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female."

Please try, guys. I am all ears. This is another very hard part about this. You don't understand how much this is driving me nuts.

No, words don't mean things. All meanings of words are explicitly imaginary and arbitrary. Otherwise "god" being defined would mean "god" exists or is real.

Man and Woman are imaginary, and can mean and be formed however they may become useful.

You are here and as expected in the first page of one of your first posts here in which you claim faith in wishing to understand reveal out of the other side of your mouth bad faith in proclaiming certainty. You are not here to discuss, were I to judge by your post, but here to engage in a form of Rhetoric of JAQing Off; this is all you have done this far.

Help me understand otherwise?

Absolutely not. I already stated I don't have a problem with trans people. However, I am afraid if they ask me, "Do you think I'm a man/woman?" I can't answer "yes" to the question. This means they will get angry at me and say I am being disrespectful and hateful, but this is not my intention. For example, we all know there are drag queens who look like women and dress in extravagant dresses but still say they are male/men. I have no problem with this.

But when you have 2 people dressed as a woman and one says "I'm a woman" and another says, "I'm still a man" it becomes insanely confusing. It would be so much easier if trans woman/trans men viewed themselves like drag queens do. I understand they don't want to view themselves this way and want to be viewed as a man or a woman, but we have no way of understanding what those words mean when it applies to trans women/trans men.

We don't have adequate definitions of these words. I have no idea what a trans woman means when they say, "I am a woman" or when a trans man say, "I am a man." These words have to mean something to them otherwise there's no point to say you are a trans man/trans woman. This is simply a matter of definitions, it's not a matter of disliking them or hating them. Far from it. I want to understand what they mean by these terms so I don't get looked at as a hateful lunatic if I encounter one in person. Can you understand this?

What you state plainly in apparent faith is revealed clearly as bad faith. Just because you say it is so does not make it so especially when your communications betray "the quiet part".

You frame a confrontation where someone asks "what am I" and you must decide. Were you curious you would accept that the response may be "that is not for me to tell but your thing to state of yourself!"

Your initial scenario is shaped to become a confrontation and you stand there claiming you cannot hold all these limes! You cannot hold them because you have ignored the fact that your scenario assumes at the get-go someone is trying to do a bad. The bad you assume of them is to put you on the spot for things you cannot and should not assume, especially when posed with an apparent ambiguity.

It is not your right to be unconfused. It is your right to ask the question. It is not your right for the world to be easy or straightforward or fit in the categories you wish of it. Those categories are IMAGINARY!

The definitions we have are adequate: when someone says "I am a man" they say "you, person, treat me as you would any man". Same with "woman".

 

[Metaphor]

Hi I am new here but I have been reading for about a month. I hope this is the right forum for this because it has become a political issue. If it's the wrong forum, I apologize.

With that said, I am looking to see if any of you guys can help me understand sex and gender and transgender people because it has been driving me nuts when I think about it. I want to say first off that I have no problem with trans people. If someone wants to dress or act a certain way, that is fine by me. My issue is with the gender/sex subject.

I have been reading the subject and I hear, "Sex and gender are different. They have nothing to do with each other." This confuses me because people say around 99% of people are "cisgender", which means your gender and sex match. But how can gender and sex "match" if they have nothing to do with each other? Saying they match is implying that sex and gender are the same thing and there is a right way and a wrong way, yet people insist on saying they have nothing to do with each other. For example, if someone is a born male and identifies as a man, people say they are cisgender because their sex and gender match. This implies there is a right way to be male and a right way to be female. Otherwise, how can you say they match?

Transgender people are "people whose gender identity differs from their birth sex." But if sex and gender have nothing to do with each other, how can someone state that "my gender differs from my birth sex?" This implies that a person's gender should be the same as their birth sex. But, this is in direct contradiction to the fact that people say, "sex and gender are different and have nothing to do with each other." But for 99% of people, sex and gender are the same. For example, when people find out the sex of their baby, they say, "it's a boy" or "it's a girl." But how can they say this when they only know the baby's sex and not their gender? We are told that only the person themselves can decide what gender they are. So this implies parents should say, "I found out my baby will be born with a penis. But, I have no idea if it will be a boy or girl because they haven't decided their gender yet." Nobody says this. They all say "boy" or "girl" and give the baby "he" and "she" pronouns before they are even born. This implies sex and gender are the same thing. So if 99% of people are comfortable with their gender and sex being the same thing, how can people still claim gender and sex have nothing to do with each other?

So when trans women say, "I was assigned male at birth but I now identify as a woman," this implies that people who are assigned male at birth are supposed to identify as a man. But, how can this be if sex and gender have nothing to do with each other? If someone is assigned male at birth and identifies as a woman, how can this even be considered "transgender" if sex and gender are supposed to have nothing to do with each other? One can just as easily say, "I was born male and I identify as a man and I am transgender becuase sex and gender have nothing to do with each other. Being a man doesn't have anything to do with my penis." The term "transgender" implies that gender and sex should match each other. But if they match this implies gender and sex are the same thing despite the fact people say they are completely different.

Can you guys see the point I am trying to make here? I am trying to explain it as best as I can. Let me summarize: On one hand, people say gender and sex are completely different and have nothing to do with each other. Yet, 99% of people are "cisgender," which means that your gender and sex are the same thing. Can anyone solve this contradiction? I've been trying to for a while and I can't think of a good answer. This is why I'm asking you guys. As I said, I have no problem with trans people. I just feel like there is a big contradiction here with these definitions. I hope you guys can answer these questions for me. I've been driving myself nuts thinking about this.

Perhaps you could elucidate the source of all these quotations? They all sound iffy to me.

It isn't that sex and gender are unrelated, the general consensus of the social sciences is that gender is fundamentally a construction or portrayal of "appropriate" sex-linked behavior, disposition, and social status. Gender is, to put it another way, very much about sex. But as a social construct, it is not synonymous with biological sex. Your Y chromosome determines whether or not testes will develop. It does not determine whether you will like sports, excel at math, beat on women, or be naturally proficient at hunting. Those are cultural protrayals of maleness, not inherent qualities of being biologically male and we know this to a certainty partly because perspectives on gender vary by culture, and differ wildly between different cultures.

99% simply isn't correct. Self-declarations of gender aren't necessarily trustworthy where severe persecution meets those who confess to a non-cis gender identity , but in the US where trans identity is becoming more open, the number of openly trans people is rapidly increasingly, hovering somewhere around 4% at present and expected to continue to increase as oppression and violence decrease.

Transgender people generally consider themselves to have been misassigned a gender at birth, not that they are at odds with their genetic sex. Hence why a trans woman would correctly say "I was assigned male at birth", not "I was a male at birth".

Nobody is assigned a gender at birth. A baby's sex is observed and recorded.

Yes, so how can someone say their gender differs from their birth sex? Sex would just be sex. Gender would just be gender. So if someone is born and doctor says, "this is a male" and later on in life they say "I am a trans woman," why do they say they are trans? Sex and gender are supposed to be different. If they are different, how can they be trans? This implies gender and sex are supposed to be the same.

I'm one of the 'transphobic reactionaries' mentioned earlier on in the thread, so keep that in mind with my answer.

I would say the main thing people mean by 'trans' is that their gender identity does not match their sex. But one of the problems here is that people do not define what they mean by 'gender identity' (except circularly), and that even though mammals have only two sexes, 'gender identity' can be anything, because it is a thought in a person's head.

So, sex must be 'male' or 'female', but gender identity can be 'male', 'female', 'non-binary', 'demi-boi', 'faegender', [insert unlimited gender identities]. So, trans people (the ones who admit that there is biological sex), have a sex that is either male or female, and a gender identity that is not the same descriptor.

Now, that's all well and fine, but it seems simply to me that gender identity is a short-hand description of your likes and interests and perceived personality. But what I don't know is why this is then supposed to replace sex where human societies have chosen to treat people differently depending on sex, or how it's even possible to replace a binary variable (sex) with a nebulous, multichotomous variable (gender identity).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Absolutely not. I already stated I don't have a problem with trans people.

No one said you have a problem with trans people.
But you are very sure you know the truth of their claims.

And you claim that anyone using 'trans' already agrees with you.
You're not here to discuss, just to dismiss all who take another view.

 

[Melange_Thief]

But every time you say "trans people" you are admitting that there is a right way to be a man or woman, otherwise why have the label of trans in the first place?

No. At the least, it admits there is a way (typical, popular, traditional, whatever) to determine man/woman, and this individual declines that way.
The fact that they disagree with the (tptw) way means they also disagree that it's the right way. The term acknowledges the disagreeance.

But now we are getting down to definitions. Words mean things. This is why we have definitions:

The definition of man is "adult human male"
The definition of woman is "adult human female."
The definition of trans man is "a man who was assigned female at birth." This makes the technical definition "an adult human male who was assigned female at birth."
The definition of trans woman is "a woman who was assigned male at birth." This makes the technical definition "an adult human female who was assigned male at birth."

Do these definitions make sense to you? They don't to me.

There is no way to define "man" or "woman" that includes trans woman or trans men. Many have tried and end up tying themselves in knots and going in circles. It just can't be done. If a trans woman asked, "Do you consider me a woman?" you guys would say "yes, of course." But then the question becomes, "What do you mean by the word 'woman'?" Likewise, If a trans man asked, "Do you consider me a man?" you guys would say "yes, of course." But then the question becomes, "What do you mean by the word 'man'?"

It is not possible to answer these questions with a definition. Trust me, I've been reading about this for a long time online and also thinking about it in my mind and there is just no way you can do it. However, I am hoping someone can do it for me. There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female."

Please try, guys. I am all ears. This is another very hard part about this. You don't understand how much this is driving me nuts.

Hi Generation55, as someone with overly extensive experience with linguistics, I categorically recommend against founding your argument on the idea that words mean specific things. Language changes constantly to fit the needs of its speakers, and the only reasonable way of determining the meanings of words is to do extensive tests on what native speakers of a language consider comprehensible and incomprehensible uses of words. Additionally, words can easily be rather fuzzy categories.

For instance, "fruits" are often defined as the fleshy parts that plants encase seeds in for various reasons. This is the source of the common claim that tomatoes are a fruit. But if there was a tomato and an apple sitting next to each other, and I asked you to pass me the fruit, you probably wouldn't ask for clarification as to which one to hand me, would you? That's because fruit has multiple, layered definitions! There's a culinary and a botanical definition with a large amount of overlap, such that the full definition of fruit is something like "It's definitely a fruit if it's a seed-bearing fleshy plant part that is sweet or tart in flavor, it's definitely not a fruit if it's not a plant part, and if it's a plant part that only fulfills part of the definition, then what it is depends on if you're cooking with it or doing science to it."

With regards to language change, the word "deer" did not originally refer to a specific animal, but instead referred to any beast. Of course, the beast most commonly discussed is the animal we now call a deer, so the meaning shifted. The reverse of this shift can happen too: "dog" was originally a word for a specific breed of dog, but now of course it is the general word for the animal (while the old general term, "hound" shifted from being general to being specifically dogs used for hunting).

So, you claim "man" means "an adult biologically male human." First, I'd like to note that I, a native English speaker, have knowingly and intentionally used the word "man" in a way that absolutely does not comport with that definition, but which nonetheless was not taken as confusion or deception by other native English speakers: I called one of my late dogs as he got older an "old man". Now, he was adult and biologically male, but he definitely wasn't human, and no one around me ever thought I was claiming him to be a human. I am certain if you had been there, you would not have been surprised or confused by my use of the term either. This is because definitions are not the straightjackets that legal textualists, trans-skeptical folks, and other assorted miscreants would like for them to be.

So, noting that the concept of a hard and fast definition is not really possible, we can instead build a model of the historical usage of the word "man" that has a solid central meaning and fuzzy edges: "Someone who is an adult biologically male human who behaves according to the norms for adult biologically male humans in the local culture is definitely a man, and additionally the word man may be used to refer to someone who fulfills most of those criteria." What trans-inclusive folks would argue is that a more useful definition going forward is something like this: "Someone who is an adult human and behaves according to the norms for adult biologically male humans in the local culture is definitely a man." Now, notice that no one who is definitely considered a man under the old definition is excluded in this one, so no one loses anything from using this as the definition of "man". The only real difference is that trans men definitely qualify under this formulation of the definition. So then, my question to you is, why can't we just use that as the definition of man in our everyday speech?

 

[Metaphor]

So, noting that the concept of a hard and fast definition is not really possible, we can instead build a model of the historical usage of the word "man" that has a solid central meaning and fuzzy edges: "Someone who is an adult biologically male human who behaves according to the norms for adult biologically male humans in the local culture is definitely a man, and additionally the word man may be used to refer to someone who fulfills most of those criteria."

What do you mean by 'most' of the criteria? Is being a human adult male enough for 'most'? Is behaving according to the norms in the local culture 'most', so that butch adult females could qualify as 'a man'?

When you called your dog 'old man', nobody balked at it because they recognise figurative use of language. But you are not claiming trans men should be accepted as men under figurative usage, are you? You think the definition of 'man' should change to include them, aren't you?

What trans-inclusive folks would argue is that a more useful definition going forward is something like this: "Someone who is an adult human and behaves according to the norms for adult biologically male humans in the local culture is definitely a man."

I very much doubt that's what "trans-inclusive" folk want. I would say that "trans-inclusive" folk would say "it doesn't matter what someone behaves like, what matters is how they identify, and how they identify is best determined by what utterances they make about their identity".

Your definition would also include many people who would not want to be called a man (and who currently nobody considers to be men), as men. According to your new definition, butch females who dress in a style typical of males, work in male-dominated fields, and have female partners who bear the children in their family would be men.

Now, notice that no one who is definitely considered a man under the old definition is excluded in this one, so no one loses anything from using this as the definition of "man". The only real difference is that trans men definitely qualify under this formulation of the definition. So then, my question to you is, why can't we just use that as the definition of man in our everyday speech?

That is not the only difference, as I have pointed out.

But your question is shifting the burden of proof. Why should we change what we mean by the word 'man', to exclude some people who were previously included, and include some people who were previously excluded'? I can certainly detail some reasons why that change would be detrimental.

 

[Generation55]

But every time you say "trans people" you are admitting that there is a right way to be a man or woman, otherwise why have the label of trans in the first place?

No. At the least, it admits there is a way (typical, popular, traditional, whatever) to determine man/woman, and this individual declines that way.
The fact that they disagree with the (tptw) way means they also disagree that it's the right way. The term acknowledges the disagreeance.

But now we are getting down to definitions. Words mean things. This is why we have definitions:

The definition of man is "adult human male"
The definition of woman is "adult human female."
The definition of trans man is "a man who was assigned female at birth." This makes the technical definition "an adult human male who was assigned female at birth."
The definition of trans woman is "a woman who was assigned male at birth." This makes the technical definition "an adult human female who was assigned male at birth."

Do these definitions make sense to you? They don't to me.

There is no way to define "man" or "woman" that includes trans woman or trans men. Many have tried and end up tying themselves in knots and going in circles. It just can't be done. If a trans woman asked, "Do you consider me a woman?" you guys would say "yes, of course." But then the question becomes, "What do you mean by the word 'woman'?" Likewise, If a trans man asked, "Do you consider me a man?" you guys would say "yes, of course." But then the question becomes, "What do you mean by the word 'man'?"

It is not possible to answer these questions with a definition. Trust me, I've been reading about this for a long time online and also thinking about it in my mind and there is just no way you can do it. However, I am hoping someone can do it for me. There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female."

Please try, guys. I am all ears. This is another very hard part about this. You don't understand how much this is driving me nuts.

Hi Generation55, as someone with overly extensive experience with linguistics, I categorically recommend against founding your argument on the idea that words mean specific things. Language changes constantly to fit the needs of its speakers, and the only reasonable way of determining the meanings of words is to do extensive tests on what native speakers of a language consider comprehensible and incomprehensible uses of words. Additionally, words can easily be rather fuzzy categories.

For instance, "fruits" are often defined as the fleshy parts that plants encase seeds in for various reasons. This is the source of the common claim that tomatoes are a fruit. But if there was a tomato and an apple sitting next to each other, and I asked you to pass me the fruit, you probably wouldn't ask for clarification as to which one to hand me, would you? That's because fruit has multiple, layered definitions! There's a culinary and a botanical definition with a large amount of overlap, such that the full definition of fruit is something like "It's definitely a fruit if it's a seed-bearing fleshy plant part that is sweet or tart in flavor, it's definitely not a fruit if it's not a plant part, and if it's a plant part that only fulfills part of the definition, then what it is depends on if you're cooking with it or doing science to it."

With regards to language change, the word "deer" did not originally refer to a specific animal, but instead referred to any beast. Of course, the beast most commonly discussed is the animal we now call a deer, so the meaning shifted. The reverse of this shift can happen too: "dog" was originally a word for a specific breed of dog, but now of course it is the general word for the animal (while the old general term, "hound" shifted from being general to being specifically dogs used for hunting).

So, you claim "man" means "an adult biologically male human." First, I'd like to note that I, a native English speaker, have knowingly and intentionally used the word "man" in a way that absolutely does not comport with that definition, but which nonetheless was not taken as confusion or deception by other native English speakers: I called one of my late dogs as he got older an "old man". Now, he was adult and biologically male, but he definitely wasn't human, and no one around me ever thought I was claiming him to be a human. I am certain if you had been there, you would not have been surprised or confused by my use of the term either. This is because definitions are not the straightjackets that legal textualists, trans-skeptical folks, and other assorted miscreants would like for them to be.

So, noting that the concept of a hard and fast definition is not really possible, we can instead build a model of the historical usage of the word "man" that has a solid central meaning and fuzzy edges: "Someone who is an adult biologically male human who behaves according to the norms for adult biologically male humans in the local culture is definitely a man, and additionally the word man may be used to refer to someone who fulfills most of those criteria." What trans-inclusive folks would argue is that a more useful definition going forward is something like this: "Someone who is an adult human and behaves according to the norms for adult biologically male humans in the local culture is definitely a man." Now, notice that no one who is definitely considered a man under the old definition is excluded in this one, so no one loses anything from using this as the definition of "man". The only real difference is that trans men definitely qualify under this formulation of the definition. So then, my question to you is, why can't we just use that as the definition of man in our everyday speech?

Very interesting post. Thank you for that. However, a drag queen does not conform to the norms of biologically male human. Yet, they would still be a man under the "adult human male" category. Under your definition, drag queens would be excluded from being considered men as they dress and conform to the norms of biologically female humans.

You using the term "old man" to refer to your dog matches the definition of "adult male" but not "adult HUMAN male" which is the definition of a man. if you just use the term "adult male" then an adult horse would be a man, an adult sheep would be a man, etc. etc. I don't think this is a good definition. This would get out of control. If I saw an adult horse and said, "Look at that huge man!" people would ask me why I am calling a horse a man.

I appreiciate your effort but as I said, your definition exclues drag queens from being considered men. They wouldn't be happy about this definition of man. You will have to try again. Like I said before, it seems basically impossible to come up with a definition of man and woman that includes trans men and trans women. I do think you made a great effort but it fell just short.

 

[Melange_Thief]

No, words don't mean things.

Got it.

This rather creates a problem for any conversation, much less an internet conversation.

But I have noticed that about your posting on subjects like this one. Words only mean what suits your agenda, nothing more and nothing less.
Tom

Tom, I'm afraid you have more to learn about human language. The fact is, words are an arbitrary sequence of sounds that are arbitrarily assigned to arbitrary categories of meaning - and the assignments are not fixed. They can be analogically extended and they change constantly, and we could never hope to stop them from changing even if we wanted to. (Actually, let me take that a step farther: We humans could not prevent language from changing even if it was somehow the only way to avoid the destruction of all life on Earth, so you best hope our survival never becomes dependent on that!) Words mean what a community of speakers can understand them to mean, and since humans are generally regarded as mildly clever for an animal, we're capable of understanding many ways of using the same words.

Now, this shouldn't make you go all nihilist on the concept of language. People have successfully used it for, estimating conservatively, tens of thousands of years (probably closer to hundreds of thousands of years, possibly even a couple million years - unfortunately words don't fossilize well, so the best we can say is that language evolved sometime after the chimp-human split but before the invention of agriculture), so I think it's safe to say the system works quite well, thank you. And it even works well enough that linguists can use empirical tools to make accurate characterizations about how speech communities use language. But it's simply too flexible of a system to act as though there is some Platonic ideal definition for each word that we channel every time we use it.