Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

[Gun Nut]

When I was born, back in the 70's, the three letter word that appeared on all government documents at the time that referred to one's manner in which they potentially could contribute to the biological process of reproduction, was spelled "S.E.X.". Words, terms, sensibilities, and such evolve over time.... one's biological contribution to a potential reproductive process is only just now beginning to be questioned as a form of identity. Back then, sex and gender meant the same thing, because it wasn't a topic of conversation. You group the people that biologically carry the baby separately from those that biologically contribute the other half of that equation.
So, separating identity (gender) from sexual preference (sex) is one thing... what word would you like people to use to refer to their contribution to the reproductive process? biological sex? biological gender? I know at least 2 people that STRONGLY suggest that the biological contribution part is not allowed to be part of the discussion... you know, that thing that, up until very recently, was the ONLY metric to sex/gender/all the same thing.
So... what is that called and how possibly can the biology of an organic system not be applicable to the mind that forms from the brain it grows? hormones, etc... that it is certainly the case that there is a STRONG correlation between the biological contribution to the biological reproductive process and sexual identity and sexual orientation... like what, 96% corelated (cis gendered humans versus all others)?
So.. maybe cut a fucking break.
I don't know who I am actually talking to anymore...

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Another question for readers interested in a serious discussion. Suppose I say "the US already had women presidents, because D. Trump, G.W. Bush, B. Obama and J. Biden are all women."

Is there an objective fact of the matter as to whether my assertion is true?

I'm not asking whether my assertion is disrespectful, a denial or people's identities, evil, worthy of infinite torment in Hell, etc. Those are not my questions. I'm asking whether there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether my assertion is true.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

When I was born, back in the 70's, the three letter word that appeared on all government documents at the time that referred to one's manner in which they potentially could contribute to the biological process of reproduction, was spelled "S.E.X.". Words, terms, sensibilities, and such evolve over time.... one's biological contribution to a potential reproductive process is only just now beginning to be questioned as a form of identity. Back then, sex and gender meant the same thing, because it wasn't a topic of conversation. You group the people that biologically carry the baby separately from those that biologically contribute the other half of that equation.

Okay, maybe there is something we can talk. At least I will try. Would you agree that speaking in 1970s American English, the statement 'Elliot Page is a man' is false, and the statement 'Elliot Page is a woman' is true? I am making those statements in 1970s American English (any dialect of your choosing...or do you think it depends on dialect?).

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I do not care that you do that. It's the Woke attack on those who do not agree with trans claims that worries me - among other things, but not what you choose to call yourself.

I have no association whatsoever with "woke" philosophy. While I am helping to work toward a more just society on several fronts, including the exhausting work of trying to unify several incredibly complicated communities, "woke" philosophy is what got some of us into our current mess, to begin with. It's not that we don't want to fix things, but this "woke" shit isn't working. It ended up endangering people's lives. It is a very dangerous method of trying to engage these kinds of problems.

Either you wish to be respectful toward me, or you do not. I cannot force you to have respect toward me or to like me.

However, I will be damned if I will go around in circles with you trading semantic drivel.

I will call myself a woman, and so will my friends, my husband, my coworkers, and my closest allies in a variety of causes, some of which you have probably never heard of.

I barely care if you do or not. I barely know you. You have no standing with me. All I really know about you, so far, is that you have attempted to bait me into a semantic debate that has "bad faith debate" written all over it.

If you could find common ground with me on something else, then I might take you more seriously.

 

[Politesse]

There is not. This is a question of social terminology which is currently in dispute within our culture, as well as an issue in which the personal feelings of those involved are and must be considered. There is no such thing as an 'objective position" on it.

Would you say there is also not a fact of the matter as to whether you are a Presbyterian?

You mean without asking me? No, I wouldn't say there was any way to objectively tell a Presbyterian from a non-Presbyterian without asking them. Ultimately, you must be the judge of the social labels you do or do not accept, or at least, your testimony is one of the data points that should always be considered as part of the whole.

Is your position that there is no objective fact of the matter as to whether a statement like "Mrs. Philpott has a daughter in 1992" (and yes, that Mrs. Philpott, the mother of Elliot Page), in 1992 American English, is true?

May we switch this to a pure hypothetical, please? I'm not comfortable discussing a real human being like they are an inanimate test subject in a philosophy lab.

That isn't really the same statement. "A woman had a daughter in 1996" could be taken in a lot of ways, some of which could be objectively verified.

If the question, the real statement in dispute, is "This individual was a girl in 1996", that's not really something anyone could verify "objectively". By definition, it's an issue that a lot of people might disagree on, and while there are various objective facts involved, even if we had access to all of those facts. You could show me a birth certificate with a gender assignment (an objectively real document), and I would not accept that as proof that your position is objectively true. I could show you medical results from a test that year showing that he had elevated testosterone and male-linked cognitive patterns from birth onward (an objectively real test result), and you would not concede that the contrary position is objectively true. Because it is a matter of opinion, not fact, that a social category should extend only to this group of people, but not that group of people. Just because you believe something very, very strongly does not make it objectively true. Objective facts, by definition, are those which can be reasonably demonstrated and agreed upon regardless of anyone's personal bias.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I do not care that you do that. It's the Woke attack on those who do not agree with trans claims that worries me - among other things, but not what you choose to call yourself.

I have no association whatsoever with "woke" philosophy. While I am helping to work toward a more just society on several fronts, including the exhausting work of trying to unify several incredibly complicated communities, "woke" philosophy is what got some of us into our current mess, to begin with. It's not that we don't want to fix things, but this "woke" shit isn't working. It ended up endangering people's lives. It is a very dangerous method of trying to engage these kinds of problems.

Either you wish to be respectful toward me, or you do not. I cannot force you to have respect toward me or to like me.

However, I will be damned if I will go around in circles with you trading semantic drivel.

I will call myself a woman, and so will my friends, my husband, my coworkers, and my closest allies in a variety of causes, some of which you have probably never heard of.

I barely care if you do or not. I barely know you. You have no standing with me. All I really know about you, so far, is that you have attempted to bait me into a semantic debate that has "bad faith debate" written all over it.

If you could find common ground with me on something else, then I might take you more seriously.

I see, so you insist on attacking me and not debating.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You mean without asking me? No, I wouldn't say there was any way to objectively tell a Presbyterian from a non-Presbyterian without asking them. Ultimately, you must be the judge of the social labels you do or do not accept, or at least, your testimony is one of the data points that should always be considered as part of the whole.

Of course without asking you!

And you misunderstand the question. I am not asking whether, without asking you, I would have a way of telling whether you are a Presbyterian. I am asking you whether there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether you are a Presbyterian. And yes, your testimony when available is one of the pieces of evidence to take into consideration. But whether there is an objective fact of the matter (there is) does not depend on whether you give testimony. You are mixing epistemology and ontology. To give you an example: there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Julius Caesar ate eggs on 12-12-47 BCE, even if we have no way of telling which one it is.

May we switch this to a pure hypothetical, please? I'm not comfortable discussing a real human being like they are an inanimate test subject in a philosophy lab.

First, I am not treating a human being like an inanimate test subject in a sense that would make it wrong. It would be wrong to do so if someone were not to consider the potential consequences for that person (e.g., experimenting on them), etc. I am not doing that. I have no obligation not to talk about Elliot Page.

Second, it is difficult to do without actual examples, as I need to fix the referent. But I will try. Here goes:

Suppose a human - say, Alex - identifies as a man. Alex is 25, has a vagina, uterus, ovaries, etc., no penis, balls, etc. Alex has a mind that is like that typical of human females in the following respects.

1. Alex has experienced having a vagina all her life. Alex experienced puberty, a period, etc. And has the mind that has formed as a result.
2. Alex still experiences having a vagina, a period, etc.
3. Alex has preferences involving her vagina.
4. Alex has no experiences whatsoever involving a penis. Or testicles. Etc.


Alex also has ave some typical male-like mental properties too. For example, let us say Alex is generally attracted to humans with vaginas, breasts, female secondary sexual traits, etc., not with penises, testicles, etc.

Then let me ask you.

a. In 1972 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
b. In 1992 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
c. In 2021 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?

That isn't really the same statement. "A woman had a daughter in 1996" could be taken in a lot of ways, some of which could be objectively verified.

There was not a single statement, but some alternatives. Since you did not give a straight answer, I tried a slight variant. And it's not "A woman". I identified her accurately. I also identified accurately who the daughter/not a daughter was. Also, it is not about verifying anything. But regardless, I just switched to a purely hypothetical, at you wanted.

If the question, the real statement in dispute, is "This individual was a girl in 1996", that's not really something anyone could verify "objectively".

The statement in dispute was whether this individual was a girl in the 1996-meaning of the word 'girl'. And it is not about whether anyone can verify it - that is a different matter.
But I just went with the pure hypothetical, so let us see how you respond.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I do not care that you do that. It's the Woke attack on those who do not agree with trans claims that worries me - among other things, but not what you choose to call yourself.

I have no association whatsoever with "woke" philosophy. While I am helping to work toward a more just society on several fronts, including the exhausting work of trying to unify several incredibly complicated communities, "woke" philosophy is what got some of us into our current mess, to begin with. It's not that we don't want to fix things, but this "woke" shit isn't working. It ended up endangering people's lives. It is a very dangerous method of trying to engage these kinds of problems.

Either you wish to be respectful toward me, or you do not. I cannot force you to have respect toward me or to like me.

However, I will be damned if I will go around in circles with you trading semantic drivel.

I will call myself a woman, and so will my friends, my husband, my coworkers, and my closest allies in a variety of causes, some of which you have probably never heard of.

I barely care if you do or not. I barely know you. You have no standing with me. All I really know about you, so far, is that you have attempted to bait me into a semantic debate that has "bad faith debate" written all over it.

If you could find common ground with me on something else, then I might take you more seriously.

I see, so you insist on attacking me and not debating.

You are not entitled for me to want to debate with you. I will chime in whenever it suits me to do so, and I will do so on my own terms.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I do not care that you do that. It's the Woke attack on those who do not agree with trans claims that worries me - among other things, but not what you choose to call yourself.

I have no association whatsoever with "woke" philosophy. While I am helping to work toward a more just society on several fronts, including the exhausting work of trying to unify several incredibly complicated communities, "woke" philosophy is what got some of us into our current mess, to begin with. It's not that we don't want to fix things, but this "woke" shit isn't working. It ended up endangering people's lives. It is a very dangerous method of trying to engage these kinds of problems.

Either you wish to be respectful toward me, or you do not. I cannot force you to have respect toward me or to like me.

However, I will be damned if I will go around in circles with you trading semantic drivel.

I will call myself a woman, and so will my friends, my husband, my coworkers, and my closest allies in a variety of causes, some of which you have probably never heard of.

I barely care if you do or not. I barely know you. You have no standing with me. All I really know about you, so far, is that you have attempted to bait me into a semantic debate that has "bad faith debate" written all over it.

If you could find common ground with me on something else, then I might take you more seriously.

I see, so you insist on attacking me and not debating.

You are not entitled for me to want to debate with you. I will chime in whenever it suits me to do so, and I will do so on my own terms.

Of course, and as you have shown, you attack me without any good reasons, while ignoring my arguments - while sometimes making dismissive false and unwarranted claims about them -, when it suits you to do so.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

You mean without asking me? No, I wouldn't say there was any way to objectively tell a Presbyterian from a non-Presbyterian without asking them. Ultimately, you must be the judge of the social labels you do or do not accept, or at least, your testimony is one of the data points that should always be considered as part of the whole.

Of course without asking you!

And you misunderstand the question. I am not asking whether, without asking you, I would have a way of telling whether you are a Presbyterian. I am asking you whether there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether you are a Presbyterian. And yes, your testimony when available is one of the pieces of evidence to take into consideration. But whether there is an objective fact of the matter (there is) does not depend on whether you give testimony. You are mixing epistemology and ontology. To give you an example: there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Julius Caesar ate eggs on 12-12-47 BCE, even if we have no way of telling which one it is.

May we switch this to a pure hypothetical, please? I'm not comfortable discussing a real human being like they are an inanimate test subject in a philosophy lab.

First, I am not treating a human being like an inanimate test subject in a sense that would make it wrong. It would be wrong to do so if someone were not to consider the potential consequences for that person (e.g., experimenting on them), etc. I am not doing that. I have no obligation not to talk about Elliot Page.

Second, it is difficult to do without actual examples, as I need to fix the referent. But I will try. Here goes:

Suppose a human - say, Alex - identifies as a man. Alex is 25, has a vagina, uterus, ovaries, etc., no penis, balls, etc. Alex has a mind that is like that typical of human females in the following respects.

1. Alex has experienced having a vagina all her life. Alex experienced puberty, a period, etc. And has the mind that has formed as a result.
2. Alex still experiences having a vagina, a period, etc.
3. Alex has preferences involving her vagina.
4. Alex has no experiences whatsoever involving a penis. Or testicles. Etc.


Alex also has ave some typical male-like mental properties too. For example, let us say Alex is generally attracted to humans with vaginas, breasts, female secondary sexual traits, etc., not with penises, testicles, etc.

Then let me ask you.

a. In 1972 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
b. In 1992 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
c. In 2021 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?

That isn't really the same statement. "A woman had a daughter in 1996" could be taken in a lot of ways, some of which could be objectively verified.

There was not a single statement, but some alternatives. Since you did not give a straight answer, I tried a slight variant. And it's not "A woman". I identified her accurately. I also identified accurately who the daughter/not a daughter was. Also, it is not about verifying anything. But regardless, I just switched to a purely hypothetical, at you wanted.

If the question, the real statement in dispute, is "This individual was a girl in 1996", that's not really something anyone could verify "objectively".

The statement in dispute was whether this individual was a girl in the 1996-meaning of the word 'girl'. And it is not about whether anyone can verify it - that is a different matter.
But I just went with the pure hypothetical, so let us see how you respond.

Alex is precisely a transgender man.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You mean without asking me? No, I wouldn't say there was any way to objectively tell a Presbyterian from a non-Presbyterian without asking them. Ultimately, you must be the judge of the social labels you do or do not accept, or at least, your testimony is one of the data points that should always be considered as part of the whole.

Of course without asking you!

And you misunderstand the question. I am not asking whether, without asking you, I would have a way of telling whether you are a Presbyterian. I am asking you whether there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether you are a Presbyterian. And yes, your testimony when available is one of the pieces of evidence to take into consideration. But whether there is an objective fact of the matter (there is) does not depend on whether you give testimony. You are mixing epistemology and ontology. To give you an example: there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Julius Caesar ate eggs on 12-12-47 BCE, even if we have no way of telling which one it is.

May we switch this to a pure hypothetical, please? I'm not comfortable discussing a real human being like they are an inanimate test subject in a philosophy lab.

First, I am not treating a human being like an inanimate test subject in a sense that would make it wrong. It would be wrong to do so if someone were not to consider the potential consequences for that person (e.g., experimenting on them), etc. I am not doing that. I have no obligation not to talk about Elliot Page.

Second, it is difficult to do without actual examples, as I need to fix the referent. But I will try. Here goes:

Suppose a human - say, Alex - identifies as a man. Alex is 25, has a vagina, uterus, ovaries, etc., no penis, balls, etc. Alex has a mind that is like that typical of human females in the following respects.

1. Alex has experienced having a vagina all her life. Alex experienced puberty, a period, etc. And has the mind that has formed as a result.
2. Alex still experiences having a vagina, a period, etc.
3. Alex has preferences involving her vagina.
4. Alex has no experiences whatsoever involving a penis. Or testicles. Etc.


Alex also has ave some typical male-like mental properties too. For example, let us say Alex is generally attracted to humans with vaginas, breasts, female secondary sexual traits, etc., not with penises, testicles, etc.

Then let me ask you.

a. In 1972 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
b. In 1992 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
c. In 2021 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?

That isn't really the same statement. "A woman had a daughter in 1996" could be taken in a lot of ways, some of which could be objectively verified.

There was not a single statement, but some alternatives. Since you did not give a straight answer, I tried a slight variant. And it's not "A woman". I identified her accurately. I also identified accurately who the daughter/not a daughter was. Also, it is not about verifying anything. But regardless, I just switched to a purely hypothetical, at you wanted.

If the question, the real statement in dispute, is "This individual was a girl in 1996", that's not really something anyone could verify "objectively".

The statement in dispute was whether this individual was a girl in the 1996-meaning of the word 'girl'. And it is not about whether anyone can verify it - that is a different matter.
But I just went with the pure hypothetical, so let us see how you respond.

Alex is precisely a transgender man.

Do you mean only in 2021 English? Or do you mean also in 1972 and 1992?

Also, in your sentence, does "transgender" modify "man" (so, we are talking about a kind of man), or is "transgender man" a compound term, like "clouded leopard" (which is not a kind of leopard), "maned wolf" (not a wolf), "mountain lion" (not a lion), etc.?

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I do not care that you do that. It's the Woke attack on those who do not agree with trans claims that worries me - among other things, but not what you choose to call yourself.

I have no association whatsoever with "woke" philosophy. While I am helping to work toward a more just society on several fronts, including the exhausting work of trying to unify several incredibly complicated communities, "woke" philosophy is what got some of us into our current mess, to begin with. It's not that we don't want to fix things, but this "woke" shit isn't working. It ended up endangering people's lives. It is a very dangerous method of trying to engage these kinds of problems.

Either you wish to be respectful toward me, or you do not. I cannot force you to have respect toward me or to like me.

However, I will be damned if I will go around in circles with you trading semantic drivel.

I will call myself a woman, and so will my friends, my husband, my coworkers, and my closest allies in a variety of causes, some of which you have probably never heard of.

I barely care if you do or not. I barely know you. You have no standing with me. All I really know about you, so far, is that you have attempted to bait me into a semantic debate that has "bad faith debate" written all over it.

If you could find common ground with me on something else, then I might take you more seriously.

I see, so you insist on attacking me and not debating.

You are not entitled for me to want to debate with you. I will chime in whenever it suits me to do so, and I will do so on my own terms.

Of course, and as you have shown, you attack me without any good reasons, while ignoring my arguments - while sometimes making dismissive false and unwarranted claims about them -, when it suits you to do so.

You are looking for a robot that plays "the debate game" according to your jerry-rigged rules whenever you push the button to start it.

I am a funny and unpredictable person that might actually make your life interesting and expand your horizons!

 

[SigmatheZeta]

You mean without asking me? No, I wouldn't say there was any way to objectively tell a Presbyterian from a non-Presbyterian without asking them. Ultimately, you must be the judge of the social labels you do or do not accept, or at least, your testimony is one of the data points that should always be considered as part of the whole.

Of course without asking you!

And you misunderstand the question. I am not asking whether, without asking you, I would have a way of telling whether you are a Presbyterian. I am asking you whether there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether you are a Presbyterian. And yes, your testimony when available is one of the pieces of evidence to take into consideration. But whether there is an objective fact of the matter (there is) does not depend on whether you give testimony. You are mixing epistemology and ontology. To give you an example: there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Julius Caesar ate eggs on 12-12-47 BCE, even if we have no way of telling which one it is.

May we switch this to a pure hypothetical, please? I'm not comfortable discussing a real human being like they are an inanimate test subject in a philosophy lab.

First, I am not treating a human being like an inanimate test subject in a sense that would make it wrong. It would be wrong to do so if someone were not to consider the potential consequences for that person (e.g., experimenting on them), etc. I am not doing that. I have no obligation not to talk about Elliot Page.

Second, it is difficult to do without actual examples, as I need to fix the referent. But I will try. Here goes:

Suppose a human - say, Alex - identifies as a man. Alex is 25, has a vagina, uterus, ovaries, etc., no penis, balls, etc. Alex has a mind that is like that typical of human females in the following respects.

1. Alex has experienced having a vagina all her life. Alex experienced puberty, a period, etc. And has the mind that has formed as a result.
2. Alex still experiences having a vagina, a period, etc.
3. Alex has preferences involving her vagina.
4. Alex has no experiences whatsoever involving a penis. Or testicles. Etc.


Alex also has ave some typical male-like mental properties too. For example, let us say Alex is generally attracted to humans with vaginas, breasts, female secondary sexual traits, etc., not with penises, testicles, etc.

Then let me ask you.

a. In 1972 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
b. In 1992 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
c. In 2021 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?

That isn't really the same statement. "A woman had a daughter in 1996" could be taken in a lot of ways, some of which could be objectively verified.

There was not a single statement, but some alternatives. Since you did not give a straight answer, I tried a slight variant. And it's not "A woman". I identified her accurately. I also identified accurately who the daughter/not a daughter was. Also, it is not about verifying anything. But regardless, I just switched to a purely hypothetical, at you wanted.

If the question, the real statement in dispute, is "This individual was a girl in 1996", that's not really something anyone could verify "objectively".

The statement in dispute was whether this individual was a girl in the 1996-meaning of the word 'girl'. And it is not about whether anyone can verify it - that is a different matter.
But I just went with the pure hypothetical, so let us see how you respond.

Alex is precisely a transgender man.

Do you mean only in 2021 English? Or do you mean also in 1972 and 1992?

Also, in your sentence, does "transgender" modify "man" (so, we are talking about a kind of man), or is "transgender man" a compound term, like "clouded leopard" (which is not a kind of leopard), "maned wolf" (not a wolf), "mountain lion" (not a lion), etc.?

To my understanding, transgender men almost invariably have XX chromosomes, and some but not all of them desire to possess a penis. Nevertheless, they prefer to be referred to as men, and they may generally be expected to present themselves as what is considered to be masculine in their culture. In progressive cultures, it is considered to be polite to refer to them as men and to use the masculine pronoun when you are talking about them.

The current position of the American Academy of Pediatrics is that transgender children are substantially more likely to survive until adulthood if their parents support them by affirming their stated gender. If their parents do not affirm them, then their attempted suicide rate is about 60% for all transgender children (higher for transgender boys), but if their parents do affirm them, then their attempted suicide rate falls to a still scary but substantially more tolerable rate of 4%. Furthermore, every additional person in their lives that chooses to affirm them seems to increase their odds of surviving until adulthood.

I am going to assume that you agree with the objective of helping children, transgender or not, survive until adulthood. I do not believe that this is an unreasonable thing to assume about you, although I will acknowledge that I might be mistaken in this assumption. Just let me know.

In that case, it is correct to call Alex, assuming that Alex is a child, a transgender boy, which implies the information that I have furnished above. I also assume that you agree with the objective of helping Alex survive until adulthood. In that case, it is also pragmatically correct for you to merely refer to Alex as a boy in almost all social contexts. When it were taken into account the pragmatic structure of this situation (pragmatics is a part of semiotic theory), the reason why you were calling Alex a boy could be deciphered by anybody that was also familiar with the fact that Alex was a transgender boy. Nobody that was familiar with the situation would assume that you believed that Alex had a penis or X/y chromosomes. They would just assume that you were a good person.

In my case, I am a 38 year old transgender woman, and I barely care a rodent's rectum about the opinion of somebody that I barely know. That is an attitude that I have learned with maturity.

A child, on the other hand, is immature by literal definition. It might be childish for them to attempt to kill themselves over misgendering, but...children are supposed to be childish. We also do not let them have sex with adults, even if they want to. They have different needs from those of adults.

Ergo, you need merely add the qualifier that Alex is a transgender boy. This would clarify your knowledge of the situation. Most people would know what you meant. Everybody that understood the situation would agree with the fact that you called Alex a boy.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I do not care that you do that. It's the Woke attack on those who do not agree with trans claims that worries me - among other things, but not what you choose to call yourself.

I have no association whatsoever with "woke" philosophy. While I am helping to work toward a more just society on several fronts, including the exhausting work of trying to unify several incredibly complicated communities, "woke" philosophy is what got some of us into our current mess, to begin with. It's not that we don't want to fix things, but this "woke" shit isn't working. It ended up endangering people's lives. It is a very dangerous method of trying to engage these kinds of problems.

Either you wish to be respectful toward me, or you do not. I cannot force you to have respect toward me or to like me.

However, I will be damned if I will go around in circles with you trading semantic drivel.

I will call myself a woman, and so will my friends, my husband, my coworkers, and my closest allies in a variety of causes, some of which you have probably never heard of.

I barely care if you do or not. I barely know you. You have no standing with me. All I really know about you, so far, is that you have attempted to bait me into a semantic debate that has "bad faith debate" written all over it.

If you could find common ground with me on something else, then I might take you more seriously.

I see, so you insist on attacking me and not debating.

You are not entitled for me to want to debate with you. I will chime in whenever it suits me to do so, and I will do so on my own terms.

Of course, and as you have shown, you attack me without any good reasons, while ignoring my arguments - while sometimes making dismissive false and unwarranted claims about them -, when it suits you to do so.

You are looking for a robot that plays "the debate game" according to your jerry-rigged rules whenever you push the button to start it.

I am a funny and unpredictable person that might actually make your life interesting and expand your horizons!

I am looking for people who either will discuss/debate in a civil manner, or at least will refrain from content-free attacks against me (or worse, misconstrue my posts).

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I do not care that you do that. It's the Woke attack on those who do not agree with trans claims that worries me - among other things, but not what you choose to call yourself.

I have no association whatsoever with "woke" philosophy. While I am helping to work toward a more just society on several fronts, including the exhausting work of trying to unify several incredibly complicated communities, "woke" philosophy is what got some of us into our current mess, to begin with. It's not that we don't want to fix things, but this "woke" shit isn't working. It ended up endangering people's lives. It is a very dangerous method of trying to engage these kinds of problems.

Either you wish to be respectful toward me, or you do not. I cannot force you to have respect toward me or to like me.

However, I will be damned if I will go around in circles with you trading semantic drivel.

I will call myself a woman, and so will my friends, my husband, my coworkers, and my closest allies in a variety of causes, some of which you have probably never heard of.

I barely care if you do or not. I barely know you. You have no standing with me. All I really know about you, so far, is that you have attempted to bait me into a semantic debate that has "bad faith debate" written all over it.

If you could find common ground with me on something else, then I might take you more seriously.

I see, so you insist on attacking me and not debating.

You are not entitled for me to want to debate with you. I will chime in whenever it suits me to do so, and I will do so on my own terms.

Of course, and as you have shown, you attack me without any good reasons, while ignoring my arguments - while sometimes making dismissive false and unwarranted claims about them -, when it suits you to do so.

You are looking for a robot that plays "the debate game" according to your jerry-rigged rules whenever you push the button to start it.

I am a funny and unpredictable person that might actually make your life interesting and expand your horizons!

I am looking for people who either will discuss/debate in a civil manner, or at least will refrain from content-free attacks against me (or worse, misconstrue my posts).

Done.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

To my understanding, transgender men almost invariably have XX chromosomes, and some but not all of them desire to possess a penis. Nevertheless, they prefer to be referred to as men, and they may generally be expected to present themselves as what is considered to be masculine in their culture. In progressive cultures, it is considered to be polite to refer to them as men and to use the masculine pronoun when you are talking about them.

That is not what I was asking. What I want to know is whether Politesse (and now you) think that they are men, women, neither, etc. (see the questions for details), in 1972, 1992, and 2021 American English.

The current position of the American Academy of Pediatrics is that transgender children are substantially more likely to survive until adulthood if their parents support them by affirming their stated gender.

What does "affirming their stated gender" mean? Does it mean affirming that one agrees with claims like 'I am a girl', or 'I am a boy'?

If so, then those expressions have some meaning, in English, so here a question is: are they true?

And to address that question and make my case, I asked a few questions to Politesse - and to you now since you replied as well.

I am going to assume that you agree with the objective of helping children, transgender or not, survive until adulthood. I do not believe that this is an unreasonable thing to assume about you, although I will acknowledge that I might be mistaken in this assumption. Just let me know.

Generally, I think that helping children survive into adulthood for the sake of them is a good thing, all other things equal. In some cases (e.g., parents) it is also a moral obligation (as always, all other things equal).

In that case, it is correct to call Alex a transgender man, which implies the information that I have furnished above.

No, that does not follow:

First, I am not Alex's parent.

Second, Alex is not a child. Assuming Alex exists, Alex is an adult.

Third, Alex does not exist.

Fourth, imagine that there is good evidence that when children say they have immortal souls and will live forever, these children are substantially more likely to survive into adulthood if parents - new adoptive ones if all parents died - affirmed their claims. That would provide a good reason - as always, all other things equal (AOTE), etc. - for parents to lie to their children. It would not provide a good reason for those parents to believe that the claims are true, or to attack others who don't agree with their religion. Similarly, imagine that there is good evidence that children who lost one of their parents - or both - are substantially more likely to survive into adulthood if the surviving parent - or adoptive parents depending on the case - were to affirm their claims. Again that would give a good reason for those parents - AOTE - to lie to those children, not to believe the claims or to attack other adults for saying there is no afterlife, or things like that.

I also assume that you agree with the objective of helping Alex survive until adulthood.

Given that Alex does not exist, no.
Assuming Alex existed in our universe, then given that Alex is an adult, no, as the objective would make no sense: Alex has already survided into adulthood. Remember, Alex is 25.

In that case, it is also pragmatically correct for you to merely refer to Alex as a boy in almost all social contexts.

No, that does not follow (see above).

Nobody that was familiar with the situation would assume that you believed that Alex had a penis or X/y chromosomes. They would just assume that you were a good person.

The question is not whether Alex has a penis or XY chromosomes, but rather the questions I asked, and which you keep not addressing.

In my case, I am a 38 year old transgender woman, and I barely care a rodent's rectum about the opinion of somebody that I barely know. That is an attitude that I have learned with maturity.

In my case, I have zero interest in discussing your particular case, or that of anyone in the thread (no offense, but I really do not want to talk about you in particular, or about anyone in this thread in particular). I want do discuss transgender claims in general, using any examples at hand - except precisely those of forum members, due to the very obscure rule against "misgendering", which no one has clarified for me.

A child, on the other hand, is immature by literal definition. It might be childish for them to attempt to kill themselves over misgendering, but...children are supposed to be childish.

And again, what is "misgendering"?

We also do not let them have sex with adults, even if they want to. They have different needs from those of adults.

Fortunately, Alex is not a child. Alex is an adult that does not exist in reality. And I am not Alex's parent - well, I am Alex's creator I guess, but that's only a metaphorical parent.

Ergo, you need merely add the qualifier that Alex is a transgender boy. This would clarify your knowledge of the situation. Most people would know what you meant.

If "transgender" modifies "boy", then Alex is not a transgender boy, since Alex is an adult. Remember, Alex is 25. I am asking whether you think:


a. In 1972 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
b. In 1992 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
c. In 2021 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?


If "transgender boy" is some compound term and not a kind of boy, then I have no idea what "transgender boy" means (unless perhaps it means some other sort of non-adult, in which case, Alex is still not that, as Alex is an adult).

 

[laughing dog]

Another question for readers interested in a serious discussion. Suppose I say "the US already had women presidents, because D. Trump, G.W. Bush, B. Obama and J. Biden are all women."

Is there an objective fact of the matter as to whether my assertion is true?

Yes.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Another question for readers interested in a serious discussion. Suppose I say "the US already had women presidents, because D. Trump, G.W. Bush, B. Obama and J. Biden are all women."

Is there an objective fact of the matter as to whether my assertion is true?

Yes.

Thank you. So, the word "woman" ascribes some properties to an entity, in general, and this is independent of what the person in question thinks. My aim is to discuss what properties those are.

Suppose hypothetically that those people actually have some typical female-like mental properties, like - say - preferring to play with dolls over trucks, things like that. They also have penises, testicles, no vagina, uterus, or ovaries, and also typical male-like mental properties: they experience having a penis, they have a mind that formed experiencing that for decades, and no experience of having a vagina, etc. Would you say that under that hypothesis, my claim is true in 2021 American English? What about 1992, and 1972?

ETA: I seriously dislike the new forum software.

 

[laughing dog]

Another question for readers interested in a serious discussion. Suppose I say "the US already had women presidents, because D. Trump, G.W. Bush, B. Obama and J. Biden are all women."

Is there an objective fact of the matter as to whether my assertion is true?

Yes.

Thank you. So, the word "woman" ascribes some properties to an entity, in general, and this is independent of what the person in question thinks. My aim is to discuss what properties those are.

Suppose hypothetically that those people actually have some typical female-like mental properties, like - say - preferring to play with dolls over trucks, things like that. They also have penises, testicles, no vagina, uterus, or ovaries, and also typical male-like mental properties: they experience having a penis, they have a mind that formed experiencing that for decades, and no experience of having a vagina, etc. Would you say that under that hypothesis, my claim is true in 2021 American English? What about 1992, and 1972?

No.

ETA: I seriously dislike the new forum software.

 

[Politesse]

You mean without asking me? No, I wouldn't say there was any way to objectively tell a Presbyterian from a non-Presbyterian without asking them. Ultimately, you must be the judge of the social labels you do or do not accept, or at least, your testimony is one of the data points that should always be considered as part of the whole.

Of course without asking you!

And you misunderstand the question. I am not asking whether, without asking you, I would have a way of telling whether you are a Presbyterian. I am asking you whether there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether you are a Presbyterian. And yes, your testimony when available is one of the pieces of evidence to take into consideration. But whether there is an objective fact of the matter (there is) does not depend on whether you give testimony. You are mixing epistemology and ontology. To give you an example: there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Julius Caesar ate eggs on 12-12-47 BCE, even if we have no way of telling which one it is.

May we switch this to a pure hypothetical, please? I'm not comfortable discussing a real human being like they are an inanimate test subject in a philosophy lab.

First, I am not treating a human being like an inanimate test subject in a sense that would make it wrong. It would be wrong to do so if someone were not to consider the potential consequences for that person (e.g., experimenting on them), etc. I am not doing that. I have no obligation not to talk about Elliot Page.

Second, it is difficult to do without actual examples, as I need to fix the referent. But I will try. Here goes:

Suppose a human - say, Alex - identifies as a man. Alex is 25, has a vagina, uterus, ovaries, etc., no penis, balls, etc. Alex has a mind that is like that typical of human females in the following respects.

1. Alex has experienced having a vagina all her life. Alex experienced puberty, a period, etc. And has the mind that has formed as a result.
2. Alex still experiences having a vagina, a period, etc.
3. Alex has preferences involving her vagina.
4. Alex has no experiences whatsoever involving a penis. Or testicles. Etc.


Alex also has ave some typical male-like mental properties too. For example, let us say Alex is generally attracted to humans with vaginas, breasts, female secondary sexual traits, etc., not with penises, testicles, etc.

Then let me ask you.

a. In 1972 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
b. In 1992 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
c. In 2021 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?

That isn't really the same statement. "A woman had a daughter in 1996" could be taken in a lot of ways, some of which could be objectively verified.

There was not a single statement, but some alternatives. Since you did not give a straight answer, I tried a slight variant. And it's not "A woman". I identified her accurately. I also identified accurately who the daughter/not a daughter was. Also, it is not about verifying anything. But regardless, I just switched to a purely hypothetical, at you wanted.

If the question, the real statement in dispute, is "This individual was a girl in 1996", that's not really something anyone could verify "objectively".

The statement in dispute was whether this individual was a girl in the 1996-meaning of the word 'girl'. And it is not about whether anyone can verify it - that is a different matter.
But I just went with the pure hypothetical, so let us see how you respond.

I am a scientist to the core, and generally prefer well-considered epistemology as the best path to an ontological conclusion, as opposed to groundless bluster and conjecture. This is unlikely to change. I don't believe there is some sacred inviolable Truth to human-produced categorizations like gender status or religious factions, no. Science can uncover facts, it can rule out non-facts. It can't tell you what a person should be, or what they should be allowed to call themselves. And only asshole humans do that kind of nonsense to each other.