The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Language Wars
One of the most provocative manifestations of the culture wars around sex and gender is the battle over the operative words—what they are, what they mean, how they can and can't be used, and whether they can be said at all. I introduce this topic in the beginning of On Sex and Gender:
[i]f you're reading this book, you already know that the words we use to talk about sex and gender are contested, starting with sex and gender themselves—but also woman and female, man and male, transgender, and so on. Because language—the words we have and how we define them—affects what we can communicate and ultimately what we understand, the people who run movements understandably want to control it. The left is much more aggressive and organized about this, but the effort is made on both sides.
In this book, I try to define the words as I go and explain how I'm using them, but in general, my goal is neither to be disrespectful of nor to pander to one side or the other. Rather, it's to speak freely and honestly; to communicate not to obfuscate; and to reach people who want to learn and to engage.
The battle over the words runs throughout the book but the focused discussion is in Chapters Three and Eight.
Chapter Three is on the answer to the question "What is sex?" from progressive advocacy. It features the story around Senator Marsha Blackburn's now infamous question to then Judge Ketani Brown Jackson, "Can you please provide a definition for the word 'woman'?" In that context, I summarize the trans movement's goals and discuss its strategies, which include changing the definition of sex. I explain that,
[h]owever they're ultimately motivated, to take down the traditional biological definition of the word sex, progressive advocates working in this space have focused on two related efforts. The first is exporting the idea from academia that sex as we know it—as a complete body designed toward reproductive ends—isn't real but rather socially constructed in service of the patriarchy. The second is changing the common usage and legal definitions of the words male (and man and boy) and female (and woman and girl) so that they're consistent with this deconstruction.
I go on to detail the steps involved in these two efforts and the extraordinary success the movement has had getting major American and British institutions, including dictionaries, to adopt their project.
In Chapter Eight—on The Politics of Sex and Gender—I describe the advocacy groups' style guides, which have been widely adopted by American and other western media organizations. Here's an excerpt from that discussion:
Beyond requiring that women like me not be described as feminists or included in articles about trans issues, these typically would remove from the lexicon the words we need to talk about sex. These entries in the Transgender Association's 2023 Style Guide—especially when you put them together—are illustrative.
- "Avoid the terms 'biological gender,' 'biological sex,' 'biological woman,' 'biological female,' 'biological man,' or 'biological male.' These terms are inaccurate and often offensive."
- "Instead of 'born male' or 'born female,' which are inaccurate and considered offensive, use 'assigned male at birth' or 'assigned female at birth' (often abbreviated to AMAB and AFAB). You may also use 'raised as a boy' or 'raised as a girl' when appropriate."
- "'Male-bodied' and 'female-bodied' are inaccurate terms and are often considered offensive. Male and female bodies come in all shapes and sizes with various primary and secondary sex characteristics. Instead use: assigned male/female at birth or raised as a boy/girl."
- Trans man: "A man who is trans. 'Trans man' is two words and trans is an adjective use to describe man. Making this one word is considered disrespectful and inaccurate, as it implies a trans man is not really a man."
Then there's the call to replace "vagina" with "bonus hole" or "front hole" and "pregnant woman" with "pregnant people"—all ostensibly in support of trans men.
Following these guidelines is supportive of the anti-sex agenda of some trans rights organizations and of those trans people who see sex blindness—its softer alternative—as the best strategy to personal wellness.
At the same time, it's detrimental for women who understand that the erasure of things female is deeply regressive in ways that have important expressive and practical effects. As I note in Chapter Eight, "Using the word gender to mean sex, Caroline Criado-Perez speaks to the more general point. "If you can't mark gender in any way," she says, "you can't 'correct' the hidden bias in a language by emphasizing 'women's presence in the world'. In short: because men go without saying, it matters when women literally can't be said at all."
It also makes people mad. In June 2023, NBC News reported an uproar at Johns Hopkins over the university's use of "non-men" instead of "women" to define the word "lesbian." The headline read: "The university's online glossary of LGBTQ terms and identities defined the word 'lesbian' as a 'non-man attracted to non-men' before it was taken down." To this, Martina Navratilova, maybe the most famous lesbian of them all, tweeted:
Lesbian was literally the only word in English language that is not tied to man- as in male- feMALE, man-woMAN. And now lesbians are non men?!? Wtf?!? Unreal … another example of erasure of women. Pathetic
As Navratilova's reaction indicates, the response to this overreach—which may also involve efforts to rename breastfeeding as chestfeeding and mother as parent—is often not conciliatory. Women's groups have sprung up around the world, comprised of females from across our various political spectra, to resist the language land grab, to ensure communication, and to re-center their sex-based concerns. So trans woman, for example, becomes trans identified male. Both describe the same person—a person born male who identifies as female—but the former centers gender as identity and the latter centers sex as biology. As a political statement, they may also insist on using masculine pronouns for trans women and girls.
I get it. It's easy to be mad at advocates who insist on conflating sex and gender (just as we're finally managing to separate them) and getting everyone to prioritize trans people's concerns about sex (just as people are finally beginning to focus on ours). It's also easy to be mad at their bullies who suggest that you should be put down or out if you resist. Being told that the biology that defines your life—in ways good, bad, and neutral—isn't real, doesn't matter, or shouldn't be discussed, that you should instead be defined by the terms that matter to others, and that in general you should step aside—even in spaces that were designed for you because of that biology—can be tough to swallow.
After I bristle, though, I focus on the truth that both sex and gender (in all three of its iterations) are important, and then on the right thing to do, which is to work toward solutions that don't unnecessarily marginalize anyone. These solutions are often not neat and easy, as the following clip from my discussion of pronouns makes clear, but we should still try.
Note: The clip references the point that knowing about other people's sex is adaptive. If you're interested in learning more about that, see Chapters One, Six, and Nine.
[T]hroughout this book I've used trans people's preferred pronouns. I haven't done this to be politically correct, I've done it because in these instances, the two functions of gendered pronouns as I understand them have been served. The first is to convey information about a person's sex…. The second, newer function of pronouns is to convey a person's inner sense of themselves as gendered, i.e., here choosing a pronoun is part of one's evolving personhood and their curated gender expression….
The way I think about it is that once we have the information we need, it's usually best to be supportive of the other person. We shouldn't be made to ignore our interests in having information about sex given that it is adaptive in multiple ways. But once we've dealt with those, unless there are other reasons that might make it personally costly for us to go along, we should be kind (because trans people feel cognitive dissonance when they hear what is for them the wrong pronoun) and respectful (because that's what makes a community successful)….
I know I'm taking a chance, but always holding two thoughts at once and carefully, I'll continue to use people's preferred pronouns when I know who they are. I'll keep saying "no" to formal pronoun campaigns that have the replacement of sex with gender as their goal. And I'll always be looking for other ways to signal that I'm an ally to trans people themselves. If being a good ally—like being a good girl—requires me to be sex blind, that's not possible. But I will still see you.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is not a language war.
It is a war on reality.
Kinda both: It's an attempt to impose NewSpeak in order to make acknowledging reality very difficult.
Yep. Look at all the people trying to sell "Transwomen are Women" idiocy.
Let me know when a man LARPing as a woman is able to bear a child.
In principle, with proper (Complex!) hormonal support, a guy could indeed bear a child, though it would have to be in vitro fertilization and surgically implanted. The placenta is generated by the fetus, not the mother, and just attaches to whatever vascular tissue it finds.
What you would have is a very life threatening ectopic pregnancy, but in theory the fetus could develop to term, and be delivered surgically. Keeping the "mother" alive through the process would be the challenging thing.
The function of the womb isn't to enable pregnancy, it's to enable surviving pregnancy; It's capable of supporting the placenta and then stopping the bleeding when it detaches. A placenta that attaches to, say, a section of intestine, or your liver, should be able to support a baby, but when it detached you'd have a major medical emergency. Even if you survived you'd never be the same.
From a technical standpoint I find the challenges of pulling this off kind of interesting, and I think it would probably be possible to pull off, but actually trying it would be an extreme case of medical malpractice.
I still expect somebody to attempt it in the next decade, though.
Successful transplantation of a womb has been done in biological women. Sooner or later someone will try it in a trans woman.
I think I saw that movie already.
Where will they put it, and what will they have to remove to make the required space? Will they slice of part of his bladder, or remove some of his intestines? Both?
And what will that mean for the misguided male patient's health going forward?
The abdominal wall is very stretchable if you give it time, so room is not an issue.
As for the male patient's health? Best case they lose a section of intestine, and a few years off their lifespan. Worst case, they die in agony.
Any mother can tell you about kick boxing babies. The guy wouldn't have a womb between that and his kidney.
Sounds like old-times religion.
The genius of the modern left woke movement, for lack of a better term, was adopting many of the odious practices of religion.
If you aren’t with us, you’re against us. Creeds. Everyone points a finger at some malcontent like Donald Sutherland in a pod people movie and demands they get the hell out, er, be fired.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEStsLJZhzo
And "Error has no rights"; The left picked that one up about the time the Catholic church finally abandoned it.
People who derogatively claim things they hate are ‘religions’ are implictly holding them up as heresies.
What is 'what is a woman' supposed to acheive other than exposing divergence from an approved doctrne?
Say, rather, divergence from scientific fact to - well, let us call it delusion, for kindness.
Say it all you like, it's still a refusal to accept difference in others because they offend your worldview.
Actually, you’re right:
“Happy [is] the person who finds wisdom, the person who acquires understanding; for her profit exceeds that of silver, gaining her is better than gold, she is more precious than pearls — nothing you want can compare with her. Long life is in her right hand, riches and honor in her left. Her ways are pleasant ways, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to those who grasp her; whoever holds fast to her will be made happy.” (source)
It’s kind of hard to “find wisdom” and “acquire understanding” if you are not in touch with — are actively fighting against — biological reality.
It is a war on reality.
I agree. When will the right finally concede that trans people really exist?
The existence of trans people isn't the question. People with a mental illness in which they perceive themselves to be in a body at odds with their biological sex do exist.
Not a mental illness, but otherwise not bad.
Fight that there flaming straw man, Randal.
Fight him good and hard.
Hey, your team is right here denying the reality of trans people. Here’s scooter for example:
Let me know when a man LARPing as a woman is able to bear a child.
Lee says trans people are just “imagining” it.
I mean, it would be great if things like “many on the right think that the earth is flat” and “many on the right think that trans people are just pretending” and “many on the right think that ivermectin cures covid” were all just strawmen. Very, very great.
“
I think that it is all a big hoax.
"https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/23/the-language-wars/?comments=true#comment-10572382
For a detailed biological narrative "Eve: How the Female Body Drove 200 Million Years of Evolution" by Cat Bohannon (many best seller lists) will explain much more than you want to know absent scientific interest. The author notes the birth exceptions rare to strict gender categories and, to me, makes a real effort not to criticize the fluid thinking folk who are science ignorant.
These entries in the Transgender Association's 2023 Style Guide—especially when you put them together—are illustrative.
The entries are illustrative, of mental disorders.
People are not assigned a sex. They are born a sex that, in the vast majority of cases, a doctor merely sees and acknowledges.
If someone doesn't identify with what they perceive (or are specifically told) is the gender role of their birth...
... they need to either broaden their concept of their own gender, or escape from whatever assholes are persecuting them.
Physically changing your body, to address cognitive dissonance about sex and gender, is horrifying.
But I don't get tattoos either, so maybe I'm just old.
'Physically changing your body, to address cognitive dissonance about sex and gender, is horrifying.'
And yet trans people who do so have been happy with the results for nearly a century now. Your personal horror is utterly irrelevant.
Happy with the results? Really? Because the last statistic I've seen on the subject is that 41% of all sex change recipients attempt suicide. And a significant number go as far as to try and reverse the damage.
Doesn't sound so happy to me
I don’t know where you saw your numbers, but most studies show a huge percentage who are happy with their transition. Only a tiny proportion detransition.
You have bad data.
'People are not assigned a sex'
It's a term descriptive of trans peoples' relationship with their sex and their gender and their dysphoria. It's nonsensical to get mad at it.
And if you were to write that somebody felt their sex had merely been assigned, that would be a reasonable response.
But if you write that a doctor assigned their sex, the subjective impression of that person many years later is irrelevant, we have the objective facts about what the doctor was doing. And it wasn't "assigning", it was "observing".
This is pedanticism applied to usage within a context without regard to what it means to the people who use it. You're just not interested in understanding, only in shutting them down and shutting them up.
I'm not the one pushing the new terminolgy, you are. Make the case that it's more accurate.
Nor are you asserting "feelz" trump "realz," as those who claim womanhood without ever experiencing it are.
Language is used to express feelings quite a lot, I think you’ll fnd. And since feelings are real, the distinction is moot. They don't have to know what it feels like to be a cis woman, they only have to know what it feels like to be trans.
Why are you trying to police it for 'accuracy?' It only has to be accurate in a meaningful way in relation to the trans people who apply it to themselves.
It's good to see the losing side have and use this opportunity to voice their opinions.
This is but one of many areas in which the world has lost its (sic) mind.
Says the superstition-addled misfit
re: "the losing side"
See my comment above. People (and societies) that are not in touch with -- are actively fighting against -- reality are not likely to "win."
That’s exactly what puts you on the losing side.
You sound like someone arguing that it defies reality to suggest that Black people can possibly function outside of the bonds of slavery. You're the one resisting reality.
"like someone arguing that it defies reality to suggest that Black people can possibly function outside of the bonds of slavery"
The strawmanning is strong in this one.
That was a real thing back in the day!
It's good to see you realize your side is losing and is trying to sweep back the tide by corrupting the language.
Whatever. Language changes.
At one point, the usual suspects had a giant tantrum over “Ms.”
Language doesn’t have a fixed immutable meaning. It means what we agree that it means.
That said, I am concerned that the main motivating factor for a lot of people right now is that they are allowed to continue to bully and ostracize one of the most marginalized groups in our society. Life is hard for everyone; maybe you should devote your time to something more productive than trying to make life harder for people.
Language usually changes by natural selection rather than by active cultivation. And dictionaries generally used to try to capture actual usage, rather than promote activist campaigns. (Memo to textualist judges - what you read in a post 1960 dictionary does NOT necessarily relate to actual usage, if the word has political relevance.)
But the attempt at active cultivation - euphemism and whatever the Greek for its opposite might be - is always with us. It's just that modern technology makes it a more realistic proposition for those with favored access to the media and the dictionaries.
But those who do not like the new cultivars are perfectly entitled to resist their adoption.
"Language usually changes by natural selection rather than by active cultivation."
Stop trying to make fetch happen, Lee. Other than that, your comment is lit.
I don't agree with your statement, in multiple ways. First, it's not being "actively cultivated," it's that people have become accustomed and used to using it, primarily because of their peers. If you've been on a college tour recently (as I had to a lot of recently), you probably realized that the "pronoun" thing is actually pretty pretty pretty widespread in the younger generation.
Next, all usages are a mixture of active cultivation and passive acquisition. Some people are pushing it because they are using it, and other are acquiring it. But the idea that this is some pitched usage battle is kind of funny; the only people making it a battle are those that are, um, battling it.
If you don't like usage, don't use it. Just try to avoid thinking that you're fighting a good fight to preserve some intrinsic difference, like the difference between "cool" and "hot," daddy-o. After all, language is also a way of denoting and differentiating groups. Now, bless your cotton socks.
The pronoun thing is widespread on school campuses of a particular political leaning.
It's not a thing at local schools.
In a Boston tech workplace, I don't see it outside of HR.
And even where it is widespread, most students comply (usually incompetently) for prudential reasons. As soon as they escape into reality they revert to normal usage.
Wrong. I bet both of you use singular "they" without even batting an eye at this point.
Oh, come on. The singular "they" goes at least back to the 1300's as a way of dealing with English not having a gender neutral pronoun.
It's perfectly standard English, and has been all along, despite idiot pendants. It's not some goofy innovation like "xer".
Singular they isn’t new, but neither is he or she, so I don’t know what point you’re trying to make exactly. The use of singular they has increased exponentially even in recent memory. For a long time the style guides were against it, recommending simply “he,” then later the tragic “he/she.” Now it gets used even when the gender is clear, as in “Somebody from the Wives Club, I don’t know who, got their knife mixed up with their spoon and stabbed their soup!” That’s a language change in our lifetime.
I don't think loki is talking about artificial innovations like "xer," but he can correct me if I'm wrong.
No, there's nothing new about he or she, except for this idiocy of using "he" to refer to women, or "she" to refer to men.
I agree that's idiotic. Please stop!
Unsurprisingly, you have it backwards. I am Regina and you are Gretchen. I am the status quo, you are a silly meme hunter.
I continue, like most Americans, and even moster English speakers outside the USA, to use all these sex related words in their usual sense and I recommend their continued use in this sense.
You only have to look at the Transgender Style Guide to see how silly the Newspeak is.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
If you're so right, then don't worry. Carry on.
Again, I am used to seeing this- on a wide variety of college campuses (last summer). From applicants for associate jobs. No big deal.
The sun will rise, the sun will set, and I'll have lunch.
First, That's Not Happening.
Next, It's Good That It Is.
Intrinsic difference, like the difference between male and female.
'Language usually changes by natural selection rather than by active cultivation.'
Language changes all sorts of ways, ther is no one 'valid' way for language to change. Most of this is no different than coining 'telephone' for the newfangled long-distance-talking-thing. Trans people are finding ways of expressing themselves and talking about their condition. I don't know why anyone would either claim they don't have the right to do that, or object to them using it.
As for its wider adoption, there's panic and rejection of that sort of thing going on all the time. The 80s and all the business jargon that started to drift into casual, though not everyday, use for example - proactive, remember when everyone was allergic to that word? Run it up the flagpole. Action as a verb. Optimisation. Somehow the terrifying 'newspeak' fails to subjugate all peoples.
(Newspeak! A coinage that people use all the time to decry new coinages they're scared of! The irony!)
Yup. since many here are just making a common, off-topic, copy-n-paste political complaint, I’ll indulge their penchant for needless incivility disparaging the lives of others, with my standard copy-n-paste reply.
Earlier in this century, even as a curmudgeonly pedant and member-in-good-standing of the Grammar Police (motto: To Serve & Correct), I came to a grudging acceptance of the common usage of the singular They, Their, and Them.
I still prefer to do what I’ve done since that latter decades of the last century—when a non-awkward way is possible, construct my writing to avoid gender-specific pronouns (especially but not limited to situations where it was once considered normal to use the male form when referring to a general population). But, when the context makes it obvious (and watching out for the dreaded indefinite pronoun), the singular they/their/them are both more courteous and less awkward.
Over the last decade, I’ve ungrudgingly also come around to use of a person’s preferred pronoun. I don’t do that to be seen as a member the hip in-crowd (made obvious by my use of the archaic phrase, hip in-crowd), but because I appreciate polite and civil discourse.
And I’ll continue to do that until new non-gender-specific personal pronouns become the general common-use default, which I think will eventually happen. They may or may not be ze, zir, etc, which are not yet that…but at one time, neither was Ms. As you observe, the principle is the same.
I didn't follow the last three paragraphs at all. Prof C seems to be saying that (sexed) pronouns can convey information about a person's sex, or a person's gender, and she's going to use the person in question's choice .... because then all the information required is taken care of ?
But if you read of Aaron that "he's very articulate" you haven't received any reliable information about either Aaron's sex or gender. "He" might be male (sex) and male (gender); or female (sex) and male (gender) or male (sex) and female (gender.) The only thing he's unlikely to be is female (sex( and female (gender.) (I leave out "genders" other than male and female because life is too short.)
You would know more if you knew for sure that the speaker uses 3rd person singular pronouns to denote sex, or that the speaker uses 3rd person singular pronouns to denote gender. But even then you would only know one of Aaron's (a) sex and (b) gender.
What is she on about ?
I think she's saying that she in fact knew the sex and gender of the people she was speaking about, so she used the gendered term out of kindness.
I think it's both kind and of greater value to use gendered pronouns over sexed pronouns. It's more important to know someone's gender than sex.
I think that it is neither kind, nor of greater value. Just what is the value? Why should I care about someone's preferred pronoun or gender identity?
Because they care.
You admit that you don't care, so... why do you care so much?
I am not sure they do care. I think that it is all a big hoax.
The way I took it, is that we should use preferred pronouns if known, so based on gender identity, as a matter of courtesy because there is no personal cost. But there is not problem using visual cues as to sex to use those pronouns initially. Essentially fighting against the idea of "how dare you assume my gender."
But she is against generally conflating gender with sex, which is a goal in many areas. So she doesn't think we should use preferred pronouns because gender and sex are the same so a personas identity is their sex, but because there isn't an inherent reason it "must" convey sex either, so being courteous and using them doesn't make sex and gender one.
Yet, you're more likely to be using those gendered pronouns when talking about someone, rather to that person. It's a solution looking for a problem, and it's only useful if you identify yourself in a way that most people wouldn't. So, mostly it's just signaling.
Yes, signaling the person's gender. It's an important signal!
I enjoyed the Transgender Association's 2023 Style Guide
"Avoid the terms 'biological gender,' 'biological sex,' 'biological woman,' 'biological female,' 'biological man,' or 'biological male.' These terms are inaccurate and often offensive."
What is the recommended accurate and non offensive way to describe the concept formerly known as "sex" ? How do you non offensively say what sex someone is, when you wish to mention that, rather than the person's gender ?
Trans man: "A man who is trans. 'Trans man' is two words and trans is an adjective use to describe man. Making this one word is considered disrespectful and inaccurate, as it implies a trans man is not really a man."
Trans is indeed an adjective, though I don't see what's particularly offensive about tacking it directly onto the front of the noun is qualifies. Is carthorse offensive to carthorses ? Why ?
The style guide fails to tell us the meaning of this adjective "trans" though. I wonder what the non offensive dictionary defintion would be ? I went to dictionary.com and there's no entry for this adjective. I should have thought "fake, pretend, ersatz" would be somewhat offensive to those with real gender dysphoria. Maybe "imagined" or "wannabe" ?
The trans style guide is almost entirely silly as activist-driven language demands always are.
The right's activists' demands are just as silly... "freedom fries" being the canonical example. But even the demand that pronouns and "man/woman" must attach to biological sex is silly and not the way those words have ever worked before. "To dress like a woman" means to wear gendered clothing, nothing to do with biology. C-3PO is a "he" and Rosie is a "she" solely based on presentation, not biology -- does the right insist on calling them both "it?" Does that extend to ships and countries? Silly.
“To dress like a woman” means to wear gendered clothing, nothing to do with biology.
1. it's a simile. If I say you look like a pig, that does not mean that you are a pig. It means you look (a bit) like one.
2. How does clothing become "gendered clothing" ? By being clothing that is typically worn by (actual) women. Trans folk are much too few to present a reference point for how either sex (or gender for that matter) typically dress.
#1 is obviously irrelevant as it seems like you figured out by including #2.
#2 is less obviously irrelevant, but still irrelevant. Sure, the vast majority of women are biologically female. That, by itself, doesn't connect women's clothes to XX chromosomes.
Your pig example is instructive.
If I say you look like a pig, that does not mean that you are a pig.
And dressing like a woman doesn't mean you're a woman. But there's a big difference between "you look like a female," which is really what the pig example most closely aligns to, and "you're dressed like a woman." Lots of men dress like men but have physical / facial characteristics that "look female." On the other hand, you can have a man "dressed like a woman" who definitely doesn't look female.
Obviously because “dressed like” and “look like” involve different verbs.
The point however is that if you are “dressed like an X” (or if you “look like a Y”) there needs to be an identifiable stereotypical X (or Y) to which the listener can refer to understand what you are making the comparison with.
In the pig case it’s a chubby belligerent pink thing with a distinctive flat snout. In the woman case it’s an adult human of the female sex.
It seems to me that few of you right-wingers realize how much of this is built in to our brains. You know how birds of paradise intrinsically know how to do elaborate mating dances? Nobody teaches them.
People know gender. That’s why you’re attracted to one and not the other. You don’t have to learn about gametes and chromosomes in order to understand mommy and daddy.
Hah ! Projection LARGE. It’s the lefties who have great difficulty in accepting that humans, like other animals, have instincts honed over a long time by natural selection. They think it smells a bit like racism. Criticising “The Blank Slate” nearly got Steven Pinker fired, for all that he’s a fully paid up liberal.
And yes, we humans (like other animals) instinctively recognise the distinction between males and females as one of enormous significance. But this obviously has squat to do with “gender” – it’s just plain old sex that’s being recognised, as in other species.
As a child – that’s the one that feeds me milk, that’s the one that doesn’t.
A little later one the distinction solidifies into :
could mate with that v. that’s a rival for mating opportunities
No different from rams and ewes. There’s no “gender” going on there. Even if sheep did recognise "gender" it would have zero significance.
Unsurprisingly, you’re butt-wrong. Here’s a biologically male bird that went trans:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4163261
It did all the womanly duties of building a nest, attracting men as mates, even incubating eggs (apparently these birds lay eggs in each other’s nests so some surrogate mother dropped some off).
If you think about it for five seconds, you’ll realize that this is wrong:
But this obviously has squat to do with “gender” – it’s just plain old sex that’s being recognised
Children know the genders of other children, who don’t produce milk. They know the genders of storybook characters, who don’t produce milk. They know the genders of animals, who don’t produce milk in a way that children would notice. Gender really isn’t primarily about sex except in the context of reproduction. Yes, as adults, we think about reproduction a lot, so this can come to dominate our mindset. (Especially yours, apparently, seeing as you believe it’s the only thing that matters in life.) But there are aspects of gender beyond sex. Just ask a child crying for their mommy.
Children know the genders of other children, who don’t produce milk. They know the genders of storybook characters, who don’t produce milk. They know the genders of animals, who don’t produce milk in a way that children would notice. Gender really isn’t primarily about sex except in the context of reproduction.
Gender in the sense you describe is simply the identification of sex from physical and behavioural clues. If "Mary" came to kindergarten every day, with long hair, dressed in a skirt and was "she:'d and "her"'d by the teacher, the other kids would take her for a girl. But if there was an unfortunate pee or poo accident which necessitated the hurried removal of Mary's clothes, and the other kids noticed that Mary had a willy, then they wouldn't go on thinking she was a girl. They'd think she was a boy with long hair in a dress, who they had previously mistken for a girl.
So "gender" is - in the sense you're using it - entirely about sex. It's the identification of sex from a reasonably, but not entirely, reliable proxy.
I don't think your bird example helps you at all. Animals "sex roles" - which is what ethologists call "gender roles" in all animals other than humans, are basically instincts installed by evolution, and have pretty much zip to do with learning from "culture." So a male bird had a "female behavior" module installed in the factory ? So what ? Nobody claims the production line is perfect and never makes an error.
The author makes it clear that the male birds treating the male-behaving-as-female bird as a female could easily have mistaken the latter for an actual female.
So there' s no evidence for the male birds doing anything wackier than mistaking a male behaving as a female, for a female. Stranger things have happened in night clubs.
If you think I’m using culture to define gender… no. Tomboys aren’t trans, despite the unfortunate vocabulary.
If… the other kids noticed that Mary had a willy, then they wouldn’t go on thinking she was a girl.
I actually don’t think this is true until the kids learn it explicitly, figure it out empirically, or puberty. That is, I think a boy by default would totally expect Mary to have a willy along with a belly button and everything else. And a girl would be just as surprised by a boy’s as by Mary’s.
So a male bird had a “female behavior” module installed in the factory ? So what ? Nobody claims the production line is perfect and never makes an error.
??? This is exactly how I’ve been describing trans women and you’ve been totally resistant, insisting on the lack of a “reference point.” But you’re just fine with it for birds?
This is exactly how I’ve been describing trans women and you’ve been totally resistant, insisting on the lack of a “reference point.” But you’re just fine with it for birds?
Noooo. I am entirely comfortable with the idea that evolution has crafted mental instincts, just as it has crafted physical traits; and that just as some physical traits are sexually differentiated so are some mental instincts. (Though not necessarily discretely.)
And just as DSDs can instal secondary physical sexual characteristics (either in full or in part) in bodies whose primary sexual characteristic (gamete type) goes the other way, the same thing can happen with instincts.
Thus if in this particular type of bird, nest building is an instinct and is something that females typically do and males typically don't, there's nothing remotely surprising in an occasional male getting the instinct to build a nest. And other instincts to do things that are usually done by female birds.
But an instinct to build a nest and an instinct to do X and Y other things that are typically done by female birds is not the same thing as a mental identity of “I’m a girl !”
It’s possible that humans do have a mental module that says “I’m a girl !” and there are claims out there that various bits of the brain might house such a module. But “The Science” ain’t there yet. And may never be there. We’ll have to wait and see.
If your view is that “gender identity” refers to such a mental module then fine. That’s not what you offered up previously, and such a module has yet to be demonstrated. I’m not ruling it out. I would say it’s a conjecture rather than a hypothesis at present. (And it is certainly not necessary for a collection of sex related instincts to cluster in an indiviidual organism.)
If it were demonstrated to exist, and was reliably measurable, then it would provide an objective reference for gender. A “trans man” would be a woman (sex) with a male gender module. Just as a “gay woman” would be a woman (sex) with a male sexual orientation module.
The shared experience I discussed elsewhere is very strong circumstantial evidence for a mental module (*), strong enough in my opinion to accept gender identity as a reailty (a trait) even without an objective measure. The same applies to sexual orientation.
(*) It could be a combination of genetics (a mental module) and environment, or it could be entirely environmental. It doesn't matter if it is largely immutable. Thta's what makes it a trait.
I'm with Josh. You're holding medical science to an extremely high bar on this one issue. It's notoriously difficuly to identify "modules" in the brain that reliably and measurably map to human experience. We've only done it in a few very specific, functional cases like facial recognition.
Do you think the jury's still out on whether gay people are really attracted to the same sex, or left-handed people really have a preference for their left hand? We haven't found those brain modules, or so many others. Who's prone to addiction. Who's got anger management issues. The agoraphobia module. The musician module. The nerd module. Do you think all those things are mere conjectures because we have no way yet to identify and measure them other than by their effects?
I’m also not sure there’s a real difference between a “how to be a woman” module vs. a “how to behave like a woman” module. In fact, I think, don’t quote me on this but this is my impression, that trans people generally begin in childhood with behaviors, when their bodies aren’t really differentiated enough to matter that much, and it’s only with the onset of puberty that the biological discrepancies become important.
There are important conservative talking points here. The failure of conservatives to embrace them and instead attempt to delegitimize and dehumanize trans people entirely just speaks to the underlying bigotry. For example:
1. Lots of non-trans children behave in ways contrary to their gender roles (e.g. tomboys). If trans children’s main or only symptoms are behavioral, it’s very risky to diagnose children as trans based on behavior alone.
2. The entire theory of the existance of trans people requires there to be a sharp distinction between genders. After all, how could a trans woman know they’re a woman and not a man if the genders are indistinct?
3. The entire theory of the existence of trans people also requires there to be a sharp distinction between the sexes. Otherwise, why would a trans person ever feel the need to alter the apparent sex of their body? It completely undermines “sex blindness.”
4. Corollary to #3, the entire theory of the existence of trans people implies that gender is intrinsically tied to sex, otherwise why would a trans person feel the need to alter the apparent sex of their body to match their gender?
In short, trans theory requires really strong, differentiated concepts of both male and female, and masculine and feminine ‐‐ not to mention a strong relationship between those concepts, plus a pretty important place for gender roles — in order to make any sense. Why aren’t you lot leaning into that?
Especially since there are so few trans people… you could be using the tiny anount of trans people as an existence proof to make the case that for almost everybody in the world -- and inherent to human design -- men are masculine males and women are feminine females because otherwise, what would trans people be so upset about?
The inherent silliness and unwieldiness of these make them unlikely to see wide adoption. They’re unattractive phrases, most trans people would prefer whatever implict offense is supposed to go with the usual terms.
'Is carthorse offensive to carthorses ? Why ?'
The answer is in the question.
Trans being short for ‘transition’ should clarify that for you.
The term “gender” is basically meaningless now. At least count, Facebook had 72 gender options. Terms like “bigender”, “agender”, “androgyne” are part of the word salad.
What’s really irritating is that activists want it both ways – on the one hand, they insist sex and gender are not the same. On the other hand, they also insist that the legal term “on the basis of sex” refers to gender identity also. So when it's convenient for them - they are the same.
Since there is no real definition of gender identity, and it’s entirely a subjective term, that essentially means every rule or law regarding distinctions based on sex is out the window (which is the goal)
Every time you complain they add a new gender.
That's right, gender has become meaningless. It is better to stick to sex. Anything else is confusing, inaccurate, and pointless.
Welcome to the motte and bailey tactic in the gender activists arsenal aimed at destroying Western civilization
I think the real problem here is that Americans seem biologically incapable of doing anything in moderation. At one time, for example, children were essentially the chattel property of their parents; society finally realized this was a bad idea and Child Protective Services was born, with the result that today, any time there is a dispute between a parent and a social worker, a judge will side with the social worker. We went from one extreme -- children have no rights -- to the other extreme -- any parental decision is potentially subject to government second guessing. There is a moderate position but we seem not to have found it.
Or, to take another example, we had a situation in which violent sex offenders were able to fly under the radar and commit more crimes, some of them horrific. So, we now have sex offender registries in which a college student who gets drunk and urinates in public, or an 18 year old who has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, might find their lives totally destroyed by being put on a sex offender registry for life. Again, there is a middle ground but we never went there; we just moved from one extreme to the other.
Here, we have started at the extreme position that people with unconventional sexual orientations and identities -- meaning anyone not a cis heterosexual -- has no rights. We have moved from there to the opposite pole in which everyone is now expected to recognize nine different sets of pronouns without laughing out loud.
And there's actually a Darwinian explanation for that phenomenon. People evolved to survive, not to make honest risk assessment. It's why the mother of a four year old girl who discovers a strange man talking to her daughter is going to have a bad reaction, even though statistically most strange (to her anyway) men are probably perfectly harmless. It's not about honest risk assessment; it's about trying to eradicate any possible risk and increasing your chances of survival.
'We have moved from there to the opposite pole'
I think the idea that 'has no rights' and 'lots of pronouns' are opposite poles really sums up the fundamental and huge imbalance at work in all this.
Here, we have started at the extreme position that people with unconventional sexual orientations and identities — meaning anyone not a cis heterosexual — has no rights.
Extreme, entirely imaginary, position.
That's right, imaginary. The unconventional have always had rights. The controversy occurred when they wanted to extend those rights to grooming children and forcing us to use weirdo pronouns.
What is your view on snowflakey privilege for ostensible adults who claim to believe silly fairy tales involving an illusory and bigoted man in the sky are nonfiction? Can you respect those gullible, gay-hating dimwits?
People have a right to their religions. But if you think it is all nonsense, you should not have to call anyone "reverend" or go along with their beliefs.
People are entitled to believe as they wish.
Gullible and bigoted religious kooks have rights, too.
But no one is entitled to respect for superstition-based arguments in reasoned debate among competent adults. Competent adults neither advance nor accept supernatural nonsense in reasoned debate, particularly with respect to public affairs and legitimate education.
Like I was saying above about honest risk assessment. Given the multitude of stories about clergy sexual abuse, it would appear that children are at far greater risk of being "groomed" by pastors than they are by drag queens reading stories.
Diminution of religion is one of modern America’s great achievements. Eradication would be better.
Gullible right-wing bigots hardest hit.
“today, any time there is a dispute between a parent and a social worker, a judge will side with the social worker. ”
Hey Arthur, did you ever side with a parent against a social worker?
‘it’s detrimental for women who understand that the erasure of things female is deeply regressive in ways that have important expressive and practical effects.’
I hope you have some actual references and quotes and sources for this erasure, and that it isn’t just some marginal groups erring on the side of inclusivity, because at the end of the day, that’s really the worst that can be said about anything you describe here: erring on the side of inclusivity.
‘It’s easy to be mad at advocates who insist on conflating sex and gender’
Apparently much easier than to get mad at fascist assaults on trans rights, to which much of what you are complainig about is a direct response, and only gains prominence because the fascists claim inclusive language is fascism.
‘In June 2023, NBC News reported an uproar at Johns Hopkins over the university’s use of “non-men” instead of “women” to define the word “lesbian.’
This is typical of the rage and I suspect of the source for your thesis: a media storm over an entry in a college handbook, with all the hyperbole, exaggeration and disproportionate response it brings. ‘Non-man’ is hilariously bad, a piece of terrible self-parody that deserved to be banished to obscurity. Not a single lesbian was harmed by it.
‘which may also involve efforts to rename breastfeeding as chestfeeding and mother as parent’
‘Being told that the biology that defines your life… isn’t real.’
And being told second-hand, by anti-trans, anti-woke hysterics and oh-so-serious brow-furrowing centrist both-siders, not by anyone trans or trans supportive.
May, may, may, may, may.
‘I know I’m taking a chance,’
I wonder where the real risk comes from in using preferred pronouns. ‘Cancellation’ by the woke versus getting a visit from the fans of libsoftiktok?
I'm interested to hear what beng a 'trans ally' means to you. Other than using preferred pronouns which in this day and age is not insignificant.
"I'll always be looking for other ways to signal that I'm an ally to trans people".
Why? What purpose is there in catering to the sick sexual fantasies of others? Do you want to be ally to grooming or mutilating children? Is this a plan to get Kirkland to stop calling you a bigot? I am waiting for some reasons.
The answer is in the bigotry of the question.
Okay, I guess that is the best argument. She can avoid being called a bigot by signalling that she is an ally.
Then again look at the shit you spew at her for it. 'Bigot' seems mild by comparison.
What is your view of circumcision? Did your mother inflict that on you? Did you inflict it your children? Have you recovered from childhood indoctrination, or are you still lessened by adult-onset superstition?
Right-wing religious bigots are among my favorite culture war losers.
Male or female circumcision? No, I don't want to get into that debate. I do think that it would be weird for someone to go around asking others to use pronouns that reflect a circumcision choice or identity.
What's your view of ear piercing? Did you let your daughter get her ears pierced when she was a minor? How about a nose ring?
This will be my sole contribution to this topic, hopefully ever.
Consider a hypothetical involving person Morgan, who insists on plural personal pronouns, and two other persons, PersonA and PersonB. Ordinary writing will from time to time deliver entertaining ambiguities like this:
“PersonA and PersonB favored the proposition, and they [meaning Morgan] disagreed.”
I encountered something quite like that in the New Yorker a week or two ago, and it surprised me to find it there. Plural antecedents and plural personal pronouns do not play well together.
True
This is an example of the harm in using preferred pronouns.
It's an example of sloppy editing.
A good writer would have used 'Morgan' instead of 'they' at that point. Or at least caught it in an edit.
Seriously. It’s trivial to come up with examples of ambiguous pronouns in bad writing no matter how preferred they are.
Betty favored the proposition, and she [meaning Morgan] disagreed.
Can any of the leftists here provide a definition for the word "woman"?
Can any of the clingers distinguish religion from silly superstition and childish nonsense?
Anyone want to try to contend that religion improves bigotry or transforms it into something other than disgusting bigotry?
Carry on, clingers. So far as your stale, ugly, right-wing thinking could carry anyone in modern America, that is.
Arthur, while I agree with you on the merits, you're not helping. You really aren't.
Helping? Arthur is just here to show that leftists have no arguments except name-calling. He might even be a bot.
You are free to sugarcoat right-wing bullshit and wallow in political correctness, but I have lost my taste for it. I call a bigot a bigot.
A right-wing racist a right-wing racist.
A superstition-addled gay-basher a superstition-addled gay-basher.
A backwater immigrant-hater a backwater immigrant-hater.
A half-educated antisemite or Islamophobe a half-educated antisemite or Islamophobe.
A Federalist Society, race-targeting vote suppressor a Federalist Society, race-targeting vote suppressor.
A conservative misogynist a conservative misogynist.
A Republican blog-operating transphobe a Republican blog-operating transphobe.
Why let our vestigial right-wing bigots hide behind euphemisms such as "traditional values," or "conservative values," or "religious values," or "heartland values," or the like? They just bigots.
Accuracy is a virtue.
Arthur, there is much data showing that the primary reason the rural states vote Republican- even though they know they’re better off with Democratic policies- is that they feel disrespected by the elites. They hear Obama talking about clinging to guns and religion; they hear Hillary Clinton talking about deplorables, and why would they vote for people who insult them. And thanks to our anti-democratic institutions like the electoral college they can swing an election.
So even to the extent I agree with you, people like you are what get Trump elected. You just keep yapping about clingers, they’ll just keep winning in the electoral college.
A definition that everyone will agree on? Probably not. But then, neither can you.
The issue is not the 95% or whatever the number is whose personal identity matches their anatomy. For most people, the conventional definition of having XX chromosomes and a vagina works just fine. The question is how to classify the relatively small number of people whose identity does not match their anatomy. That their numbers are small does not mean they don't present a taxonomic challenge.
And your "isn't it obvious" approach is problematic because of the long list of things that at one time were considered so obvious as to not need further discussion that turned out to be wrong. Isn't it obvious that the sun revolves around the earth, for example. If you look up into the sky at 8:00 a.m. and again at noon, you can see for yourself that the sun's position in the sky has moved and the earth sure feels stationary to me. Your "isn't it obvious" approach is simplistic and wrong for the same reason that "isn't it obvious" approach was simplistic and wrong.
For most people, the conventional definition of having XX chromosomes and a vagina works just fine.
I don’t think this is even a fair concession. Having XX chromosomes is definitely not a conventional definition. Women have been around for a long long time, well before people even knew what a chromosome was. Kids know women, but not chromosomes. I suspect there are very few people who actually think about chromosomes when they hear the word “woman.”
I agree. Woman are, and always have been, the type of human from which babies emerge. Men are the other type. At various times it was assumed that women produced babies from their own mysteries, unassisted by men. At other times it was assumed that men planted the spark of life into women. Mostly it was (correctly) understood that a co-operative effort - one of each type - was invoved. Hence the "two by two" boarding Noah's Ark.
People also spotted that animals had the same reproductive division as humans. We've been doing animal husbandry for a looooong time. And we've been hunting for longer still.
We now know a bit more about the details of how babies are made, but the concept of "woman" remains unchanged. It's the type of human that pops out babies. Turns out that that's because a woman is the type of human that makes eggs, and has evolved a fertlised egg development system. (Ditto other animals.)
Sex and its related vocabulary has always been understood (correctly) as a reproductive category.
I agree with Randal here about this not being a conventional definition. Plus, "having XX chromosomes and a vagina" applies to a female dog, but female dogs usually are not referred to as women.
"A definition that everyone will agree on? Probably not."
No. That's not what I was asking for. Just your definition.
What is a woman? In your view.
It might be based on gamete type. Or, it might be based on observable characteristics such as genitalia. Or, it might be based on chromosomes. Or, it might be based on self-reported gender identity.
Which is appropriate in any instance depends on the context of the application.
If the definition of woman is based on "self-reported gender identity," what does that mean exactly?
It means the personal sense of one's own gender. That is, they feel like a woman regardless of their gamete type, geniltalia or chromosomes.
We’ve done this a dozen times before, but if you’re not using “woman” in its normal biological sense, “feel like a woman” needs some reference point. Otherwise it just means “feels like a thingamabob.”
Yes, we have been over this before (but, M L might not be aware).
The key is millions of people have a shared experience of feeling like a woman and suffering stress if they don’t live as one. That’s not the case for feeling like a thingamabob, and is thus strong evidence that gender identity is a trait, every bit as legitimate as gamete type, genitalia or chromosomes.
It's sad that so many people have yet to accept this reality, and as a result haven't bought into the three things that Dilan Esper said the transgender want/need: no discrimination (with a few exception edge cases such as athletics), access to transitioning care, and dignity for their gender identity trait (e.g., use of name and pronouns).
"a shared experience of feeling like a woman"
It seems like this necessarily stems from a misconception of what a "woman" is. Hence the discussion.
They feel like what, exactly?
They feel stress, often extreme, if they don't live as a woman.
If they don't live as a what? Circular, again.
Some examples of not living like a woman:
If they are excluded from women's groups. If they don't have "female" on their driver's license. If they aren't referred to by a female pronoun or their new feminized name. If they don't have access to hormones or surgery to change their appearance.
Not getting pregnant.
They would like to be able to get pregnant. But also, lots of women are infertile. It doesn’t make them not women.
They would like to be able to get pregnant. But also, lots of women are infertile. It doesn’t make them not women.
Nothing on Josh's list was a requirement.
"That is, they feel like a woman"
Rather circular, don't you think?
You’re probably attracted to women, right? Somehow you’re able to figure out which things are women and which are thingamabobs.
Well, you’re attracted to women, and trsns women feel like they are women.
What’s so hard to understand or mysterious about that?
Well that makes sense. I'm attracted to women, leaving aside their warm compassionate fluffy nature (Trademark - Randal) not to mention their good but definitely not cruel or biting sense of humor, because of their cute boobs and cute behinds and their winsome smiles and purdy hair, and fine feet, straight legs and quivering thighs and the demesnes that there adjacent lie.
I associate "woman" with that sort of stuff. Though I am aware that there are women whose boobs and behinds are far from cute, whose smiles are not winsome if they appear at all, whose feet, legs and thighs leave much to be desired and whose adjacent demesnes smell disagreeably of silage. So it would be more accurate for me to say that what I described up top is the model of an "attractive" woman.
But does a trans woman think "she" is an example of either of these items, or something in between ? Or does "she" have some other vision of what "she" is ?
But does a trans woman think “she” is an example of either of these items
Yes! I don’t get what’s so hard about this.
In her dreams, she’d be a regular female with a vaj.
If she were making her videogame persona, she’d choose the female bod, not the male bod and then try to make it look womanly.
If she were a bird, she’d do exactly like the bird in my other example, with the exception of being smart enough to realize that the actual sex stuff wasn’t going to work.
Yes! I don’t get what’s so hard about this.
Well, it's kinda :
In her dreams, she’d be a regular female with a vaj.
usually we do our best thinking when we're awake.
It so happens that only last night I had a dream that I was having an argument in a pub in Ireland. But when I woke up, it turned out that I wasn't.
'Whoever covers their drink when you walk into a bar.'
woman: an adult human of the feminine gender
What does "of the feminine gender" mean ?
If you don't know what the feminine gender is, then you're never going to understand women.
Nobody is ever going to understand your definition of women, if it includes men.
Happily, it doesn't include men. I mean, do you think a man can be an adult human of the feminine gender? Weirdo.
Yes. Bruce Jenner. Richard/Rachel Levine. Many others. Yes, they are weirdos.
My grandfather once told me that nobody understands women and he simply hadn’t understood them longer than I hadn’t understood them.
That’s the problem with all this Newspeak. You can’t define your terms because they’re logically incoherent.
So you just have to dodge.
Women are from Venus? Does that help?
I gave you a great definition. You may have noticed, all definitions of words are in terms of other words. Anyone can play your childish game of demanding definitions of those words, then those words, then those words. You sound like a four-year-old.
Still dodging the question. I can't even credit it as "sophistry."
Or more specifically, what does feminine mean? Any definition that includes woman in this case would be invalid as feminine was used to define woman here.
Thanks. What is the "feminine gender" ? I see you refused to answer above but this shouldn't be difficult, it's really a very basic starting point for any discussion.
Well let’s see… how would I describe this to a space alien, since apparently that’s what the right has turned into, a bunch of space aliens that don’t understand gender. Even though four-year-olds understand gender, I guess the MAGA cult brainwashing that you’ve all gone through has wiped out that part of your brains.
There are two genders, the masculine and the feminine. The masculine gender, often characterized using the symbology of war, such as Mars, embodies action, assertiveness, impulsiveness, and strength. Snips & snails & puppy-dog tails, if you will. Machines. Zeus.
The feminine gender, often characterized using the symbology of nature, such as Venus, embodies nurturing, patience, empathy, and collaboration. Sugar & spice & everything nice, as it were. Animals. Hera.
So a woman is just a person who conforms to female stereotypes, and a man is someone who conforms to male stereotypes?
No room for girls that ride dirtbikes and hunt, or men who are nurturing?
Google definition:
noun
noun: woman; plural noun: women
an adult female human being.
Seems right to me, why complicate it? The space alien here is you.
There's lots of room for variation within the genders. And of course, gender is linked to sex. Wouldn't be much point in trans people altering their bodies if it weren't!
But your description does not allow us to distinguish between ;
A : a male (sex) person who exhibits “feminine gender” at Warp Factor 7 and “masculine gender” at Warp Factor 2 and
B a female (sex) person who exhibits “feminine gender” and “masculine gender” to precisely the same degree as the person A
Is it just decided on the objective Warp Factor measurement, so that A is a woman regardless of what his gametes reveal, and regardless of what he thinks and how he publicly identifies himself ?
Is it “in the eye of the beholder” – ie you can regard A as a woman and I can regard A as a man, because “woman” is a vague category and people can reasonably take a different view ? in which case there’s not much scope for getting angry about someone else’s designation.
Or is there a tiebreaker test ?
Or is the opinion of the person in question decisive ? In which case the “feminine” behavior has really disappeared from the definition and been replaced by self assessment .
So you might have a coherent definition of ‘woman” but so far it’s sulking in the dugout and hasn’t yet trotted out onto the field of play.
Our knowledge of gender is baked in. That’s why it’s hard to define. I can only describe them the way we describe them to each other. An alien can never truly understand the built in, instinctual sense of gender.
It’s like defining pain in any way other than by listing synonyms for pain.
So no, the behavior isn’t the point, any more than an actor pretending to have a headache is actually in pain. You might try telling the alien something like "pain is an undedirable sensation that's distracting and makes you wince and writhe," wincing and writhing by itself doesn't manifest pain.
So it's basically phlogiston.
I don't know what you mean by that. A lot of people, like the dualists, really hate brain science, because they want it to be phlogiston and not reduce to a physical process.
So if you think pain and heterosexuality are basically phlogiston, then yes. Otherwise no, it's whatever pain and heterosexuality are.
So far as I am aware 3rd parties can observe your pain and your sexual arousal in brain scans.
And the problem is not with aliens being unable to perceive gender in human heads, but with the great majority of humans being unable to either. I have no sense of gender in my head. I merely observe my own sex as a physical reality. Ditto for such folk as I have discussed it with (none trans.)
I don't doubt that there are some folk with "gender dysphoria" ie who are sex A but feel like a B. But that doesn't require there to be a gender identity in every human. It's perfectly consistent with plain old delusion. Some people sincerely beleve they're Napoleon. But nobody thinks there's a Napoleon module in the brain.
I don't say there is not a gender identity module, I say that - as was the case with phlogiston - it is conjectured. In time we will discover whether it is real or not.
I have no sense of gender in my head.
Yes you do. You're attracted to females. That's a sense of gender.
Kids have a sense of gender that's divorced from sexuality. Try to remember back to when you thought girls were icky. Why? What do you think that was based on? It's not 'cause you had a pee pee and they didn't.
.
Once again, there aren't millions of people who think they are Napoleon, suffer stress as a result of being treated like they are not Napoleon, and can only have their stress relieved by being treated like Napoleon. If there were, we should conclude there likely is a Napolean module in the brain.
Re: boys vs girls
https://youtu.be/6IlOzGitHs8?si=g2Bsn0NdFxHksjiy
reply to Josh
There's millions of people with anorexia (and millions more with bulimia.) It's perfectly possible for millions to suffer from similar delusions. That does not require a special mental module. Just a delusion.
The prevalence of anorexia varies according to environmental and social factors, and so - it would appear - does the prevalence of gender dysphoria.
You rightly point out elsewhere that phenomena with environmental causes may nevertheless be immutable. That doesn't mean that this is so for gender dysphoria though. Maybe, maybe not.
The treatment for anorexia starts with the position that the patient is wrong about their body image.
Randal : "Yes you do. You’re attracted to females. That’s a sense of gender."
No, not gender, sex. I identify the sex by observation. Contra your fluffy female theory, it doesn't make any difference to whether I'm attracted if the gal I'm looking at is dressed like a man, has a haircut like a man and chugs beer like a man. My brain is able to distinguish "does things like a man" and "is a man."
Now, just to be scientifically accurate, I should say that evolution has crafted my brain to make me interested in [attractive models of] humans that have the outward appearance of females. Thus should I ever meet a CAIS male, I might well be attracted. Evolution did not craft me to be able to do an internal examination on sight.
Kids have a sense of gender that’s divorced from sexuality.
No they have a sense of sex that's divorced from sexuality (for a while.)
.
Does the treatment work? Does the position the body image is correct work? Now compare to gender dysphoria.
"Yes you do. You’re attracted to females. That’s a sense of gender.”
No, not gender, sex.
Yes, exactly! A very good definition of gender would be "perception of sex" or "sense of sex." The biological need to mate with a female manifests as an attraction to women. I totally get that you're not attracted to trans women because they aren't female. But that says nothing about their sense of sex.
The treatment for anorexia starts with the position that the patient is wrong about their body image.
Like Josh says, it would great if this worked for trans people! The efficacy of various treatments is an empirical question.
It's like how my retarded friends thought I had some irrational anti-ivermectin agenda. No, it just actually didn't work! Would've been great if it had, but it didn't. Paxlovid works, and we're all super happy about it! We're not anti-treatment, we're just anti-fake-treatment.
Yes, exactly! A very good definition of gender would be “perception of sex” or “sense of sex.”
I don’t think this really works.
My “perception of sex” directed at a woman, attempts to identify an object in the external world. Likewise when I identify a man. I also identify other objects in the exterior world – like trees, dogs, bicycles etc. It involves coordinating incoming from my senses with my internal reference library for objects. I have a general capacity to identify objects in the external world in this way.
Now I’m perfectly willing to believe – and indeed I do believe – that there are innate elements of my brain architcture that have evolved to be particularly well attuned to identifying objects that are of particular and possibly immediate importance. Such as snakes, food, signs of disease, looming predators and so on. And I’m quite prepared to believe that the perception of sex (and so who’s a potential mate and who isn’t) is sufficiently important for it to be awarded a special neuron or two to help me identify men and women quickly and efficiently – more so than distinguishing this kind of saucepan from that kind. (see also affective neuroscience, in particular the role of emotion, and emotional drives, in directing attention.)
I can also direct my general object identification powers at myself – thereby identifying myself as a man.
But a perception of myself as a woman ? That doesn’t seem to have any connection with my general capacity to identify objects in the world. whether or not enhanced by a super extra THIS IS IMPORTANT high powered lens.
Why should I get the perception of my sex wrong, when I get yours and everybody else’s right ? Why should I be good at dogs and bicycles but bad at myself ?
So if you’re billing “gender” as the “sense of sex” when I look at and identify the reproductive type of another human as a woman (or man) , then if I can perceive myself as a woman (when objectively I’m obviously not and when I don’t make that mistake with other objects) then I can’t be using the same tool. My “sense of sex’ directed at myself, ie my own “gender” must be generated by a different mental tool if it can make such an obvious error that my general purpose tool doesn’t.
But since in my case, there is no identification error as regards myself, there’s no evidence – to me – of any separate self “perception of sex” tool. It’s just those same ol’ senses I use for everything else.
I can’t be using the same tool.
Correct. The point is that you clearly do have a built-in perception of gender that gets used by perception. It also gets used for self-awareness. In fact, this is the weak point of your worldview as I've mentioned before:
I can also direct my general object identification powers at myself – thereby identifying myself as a man.
This is a pretty silly way of thinking that gender self-awareness works. I'm not going to walk through the whole argument again, but looking down at your dick at the age of... three? .. and deciding "ah, I'm a boy!" is totally retarded. Obviously there's a different tool than perception involved.
Correct. The point is that you clearly do have a built-in perception of gender that gets used by perception. It also gets used for self-awareness.
No. You're deliberately pretending to misunderstand. (You're not a half wit.) I also note you've flipped from gender being the perception of sex, to a new concept - the perception of gender. Low marks for consistency.
The point - once again - is this. If you claim the same mental tool is used for perceiving one's own sex as is used for perceiving other people's sex, then if you get your own sex wrong, but everybody else's right, then you have to explain why this same tool does not work for self perception (in some cases.)
Either there is a different tool - allowing one (the perception of sex in others tool) to work and the other (self perception) to be defective; or the error in the identification of your own sex does not arise from an error in your one and only perception of sex tool, but in post perception processing - drawing conclusions from your perceptions. Which in the case of trans folk means a delusion.
Pick one.
I agreed with you that it’s a different tool. “Obviously” a different tool, I said, in fact.
The purpose of mentioning perception, again, is as an existence proof that the brain has built-in concepts of gender. Maybe both “tools” — sexual attraction and gender self-awareness — leverage those same built-in concepts. Maybe there are multiple “copies” of them for different use cases. I’m not making any claims as to the details, just noting that if it works for sexual attraction, there’s no reason to think that it wouldn’t also work for gender self-awareness.
We now seem to have three different things on the go.
1. the perception of the sex of others – ie whether that human there is male or female
2. the perception of the sex of self – ie whether I am male or female
3. sexual orientation – ie whether I find human males or females worth pursuing in the hope of mating
When you said :
“The point is that you clearly do have a built-in perception of gender that gets used by perception. It also gets used for self-awareness.”
I took “it” to refer to the aforementioned “perception of gender that gets used by perception” ie the percepion of [sex] directed at external objects is the same perception of [sex] that is applied to oneself. I can’t see that it could mean anything else. Which – leaving aside sexual orientation which has made a late arrival at the party – leaves us with just the one tool.
So are you now saying that the perception of sex in others is – contra the above – a different mental tool from the one use for perception of sex in oneself ?
If you now add in sexual orientation then obviously it involves a different tool from perception. Seeing and correctly identifying the sex of another human is not equivalent to being sexually attracted to that human.
So how many tools are you alleging ? One ? Two ? Three ?
"Instead of 'born male' or 'born female,' which are inaccurate and considered offensive, use 'assigned male at birth' or 'assigned female at birth'"
What if they were born male but assigned female at birth, or vice versa?
And of course, for most people we have no idea what they were assigned at birth. I assume when most people make the distinction, they infer what someone was assigned by observing their sex.
This religion makes less sense than most.
Which religion makes sense, in your judgment?
Any religion that doesn't want to replace "Vagina" with "Bonus Hole" makes sense compared to this.
Seriously, why do you guys even want to do that?
Beware the Jabberwock, my son
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch
Beware the Jubjub-Bird
And shun the frumious Bonus-Snatch!
Wow. Is that what they taught you in kindergarten? I didn’t know that the schools were infested way back then.
That's ok there's no religion trying to do that.
'This religion makes less sense than most.'
These heresies don't even make sense! complained the inquisitor.
"'Male-bodied' and 'female-bodied' are inaccurate terms and are often considered offensive. ... Instead use: assigned male/female at birth or raised as a boy/girl."
Similar criticism. If you observe that someone has a male of female body, you're supposed to infer what they were assigned at birth?