Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lagayascienza]

...or whatever it is...

[Sculptor1]

If people with a common interest want to to be known collectively by an acronym like LGBTQI, or whatever is its, then so what? Who does is hurt? If pisses off the fascists, well, so much the better. If that means I'm part of the imaginary WLF then I don't give a sh*t - count me in. I'd rather be with them than their evil opposition.

"ME TOO".

[Pattern-chaser]

If that phrase doesn't mean "innate knowledge of one's sex", what does it mean?

This has already been explained and described, here in this topic, by me, and others too. Your closed-minded, and apparently compulsive, denial allows you to remain within your chosen bubble of ignorance, but it makes discussion with you impossible, as you intend. In this topic, your presence serves only to permit you to muddy the waters, to confuse and derail discussion of a topic that really doesn't matter to most people, but is vitally important to those whose inclinations lead them outside The Norm. Because they are discriminated against, for their non-Normality.

Where there is no harm, as there is no harm here, why not just let people do what they wish, and identify as they wish? Live and let live.

The basic problem with the psychological/sociological concepts of gender, identity, and gender identity is that there is a diversity of definitions and no consistent usage. There is no doubt that psychologists and sociologists have been using these terms for many decades to refer to something different from sex, but they are still in a state of conceptual confusion and obfuscation.

The confusion and obfuscation are promoted, nurtured, and used by you...?

[Lagayascienza]

The basic problem with the psychological/sociological concepts of gender, identity, and gender identity is that there is a diversity of definitions and no consistent usage. There is no doubt that psychologists and sociologists have been using these terms for many decades to refer to something different from sex, but they are still in a state of conceptual confusion and obfuscation.

I don't think there is any problem with psychological/sociological concepts of gender, identity, and gender identity.
Neither is there any conceptual obfuscation going on, nor any semantic confusion in most people's minds. "Gender" and "sex" are synonyms in everyday speech. I can say "My gender is male" or "My sex is male" and people will know very well what I mean. My "gender identity" simply refers to the gender or sex I identify myself as, or the gender or sex I feel myself to be. It's pretty straight-forward.

It only seems to be a problem for those right-wing ideologues on the warpath against anything they don't like, which they refer to collectively as WOKE. Well, that's too bad for them. Gender-identity is not going anywhere. That's because we all have it. If the anti-WOKE crowd think they don't have gender identity then they are more bonkers than I thought.

It's interesting that Cass has stressed that she wasn’t seeking to undermine trans identities or the right to transition. The reactionaries on the right need to get over their maniacal, puritanical sexual hang-ups. They need to learn how to live and let live because sexual non-conformers have always been. and always will be, part of human reality.

[Consul]

The basic problem with the psychological/sociological concepts of gender, identity, and gender identity is that there is a diversity of definitions and no consistent usage. There is no doubt that psychologists and sociologists have been using these terms for many decades to refer to something different from sex, but they are still in a state of conceptual confusion and obfuscation.

I don't think there is any problem with psychological/sociological concepts of gender, identity, and gender identity.
Neither is there any conceptual obfuscation going on, nor any semantic confusion in most people's minds. "Gender" and "sex" are synonyms in everyday speech. I can say "My gender is male" or "My sex is male" and people will know very well what I mean. My "gender identity" simply refers to the gender or sex I identify myself as, or the gender or sex I feel myself to be. It's pretty straight-forward.

Wokespeak isn't everyday speech! Gender studies/theory is based on the distinction between gender and sex, which has resulted in several ill-defined concepts of gender. Psychologists & sociologists have also introduced a peculiar concept of identity that is different from the well-defined logical one.

In my ordinary understanding, "gender" is simply a synonym of "sex"; and my personal identity consists in who and what I am. Identity thus conceived had better be called quiddity (= that which makes a thing what it is, that which answers the question, Quid est? or, What is it?). A quiddity is a whatness (= particularizing or sortal property such as being a man), as opposed to a quality as a howness (= characterizing property such as being masculine).

So my translation of "gender identity" is "sexual quiddity", with my sexual quiddity consisting in my being a male/man (my maleness/manhood). This concept of identity (qua quiddity) is objectivistivic, i.e. it is different from the concept of subjective identification. My personal identity (qua quiddity) is an objective identity.
(Note that, here, by "personal identity" I don't mean the diachronic numerical identity of persons, which is different from their quiddity!)

When you write "My 'gender identity' simply refers to the gender or sex I identify myself as", we have the typical conflation of identity and identification (as sth); but these terms should be kept apart, because what you (objectively) are is one thing and what you (subjectively) believe or assert to be is another. Correspondingly, there is a distinction between one's (objective) sexual identity and one's (subjective) sexual self-identification.

With all that said, we have three well-defined concepts:
1. sex (as defined by biologists)
2. sexual identity (= sexual quiddity)
3. sexual self-identification

If "gender" and "sex" were used synonymously in gender studies, gender psychology, and gender sociology, we could as well write equally clearly—but they aren't, so we can't do so:

1. gender (as defined by biologists)
2. gender identity (= gender quiddity)
3. gender self-identification

[Sy Borg]

It should be clear to most here that I am no fan of modern cultural Marxism, but there's no denying the existence of gender identity as a separate notion to biological sex. Millions of people have lived it. Best to just throw out the bathwater. Leave the baby.

The basic problem with the psychological/sociological concepts of gender, identity, and gender identity is that there is a diversity of definitions and no consistent usage. There is no doubt that psychologists and sociologists have been using these terms for many decades to refer to something different from sex, but they are still in a state of conceptual confusion and obfuscation.

Never mind the definitions. We are talking about reality, not opinion. The reality is that a certain proportion of each gender feel more suited to the other gender for most social means and purposes.

Remember, trans is a social phenomenon. Robinson Crusoe will never suffer gender dysphoria. It's the distance between one's biological gender and one's tendencies. Logically, there will be females who are the very most masculine females, and males who are the very most feminine males. There will also be extremely feminine females and masculine males. That's reality.

If those at the extreme ends of the spectrum cannot square themselves with the social expectations of their gender, then why undermine them? What happened to live and let live? What happened to minding one's own business?

[Consul]

Never mind the definitions. We are talking about reality, not opinion. The reality is that a certain proportion of each gender feel more suited to the other gender for most social means and purposes.
Remember, trans is a social phenomenon. Robinson Crusoe will never suffer gender dysphoria. It's the distance between one's biological gender and one's tendencies. Logically, there will be females who are the very most masculine females, and males who are the very most feminine males. There will also be extremely feminine females and masculine males. That's reality.

It is also part of reality that no matter how feminine they are, transwomen aren't women; and no matter how masculine they are, transmen aren't men.

If those at the extreme ends of the spectrum cannot square themselves with the social expectations of their gender, then why undermine them? What happened to live and let live? What happened to minding one's own business?

When people are taught lies about biological sex, people are getting cancelled for calling transwomen men, and "misgendering" becomes a crime, then people are meddling in other people's affairs.

[Lagayascienza]

We can get all narrow and technical and talk about X and Y chromosomes if we like, but that does not get us very far when discussing the everyday concepts of "gender" and "gender-identity" because these everyday concepts are about more than just chromosomes. They are also about breasts and genitalia and cloths and relationships and, very importantly, about human feelings. Human feelings are also part of reality.

I don't think people are being taught lies about the narrow concept of biological sex. FCS, even school kids know about chromosomes! And chromosomes are just about biological sex and not about gender identity which kids also know about because they, too, have gender identity.

If a person has transitioned and their documents show they are of a certain gender then, so what? Who else's business is that? If a trans woman has boobs and a functional vagina, if she dresses as a woman and lives as a woman, then how does her chromosomal status affect you? How does it affect anyone else? How is it any one else's business?

The only time I can imagine that her chromosomal status would be relevant is if a trans woman were to contemplate marriage. A prospective husband may want children. In the highly unlikely event that he didn't know already that she was trans, she would need to broach the subject with her prospective husband. And then it would still be no one else's goddamned business but theirs. That is also part of reality.

Damned god-botherers and right-wing WOKE-obsessed ideologues should just leave other people alone. Live and let live.

[Sy Borg]

Never mind the definitions. We are talking about reality, not opinion. The reality is that a certain proportion of each gender feel more suited to the other gender for most social means and purposes.
Remember, trans is a social phenomenon. Robinson Crusoe will never suffer gender dysphoria. It's the distance between one's biological gender and one's tendencies. Logically, there will be females who are the very most masculine females, and males who are the very most feminine males. There will also be extremely feminine females and masculine males. That's reality.

It is also part of reality that no matter how feminine they are, transwomen aren't women; and no matter how masculine they are, transmen aren't men.

So you keep saying, and it's mindless, no offence. We all know biology. Duh! However, transpeople who transition successfully do become women and women in a social milieu. Not technically or biologically - but socially, for most practical means and purposes.

If they have the surgery and people can't tell, are you going to demand that transwomen go into men's bathrooms and for bearded transmen to go to the Ladies? I have no idea what you want. No one here wants transpeople playing professional sport of suing DV shelters. No one is saying that transpeople replace normal people.

It seems that you believe transpeople should be forced to return to their original gender role by removing all possibilities for them to live a viable life - refusing them access to any women's areas or other toilets. It seem that you seek absolute separation, a refusal to acknowledge any difference between transpeople and normal people of their biological sex.

If so, then you want to see the suicide, bashing, rape and endangerment of innocents, amongst the most vulnerable people in the community. It's a strange and atypical hostility that you have towards these people. Maybe Sculptor was onto something?

[Consul]

It is also part of reality that no matter how feminine they are, transwomen aren't women; and no matter how masculine they are, transmen aren't men.

So you keep saying, and it's mindless, no offence. We all know biology.

I keep saying so, because the Gender Liberation Front denies the biological facts about sex for ideological reasons—either by asserting that sex doesn't naturally exist at all, that there are more than two discrete sexes, or that there is continuous spectrum of sexes. Many people, especially young people, now believe that BS. DUH!!!

[Consul]

We all know biology.

No, not we all! When genderists believe and assert that the natural sex binary is refuted by "pregnant" male seahorses, hermaphroditic species, and "intersexual" individuals, they obviously don't know biology 101.

[Sy Borg]

We all know biology.

No, not we all! When genderists believe and assert that the natural sex binary is refuted by "pregnant" male seahorses, hermaphroditic species, and "intersexual" individuals, they obviously don't know biology 101.

The "natural sex binary" is only an ideal, largely promoted by phobic theists. Sometimes that binary doesn't happen perfectly. Body and brain can vary considerably, despite your certainty that sexual attributes in biology are magically perfect while every other aspect of existence is flawed and variable.

Computers are strictly binary. Nature is approximately binary. Your attitudes in this are strictly binary, which makes them effectively a category error. You are treating humans as if they were machines, or created perfect by a deity. Very disappointed. I thought you were better than this.

You also seem to be conducting an argument with fictitious people that don't exist on this forum. Not one of us has denied the reality of biological sex. You are the only here one to raise that notion.

[Fried Egg]

My "gender identity" simply refers to the gender or sex I identify myself as, or the gender or sex I feel myself to be. It's pretty straight-forward.

What's not so easy to understand is why they might be at odds with each other (i.e. to identify as the gender opposite to their actual sex). Nor is it easy to understand why the number of people believing their sex and gender to be at odds with each other seems to have exploded in recent years.

You mentioned (way back in this thread somewhere) a study that showed some differences in brain activity going on in those with gender dysphoria. That was interesting because it would suggest a physical or innate reason for their gender distress. But that does not mean that everyone who experiences gender distress has physical/innate reasons for it.

Does this mean that there may be sociological / psychological reasons for the recent growth in numbers? And if so, does that affect how we should be treating/handling people presenting with gender dysphoria?

[Lagayascienza]

I don't know, Fried Egg. I'd have to do some research to see if there has indeed be an increase in the number of people with gender dysphoria(GD). Since transexuals, like homosexuals, have always been a very small segment of the human population, it would be strange if, all of a sudden, there has been a huge increase in their numbers.

Given the difficulties that GD causes its sufferers, it is hard to imagine that any increase (if there has been one) is just a recent fad among the young. Like homosexuality, GD is not something that is freely chosen, it is not some silly lifestyle choice. GD is a traumatic condition, especially in young people. So I doubt there has been a big increase for sociological/psychological reasons. Or for any reason. I expect the percentage of GDs in the population has been more or less stable since roughly forever, as it has for homosexuality.

I suspect that GD has just been getting a lot more publicity lately which has been stirred up by right-wing religious, and anti-WOKE ideologues who want to interfere in other people's lives. There have been some highly publicized incidents at places like Travistock, and then the release of the Cass report, both of which have brought media attention. I suspect this will all die down soon and that GD, like homosexuality, will continue at the low, background levels it has always has.

[Fried Egg]

I don't know, Fried Egg. I'd have to do some research to see if there has indeed be an increase in the number of people with gender dysphoria(GD). Since transexuals, like homosexuals, have always been a very small segment of the human population, it would be strange if, all of a sudden, there has been a huge increase in their numbers.

I'm seen some quite striking graphs. For instance, one showing the growth in numbers of children/adolescents being referred to GIDS in the UK (since 2014). I'm sure you'll do your own research but as far as I understand it, the growth in numbers itself is not really contested. The argument (against it being a sociological/psychological phenomenon) goes more along the lines of saying the numbers of people suffering from GD has not really changed, only people's willingness to come forward and seek help for the condition.

Given the difficulties that GD causes its sufferers, it is hard to imagine that any increase (if there has been one) is just a recent fad among the young. Like homosexuality, GD is not something that is freely chosen, it is not some silly lifestyle choice.

But no one is saying it's "some silly lifestyle choice". Ok, maybe some extremists might claim that but the more reasonable theory is that many young people (not all) are mis-attributing their distress to gender when in fact it is caused by other psychological issues (such as anxiety, depression, a history of abuse, etc.)

I expect the percentage of GDs in the population has been more or less stable since roughly forever, as it has for homosexuality.

Agreed. The proportion of innate/physiological GD in the population has probably been pretty constant (although that is not even a given - modern diets, environments, etc. could possibly be leading to increases in innate GD). All the more reason though to be concerned by a marked increase in the numbers.