Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

[SigmatheZeta]

In fact, I sometimes use "they" even if I do know somebody's gender identity. I honestly might into the habit of using it with everybody.

And you would not consider that misgendering them?

Literally nobody notices, which is fine.

 

[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?

No.

ETA: I seriously dislike the new forum software.

Great, so none of them would be a woman. Can you point to any property of transwomen who would make them women, but not any of the people I mentioned in the scenario as given?

 

[SigmatheZeta]

The notion that a pronoun necessarily refers to the sex of a person instead of the gender is false.

But I am to accept without question that pronouns refer to gender identity and not sex, that I am mistaken about historical usage, that indeed I am mistaken about current usage among my friends and family? That my siblings chose pronouns (and names) for their children based on their children's 'gender identity' (or assumed gender identity) when they very clearly chose them based on sex?

A pronoun can refer to gender or to sex. It really is that simple despite yiur effirts to make it difficult.

I am sticking with the theory that someone on social media pissed him off, at some point.

The toxic callout culture has made life very difficult for us transgender people that prefer to just mind our own business and not bother anybody.

 

[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.

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.

While it is frustrating that you think your reply actually presents an objection to my post, it is more so that you misrepresent what I said. While I think science potentially can study what humans should do (after all, morality is something to do with monkey brains, not something that came from above), my post had zero to do with that (which would be a matter for another discussion, not this one).

At any rate, clearly you do not want to engage (because you do not understand what the discussion is about, but still you do not want to engage), so I will leave it at that, and reply to you again if you choose to reply to any of my posts in a relevant manner.

 

[laughing dog]

Great, so none of them would be a woman. Can you point to any property of transwomen who would make them women, but not any of the people I mentioned in the scenario as given?

Yes

 

[Rhea]

Thread locked for moderation discussion

 

[Rhea]

The moderation team is closing this thread for departing from productive discussion. This is a topic that affects members of our community and the continuously repeated “just asking questions” that have already been answered many times in the thread, as well as the declarations of what your fellow posters are or aren’t, does not serve the goal of this forum; meaningful discussion of topics in a community where everyone can feel welcome.

The topic is supported, but sometimes a thread devolves into one way communication (declaring positions, provoking, demeaning) instead of listening and discussing. It may include posters continually asking the same question again and again that has already been answered, while refusing to acknowledge or discuss the answers that were given. When that happens, the thread is closed. Take some time to remember, before another thread is started, that the objective is to discuss in good faith.

Thread Closed.