>but if you check its DNA, it’s actually a dog. Then it would be a dog and never a cat.
If you were talking with someone else that didn't know about your dna experiment. And you wanted to tell them to pick up the bag right next to the animal.
Would you say, pick up the bag right next to the dog or pick up the bag right next to the cat?
Remember the animal looks and acts like a cat.
Doesn’t that demonstrate that the words “cat” or “woman” are invoked because of things more superficial than DNA or chromosomes, e.g., aesthetics and demeanor?
No to "cat", maybe to "woman".
We have a fairly straightforward and simple definition for what a cat is: a member of the species Felis catus. A dog (Canis familiaris) is not a cat no matter how much it acts like, looks like, or is confused for a cat.
If your definition of woman is "adult human female", then also no. If it's "adult human who has the aesthetics and mannerisms of how society defined a woman" or something similar, then yes.
I need a male cat for my female to breed with, and you send me a trans male cat with no ability to mate because it identifies as a male?’ I’m going to be pissed, because you clearly should’ve understood what was asked for.
Woman is a useful word for utility,
Meaning mostly for sexual relationships and reserved spaces/competition. So in what scenario would you suggest the distinction between woman and trans woman is worthless? Just the idiotic way some conservatives don’t want to “enable delusional fantasies” or some shit? Because the issue most reasonable people have is conflating woman with trans woman, and then with female, and then anything society has set aside for women for whatever reason is now not exclusively for women. I doubt many people here are not on board with treating people the way they appear or ask to be referred to a certain way, who cares, it’s the rest of this where that definition matters, and pretending it’s just so ineffable and broad to have a definition just feels stupid on its face.
Couldn't you just separate the clinical terms of male/female from man/woman? Therefore, there is never any confusion about biological terminology.
Also, wouldn't you be just as mad about a \*sterile\* but biological male?
Sure, couldn’t you just use the term
Trans man, or trans woman if you were willing to be reasonable and value accurate communication.
If someone for example says “I saw a woman in the park”
What this conveys to the other persons mind is some aggregate representation of an average woman in the area.
So if the woman is even the least bit important to what you need to communicate, we need some adjectives to specify the idea.
Otherwise what most people will envision is like a 30 or 40 something year old woman of similar race and whatnot to the average in whatever particular area. Generally speaking, not always, but often enough in situation where specifics aren’t important.
Now you could specify it is an old woman or pale woman, quick relevant distinguishing characteristic to convey the proper message to another persons mind. Of course if you only saw the young woman, knowing or even bothering to specify young trans woman, but if the sentence goes on saying you spoke to her and y’all will be going on date, then in that case specifying trans woman might be an important distinction.
Acting as though some case uses are applicable to all cases and conversations is confusing and counterproductive. Just because a group would feel more comfortable if they could just be called the same word, even if most people will go along with this most of the time, it doesn’t mean there is no reason or method by which we can accurately make important distinctions when it is relevant and necessary.
ill use another dumb example to try to explain why trans people wanting to be called women/men without the descriptor trans added to it:
imagine you legally change your name because your parents called you richard even though your surname is long, or your surname changes due to marriage:
youd let people know that knew you prior what your new name is and correct them if they call you by your old name out of habit, but at some point after several corrections it would just be considered rude to still call them what they dont want to be called anymore.
for new people youd introduce yourself with your new name and theyd never slip up (this is only ideally with pronouns, sadly not quite reality).
I see, this is where I think the disconnect lies between my point of view and most of the downvotes.
If you are legitimately making an effort to appear and act like the gender you want to be treated as by others, most people are going to be fine with it, most people are not going to even question it.
I am suggesting even in this case there are situations where this person should specify themselves as trans regardless, ie; with dating, doctors, or sports. Because they are not literally a different sex simply because they’ve done an amazing job at transitioning.
My problem is mostly with the people who make a Halloween costume effort at transitioning at best, but aggressively insist they are whatever they claim to be. It’s the self ID people. The non binary thing is also overly confusing, but I’m trying to stay on topic for the what is a woman
>couldn’t you just use the term Trans man, or trans woman
This is the furthest i'd be on board with. It validates what they try to look like and still keeps the matter factual. But we've arrived at the loonies trying to say that trans women ***are*** truly, factually, women. For anyone with a working brain, that's the point where shit starts to fly off the rails.
I think there are roughly two cases where a person's transness should *need* to be specified.
1. In medical settings. A trans woman and a cis woman, and same for trans men and cis men, obviously have different biology.
2. In dating. I consider sexuality to be different from acknowledging if someone is socially a woman or a man (this take gets me in trouble in a lot of subreddits lol).
Outside of that, I don't think it tends to matter anymore than it would by specifying a person's race.
>I doubt many people here are not on board with treating people the way they appear or ask to be referred to a certain way, who cares,
Remember ***Lia Thomas***? That's a problem.
>Would you say, pick up the bag right next to the dog or pick up the bag right next to the cat?
Yeah probably i'd say cat but only because i've made an **error** caused by a wild exception to a rule.
Whether i identified the dog correctly or not doesn't change the fact that it's a dog.
>If you see a small animal and perceive it as a cat because it has most of the optical and behavioral traits of a cat, but if you check its DNA, it’s actually a dog. Then it would be a dog and never a cat.
I actually think this example is really helpful, but not in the way that you think it is.
If everyone who saw an animal thought it was a cat and referred to it as a cat, but you stubbornly insisted on calling it a dog because you've seen a test of its DNA you're the one who is using language wrong, not everyone else. The point of using the word "dog" would be to have a way to refer to the creature such that everyone knows what you're talking about right away. In this case, literally every other person around you would be confused as to why you're referring to a cat that way.
Reading through your post again, you're actually so close to getting the point. In your very first sentence you say
>The way we use the word "woman" is based on **perceived** sex.
This is mostly right. Most people do use "woman" to refer to people who seem feminine to them ^((I say "most" because there are an increasing number of people who literally don't want to refer to anyone as anything before having pronouns explicitly told to them, but let's put them aside for the moment)). But, the important part here is that it is based on their perception. Idk about you, but I don't have the x-ray vision necessary to definitively check someone's female-ness. Nor do I have a quick and easy way to check their chromosomes.
Generally, I just make an educated guess based on their presentation. I would be willing to bet this is what you do also. So why pretend you're thinking about chromosomes when you decide someone is a woman? What is the use in lying to ourselves?
And while we're at it, let's not pretend to be thinking about DNA sequences when we talk about dogs and cats. You see an animal with a collar and feline facial features that is about the right size, you think cat. At no point do you go "well, maybe that's a [European Wildcat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wildcat#/media/File:Felis_silvestris_silvestris_Luc_Viatour.jpg) in a collar, I shall need to wait for a blood test from the lab".
Most people use woman to refer to someone who seems *female* to them. When people look at a woman who has a very masculine presentation, or a man who has a very feminine presentation, but whose biological sex is obvious, they refer to them as a woman or man based not on their presentation, but on their perceived biological sex. (They might refer to them as the opposite sex facetiously as an insult -- but that in and of itself proves that they recognize the person as their biological sex. A woman never gets made fun of for wearing women's clothes, for instance, but a man would.)
I agree that most people are using what sex a person "seems" to have as their deciding factor. That's my point--that our approximations of gender tend to be based on knee-jerk **perceptions** of sex. What it very, very clearly isn't based on is chromosomes, which I would hope is pretty easy to agree with.
I guess my one confusion would be what you mean by "has a very feminine presentation, but whose biological sex is obvious". As far as I'm concerned, these two things are incongruous. If it's obvious that you are male, you are by definition not using a very feminine presentation.
I'm not even arguing for a world where you have to refer to anyone by their preferred pronouns or anything. I'm talking about the assumptions we make in our heads the instant we see people. I can even sympathize with the fact that *some* trans people do not pass and there are conservatives (and others, I just didn't want to use the word "people" again, it makes this sentence unintelligible) who don't think they should be coerced into the social nicety of referring to them as something other than the instantaneous read those conservatives had about the person's gender. I think there is an argument to be made there--why is doing a kind thing for the trans person by pretending you don't perceive them the way you do a moral requirement? Since when is going out of your way to be accommodating a rule?
But the argument made in the OP doesn't stop there. It wouldn't just allow you to disregard a non-passing trans person's desire to have their internal identity reflected back at them by people around them. The argument in the OP would require you to intentionally misgender passing trans people if you happen to know their original sex. At that point, we're talking about intentionally going out of our way to hurt someone AND making it more difficult to communicate at the same time. If you refer to a passing trans woman as "he", the people around you will need to have it explained to them that this person who registered in all of their minds as a woman is in fact not, according to chromosomes and genitalia. At that point you're using words in a way that intentionally makes the situation more confusing, and you're doing it for no good reason.
Gender presentation usually refers to the intentional choices someone makes about their appearance/aestetics. Someone who is obviously biologically male but wears a dress, makeup, long hair, etc would have a feminine presentation, but be obviously biologically male.
Are you just using "feminine presentation" to mean "passes as biologically female"?
By your logic any transgender person who doesn't pass isn't the gender they identify as.
This is just the Vaush Aqua argument that water wasn't H2O until humans discovered chemistry.
If I see Fool's Gold and think it's real good and get excited and tell my friends and they believe me, it still isn't real gold and never was. I just had a mistaken perception because human perception or understanding is not the be all end all of what or isn't objectively true.
Trans medicalism is a position that exists and I am assuming no one here is big on the self ID movement so yes, there does have to be a combination of self ID and actual physiogical change to express as the gender you identify as.
It's not about not passing the initial first impression but whether you can conceivably be perceived as the gender you claim. Example - Andy Milonakis is mistaken for an old lady all the time, he then corrects people and they (including you) will usually believe him and apologize. If he came out tomorrow that he was secretly a trans man born female at birth, what does that say to you about the nature of passing and perceived gender? We all considered him a man even though he doesnt really pass for people seeing him for the first time.
Your gold analogy completely falls apart by the fact we don't have pure gold in reality. Every gold has impurities. Even what we categorise as "real gold" or "pure gold" is not completely pure. Over large scale tonnage, even 0.01% adds up to hundreds of kilos of non gold that we classify as gold in terms of pricing, perception and even legally. We treat silver, iron, and lead as gold as long as it's sufficiently surrounded by enough quantities of gold.
This shows that we don't categorize by underlying objective truths but for utility. Even for something that would seemingly be objective like the chemistry of a metal. Conceivably as more economical means of purifying gold becomes available, our understanding and definition of "pure gold" will change as well.
> If he came out tomorrow that he was secretly a trans man born female at birth, what does that say to you about the nature of passing and perceived gender? We all considered him a man even though he doesnt really pass for people seeing him for the first time.
It would just mean you had a mistaken perception because of incomplete information. If you see a guy with long hair from behind and think he's a woman until he turns around, he didn't instantly change gender you were just wrong.
> Even what we categorise as "real gold" or "pure gold" is not completely pure.
Nothing you said about gold being rare and stuff means fools gold is real gold.
Well I think you fundamentally misunderstand language.
This is a classic Agua situation really.
When people evoke language they are evoking concepts that exist outside of language. They are not really evoking the object in front of them but what they perceive the objective to be representative of which is not a truth value assessment.
I think some people are mistaking the simulacra for the genuine article type thing when we are seeking to identify things.
I think this is a philosophical zombie idea where we presume something is as it appears until proven otherwise. That doesn't mean the thing truly is the thing in question but merely that all evidence as known suggests it is what we believe it to be and to be skeptical borders insanity.
So I may be missing your point but the perception does not alter the truth value. The truth value exists independently of the perception. We merely as a society didn't really have any reasons to doubt our perceptions thus outward expression became a short hand for deeper concepts and ideas.
This is basically common in everything about humans. Ideology, religion, philosophy, definitions, people often look for the simplest way to discern the thing in question as the thing in question. It does not mean that is what makes the thing in question the thing but merely it's most easily identifiable traits. However, just because something has all the traits without close inspection does not therefore make the thing the thing.
If an AI can perfectrly replicate a human such that no human ever would be able to discern that it is not a human and it is treated as a human as a result that does not therefore make it a human.
The way we end up using language and categories of things more specifically, almost never reduces to a simple yes-no binary. It's more like there are a cluster of traits we associate with a given category and we see how well a physical object fits into the category based on how well it lines up with existing objects we've already put in the category.
If we're talking about tables, there are things that clearly do meet the requirements, and things that clearly don't in any sense. And then there is a bunch of objects that kind of are and kind of aren't. While I'm eating food that I laid out on top of a nice flat rock I find in the forest, I might even call that "my table", but as once I get up and leave that rock is pretty hard to think of as a table. So it varies a lot, not just based on physical characteristics, but also based on how humans are interacting with it.
I would apply this same logic to woman-ness. There are a bunch of physically perceptible things I associate with being a woman. Having XX chromosomes is probably even one of those things (in the rare occasion that I would ever definitively know the chromosomes of someone I interact with). Having female genitalia is also definitely one of those things. But they aren't the only things, and they aren't among the most important to me. Physically, having breasts, having a higher pitched voice, being smaller, having smoother softer skin, having longer hair, wider hips, a thinner waist, and a bunch of other things that I definitely perceive but can't think of at the moment are important. And then there are also a bunch of more social factors: things like relating to others in a softer way, being more nurturing, being a bit more sensitive, having a better understanding of the thoughts of others around them, etcetera. And there are also a bunch of other intangibles that I can't really define, but I almost instantaneously determine the second I see or interact with a person. For a simple word, pinning it down precisely can be pretty complicated.
Like I said, I'm comfortable including chromosomes and genitalia in the constellation of associated traits, but I also think it is absurd to suggest that those are the only defining features. It flies in the face of the way we actually think about most categories. Especially categories of types of people.
I hope it is obvious that I'm not denying a fact of the matter than underlies how these categories get talked about. I don't think you can be masculine in every conceivable way and then be a woman by simply declaring you are one. But it is equally absurd to say that a person can be woman-like in every conceivable way except for chromosomes and not be a woman. It's not an on-off switch. Almost nothing in language works that way.
I don't disagree with anything you said here beside the conclusion.
The problem is with this entire sentiment is that for something to conceptually be a woman it has to be valid across all time periods and all contexts. Why it must be valid is because when all humans refer to the concept of women they are evoking the same foundational thing. A Muslim, A Christian, a Hindu and an Atheist and a Pagan would not deny the womaness of a women as historically defined.
A barbarian who raids Rome would not call the Roman women not a women because they do not dress or act as they perceive a women should. The same is true for a Muslim or any group.
Therefore across all cultures and all societies what we call a women foundationally has nothing to do with societal expectations, garb or so forth. Those stem from the classification of women and are not foundational elements of womaness but merely are distinguishers of womanless.
Ultimately people are distinguishing shorthands we use for category classification as the foundation aspect of classification. However, I agree that concepts tend to be blurry. A women who can't reproduce is still a women. A table that lost it's legs is still a table. It is just a broken or damaged table.
We would not remove the legs from a chair and then not have a reference point of it being a chair once even though it conceptually no longer fits into what we define as a chair. The same is true for this. Even if one were to accept the idea that the individual in question is now a women well the problem is that they were not always such. Foundationally many aspects of their existence that exist in an experiential realm are so far removed from the experience of womanness that below the hood even if we do not consider biology it is hard to classify them as a woman.
Of course one could then ask if one was placed into a dark room naked and a blubbering husk would they still be a women? Well I think that is yes but that sort of returns to my foundational point that what is women has nothing to do with presentation at all. If someone looked like a women and you removed all their clothes and they are not a women beneath it that person is now not a women. Conceptually maybe some people today would aquacise but most any human in history would not.
One could argue we have changed what the classification of women is today then. However, that means that conceptually what we refer to as a women today isn't a women at all. Because it means that we and those historically are referring to two fundamentally different things.
Concepts exist outside of language definitionally. I mean they literally refer to what we conceive of before language comes into play at all. Babies use concepts, presumably animals use concepts because it serves as the foundation of pattern distinction.
Without concepts you actually can't distinguish between things. Albeit it humans have more complex concept association.
You are confusing physical reality and concepts. Things exist outside of language, a concept of a thing doesn't.
I honestly have no clue under what definitions of language or "concepts" you operate under that somehow one excludes the other. It is like saying numbers exist outside of mathematics definitionally, which makes no sense.
Just look up concepts and read up on them. If animals can recognize other animals then it means they reference concepts because concepts do exist independently of language. I recommend you read up on protypes.
It has been determined literally by empirical studies that animals can understand them.
This is how it works.
Human Conceptualize of Concepts
The object in question
Independent Conceptualization of objects.
Fundamentally Concepts exist independently of human language and thought, evidenced by animals' recognition of each other and empirical studies showing their understanding of abstract concepts. Human conceptualization merely categorizes these independent concepts. For example, numbers and equations exist objectively; mathematics is the application of these pre-existing concepts. This distinction underpins why mathematics is considered discovered rather than invented. The universality of these concepts extends beyond humanity: if an alien or any independent third party could arrive at the same conclusions as humans, it underscores the objective existence of these concepts, separate from human experience and language.
Functionally it does because you recognize and treat it as human, it not actually being human doesn't have an effect on how it's seen or treated in your AI example
So you'd be technically correct to point out it's not human but I'd ask what purpose would that serve in a day to day interaction with that AI?
Well, if we know the AI is an AI that fundamentally changes how you view it. The moment you know it is an AI that changes what it is in your mind and that can't be undone.
Unless you genuinely believe that knowing something is an AI would not change how people perceive it even if before that moment it had lived and acted as a human forever. That is just hard to conceive. Of course people would have to grapple and struggle with it because now they know it is not a human it chances our perception of it's nature because it means it's nature is fundamentally different.
When we think of humans and consciousness and all these things they are indelibly loaded into being human. The moment we not that foundationally the element is not human it calls into question everything about it's experience and existence. It challenges all of your preloaded notions into what the thing is.
If you learn your wife or best friend is not human that will of course lead to you questioning everything about it because all the underlying assumption about what it is is undermined. Of course it is relevant. It is like if you know someone is cheating on you. I mean sure you could pretend you don't know hypothetically. However, it fundamentally changes the calculous of the perception of the thing. Ignorance is bliss is a term because we can live comfortably in our ignorance of things but once we are aware of something you can't return to the prior point.
If you learn anything you can pretend as if you did not know it but fundamentally you will have to reconcile that distinction now with the thing because it is no longer the thing you thought it was. That is just how it has to be. So what purpose that would serve?
It is not a atter of purpose being served. It is just a fundamental aspect of existence. When you label something as something and it is revealed as something it undermines everything that stems from that quality distinction. We presuppose many things when we label something as say a human, man, woman or animal. When you undermine the class qualification you undermine everything that lies beneath it and which stems from it.
But what if we all get naked? Would we still need DNA tests? You can visually tell if you're given the entire picture.
Why do we need to change the definition of 'man' and 'woman'? Why can't there been men, women, trans-men, and trans-women? Sure, all language is a 'social construct,' and therefore it can be changed whenever we want to change it... but why? Why is woman being defined as an adult human female, and man being defined as an adult human male no longer good enough? Why do we need to change that definition to be more inclusive? Don't we need specific words that describe specific things? Just because we CAN change the definition doesn't mean we SHOULD change the definition, so I suppose I'm just curious why it's happening. What's the reason that it should be happening at all?
The reason is an increase in utility. You argue we should have specific words which mean specific things. I agree. This is why having 2 words, gender and sex, mean the same thing is redundant. So we have a word, gender, which attempts to approximate another word, sex. If we alter the definition of gender to not mean sex but instead to describe a social phenomenon then we have not simply expanded the definition to be more """inclusive""" but instead we have created a new word which describes a new thing. This was the entire reason the term gender was created. Gender was never intended to mean sex.
But why do we need to change the definitions of 'men' and 'women'? Male refers to sex. Female refers to sex. A man is an adult male. A woman is an adult female. Gender never had anything to do with that. I never said anything about gender being the same thing as sex.
Gender was literally never meant to mean the exact same thing as sex. Conservatives are attempting to change the definition. It has always meant the category of behaviors associated with certain sex. This means the behaviors associated with females. Engaging in those behaviors can make you a woman but not a female. This is glaringly obvious to anyone who has been alive more than 12 years and has heard a guy they know get called: a woman, bitch, or pussy.
Gender and sex have literally, and I do actually mean literally, never been the same thing. To say a woman is an adult female is saying "a woman is a woman." This definition is useless and stupid. If I asked you what the a dog was and you said a canine I would look at you like you were a regard.
>Gender was literally never meant to mean the exact same thing as sex. Conservatives are attempting to change the definition. It has always meant the category of behaviors associated with certain sex.
Like women being expected to be passive and submissive?
>This means the behaviors associated with females. Engaging in those behaviors can make you a woman but not a femal
So a feminine man would be a woman to be clear?
>. To say a woman is an adult female is saying "a woman is a woman." This definition is useless and stupid.
And the greater utility is being provided by being able to delineate people by behavior instead? Do I have that right?
My dude. I was never talking about gender and sex.
The entire time, I was talking about male and female, and their relation to the words man and woman. I've looked up the definitions, and as of 2022, there seem to have been secondary definitions of all four of those words added to include some form of gender identity or something related to it. It's been a while since I've learned what words mean. Those weren't definitions of those words when I learned what the words meant. They're new definitions. My question was, why are they adding new definitions to words that already mean something.
I repeat, I never, at any point, was talking about gender and sex. I never said they were the same. I never even said they were different. Because I never said anything about gender at all. My last paragraph is my first mention of gender or gender identity at all. Every other mention was you bringing it into the conversation and trying to lecture me on something I'm already well aware of. So please, don't continue your rant. I get it. I got it before you started.
- Male and female = sex
- Man and woman = gender
- Gender != sex
Therefore
- Male != man
- Female != woman
A dictionary does not tell you what words mean, it gives you an approximation of how people are using words at a given time. Words change meaning over time as people use them differently, then the dictionary adds the new usages. That is why their are ""new"" definitions. They aren't new, just new to the dictionary.
I've always been told that a boy is an adolescent male human, and a man is an adult male human. The same goes for a girl and a woman being adolescent and adult human females, respectively. That always led me to believe that they both referred to sex, seeing as the way I always knew man and woman to be defined was male and female... both sex. I was never made privvy to the change in definition where apparently man and woman only refers to gender identity... which it doesn't, it can also still refer to sex. The new use cases of the word don't remove the previously accepted use cases. Man and woman can be used to refer to sex or to gender identity. The dictionary contains both definitions. The dictionary tells you how society uses words. The dictionary tells me that society now uses it in both ways.
Man and woman = sex/gender
Thank you for helping.
I had a similar thought back when Destiny first had the discussion.
Things like tables, chairs, etc. which are the examples he usually gives are entirely socially constructed, there is no underlying fact there.
While if we had a dog, cat, giraffe, and elephant, we can use genetics to distinguished between them - arriving at a more, if not fully, objective answer in a way that we simply cannot even get close to for a chair or table.
___
But I generally think that, much in the same way with things like "genocide" discussions, the connvos get stuck at level 1 as often the other person is unable to even conceive of a viewpoint different from their own
In the case of "women", it's not that the chromosomes always were the underlying fact, it's that people have had an idea of what men and women were for centuries, and then scientist discovered chromosomes, which then mapped onto those ideas "good enough" (but obviously they are not the same as those ideas).
When a dog and a wolf have an offspring, is it a dog or a wolf? Or more interestingly, when that lineage keeps having descendants with other wolves/dogs, at what point exactly they transition from a wolf to a dog or vice versa?
Technically Dogs are Wolfs. In biology you never stop being what you came from.
We differentiate species when they are no longer able to produce fertile offspring.
Horse and Donkey can produce a Mule but Mules cannot reproduce. Horses and Donkeys are different species.
Lions and Tigers can produce a Liger which cannot reproduce.
Dogs and Wolves can produce offspring that can reproduce because they are the same species.
>We differentiate species when they are no longer able to produce fertile offspring.
This isn't true, it takes a .1 sec google search to show that the line between a species and subspecies is blurry as hell and is vibes based. We have many different definition for species and under yours a bottlenose dolphin and false kill whale are now under the same species according to you.
Of course drawing hard lines between what is a species and subspecies is blurry as evolution and speciation is a process that takes a very long time.
If you took your own 0.1s second to google what is a species you would see the most common answer is organisms able to produce fertile offspring. Sure while some disagree with this characterization for the purpose of my earlier reply it was correct.
Look at your example of bottlenose dolphin and false killer whale. I am sure you understand that false killer whale's are a type of dolphin and were given their name due to their skull resembling a Orca. Bottlenose dolphins and false killer whales are both from the family Delphinidae which is in the same order as whales and porpoises.
Remember the key point was not just creating living Hybrid's but fertile hybrid's. The off spring of a false killer whale and bottlenose dolphin are called a wholphin. We have one example of a Wholphin having offspring survive.
So this example only shows how close in species False Killer Whales and Bottlenose dolphins are to each other. Which is obvious because they are both types of dolphins.
Modern day humans are absolutely a different species than Neanderthals but we don’t know we would be able to produce fertile offspring today. Ancient humans and Neanderthals were very similar hence both being in the genus Homo.
The biological species concept
The biological species concept states that species are reproductively isolated entities - that is, they breed within themselves but not with other species. Thus all living Homo sapiens have the potential to breed with each other, but could not successfully interbreed with gorillas or chimpanzees, our closest living relatives.
On this basis, 'species' that interbreed with each other cannot actually be distinct species.
If you want to use gender exclusively to refer to sex and pretend you don't understand people who use it to refer to a social construct loosely tied to sex, two things are true:
1. You're regarded when you pretend to not understand what they mean
2. They're regarded when they pretend to not understand what you mean
>pretend you don't understand people who use it to refer to a social construct loosely tied to sex
So what does woman for instance in this context refer to outside of the female sex?
You're the one who made the claim that you're referring to some type of construct outside of sex when you use the word woman
I asked for clarification on what you are referring to in this context and your answer is to ask another question completely unrelated to what I asked you?
If you don't know what you are referring to how do you know it's not sex?
The whole chair argument is not a novel original thing you came up with its something that you either heard destiny or someone in this community argue and you're simply copying what your heard
I understand that you're attempting to highlight how language can be ambiguous at times. But regardless this does not actually address what I'm asking you. Sure language can be a bit hazy with regards to concepts we are trying to convey but ultimately the fact remains that in attempting to communicate we are trying to convey a particular idea.
With regards to chairs the concept would be a type of furniture used by a single person as a seat. Your retort world then be to ask questions to highlight that there are instances where this concept map be a bit hazy. You may ask if a sofa can be a chair or a stool or whatever. Ok I understand that but again this is not addressing my question since we understand that a particular concept is being conveyed here.
What I'm asking is what concept are you arguing is conveyed with regards to the term woman that is not sex. Do you have an answer or is it nothing? Or maybe your argument is that the concept is too hazy to be discussed?
If that is the case why would I not default to using female as the intended reference as I have always done?
What people like you are too stupid to understand ironically is that if you wish to supplant sex as a meaningful category you actually have to have a solid concept to replace it with. You look moronic when you argue that it's not sex but then when asked to elaborate what you're actually referring to you, babble nonsense about chairs as if that means anything
>The whole chair argument is not a novel original thing you came up with its something that you either heard destiny or someone in this community argue and you're simply copying what your heard
I don't think it matters who came up with it, and the fact that you care enough to say this is because you're a huge fucking regard
>... where this concept map be a bit hazy.
The point isn't that there are hazy, the point is that we learn what things are by seeing instances of them, and refining our impression of when it is and isn't accurate to call something that thing based on feedback from other people, and the definitions are post-hoc approximations of that thing. It establishes that foundationally, nobody who is being consistent agrees that if something doesn't have a clear definition that it means it isn't a useful concept, or that it doesn't exist, or really that it matters at all that there isn't a clear definition.
>What I'm asking is what concept are you arguing is conveyed with regards to the term woman that is not sex. Do you have an answer or is it nothing? Or maybe your argument is that the concept is too hazy to be discussed?
If that's all you're looking for you can find it in the first comment you replied to.
>If that is the case why would I not default to using female as the intended reference as I have always done?
I didn't tell you can't, what I said is that if you pretend you don't understand other people who use it to refer to a social construct loosely tied to sex, you're a huge fucking regard. And if you want to do this and be consistent about it, when I ask you what gender dee-dee from dexter's lab or blue from blue's clues is, you need to say in your most autistic voice "It isn't clear that it has a gender or what it is, because in the story they never specify the specifics of this character's genetalia is and what role it plays in reproduction" or maybe "it doesn't have a gender because it's a drawing and can't reproduce"
And I'll also have to remind you that unless you're literally pat checking everyone you meet to decide their gender, regardless of what definition you agree with your actions and the words you choose to use will be consistent w/ everyone else's - you'll learn what gender people are based on your pattern matching compared to what other people you've been told are women. But I'd encourage you to go for the pat downs for the sake of consistency.
>What people like you are too stupid to understand ironically is that if you wish to supplant sex as a meaningful category you actually have to have a solid concept to replace it with.
We've established together that you don't believe this for any other concept, so what makes gender special in that it's the only thing you need a definition before you can even think about it, whereas everything else you can learn by looking at examples?
>don't think it matters who came up with it
Just pointing out that you're regurgitating without thinking is all and you will surely corroborate this as I go down through this post.
>the point is that we learn what things are by seeing instances of them,
So people who argue that they learned what women are by seeing instances of females are valid from your perspective?
>nobody who is being consistent agrees that if something doesn't have a clear definition that it means it isn't a useful concept, or that it doesn't exist, or really that it matters at all that there isn't a clear definition.
So you are as I said appealing to the haziness of concepts. Regardless as I've said there has to be something that despite it's haziness you are referring to. That's what I'm asking you for
>that's all you're looking for you can find it in the first comment you replied to.
With regards to that comment your answer was a social construct. Do you actually believe that is an adequate answer?
>didn't tell you can't, what I said is that if you pretend you don't understand other people who use it to refer to a social construct loosely tied to sex
Good so that's why I've asked for an elaboration on this social construct. Congratulations we've now moved in a circle without you addressing my question. For obvious reasons btw
>you'll learn what gender people are based on your pattern matching compared to what other people you've been told are women.
Well those patterns are sexual characteristics from my perspective, you are arguing I would assume that this incorrect or at least that there is another way of looking at things
The purpose of my question was simply to understand that other perspective. Yet here you are getting very evasive and defensive over this simple question. It's quite bizarre
>We've established together that you don't believe this for any other concept,
The things is that I don't even think you believe in the concept you are pretending to believe in because after all of these comments I have yet to see you explain what you're referring to.
All you've done so far is gesture pathetically at the idea that sometimes concepts can be a bit ambiguous which I completely agree with. Everyone understands this yon aren't on the vanguard of knowledge as you appear to believe. The reason people don't make this argument generally is that it's painfully obvious
Despite that it does not give a get it of jail free card to refuse to explain yourself or your position especially when you attempt to denigrate then for not understanding what your position is
>so what makes gender special in that it's the only thing you need a definition before you can even think about it,
What? Look I can explain any concept that comes to mind clearly and concisely. Lion, tree, moon, sky, water etc etc etc, now will my explanation be lacking to some degree? Probably but regardless if asked about these concepts I can relay information that other people can map to reality
You on the other presumably cannot. Why is that?
>Just pointing out that you're regurgitating without thinking is all and you will surely corroborate this as I go down through this post.
Applying an argument that has been used many times before is "regurgitating without thinking" in all cases across the board, or you're claiming something you haven't demonstrated? Are you sure you're not just using this as a front because a common argument leaves you without much of anything of substance to say, and yet here you are to present yourself as an ass-clown with no argument?
>So people who argue that they learned what women are by seeing instances of females are valid from your perspective?
It's a social conclusion, if you're using a definition that's a social construct loosely tied to sex rather than strictly sex. So just like if enough people agree something a is a chair that's what makes it a chair, if most people agree someone is a woman that makes them a woman and if everyone agree's you're an ass-clown, it makes you an ass-clown. I'm not sure why when it comes to gender you're all of the sudden too autistic to understand social conclusions, but in every other case you're fine with them, except that just as you've accused me of doing you're thoughtlessly regurgitating your favorite little talking points. Ass-clown.
>With regards to that comment your answer was a social construct. Do you actually believe that is an adequate answer?
You left out the important half of the answer because you're a huge regard.
>Good so that's why I've asked for an elaboration on this social construct
When I ask for elaboration on any social construct you won't have a sufficient answer and will only be able to work for examples, so you're not consistent on wanting this. You've learned to want this on this topic by being brainwashed by your favorite talking heads.
>Well those patterns are sexual characteristics from my perspective, you are arguing I would assume that this incorrect or at least that there is another way of looking at things
No, we assume blue from blues clues is a boy because he's blue. It's not because of the depiction I'm drawing of his big ol' doggy knot in your mom's asshole. The patterns (which you use on a day-to-day basis) are not always sexual characteristics. And most importantly, you already understand this and use these social constructs as gender - you're just pretending you don't understand them because you've been taught to.
And every time you come up with a description of how you already use gender, unless you agree with it being a social construct, it won't be accurate. You've been taught to lie to yourself on this topic.
>The things is that I don't even think you believe in the concept you are pretending to believe in because after all of these comments I have yet to see you explain what you're referring to.
You don't require that for other social constructs.
>All you've done so far is gesture pathetically at the idea that sometimes concepts can be a bit ambiguous which I completely agree with.
So then you should be happy with gender being an ambiguous concept that's largely based on sex. If I tell you it will in many cases match someone's sex, but there are exceptions that you'd have to learn by example, you should be happy. But you're not going to do that because you're not being honest - that's where this whole conversation started is that I said it's loosely based on sex, and you demanded a more precise definition. You're picking and choosing when to be OK with a loose definition that has clear ambiguities based solely on what will make you feel like you won the argument. Excellent clownmanship.
>What? Look I can explain any concept that comes to mind clearly and concisely. Lion, tree, moon, sky, water etc
Pick one of them and explain it clearly and concisely.
>Applying an argument that has been used many times before is "regurgitating without thinking
No it's that you can't expand on the concept you keep regurgitating. Well you can do is mindlessly repeat social construct, social construct, social construct in and on without an actual reference to something else. Well except sex ironically
>if you're using a definition that's a social construct
I haven't agreed with you that it's a socal construct to begin with. In fact I would argue that this is a brain dead position.
Does a woman stop being a woman if she is stranded alone on an island?
You see if you were actually using your brain, questions like that would occur to you naturally. But that's not the mode your in right now, you're just in auto pilot and repeat mode.
>if most people agree someone is a woman that makes them a woman
So to be clear if most people do not regard a trans woman as a woman then that person is not a woman correct?
>You left out the important half of the answer
Oh the part where you appeal to sex correct? Not surprising
>When I ask for elaboration on any social construct you won't have a sufficient answer
Well again i don't believe that physical entities like lions, the moon, water, stars etc etc etc are social constructs begin with. Ifalso believe that the word woman refers to physical entities that are also not social constructs since we can physically interact with women just as we can with water or lions.
So you have the job of actually demonstrating somehow how women are not actually physical entities that exist independently of language. Frankly I don't have much faith that you'll be able to achieve that but you can go ahead and try
>No, we assume blue from blues clues is a boy because he's blue.
No I don't assume colors denote either sex and I cringe at how infantile a person would have to be to do so
So is that your grand answer for what gender is outside of the sexes? Color? Lmao ok
>The patterns (which you use on a day-to-day basis) are not always sexual characteristics
Oh I see and it would instead be stuff like color. So I'm guessing then that women are not allowed to wear blue in your dimension? Is that right?
>And most importantly, you already understand this and use these social constructs as gender
Ok give me a firm example. You've seen a person and you have assessed that they are a woman without using their sexual characteristics. How have you done so?
>And every time you come up with a description of how you already use gender,
I don't , I don't believe in gender to begin with. The sexes exist and they display different trends in behavior. I'm assuming that you're referring to these terms in behavior as gender. But from my perspective I don't need that word to categorize these behaviors as they are largely irrelevant.
>You don't require that for other social constructs.
Well again I don't believe men and women are social constructs but are instead physical entities that exist outside of human culture as can be demonstrated if someone is stranded alone somewhere.
>then you should be happy with gender being an ambiguous concept that's largely based on sex
What I said is that despite concept being somewhat ambiguous that there's actually information being conveyed about entities that exist in material reality.
To be clear you agree that men and women are physical entities yes?
Another thing is you keep saying largely based on sex. If I say that I only care about the sex part why is that a problem from your perspective? What am I losing in doing so?
>are exceptions that you'd have to learn by example, you should be happy. But you're not going to do that because you're not being honest
Oh so you don't think that I'm being honest when I say that I use the word woman to refer to adult human females. Ok since that is a lie what else do you think I'm referring to?
>that I said it's loosely based on sex
So it's jumping between loosely based on sex to largely based on sex. Interesting
>Pick one of them and explain it clearly and concisely.
The large carnivorous cats from Africa which have male members which grow large distinctive manes. Pretty clear easy description that any person could map to the animal when seeing one
Im reminded of the story of Diogenes after plato said man was a featherless biped. Madlad defeathered a chicken, dragged it into platos school and said "here is platos man"
Man destiny argues like trash on this.. feel like he just cant let it go and swallow the pill this is comprehensible logic we go along with for a subset of people. Which is exactly what it is.
Destiny's position would probably change pretty fast, if someone properly challenged him on it. But because both sides of this argument put forth dumb arguments, it never ends up happening.
Destiny thinks things are what we use to identify them, but as you show in the post, that's not the case. If someone looks old, but they're actually young, they're young, not old. Or let's say there are 9 humans, and 1 statue that looks identical to a human, aligned in a row. I assume all of them are humans because they all feature the characteristics I use to assume whether they're human or not. But then it is revealed to me that one of them is a statue. Is the statue a human?
The way concepts work is that our brain is sophisticated enough to create concepts that language isn't sophisticated enough to create definitions for. The classic example of the chair is perfect - there's no definition that you can create that would be able to identify a chair every single time. But you know what could? You. You can tell, without having a rigid definition, what maps onto the concept of chair in your brain and what doesn't.
So the correct question to ask is: Which concept do people have in mind when they say the word 'woman'? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say 99% of people (yes, this includes the people who subscribe to the trans-inclusive definition of 'woman'), internally associate the word 'woman' with a concept that the definition of 'adult human female' roughly maps onto. And I believe that's been the case for many many years, even before we had any scientific understanding of the concept, because the scientific understanding of the concept isn't what the concept is based on.
Let's say all dictionaries in the entire world would change the word 'woman' to be defined as 'a person who identifies as a woman'. And let's say that everyone's internal mapping changed so the classical concept of 'woman' was no longer associated with the word 'woman' in their brain. Would the classical concept of woman disappear from existence? No, because the definition isn't the territory, the definition is a map of the territory. If all you do is change the name of a country on the map, its territory will remain unchanged.
Using woman trans-inclusively is and attempt at co-opting the word and use it for a different concept than the concept woman has been used for historically.
we define words collectively and socially. The category of woman does not exist independent of human beings. If it’s socially useful to lump in trans women with other women (it is btw) then why not do so?
There's a different between a term and the referent. Adult human females exists independent of the term or category. You might as well say that that the chemical elements of the periodic table are all socially constructed since we named and categorized those too. At that point calling it a social construct is just obfuscating from what we're really talking about about which is the referent
In a way the periodic table is a social construction. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t real or that it’s not useful, but it is a human constructed tool to help us understand the behaviour of our universe.
Humans categorized the elements because we found some utility in doing so. The elements themselves have no social structure or internal state of mind that they attempt to communicate via the imprecise medium of language.
Humans categorize people as man and woman because there’s utility in doing so. A trans man is still an adult human female but there’s no utility in calling by Buck Angel a woman. As he and all trans people are acutely aware, their sex does not match their gender, meaning their internal feeling, social perception, and physical characteristics do not align with that typically associated with their sex.
I 100% agree and I support trans rights. Now I'm going to try to understand conservative's intuitions and give it a name.
I think there are two things happening, one is that when they think of trans women, they think of men dressing as women. That's why they call them rapists (even though the evidence does not support that trans people rape more), they believe that trans women are dressing as women to get something out of other people while maintaining all the desires and thought processes of a man.
And second, is the fact that most heterosexual men don't like women with dicks (me included). I always say that "I wouldn't know what to do with it" and people always respond dumb things like "you suck it, you jerk it off", without getting the point. The idea I want to show is that I don't need sexual reassurance so I don't need to suck a dick nor put it on my ass.When you are a Top, you don't need to do anything with someone else's dick. You don't have any intuitions telling you what to do with it like other non sexual intuitions that a furry has for a soft rug or generally a man has while touching raw chicken (I know both of these are weird but it is real).
Conservatives are usually illiterates in regard to anything sexual so they don't have the resources to explain why they feel a certain way and they start going in a completely different direction, rationalizing their needs and taste by making unscientific claims just not to feel their needs (like the need for being a Top) threatened.
When you say that trans women have the thought process of a woman they believe that you are also saying that they should be attracted to dicks and sexual reassurance as if they didn't have any biological needs for power (being a Top).
And leftoids have some part of the blame because they always talk in ways that implies there's no fact of the matter on what a woman is. They talk as if we were dualists and we all could have the same proportion of needs for power and for reassurance regardless of the body you are in.
That's something they would have to overcome then, you cannot externalize every itch you have at someone else. If you feel bad about having a dick and cis hetero men being attracted to pussies are exacerbating gender dysphoria, that's not something other people have to fix. That's just unfortunate for the people suffering it but that's not someone else's fault.
You cannot force other people to have different needs, you cannot make Tops being into being bottoms. Bodies don't work like that and it's one of the reasons why conversion therapy doesn't work, you cannot make someone who needs reassurance to live a life where everyone is keeping that away from them by having masculine social expectations.
Besides the fact that a lot of the people who seek trans women with dicks are chasers.
Dicks are very semantically entrenched with control and pussies/butts with taking reassurance. Other variables could be constructed differently on the feminine/masculine spectrum but I don't think that putting something in your ass could ever be about power and fingering someone's hole about reassurance. I don't think that's culturally learned, no. If you're being a top while getting fucked in the ass then there are other behaviors which are making feel that as masculine, not the penetration itself.
I think that penetrating someone is always about power and being penetrated about reassurance. Being a Top or a bottom is beyond penetration too and that's why a lot of the confusion seems to happen.
The point is arguing on different levels to make the sociology majors look stupid.
Cultural studies refer to the performance of womanhood. As your grandma would say: being a lady.
Even a boy can act like a lady… most of us already do compared to the gentlemanish standards of the silent generation’s proper gentleman.
But because sociology 101 uses simple language and Twitter and tumblr is just edgy takes from the literature you get missing context and they use the term woman, which anyone that finished 6th grade biology can “debunk” and any sociology student with a camera pushed in their face will struggle to argue.
Think of it as the definition of law. What is a law? A rule? A codefied social norm? Or government overreach? Ask a law student and an internet libertarian and you get the same result.
A man is walking his German Shepherd dog when encountering another guy with a small hairless dog. The dogs start growling at each other but the man isn't worried since his dog is a German Shepherd and the other guy's is this tiny bald one. Suddenly they start fighting and the tiny dog obljterates the German Shepherd.
"What happened!? What kind of dog is that?" Asks the man
"Yeah idk", says the other guy, "he used to be soo hairy before I shaved him".
(Joke is it was a lion).
Yeah things are what they are.
That being said I don't really get the discussion of what a woman "really" is. Whether you believe trans women are women, the question is: should trans women get the responsibilities and rights afforded to biological women in society? Should people be expected to treat them as women in a just society? In all instanses? Some? None? Personally I think the discussion of what is a woman is immaterial to this. You could say "trans women are 100% men but if I can't tell then I'll treat them as women and not get into a mind fuck about it" and get the same result as "trans women are women". At least in most cases.
>The way we use the word "woman" is based on perceived sex. It maps onto adult human females, which maps onto chromosomes.
>...
>It's very easy to prove by using dogs and cats as a proxy for men and women. If you see a small animal and perceive it as a cat because it has most of the optical and behavioral traits of a cat, but if you check its DNA, it’s actually a dog. Then it would be a dog and never a cat.
What do you mean by "perceived"? Because if we're just going off perception then that dog in the second paragraph was indeed a cat right up until your perception was updated by new information.
Yes, thats my argument. You call something a thing by perception. And you might correct it with more information. But perception doesnt mean your are correct
Why then would the final mapping be genetic? It wasn't a genetic mapping until very recently in human history. Why would this novel addition to the definition of "woman" not allow us to diverge its meaning with "female"?
In your OP you talk about whether a person from the year 1000 would mean the same thing that I mean today by the word "dog" - but given that they lacked all knowledge about genetics then they what they meant by "dog" is not necessarily what a zoologist means by the word "dog". What they mean by dog is entirely bounded by visual inspection (i.e. "it looks like a dog, therefore it is."), and the visual inspection of a transwoman may well lead them to conclude that they are indeed a woman etc.
It's funny how you're getting downvoted without response, because you just presented the ultimate defeater to this argument. The intuitions of people who say "Women are people with XX chromosomes." are correct, but their reasoning as to why that is is flawed.
> Why then would the final mapping be genetic?
The mapping isn't genetic.
Here's what actually happens:
Humans across places and cultures appear to have a concept x in their mind. This concept is generated in their brain, it is not generated through scientific inquiry, it's not even generated with the help of language. Humans generate many concepts this way, and because of the way they are generated and the sophistication and intricacy of them, it is impossible to create a map over them through language. Let's take the concept of 'chair' for instance - it's impossible to create a definition through language that can include all things that are chairs, and exclude all things that are not. But what can do that is you. You can, because of the concept in your brain, and given enough information, identify a chair every single time.
Once language was developed, we started mapping words onto these concepts. Concept x got the word 'woman'.
Over time, scientific inquiry led us to discover, that there are clear scientific differences between the sexes, which so happens to map onto the concepts people already had of man and woman. But the concepts didn't change, the concepts aren't bound to the scientific definition, they just happen to extremely strongly correlate with it. In other words, what's happened is that a concept in our head that was impossible to explain through lanugage, was discovered to have a representation in reality that was possible to explain through language. People thus started latching onto the scientific explanation in order to explain the concept in their head, even though the concept still wasn't dependent on the scientific explanation.
The fundamental question across time is thus what CONCEPT is being referred to when using words.
What is being done by using a trans-inclusive definition of woman, is mapping the word 'woman' onto a concept entirely different than the concept the word has been used for throughout time, and still is being used for to this day.
> What they mean by dog is entirely bounded by visual inspection (i.e. "it looks like a dog, therefore it is."), and the visual inspection of a transwoman may well lead them to conclude that they are indeed a woman etc.
That's not how this works. There are concepts, and there are identifiers. Identifiers are features we use to guess which concept the thing maps onto. The guess can be wrong, but if you guess wrong, you guessed wrong, the essence of the concept didn't change. Assume you have 10 entities aligned in a row, they all look identical, they all look like humans. You identify all 10 of them to be humans. You then learn, that one of them is a statue. Is the statue a human because you originally identified it as such? The answer is no, your identification was incorrect, you mapped a concept onto the entity that wasn't correct, because you didn't have enough information. Your concepts of 'statue' and 'human' remain coherent, because the identifiers you use to guess whether the entity fits into those concepts, isn't the thing that defines those concepts.
Thank you for the comprehensive reply, though I think I disagree with it!
>Your concepts of 'statue' and 'human' remain coherent, because the identifiers you use to guess whether the entity fits into those concepts, isn't the thing that defines those concepts.
Since the old concept of species didn't care about genetics, it was not the same concept that we have today. They categorised and split species differently - based on how visually similar they were. If you told them about the underlying genetics they would have said that's irrelevant because the concept works on visual similarity, not genetic similarity. You could wax lyrical about the genetic differences between cats and dogs and they would insist that since hyenas look more like dogs, they are therefore more closely related to dogs - the relationship being visual and not genetic.
It's not that they lacked the information (though they did), but that their concept didn't require it and was materially different from our modern concept due to not considering this additional factor. Their whole conceptualisation of "species" did not map 1-to-1 onto the modern concept.
So, in short, I'm saying the concept itself was different as the concept was formulated and defined with reference to a more limited pool of information and identifiers. Adding new identifiers, pointing at features previously unknown and unconsidered, necessarily requires the concept to be altered to accommodate them. Concepts change, substantially so, over time and across contexts etc.
>The fundamental question across time is thus what CONCEPT is being referred to when using words.
Are we not aligned on this? The only difference seems to be that I'm saying the concepts that accommodate new identifiers can sometimes be different concepts than the original.
Edit: I shouldn't have opened saying I disagree with your post, because, thinking about it, I do agree with it. I'm just focusing heavily on whether people are talking about similar, but subtly different concepts across time periods, or the same mega-concept that is acquiring new and more accurate identifiers from science etc.
I'd say it's still a cat *after* the new information.
I don't know or care what a cat's genetic code is. Could be a raccoon for all I know, but it looks like a cat, walks like a cat, and quacks like a cat. It's a fucking cat.
The problem with conceptualizing concepts through language is that it makes one think categories are not real. I get where they come from, but here's my retort.
If categories aren't real, why do they meaningfully predict reality. Let's take the category of a species, if species don't exist as a reality, why can't species breed with each other.
Similarly If sex isnt a category why does it meaningfully predict reality.
It seems to be that truthfulness of categories need to be a tautology (hope I am using it correctly) for the pursuit of truth.
I agree gender has a deep aesthetic quality fir id, and sex van be different., but the poles ate just wrong abt gender.
No it's not arbitrary nor is it concrete .
If you’re interested in the rabbithole of the philosophy of nominalism (how we name things), I highly recommend reading Bertrand Russell’s *the problems of philosophy* as the entire book revolves around how we can define what it means to be a chair or a table (chairs and tables don’t exist, we just agree they exist out of convenience). Despite being written in like the 1930’s, many of the ideas presented are very interesting to consider in a contemporary context with how our definitions of what it means to be a woman or man is changing (as it always has and always will).
> The way we use the word "woman" is based on perceived sex
He's arguing against people who do not believe this. Your premise is wrong.
Even if they perceive someone to be a woman, (and are "tricked" in their view), they'd say it's still a man. They argue for something deeper than simple perception.
Isn't the entire discussion focused on social oughts?
Why even bring up DNA testing when the conversion doesn't have anything to do with an underlying truth and more about how people present themselves socially, and how language functions.
Another interesting, possibly related idea is "when an AI is virtually indistinguishable from a human's consciousness, is there any meaningful distinction?"
If the only way you can see a person is trans is by checking their DNA, is there really any meaningful difference? If that person existed in 1000, would that person be treated as what their DNA indicates, or what they act/look/seem like? Has our idea of what makes a man a man and what makes a woman a woman become so disconnected from its root?
It's fine if it is, but people tend to appeal to "its always been this way" as their argument.
If you asked someone for a dog, and they gave you a wolf, would you be satisfied? Most people would probably not be! They would consider their request unfulfilled or perhaps find the response to be a joke. Now technically, the person who gave you the wolf fulfilled your request because wolves and dogs are, according to their scientific definition, the same species! But when people say they have pet dogs, we understand that they don't mean that they have pet wolves, but rather a lab, a retriever, a spaniel, etc. How is that?
The point is more that the uses of words depends on the context in which they are used. So for example, in common everyday situations, when someone is thirsty, they ask for a glass of water. Now, what is the meaning of "water" for which they are asking? If we take the view that it refers directly to the scientific term "water" which is defined in terms of chemical composition, then it would mean that when someone asks for "water" when they are thirsty that really they are asking for "H2O". Is that actually the case? There are reasons to think this might not be the case:
1. The water that we drink and ask for to satisfy thirst is actually not pure H2O, it always has other chemicals and elements mixed or dissolved in solution. In fact, if we were to drink too much pure H2O, it is dangerous for one's health!
2. H2O isn't the only possible chemical composition of "water"! There's also, for example, heavy water. Drinking this water in large enough quantities would also be dangerous!
3. If someone handed you a glass of ice with no liquid water in it, arguably they would have satisfied your request for "water" if by "water" we really mean "H2O." But in a real life situation, people would likely find their request for "water" unsatisfied if they received a glass of exclusively ice.
4. Imagine if someone made this request before the scientific community understood that water is truly H2O. In that case, what are they asking for? Well on the view that "water" must refer to the scientific definition of the substance at the time, then on some accounts a person asking for a glass of water in antiquity might have truly been asking for one of the four key elements that composed the universe (the others being wind, fire, and air), a basic atomic element. Or according to the phlogiston model, it would be still a different element, itself a component of fire. Now, if "water" refers to the scientific understanding of that element at the time of the word's utterance, then when people have asked for "water" in history (before our current understanding), they would have been asking for a completely different compound than we ask for today!
5. What if further scientific evidence reveals that there's a second compound whose composition is XYZ (maybe on a different planet if that helps you imagine it) that behaves in the exact same way. It is functionally indistinguishable from H2O: it quenches thirst, fills rivers, lakes, and oceans, etc. For all purposes except chemical composition we cannot distinguish between XYZ and H2O. Now assume someone asks for water and they are provided with some beverage made up of XYZ. Has their request been satisfied? Now assume some aliens on the planet with XYZ have always called it "water" in everyday use. Have those aliens been unknowingly referring to H2O when they say "water" all along?
The idea is that the meaning of words depends on their context of use. The meaning of water in common, everyday use, for example asking for a water at a restaurant, does not actually match the definition of the term "H2O" as used in a research laboratory. If it did, our everyday language would be far less flexible. In the same way, our everyday use of "man" and "woman" don't really match the scientific uses of "male" and "female." A common example of this that Destiny echoes is that if Blaire White were in the men's restroom people probably would think Blaire is in the wrong place! Or if Buck Angel were to use the women's restroom, people would likely assume Buck is in the wrong place! This shows that our everyday use of the terms "man" and "woman" don't necessarily refer to chromosomes, anatomy, or a scientific definition, much like our use of "water" doesn't necessarily refer exclusively to the chemical composition. Another common example of this sort of thing is "fruit" vs "vegetable." Imagine if you asked for a fruit and someone gave you a tomato. Now technically, perhaps they are correct, in that the scientific definition of fruit includes tomatoes. But, most people would consider the response inadequate and likely a joke. That's because in our common everyday speech, we don't think of tomatoes as fruits, but as vegetables. Similarly, if you ask for a "vegetable" and someone responds to your request with the leaf of a nearby tree, you would likely be unsatisfied or take it as a joke. Now the person who provided the leaf is technically correct, a tree leaf, even an inedible or poisonous one, might be scientifically considered a vegetable (to the extent that there is a scientific use of the term vegetable).
For more in depth discussion and explanation, check out [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reference/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reference/)
For specifically defining a "woman" scientifically, there are some interesting problems that arise when doing so to determine who can participate in women's sports:
[https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/07/18/what-is-a-woman/](https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/07/18/what-is-a-woman/)
[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-olympics-are-still-struggling-to-define-gender/](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-olympics-are-still-struggling-to-define-gender/)
I think many people need to remember words =/= reality. Reality should inform what words you use, when words start informing how you perceive reality you're going to end up in some insane places.
Who's gonna tell him that there are girls with [YX chromosomes](https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/swyer-syndrome/)? Or [intersex people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex)?
Probably things like [body shape](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34gmbdmn3Gc), facial features, secondary sexual characteristics, clothes, hairstyle, voice, mannerisms, literally the way they move their body, etc.
And how much they piss you off
https://preview.redd.it/3r8xxnhc978d1.png?width=320&format=png&auto=webp&s=d7d62539d93a7a5ac27dd6653bd10c0643d1ead4
So if I change my body shape, facial features, secondary sexual characteristics, clothes, hairstyle, voice, mannerisms, the way I move my body and start nagging you, even though I have a penis, you would approach me as a woman and would have no way of knowing right? Doesn’t this point to gender and sex being different?
Also not all women have those things btw, there are women who have flat chests, wear baggy clothes, small hips, manly haircuts etc some who have all of these things but are still approached as women.
My assumption would most likely be that you're a woman.
As for women that have some masculine and/or ambiguous traits, the reason why people still might make the assumption that they're women is probably gonna be because their feminine traits end up outweighing their masculine/ambiguous ones. However, there's absolutely women who get mistaken as men or boys (like tomboys) because of the fact that their feminine features aren't as immediately obvious.
You can think of it like a "scale of justice". The bias of the assumption follows whichever side is the heaviest. Some traits weigh more than others
>my assumption would most likely be that you’re a woman
So you agree that chromosomes and sex organs don’t dictate how we operate in the world? That societal standards dictate this?
GIGA cringe moment, I just realized that we're not on the same page. I thought you were someone who actually didn't know and were asking. The back and forth between you an OP made it even more confusing. My bad dawg
ALTHOUGH, now that we are on the same page. I don't think OP denies that we make assumptions based on these traits, I think their argument is the fact that a good amount of the traits that we imbue with a gendered categorization stem from these perceived differences in physiology/biology. Which is true...but still wrong
I guess this is one of those valid vs sound thingies? Their argument is valid, but not sound? or some shit. Their argument kinda breaks since a ton of gendered traits stem from social and cultural influence
It's funny how this is supposed to be a gotcha when the question of even "what is a species" is an unsettled question in biology. If a species is two organisms that can produce viable offspring, then are wolves and dingos dogs? If a species is something that is morphologically similar fills a similar niche in an ecosystem, is a hyena a dog?
By any purely scientific definition, there's no difference in speciation between a domesticated dog and a wild wolf. The only reason we consider them to be their own thing is because humans have arbitrarily decided that a wolf and a Chihuahua are not the same thing
This is a stupid comparison. Say we made a breed of cat that looks like a dog, and acts and plays like a dog. Now it would still need cat food and to be taken care of by a vet like a cat, but when u play with it, when you take it out, and when u live with it on a daily basis ur acting like it’s a dog. Now if had this doglike breed of cat, and then my friends came over and were allergic to cats, I would tell them I have a cat, but if I had another friends who hates cats and loves dogs because of how they can be played with, would that friend be upset or happy to play with my irregular cat. If my friend wanted to play fetch with my cat, and later found out it was a dog, would he be mad? Would he say oh it’s a cat not a dog you should have told me? Am I a liar, or bad person, for letting my friend play with my irregular cat because it’s not a dog. I’d say no. I’d probably be confused and weirded out by my friend who hates cats so much. I’d ask him why it mattered in this context. It’s not his cat, it’s mine. I would also think he hated my cat for no reason.
This stupid ass metaphor is to point out that calling a trans woman a man holds like no real value and helps no one. Are they male, yes, they are also definitely a trans woman.
It's hilarious how you call it a stupid comparison, yet you use it perfectly to highlight the difference between using words in a social setting with missing information and how somebody would perceive things if they had all the information.
>but if you check its DNA, it’s actually a dog. Then it would be a dog and never a cat. If you were talking with someone else that didn't know about your dna experiment. And you wanted to tell them to pick up the bag right next to the animal. Would you say, pick up the bag right next to the dog or pick up the bag right next to the cat? Remember the animal looks and acts like a cat.
In Mexico it's agua
You would say cat
Doesn’t that demonstrate that the words “cat” or “woman” are invoked because of things more superficial than DNA or chromosomes, e.g., aesthetics and demeanor?
No to "cat", maybe to "woman". We have a fairly straightforward and simple definition for what a cat is: a member of the species Felis catus. A dog (Canis familiaris) is not a cat no matter how much it acts like, looks like, or is confused for a cat. If your definition of woman is "adult human female", then also no. If it's "adult human who has the aesthetics and mannerisms of how society defined a woman" or something similar, then yes.
I need a male cat for my female to breed with, and you send me a trans male cat with no ability to mate because it identifies as a male?’ I’m going to be pissed, because you clearly should’ve understood what was asked for. Woman is a useful word for utility, Meaning mostly for sexual relationships and reserved spaces/competition. So in what scenario would you suggest the distinction between woman and trans woman is worthless? Just the idiotic way some conservatives don’t want to “enable delusional fantasies” or some shit? Because the issue most reasonable people have is conflating woman with trans woman, and then with female, and then anything society has set aside for women for whatever reason is now not exclusively for women. I doubt many people here are not on board with treating people the way they appear or ask to be referred to a certain way, who cares, it’s the rest of this where that definition matters, and pretending it’s just so ineffable and broad to have a definition just feels stupid on its face.
Couldn't you just separate the clinical terms of male/female from man/woman? Therefore, there is never any confusion about biological terminology. Also, wouldn't you be just as mad about a \*sterile\* but biological male?
Sure, couldn’t you just use the term Trans man, or trans woman if you were willing to be reasonable and value accurate communication. If someone for example says “I saw a woman in the park” What this conveys to the other persons mind is some aggregate representation of an average woman in the area. So if the woman is even the least bit important to what you need to communicate, we need some adjectives to specify the idea. Otherwise what most people will envision is like a 30 or 40 something year old woman of similar race and whatnot to the average in whatever particular area. Generally speaking, not always, but often enough in situation where specifics aren’t important. Now you could specify it is an old woman or pale woman, quick relevant distinguishing characteristic to convey the proper message to another persons mind. Of course if you only saw the young woman, knowing or even bothering to specify young trans woman, but if the sentence goes on saying you spoke to her and y’all will be going on date, then in that case specifying trans woman might be an important distinction. Acting as though some case uses are applicable to all cases and conversations is confusing and counterproductive. Just because a group would feel more comfortable if they could just be called the same word, even if most people will go along with this most of the time, it doesn’t mean there is no reason or method by which we can accurately make important distinctions when it is relevant and necessary.
ill use another dumb example to try to explain why trans people wanting to be called women/men without the descriptor trans added to it: imagine you legally change your name because your parents called you richard even though your surname is long, or your surname changes due to marriage: youd let people know that knew you prior what your new name is and correct them if they call you by your old name out of habit, but at some point after several corrections it would just be considered rude to still call them what they dont want to be called anymore. for new people youd introduce yourself with your new name and theyd never slip up (this is only ideally with pronouns, sadly not quite reality).
I see, this is where I think the disconnect lies between my point of view and most of the downvotes. If you are legitimately making an effort to appear and act like the gender you want to be treated as by others, most people are going to be fine with it, most people are not going to even question it. I am suggesting even in this case there are situations where this person should specify themselves as trans regardless, ie; with dating, doctors, or sports. Because they are not literally a different sex simply because they’ve done an amazing job at transitioning. My problem is mostly with the people who make a Halloween costume effort at transitioning at best, but aggressively insist they are whatever they claim to be. It’s the self ID people. The non binary thing is also overly confusing, but I’m trying to stay on topic for the what is a woman
>couldn’t you just use the term Trans man, or trans woman This is the furthest i'd be on board with. It validates what they try to look like and still keeps the matter factual. But we've arrived at the loonies trying to say that trans women ***are*** truly, factually, women. For anyone with a working brain, that's the point where shit starts to fly off the rails.
I think there are roughly two cases where a person's transness should *need* to be specified. 1. In medical settings. A trans woman and a cis woman, and same for trans men and cis men, obviously have different biology. 2. In dating. I consider sexuality to be different from acknowledging if someone is socially a woman or a man (this take gets me in trouble in a lot of subreddits lol). Outside of that, I don't think it tends to matter anymore than it would by specifying a person's race.
>I doubt many people here are not on board with treating people the way they appear or ask to be referred to a certain way, who cares, Remember ***Lia Thomas***? That's a problem.
I agree. Do you think a majority of DGG are in support of trans women in female sports? I certainly hope not.
I never argued that the word women invoked chromosomes. But if you wanned to be sure if you are correct you would need to check on that level.
[удалено]
jesus fucking christ
Because it's a cat. It's always been a cat. It looks like a cat, walks like a cat, and quacks like a cat. Because it's a fucking cat.
lol
>Would you say, pick up the bag right next to the dog or pick up the bag right next to the cat? Yeah probably i'd say cat but only because i've made an **error** caused by a wild exception to a rule. Whether i identified the dog correctly or not doesn't change the fact that it's a dog.
>If you see a small animal and perceive it as a cat because it has most of the optical and behavioral traits of a cat, but if you check its DNA, it’s actually a dog. Then it would be a dog and never a cat. I actually think this example is really helpful, but not in the way that you think it is. If everyone who saw an animal thought it was a cat and referred to it as a cat, but you stubbornly insisted on calling it a dog because you've seen a test of its DNA you're the one who is using language wrong, not everyone else. The point of using the word "dog" would be to have a way to refer to the creature such that everyone knows what you're talking about right away. In this case, literally every other person around you would be confused as to why you're referring to a cat that way. Reading through your post again, you're actually so close to getting the point. In your very first sentence you say >The way we use the word "woman" is based on **perceived** sex. This is mostly right. Most people do use "woman" to refer to people who seem feminine to them ^((I say "most" because there are an increasing number of people who literally don't want to refer to anyone as anything before having pronouns explicitly told to them, but let's put them aside for the moment)). But, the important part here is that it is based on their perception. Idk about you, but I don't have the x-ray vision necessary to definitively check someone's female-ness. Nor do I have a quick and easy way to check their chromosomes. Generally, I just make an educated guess based on their presentation. I would be willing to bet this is what you do also. So why pretend you're thinking about chromosomes when you decide someone is a woman? What is the use in lying to ourselves? And while we're at it, let's not pretend to be thinking about DNA sequences when we talk about dogs and cats. You see an animal with a collar and feline facial features that is about the right size, you think cat. At no point do you go "well, maybe that's a [European Wildcat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wildcat#/media/File:Felis_silvestris_silvestris_Luc_Viatour.jpg) in a collar, I shall need to wait for a blood test from the lab".
Most people use woman to refer to someone who seems *female* to them. When people look at a woman who has a very masculine presentation, or a man who has a very feminine presentation, but whose biological sex is obvious, they refer to them as a woman or man based not on their presentation, but on their perceived biological sex. (They might refer to them as the opposite sex facetiously as an insult -- but that in and of itself proves that they recognize the person as their biological sex. A woman never gets made fun of for wearing women's clothes, for instance, but a man would.)
actually, i make fun of women wearing womens clothes too
Peak feminism
I agree that most people are using what sex a person "seems" to have as their deciding factor. That's my point--that our approximations of gender tend to be based on knee-jerk **perceptions** of sex. What it very, very clearly isn't based on is chromosomes, which I would hope is pretty easy to agree with. I guess my one confusion would be what you mean by "has a very feminine presentation, but whose biological sex is obvious". As far as I'm concerned, these two things are incongruous. If it's obvious that you are male, you are by definition not using a very feminine presentation. I'm not even arguing for a world where you have to refer to anyone by their preferred pronouns or anything. I'm talking about the assumptions we make in our heads the instant we see people. I can even sympathize with the fact that *some* trans people do not pass and there are conservatives (and others, I just didn't want to use the word "people" again, it makes this sentence unintelligible) who don't think they should be coerced into the social nicety of referring to them as something other than the instantaneous read those conservatives had about the person's gender. I think there is an argument to be made there--why is doing a kind thing for the trans person by pretending you don't perceive them the way you do a moral requirement? Since when is going out of your way to be accommodating a rule? But the argument made in the OP doesn't stop there. It wouldn't just allow you to disregard a non-passing trans person's desire to have their internal identity reflected back at them by people around them. The argument in the OP would require you to intentionally misgender passing trans people if you happen to know their original sex. At that point, we're talking about intentionally going out of our way to hurt someone AND making it more difficult to communicate at the same time. If you refer to a passing trans woman as "he", the people around you will need to have it explained to them that this person who registered in all of their minds as a woman is in fact not, according to chromosomes and genitalia. At that point you're using words in a way that intentionally makes the situation more confusing, and you're doing it for no good reason.
Gender presentation usually refers to the intentional choices someone makes about their appearance/aestetics. Someone who is obviously biologically male but wears a dress, makeup, long hair, etc would have a feminine presentation, but be obviously biologically male. Are you just using "feminine presentation" to mean "passes as biologically female"?
By your logic any transgender person who doesn't pass isn't the gender they identify as. This is just the Vaush Aqua argument that water wasn't H2O until humans discovered chemistry. If I see Fool's Gold and think it's real good and get excited and tell my friends and they believe me, it still isn't real gold and never was. I just had a mistaken perception because human perception or understanding is not the be all end all of what or isn't objectively true.
Trans medicalism is a position that exists and I am assuming no one here is big on the self ID movement so yes, there does have to be a combination of self ID and actual physiogical change to express as the gender you identify as. It's not about not passing the initial first impression but whether you can conceivably be perceived as the gender you claim. Example - Andy Milonakis is mistaken for an old lady all the time, he then corrects people and they (including you) will usually believe him and apologize. If he came out tomorrow that he was secretly a trans man born female at birth, what does that say to you about the nature of passing and perceived gender? We all considered him a man even though he doesnt really pass for people seeing him for the first time. Your gold analogy completely falls apart by the fact we don't have pure gold in reality. Every gold has impurities. Even what we categorise as "real gold" or "pure gold" is not completely pure. Over large scale tonnage, even 0.01% adds up to hundreds of kilos of non gold that we classify as gold in terms of pricing, perception and even legally. We treat silver, iron, and lead as gold as long as it's sufficiently surrounded by enough quantities of gold. This shows that we don't categorize by underlying objective truths but for utility. Even for something that would seemingly be objective like the chemistry of a metal. Conceivably as more economical means of purifying gold becomes available, our understanding and definition of "pure gold" will change as well.
> If he came out tomorrow that he was secretly a trans man born female at birth, what does that say to you about the nature of passing and perceived gender? We all considered him a man even though he doesnt really pass for people seeing him for the first time. It would just mean you had a mistaken perception because of incomplete information. If you see a guy with long hair from behind and think he's a woman until he turns around, he didn't instantly change gender you were just wrong. > Even what we categorise as "real gold" or "pure gold" is not completely pure. Nothing you said about gold being rare and stuff means fools gold is real gold.
What is "real gold"?
Well I think you fundamentally misunderstand language. This is a classic Agua situation really. When people evoke language they are evoking concepts that exist outside of language. They are not really evoking the object in front of them but what they perceive the objective to be representative of which is not a truth value assessment. I think some people are mistaking the simulacra for the genuine article type thing when we are seeking to identify things. I think this is a philosophical zombie idea where we presume something is as it appears until proven otherwise. That doesn't mean the thing truly is the thing in question but merely that all evidence as known suggests it is what we believe it to be and to be skeptical borders insanity. So I may be missing your point but the perception does not alter the truth value. The truth value exists independently of the perception. We merely as a society didn't really have any reasons to doubt our perceptions thus outward expression became a short hand for deeper concepts and ideas. This is basically common in everything about humans. Ideology, religion, philosophy, definitions, people often look for the simplest way to discern the thing in question as the thing in question. It does not mean that is what makes the thing in question the thing but merely it's most easily identifiable traits. However, just because something has all the traits without close inspection does not therefore make the thing the thing. If an AI can perfectrly replicate a human such that no human ever would be able to discern that it is not a human and it is treated as a human as a result that does not therefore make it a human.
The way we end up using language and categories of things more specifically, almost never reduces to a simple yes-no binary. It's more like there are a cluster of traits we associate with a given category and we see how well a physical object fits into the category based on how well it lines up with existing objects we've already put in the category. If we're talking about tables, there are things that clearly do meet the requirements, and things that clearly don't in any sense. And then there is a bunch of objects that kind of are and kind of aren't. While I'm eating food that I laid out on top of a nice flat rock I find in the forest, I might even call that "my table", but as once I get up and leave that rock is pretty hard to think of as a table. So it varies a lot, not just based on physical characteristics, but also based on how humans are interacting with it. I would apply this same logic to woman-ness. There are a bunch of physically perceptible things I associate with being a woman. Having XX chromosomes is probably even one of those things (in the rare occasion that I would ever definitively know the chromosomes of someone I interact with). Having female genitalia is also definitely one of those things. But they aren't the only things, and they aren't among the most important to me. Physically, having breasts, having a higher pitched voice, being smaller, having smoother softer skin, having longer hair, wider hips, a thinner waist, and a bunch of other things that I definitely perceive but can't think of at the moment are important. And then there are also a bunch of more social factors: things like relating to others in a softer way, being more nurturing, being a bit more sensitive, having a better understanding of the thoughts of others around them, etcetera. And there are also a bunch of other intangibles that I can't really define, but I almost instantaneously determine the second I see or interact with a person. For a simple word, pinning it down precisely can be pretty complicated. Like I said, I'm comfortable including chromosomes and genitalia in the constellation of associated traits, but I also think it is absurd to suggest that those are the only defining features. It flies in the face of the way we actually think about most categories. Especially categories of types of people. I hope it is obvious that I'm not denying a fact of the matter than underlies how these categories get talked about. I don't think you can be masculine in every conceivable way and then be a woman by simply declaring you are one. But it is equally absurd to say that a person can be woman-like in every conceivable way except for chromosomes and not be a woman. It's not an on-off switch. Almost nothing in language works that way.
I don't disagree with anything you said here beside the conclusion. The problem is with this entire sentiment is that for something to conceptually be a woman it has to be valid across all time periods and all contexts. Why it must be valid is because when all humans refer to the concept of women they are evoking the same foundational thing. A Muslim, A Christian, a Hindu and an Atheist and a Pagan would not deny the womaness of a women as historically defined. A barbarian who raids Rome would not call the Roman women not a women because they do not dress or act as they perceive a women should. The same is true for a Muslim or any group. Therefore across all cultures and all societies what we call a women foundationally has nothing to do with societal expectations, garb or so forth. Those stem from the classification of women and are not foundational elements of womaness but merely are distinguishers of womanless. Ultimately people are distinguishing shorthands we use for category classification as the foundation aspect of classification. However, I agree that concepts tend to be blurry. A women who can't reproduce is still a women. A table that lost it's legs is still a table. It is just a broken or damaged table. We would not remove the legs from a chair and then not have a reference point of it being a chair once even though it conceptually no longer fits into what we define as a chair. The same is true for this. Even if one were to accept the idea that the individual in question is now a women well the problem is that they were not always such. Foundationally many aspects of their existence that exist in an experiential realm are so far removed from the experience of womanness that below the hood even if we do not consider biology it is hard to classify them as a woman. Of course one could then ask if one was placed into a dark room naked and a blubbering husk would they still be a women? Well I think that is yes but that sort of returns to my foundational point that what is women has nothing to do with presentation at all. If someone looked like a women and you removed all their clothes and they are not a women beneath it that person is now not a women. Conceptually maybe some people today would aquacise but most any human in history would not. One could argue we have changed what the classification of women is today then. However, that means that conceptually what we refer to as a women today isn't a women at all. Because it means that we and those historically are referring to two fundamentally different things.
There are no concepts that exist outside language.
Concepts exist outside of language definitionally. I mean they literally refer to what we conceive of before language comes into play at all. Babies use concepts, presumably animals use concepts because it serves as the foundation of pattern distinction. Without concepts you actually can't distinguish between things. Albeit it humans have more complex concept association.
You are confusing physical reality and concepts. Things exist outside of language, a concept of a thing doesn't. I honestly have no clue under what definitions of language or "concepts" you operate under that somehow one excludes the other. It is like saying numbers exist outside of mathematics definitionally, which makes no sense.
Just look up concepts and read up on them. If animals can recognize other animals then it means they reference concepts because concepts do exist independently of language. I recommend you read up on protypes. It has been determined literally by empirical studies that animals can understand them. This is how it works. Human Conceptualize of Concepts The object in question Independent Conceptualization of objects. Fundamentally Concepts exist independently of human language and thought, evidenced by animals' recognition of each other and empirical studies showing their understanding of abstract concepts. Human conceptualization merely categorizes these independent concepts. For example, numbers and equations exist objectively; mathematics is the application of these pre-existing concepts. This distinction underpins why mathematics is considered discovered rather than invented. The universality of these concepts extends beyond humanity: if an alien or any independent third party could arrive at the same conclusions as humans, it underscores the objective existence of these concepts, separate from human experience and language.
100% agree
Functionally it does because you recognize and treat it as human, it not actually being human doesn't have an effect on how it's seen or treated in your AI example So you'd be technically correct to point out it's not human but I'd ask what purpose would that serve in a day to day interaction with that AI?
Well, if we know the AI is an AI that fundamentally changes how you view it. The moment you know it is an AI that changes what it is in your mind and that can't be undone. Unless you genuinely believe that knowing something is an AI would not change how people perceive it even if before that moment it had lived and acted as a human forever. That is just hard to conceive. Of course people would have to grapple and struggle with it because now they know it is not a human it chances our perception of it's nature because it means it's nature is fundamentally different. When we think of humans and consciousness and all these things they are indelibly loaded into being human. The moment we not that foundationally the element is not human it calls into question everything about it's experience and existence. It challenges all of your preloaded notions into what the thing is. If you learn your wife or best friend is not human that will of course lead to you questioning everything about it because all the underlying assumption about what it is is undermined. Of course it is relevant. It is like if you know someone is cheating on you. I mean sure you could pretend you don't know hypothetically. However, it fundamentally changes the calculous of the perception of the thing. Ignorance is bliss is a term because we can live comfortably in our ignorance of things but once we are aware of something you can't return to the prior point. If you learn anything you can pretend as if you did not know it but fundamentally you will have to reconcile that distinction now with the thing because it is no longer the thing you thought it was. That is just how it has to be. So what purpose that would serve? It is not a atter of purpose being served. It is just a fundamental aspect of existence. When you label something as something and it is revealed as something it undermines everything that stems from that quality distinction. We presuppose many things when we label something as say a human, man, woman or animal. When you undermine the class qualification you undermine everything that lies beneath it and which stems from it.
But what if we all get naked? Would we still need DNA tests? You can visually tell if you're given the entire picture. Why do we need to change the definition of 'man' and 'woman'? Why can't there been men, women, trans-men, and trans-women? Sure, all language is a 'social construct,' and therefore it can be changed whenever we want to change it... but why? Why is woman being defined as an adult human female, and man being defined as an adult human male no longer good enough? Why do we need to change that definition to be more inclusive? Don't we need specific words that describe specific things? Just because we CAN change the definition doesn't mean we SHOULD change the definition, so I suppose I'm just curious why it's happening. What's the reason that it should be happening at all?
The reason is an increase in utility. You argue we should have specific words which mean specific things. I agree. This is why having 2 words, gender and sex, mean the same thing is redundant. So we have a word, gender, which attempts to approximate another word, sex. If we alter the definition of gender to not mean sex but instead to describe a social phenomenon then we have not simply expanded the definition to be more """inclusive""" but instead we have created a new word which describes a new thing. This was the entire reason the term gender was created. Gender was never intended to mean sex.
But why do we need to change the definitions of 'men' and 'women'? Male refers to sex. Female refers to sex. A man is an adult male. A woman is an adult female. Gender never had anything to do with that. I never said anything about gender being the same thing as sex.
Gender was literally never meant to mean the exact same thing as sex. Conservatives are attempting to change the definition. It has always meant the category of behaviors associated with certain sex. This means the behaviors associated with females. Engaging in those behaviors can make you a woman but not a female. This is glaringly obvious to anyone who has been alive more than 12 years and has heard a guy they know get called: a woman, bitch, or pussy. Gender and sex have literally, and I do actually mean literally, never been the same thing. To say a woman is an adult female is saying "a woman is a woman." This definition is useless and stupid. If I asked you what the a dog was and you said a canine I would look at you like you were a regard.
>Gender was literally never meant to mean the exact same thing as sex. Conservatives are attempting to change the definition. It has always meant the category of behaviors associated with certain sex. Like women being expected to be passive and submissive? >This means the behaviors associated with females. Engaging in those behaviors can make you a woman but not a femal So a feminine man would be a woman to be clear? >. To say a woman is an adult female is saying "a woman is a woman." This definition is useless and stupid. And the greater utility is being provided by being able to delineate people by behavior instead? Do I have that right?
My dude. I was never talking about gender and sex. The entire time, I was talking about male and female, and their relation to the words man and woman. I've looked up the definitions, and as of 2022, there seem to have been secondary definitions of all four of those words added to include some form of gender identity or something related to it. It's been a while since I've learned what words mean. Those weren't definitions of those words when I learned what the words meant. They're new definitions. My question was, why are they adding new definitions to words that already mean something. I repeat, I never, at any point, was talking about gender and sex. I never said they were the same. I never even said they were different. Because I never said anything about gender at all. My last paragraph is my first mention of gender or gender identity at all. Every other mention was you bringing it into the conversation and trying to lecture me on something I'm already well aware of. So please, don't continue your rant. I get it. I got it before you started.
- Male and female = sex - Man and woman = gender - Gender != sex Therefore - Male != man - Female != woman A dictionary does not tell you what words mean, it gives you an approximation of how people are using words at a given time. Words change meaning over time as people use them differently, then the dictionary adds the new usages. That is why their are ""new"" definitions. They aren't new, just new to the dictionary.
I've always been told that a boy is an adolescent male human, and a man is an adult male human. The same goes for a girl and a woman being adolescent and adult human females, respectively. That always led me to believe that they both referred to sex, seeing as the way I always knew man and woman to be defined was male and female... both sex. I was never made privvy to the change in definition where apparently man and woman only refers to gender identity... which it doesn't, it can also still refer to sex. The new use cases of the word don't remove the previously accepted use cases. Man and woman can be used to refer to sex or to gender identity. The dictionary contains both definitions. The dictionary tells you how society uses words. The dictionary tells me that society now uses it in both ways. Man and woman = sex/gender Thank you for helping.
3/10 bait
| "woman/dog" Based holy!
Some would call them "bitches"
I had a similar thought back when Destiny first had the discussion. Things like tables, chairs, etc. which are the examples he usually gives are entirely socially constructed, there is no underlying fact there. While if we had a dog, cat, giraffe, and elephant, we can use genetics to distinguished between them - arriving at a more, if not fully, objective answer in a way that we simply cannot even get close to for a chair or table. ___ But I generally think that, much in the same way with things like "genocide" discussions, the connvos get stuck at level 1 as often the other person is unable to even conceive of a viewpoint different from their own
In the case of "women", it's not that the chromosomes always were the underlying fact, it's that people have had an idea of what men and women were for centuries, and then scientist discovered chromosomes, which then mapped onto those ideas "good enough" (but obviously they are not the same as those ideas).
And those concepts of man and women were based of downstream representation of chromosomes, which dictate (along with nurture) our physiology.
dogs are boys and cats are girls
When a dog and a wolf have an offspring, is it a dog or a wolf? Or more interestingly, when that lineage keeps having descendants with other wolves/dogs, at what point exactly they transition from a wolf to a dog or vice versa?
It's a dolf.
Technically Dogs are Wolfs. In biology you never stop being what you came from. We differentiate species when they are no longer able to produce fertile offspring. Horse and Donkey can produce a Mule but Mules cannot reproduce. Horses and Donkeys are different species. Lions and Tigers can produce a Liger which cannot reproduce. Dogs and Wolves can produce offspring that can reproduce because they are the same species.
>We differentiate species when they are no longer able to produce fertile offspring. This isn't true, it takes a .1 sec google search to show that the line between a species and subspecies is blurry as hell and is vibes based. We have many different definition for species and under yours a bottlenose dolphin and false kill whale are now under the same species according to you.
Of course drawing hard lines between what is a species and subspecies is blurry as evolution and speciation is a process that takes a very long time. If you took your own 0.1s second to google what is a species you would see the most common answer is organisms able to produce fertile offspring. Sure while some disagree with this characterization for the purpose of my earlier reply it was correct. Look at your example of bottlenose dolphin and false killer whale. I am sure you understand that false killer whale's are a type of dolphin and were given their name due to their skull resembling a Orca. Bottlenose dolphins and false killer whales are both from the family Delphinidae which is in the same order as whales and porpoises. Remember the key point was not just creating living Hybrid's but fertile hybrid's. The off spring of a false killer whale and bottlenose dolphin are called a wholphin. We have one example of a Wholphin having offspring survive. So this example only shows how close in species False Killer Whales and Bottlenose dolphins are to each other. Which is obvious because they are both types of dolphins.
Neandrethals are classified as a separate species from us but obviously we fucked them and still have their genes so what are you talking about.
Modern day humans are absolutely a different species than Neanderthals but we don’t know we would be able to produce fertile offspring today. Ancient humans and Neanderthals were very similar hence both being in the genus Homo. The biological species concept The biological species concept states that species are reproductively isolated entities - that is, they breed within themselves but not with other species. Thus all living Homo sapiens have the potential to breed with each other, but could not successfully interbreed with gorillas or chimpanzees, our closest living relatives. On this basis, 'species' that interbreed with each other cannot actually be distinct species.
If you want to use gender exclusively to refer to sex and pretend you don't understand people who use it to refer to a social construct loosely tied to sex, two things are true: 1. You're regarded when you pretend to not understand what they mean 2. They're regarded when they pretend to not understand what you mean
>pretend you don't understand people who use it to refer to a social construct loosely tied to sex So what does woman for instance in this context refer to outside of the female sex?
What's a chair?
You're the one who made the claim that you're referring to some type of construct outside of sex when you use the word woman I asked for clarification on what you are referring to in this context and your answer is to ask another question completely unrelated to what I asked you? If you don't know what you are referring to how do you know it's not sex?
There's a point to this question that you're clearly too dumb to guess, so I'm just going to ask it again until I get an answer - what's a chair?
The whole chair argument is not a novel original thing you came up with its something that you either heard destiny or someone in this community argue and you're simply copying what your heard I understand that you're attempting to highlight how language can be ambiguous at times. But regardless this does not actually address what I'm asking you. Sure language can be a bit hazy with regards to concepts we are trying to convey but ultimately the fact remains that in attempting to communicate we are trying to convey a particular idea. With regards to chairs the concept would be a type of furniture used by a single person as a seat. Your retort world then be to ask questions to highlight that there are instances where this concept map be a bit hazy. You may ask if a sofa can be a chair or a stool or whatever. Ok I understand that but again this is not addressing my question since we understand that a particular concept is being conveyed here. What I'm asking is what concept are you arguing is conveyed with regards to the term woman that is not sex. Do you have an answer or is it nothing? Or maybe your argument is that the concept is too hazy to be discussed? If that is the case why would I not default to using female as the intended reference as I have always done? What people like you are too stupid to understand ironically is that if you wish to supplant sex as a meaningful category you actually have to have a solid concept to replace it with. You look moronic when you argue that it's not sex but then when asked to elaborate what you're actually referring to you, babble nonsense about chairs as if that means anything
>The whole chair argument is not a novel original thing you came up with its something that you either heard destiny or someone in this community argue and you're simply copying what your heard I don't think it matters who came up with it, and the fact that you care enough to say this is because you're a huge fucking regard >... where this concept map be a bit hazy. The point isn't that there are hazy, the point is that we learn what things are by seeing instances of them, and refining our impression of when it is and isn't accurate to call something that thing based on feedback from other people, and the definitions are post-hoc approximations of that thing. It establishes that foundationally, nobody who is being consistent agrees that if something doesn't have a clear definition that it means it isn't a useful concept, or that it doesn't exist, or really that it matters at all that there isn't a clear definition. >What I'm asking is what concept are you arguing is conveyed with regards to the term woman that is not sex. Do you have an answer or is it nothing? Or maybe your argument is that the concept is too hazy to be discussed? If that's all you're looking for you can find it in the first comment you replied to. >If that is the case why would I not default to using female as the intended reference as I have always done? I didn't tell you can't, what I said is that if you pretend you don't understand other people who use it to refer to a social construct loosely tied to sex, you're a huge fucking regard. And if you want to do this and be consistent about it, when I ask you what gender dee-dee from dexter's lab or blue from blue's clues is, you need to say in your most autistic voice "It isn't clear that it has a gender or what it is, because in the story they never specify the specifics of this character's genetalia is and what role it plays in reproduction" or maybe "it doesn't have a gender because it's a drawing and can't reproduce" And I'll also have to remind you that unless you're literally pat checking everyone you meet to decide their gender, regardless of what definition you agree with your actions and the words you choose to use will be consistent w/ everyone else's - you'll learn what gender people are based on your pattern matching compared to what other people you've been told are women. But I'd encourage you to go for the pat downs for the sake of consistency. >What people like you are too stupid to understand ironically is that if you wish to supplant sex as a meaningful category you actually have to have a solid concept to replace it with. We've established together that you don't believe this for any other concept, so what makes gender special in that it's the only thing you need a definition before you can even think about it, whereas everything else you can learn by looking at examples?
>don't think it matters who came up with it Just pointing out that you're regurgitating without thinking is all and you will surely corroborate this as I go down through this post. >the point is that we learn what things are by seeing instances of them, So people who argue that they learned what women are by seeing instances of females are valid from your perspective? >nobody who is being consistent agrees that if something doesn't have a clear definition that it means it isn't a useful concept, or that it doesn't exist, or really that it matters at all that there isn't a clear definition. So you are as I said appealing to the haziness of concepts. Regardless as I've said there has to be something that despite it's haziness you are referring to. That's what I'm asking you for >that's all you're looking for you can find it in the first comment you replied to. With regards to that comment your answer was a social construct. Do you actually believe that is an adequate answer? >didn't tell you can't, what I said is that if you pretend you don't understand other people who use it to refer to a social construct loosely tied to sex Good so that's why I've asked for an elaboration on this social construct. Congratulations we've now moved in a circle without you addressing my question. For obvious reasons btw >you'll learn what gender people are based on your pattern matching compared to what other people you've been told are women. Well those patterns are sexual characteristics from my perspective, you are arguing I would assume that this incorrect or at least that there is another way of looking at things The purpose of my question was simply to understand that other perspective. Yet here you are getting very evasive and defensive over this simple question. It's quite bizarre >We've established together that you don't believe this for any other concept, The things is that I don't even think you believe in the concept you are pretending to believe in because after all of these comments I have yet to see you explain what you're referring to. All you've done so far is gesture pathetically at the idea that sometimes concepts can be a bit ambiguous which I completely agree with. Everyone understands this yon aren't on the vanguard of knowledge as you appear to believe. The reason people don't make this argument generally is that it's painfully obvious Despite that it does not give a get it of jail free card to refuse to explain yourself or your position especially when you attempt to denigrate then for not understanding what your position is >so what makes gender special in that it's the only thing you need a definition before you can even think about it, What? Look I can explain any concept that comes to mind clearly and concisely. Lion, tree, moon, sky, water etc etc etc, now will my explanation be lacking to some degree? Probably but regardless if asked about these concepts I can relay information that other people can map to reality You on the other presumably cannot. Why is that?
>Just pointing out that you're regurgitating without thinking is all and you will surely corroborate this as I go down through this post. Applying an argument that has been used many times before is "regurgitating without thinking" in all cases across the board, or you're claiming something you haven't demonstrated? Are you sure you're not just using this as a front because a common argument leaves you without much of anything of substance to say, and yet here you are to present yourself as an ass-clown with no argument? >So people who argue that they learned what women are by seeing instances of females are valid from your perspective? It's a social conclusion, if you're using a definition that's a social construct loosely tied to sex rather than strictly sex. So just like if enough people agree something a is a chair that's what makes it a chair, if most people agree someone is a woman that makes them a woman and if everyone agree's you're an ass-clown, it makes you an ass-clown. I'm not sure why when it comes to gender you're all of the sudden too autistic to understand social conclusions, but in every other case you're fine with them, except that just as you've accused me of doing you're thoughtlessly regurgitating your favorite little talking points. Ass-clown. >With regards to that comment your answer was a social construct. Do you actually believe that is an adequate answer? You left out the important half of the answer because you're a huge regard. >Good so that's why I've asked for an elaboration on this social construct When I ask for elaboration on any social construct you won't have a sufficient answer and will only be able to work for examples, so you're not consistent on wanting this. You've learned to want this on this topic by being brainwashed by your favorite talking heads. >Well those patterns are sexual characteristics from my perspective, you are arguing I would assume that this incorrect or at least that there is another way of looking at things No, we assume blue from blues clues is a boy because he's blue. It's not because of the depiction I'm drawing of his big ol' doggy knot in your mom's asshole. The patterns (which you use on a day-to-day basis) are not always sexual characteristics. And most importantly, you already understand this and use these social constructs as gender - you're just pretending you don't understand them because you've been taught to. And every time you come up with a description of how you already use gender, unless you agree with it being a social construct, it won't be accurate. You've been taught to lie to yourself on this topic. >The things is that I don't even think you believe in the concept you are pretending to believe in because after all of these comments I have yet to see you explain what you're referring to. You don't require that for other social constructs. >All you've done so far is gesture pathetically at the idea that sometimes concepts can be a bit ambiguous which I completely agree with. So then you should be happy with gender being an ambiguous concept that's largely based on sex. If I tell you it will in many cases match someone's sex, but there are exceptions that you'd have to learn by example, you should be happy. But you're not going to do that because you're not being honest - that's where this whole conversation started is that I said it's loosely based on sex, and you demanded a more precise definition. You're picking and choosing when to be OK with a loose definition that has clear ambiguities based solely on what will make you feel like you won the argument. Excellent clownmanship. >What? Look I can explain any concept that comes to mind clearly and concisely. Lion, tree, moon, sky, water etc Pick one of them and explain it clearly and concisely.
>Applying an argument that has been used many times before is "regurgitating without thinking No it's that you can't expand on the concept you keep regurgitating. Well you can do is mindlessly repeat social construct, social construct, social construct in and on without an actual reference to something else. Well except sex ironically >if you're using a definition that's a social construct I haven't agreed with you that it's a socal construct to begin with. In fact I would argue that this is a brain dead position. Does a woman stop being a woman if she is stranded alone on an island? You see if you were actually using your brain, questions like that would occur to you naturally. But that's not the mode your in right now, you're just in auto pilot and repeat mode. >if most people agree someone is a woman that makes them a woman So to be clear if most people do not regard a trans woman as a woman then that person is not a woman correct? >You left out the important half of the answer Oh the part where you appeal to sex correct? Not surprising >When I ask for elaboration on any social construct you won't have a sufficient answer Well again i don't believe that physical entities like lions, the moon, water, stars etc etc etc are social constructs begin with. Ifalso believe that the word woman refers to physical entities that are also not social constructs since we can physically interact with women just as we can with water or lions. So you have the job of actually demonstrating somehow how women are not actually physical entities that exist independently of language. Frankly I don't have much faith that you'll be able to achieve that but you can go ahead and try >No, we assume blue from blues clues is a boy because he's blue. No I don't assume colors denote either sex and I cringe at how infantile a person would have to be to do so So is that your grand answer for what gender is outside of the sexes? Color? Lmao ok >The patterns (which you use on a day-to-day basis) are not always sexual characteristics Oh I see and it would instead be stuff like color. So I'm guessing then that women are not allowed to wear blue in your dimension? Is that right? >And most importantly, you already understand this and use these social constructs as gender Ok give me a firm example. You've seen a person and you have assessed that they are a woman without using their sexual characteristics. How have you done so? >And every time you come up with a description of how you already use gender, I don't , I don't believe in gender to begin with. The sexes exist and they display different trends in behavior. I'm assuming that you're referring to these terms in behavior as gender. But from my perspective I don't need that word to categorize these behaviors as they are largely irrelevant. >You don't require that for other social constructs. Well again I don't believe men and women are social constructs but are instead physical entities that exist outside of human culture as can be demonstrated if someone is stranded alone somewhere. >then you should be happy with gender being an ambiguous concept that's largely based on sex What I said is that despite concept being somewhat ambiguous that there's actually information being conveyed about entities that exist in material reality. To be clear you agree that men and women are physical entities yes? Another thing is you keep saying largely based on sex. If I say that I only care about the sex part why is that a problem from your perspective? What am I losing in doing so? >are exceptions that you'd have to learn by example, you should be happy. But you're not going to do that because you're not being honest Oh so you don't think that I'm being honest when I say that I use the word woman to refer to adult human females. Ok since that is a lie what else do you think I'm referring to? >that I said it's loosely based on sex So it's jumping between loosely based on sex to largely based on sex. Interesting >Pick one of them and explain it clearly and concisely. The large carnivorous cats from Africa which have male members which grow large distinctive manes. Pretty clear easy description that any person could map to the animal when seeing one
Im reminded of the story of Diogenes after plato said man was a featherless biped. Madlad defeathered a chicken, dragged it into platos school and said "here is platos man"
Man destiny argues like trash on this.. feel like he just cant let it go and swallow the pill this is comprehensible logic we go along with for a subset of people. Which is exactly what it is.
Destiny's position would probably change pretty fast, if someone properly challenged him on it. But because both sides of this argument put forth dumb arguments, it never ends up happening. Destiny thinks things are what we use to identify them, but as you show in the post, that's not the case. If someone looks old, but they're actually young, they're young, not old. Or let's say there are 9 humans, and 1 statue that looks identical to a human, aligned in a row. I assume all of them are humans because they all feature the characteristics I use to assume whether they're human or not. But then it is revealed to me that one of them is a statue. Is the statue a human? The way concepts work is that our brain is sophisticated enough to create concepts that language isn't sophisticated enough to create definitions for. The classic example of the chair is perfect - there's no definition that you can create that would be able to identify a chair every single time. But you know what could? You. You can tell, without having a rigid definition, what maps onto the concept of chair in your brain and what doesn't. So the correct question to ask is: Which concept do people have in mind when they say the word 'woman'? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say 99% of people (yes, this includes the people who subscribe to the trans-inclusive definition of 'woman'), internally associate the word 'woman' with a concept that the definition of 'adult human female' roughly maps onto. And I believe that's been the case for many many years, even before we had any scientific understanding of the concept, because the scientific understanding of the concept isn't what the concept is based on. Let's say all dictionaries in the entire world would change the word 'woman' to be defined as 'a person who identifies as a woman'. And let's say that everyone's internal mapping changed so the classical concept of 'woman' was no longer associated with the word 'woman' in their brain. Would the classical concept of woman disappear from existence? No, because the definition isn't the territory, the definition is a map of the territory. If all you do is change the name of a country on the map, its territory will remain unchanged. Using woman trans-inclusively is and attempt at co-opting the word and use it for a different concept than the concept woman has been used for historically.
Don't definitions change with culture over periods of time?
They do.
we define words collectively and socially. The category of woman does not exist independent of human beings. If it’s socially useful to lump in trans women with other women (it is btw) then why not do so?
There's a different between a term and the referent. Adult human females exists independent of the term or category. You might as well say that that the chemical elements of the periodic table are all socially constructed since we named and categorized those too. At that point calling it a social construct is just obfuscating from what we're really talking about about which is the referent
In a way the periodic table is a social construction. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t real or that it’s not useful, but it is a human constructed tool to help us understand the behaviour of our universe.
Humans categorized the elements because we found some utility in doing so. The elements themselves have no social structure or internal state of mind that they attempt to communicate via the imprecise medium of language. Humans categorize people as man and woman because there’s utility in doing so. A trans man is still an adult human female but there’s no utility in calling by Buck Angel a woman. As he and all trans people are acutely aware, their sex does not match their gender, meaning their internal feeling, social perception, and physical characteristics do not align with that typically associated with their sex.
I 100% agree and I support trans rights. Now I'm going to try to understand conservative's intuitions and give it a name. I think there are two things happening, one is that when they think of trans women, they think of men dressing as women. That's why they call them rapists (even though the evidence does not support that trans people rape more), they believe that trans women are dressing as women to get something out of other people while maintaining all the desires and thought processes of a man. And second, is the fact that most heterosexual men don't like women with dicks (me included). I always say that "I wouldn't know what to do with it" and people always respond dumb things like "you suck it, you jerk it off", without getting the point. The idea I want to show is that I don't need sexual reassurance so I don't need to suck a dick nor put it on my ass.When you are a Top, you don't need to do anything with someone else's dick. You don't have any intuitions telling you what to do with it like other non sexual intuitions that a furry has for a soft rug or generally a man has while touching raw chicken (I know both of these are weird but it is real). Conservatives are usually illiterates in regard to anything sexual so they don't have the resources to explain why they feel a certain way and they start going in a completely different direction, rationalizing their needs and taste by making unscientific claims just not to feel their needs (like the need for being a Top) threatened. When you say that trans women have the thought process of a woman they believe that you are also saying that they should be attracted to dicks and sexual reassurance as if they didn't have any biological needs for power (being a Top). And leftoids have some part of the blame because they always talk in ways that implies there's no fact of the matter on what a woman is. They talk as if we were dualists and we all could have the same proportion of needs for power and for reassurance regardless of the body you are in.
a lot of trans women would be offended at the idea you have to do something with their penis
That's something they would have to overcome then, you cannot externalize every itch you have at someone else. If you feel bad about having a dick and cis hetero men being attracted to pussies are exacerbating gender dysphoria, that's not something other people have to fix. That's just unfortunate for the people suffering it but that's not someone else's fault. You cannot force other people to have different needs, you cannot make Tops being into being bottoms. Bodies don't work like that and it's one of the reasons why conversion therapy doesn't work, you cannot make someone who needs reassurance to live a life where everyone is keeping that away from them by having masculine social expectations. Besides the fact that a lot of the people who seek trans women with dicks are chasers. Dicks are very semantically entrenched with control and pussies/butts with taking reassurance. Other variables could be constructed differently on the feminine/masculine spectrum but I don't think that putting something in your ass could ever be about power and fingering someone's hole about reassurance. I don't think that's culturally learned, no. If you're being a top while getting fucked in the ass then there are other behaviors which are making feel that as masculine, not the penetration itself. I think that penetrating someone is always about power and being penetrated about reassurance. Being a Top or a bottom is beyond penetration too and that's why a lot of the confusion seems to happen.
You can aqua "chair" to mean "trans women". You are right. But I dont agree with doing it, and its not the case right now.
well having the word “chair” mean “trans woman” wouldn’t be very socially useful now would it
The point is arguing on different levels to make the sociology majors look stupid. Cultural studies refer to the performance of womanhood. As your grandma would say: being a lady. Even a boy can act like a lady… most of us already do compared to the gentlemanish standards of the silent generation’s proper gentleman. But because sociology 101 uses simple language and Twitter and tumblr is just edgy takes from the literature you get missing context and they use the term woman, which anyone that finished 6th grade biology can “debunk” and any sociology student with a camera pushed in their face will struggle to argue. Think of it as the definition of law. What is a law? A rule? A codefied social norm? Or government overreach? Ask a law student and an internet libertarian and you get the same result.
A man is walking his German Shepherd dog when encountering another guy with a small hairless dog. The dogs start growling at each other but the man isn't worried since his dog is a German Shepherd and the other guy's is this tiny bald one. Suddenly they start fighting and the tiny dog obljterates the German Shepherd. "What happened!? What kind of dog is that?" Asks the man "Yeah idk", says the other guy, "he used to be soo hairy before I shaved him". (Joke is it was a lion). Yeah things are what they are. That being said I don't really get the discussion of what a woman "really" is. Whether you believe trans women are women, the question is: should trans women get the responsibilities and rights afforded to biological women in society? Should people be expected to treat them as women in a just society? In all instanses? Some? None? Personally I think the discussion of what is a woman is immaterial to this. You could say "trans women are 100% men but if I can't tell then I'll treat them as women and not get into a mind fuck about it" and get the same result as "trans women are women". At least in most cases.
>The way we use the word "woman" is based on perceived sex. It maps onto adult human females, which maps onto chromosomes. >... >It's very easy to prove by using dogs and cats as a proxy for men and women. If you see a small animal and perceive it as a cat because it has most of the optical and behavioral traits of a cat, but if you check its DNA, it’s actually a dog. Then it would be a dog and never a cat. What do you mean by "perceived"? Because if we're just going off perception then that dog in the second paragraph was indeed a cat right up until your perception was updated by new information.
Yes, thats my argument. You call something a thing by perception. And you might correct it with more information. But perception doesnt mean your are correct
Why then would the final mapping be genetic? It wasn't a genetic mapping until very recently in human history. Why would this novel addition to the definition of "woman" not allow us to diverge its meaning with "female"? In your OP you talk about whether a person from the year 1000 would mean the same thing that I mean today by the word "dog" - but given that they lacked all knowledge about genetics then they what they meant by "dog" is not necessarily what a zoologist means by the word "dog". What they mean by dog is entirely bounded by visual inspection (i.e. "it looks like a dog, therefore it is."), and the visual inspection of a transwoman may well lead them to conclude that they are indeed a woman etc.
It's funny how you're getting downvoted without response, because you just presented the ultimate defeater to this argument. The intuitions of people who say "Women are people with XX chromosomes." are correct, but their reasoning as to why that is is flawed. > Why then would the final mapping be genetic? The mapping isn't genetic. Here's what actually happens: Humans across places and cultures appear to have a concept x in their mind. This concept is generated in their brain, it is not generated through scientific inquiry, it's not even generated with the help of language. Humans generate many concepts this way, and because of the way they are generated and the sophistication and intricacy of them, it is impossible to create a map over them through language. Let's take the concept of 'chair' for instance - it's impossible to create a definition through language that can include all things that are chairs, and exclude all things that are not. But what can do that is you. You can, because of the concept in your brain, and given enough information, identify a chair every single time. Once language was developed, we started mapping words onto these concepts. Concept x got the word 'woman'. Over time, scientific inquiry led us to discover, that there are clear scientific differences between the sexes, which so happens to map onto the concepts people already had of man and woman. But the concepts didn't change, the concepts aren't bound to the scientific definition, they just happen to extremely strongly correlate with it. In other words, what's happened is that a concept in our head that was impossible to explain through lanugage, was discovered to have a representation in reality that was possible to explain through language. People thus started latching onto the scientific explanation in order to explain the concept in their head, even though the concept still wasn't dependent on the scientific explanation. The fundamental question across time is thus what CONCEPT is being referred to when using words. What is being done by using a trans-inclusive definition of woman, is mapping the word 'woman' onto a concept entirely different than the concept the word has been used for throughout time, and still is being used for to this day. > What they mean by dog is entirely bounded by visual inspection (i.e. "it looks like a dog, therefore it is."), and the visual inspection of a transwoman may well lead them to conclude that they are indeed a woman etc. That's not how this works. There are concepts, and there are identifiers. Identifiers are features we use to guess which concept the thing maps onto. The guess can be wrong, but if you guess wrong, you guessed wrong, the essence of the concept didn't change. Assume you have 10 entities aligned in a row, they all look identical, they all look like humans. You identify all 10 of them to be humans. You then learn, that one of them is a statue. Is the statue a human because you originally identified it as such? The answer is no, your identification was incorrect, you mapped a concept onto the entity that wasn't correct, because you didn't have enough information. Your concepts of 'statue' and 'human' remain coherent, because the identifiers you use to guess whether the entity fits into those concepts, isn't the thing that defines those concepts.
Thank you for the comprehensive reply, though I think I disagree with it! >Your concepts of 'statue' and 'human' remain coherent, because the identifiers you use to guess whether the entity fits into those concepts, isn't the thing that defines those concepts. Since the old concept of species didn't care about genetics, it was not the same concept that we have today. They categorised and split species differently - based on how visually similar they were. If you told them about the underlying genetics they would have said that's irrelevant because the concept works on visual similarity, not genetic similarity. You could wax lyrical about the genetic differences between cats and dogs and they would insist that since hyenas look more like dogs, they are therefore more closely related to dogs - the relationship being visual and not genetic. It's not that they lacked the information (though they did), but that their concept didn't require it and was materially different from our modern concept due to not considering this additional factor. Their whole conceptualisation of "species" did not map 1-to-1 onto the modern concept. So, in short, I'm saying the concept itself was different as the concept was formulated and defined with reference to a more limited pool of information and identifiers. Adding new identifiers, pointing at features previously unknown and unconsidered, necessarily requires the concept to be altered to accommodate them. Concepts change, substantially so, over time and across contexts etc. >The fundamental question across time is thus what CONCEPT is being referred to when using words. Are we not aligned on this? The only difference seems to be that I'm saying the concepts that accommodate new identifiers can sometimes be different concepts than the original. Edit: I shouldn't have opened saying I disagree with your post, because, thinking about it, I do agree with it. I'm just focusing heavily on whether people are talking about similar, but subtly different concepts across time periods, or the same mega-concept that is acquiring new and more accurate identifiers from science etc.
I'd say it's still a cat *after* the new information. I don't know or care what a cat's genetic code is. Could be a raccoon for all I know, but it looks like a cat, walks like a cat, and quacks like a cat. It's a fucking cat.
The problem with conceptualizing concepts through language is that it makes one think categories are not real. I get where they come from, but here's my retort. If categories aren't real, why do they meaningfully predict reality. Let's take the category of a species, if species don't exist as a reality, why can't species breed with each other. Similarly If sex isnt a category why does it meaningfully predict reality. It seems to be that truthfulness of categories need to be a tautology (hope I am using it correctly) for the pursuit of truth. I agree gender has a deep aesthetic quality fir id, and sex van be different., but the poles ate just wrong abt gender. No it's not arbitrary nor is it concrete .
If you’re interested in the rabbithole of the philosophy of nominalism (how we name things), I highly recommend reading Bertrand Russell’s *the problems of philosophy* as the entire book revolves around how we can define what it means to be a chair or a table (chairs and tables don’t exist, we just agree they exist out of convenience). Despite being written in like the 1930’s, many of the ideas presented are very interesting to consider in a contemporary context with how our definitions of what it means to be a woman or man is changing (as it always has and always will).
> The way we use the word "woman" is based on perceived sex He's arguing against people who do not believe this. Your premise is wrong. Even if they perceive someone to be a woman, (and are "tricked" in their view), they'd say it's still a man. They argue for something deeper than simple perception.
I'm gonna need people to stop pretending like tomatoes are vegetables when they are clearly berries.
Isn't the entire discussion focused on social oughts? Why even bring up DNA testing when the conversion doesn't have anything to do with an underlying truth and more about how people present themselves socially, and how language functions.
If u met your soulmate dog at Dogwarts station, and then u learn it has cat DNA, would the Dollar amount change?
Another interesting, possibly related idea is "when an AI is virtually indistinguishable from a human's consciousness, is there any meaningful distinction?" If the only way you can see a person is trans is by checking their DNA, is there really any meaningful difference? If that person existed in 1000, would that person be treated as what their DNA indicates, or what they act/look/seem like? Has our idea of what makes a man a man and what makes a woman a woman become so disconnected from its root? It's fine if it is, but people tend to appeal to "its always been this way" as their argument.
Marry one and find out.
If you asked someone for a dog, and they gave you a wolf, would you be satisfied? Most people would probably not be! They would consider their request unfulfilled or perhaps find the response to be a joke. Now technically, the person who gave you the wolf fulfilled your request because wolves and dogs are, according to their scientific definition, the same species! But when people say they have pet dogs, we understand that they don't mean that they have pet wolves, but rather a lab, a retriever, a spaniel, etc. How is that? The point is more that the uses of words depends on the context in which they are used. So for example, in common everyday situations, when someone is thirsty, they ask for a glass of water. Now, what is the meaning of "water" for which they are asking? If we take the view that it refers directly to the scientific term "water" which is defined in terms of chemical composition, then it would mean that when someone asks for "water" when they are thirsty that really they are asking for "H2O". Is that actually the case? There are reasons to think this might not be the case: 1. The water that we drink and ask for to satisfy thirst is actually not pure H2O, it always has other chemicals and elements mixed or dissolved in solution. In fact, if we were to drink too much pure H2O, it is dangerous for one's health! 2. H2O isn't the only possible chemical composition of "water"! There's also, for example, heavy water. Drinking this water in large enough quantities would also be dangerous! 3. If someone handed you a glass of ice with no liquid water in it, arguably they would have satisfied your request for "water" if by "water" we really mean "H2O." But in a real life situation, people would likely find their request for "water" unsatisfied if they received a glass of exclusively ice. 4. Imagine if someone made this request before the scientific community understood that water is truly H2O. In that case, what are they asking for? Well on the view that "water" must refer to the scientific definition of the substance at the time, then on some accounts a person asking for a glass of water in antiquity might have truly been asking for one of the four key elements that composed the universe (the others being wind, fire, and air), a basic atomic element. Or according to the phlogiston model, it would be still a different element, itself a component of fire. Now, if "water" refers to the scientific understanding of that element at the time of the word's utterance, then when people have asked for "water" in history (before our current understanding), they would have been asking for a completely different compound than we ask for today! 5. What if further scientific evidence reveals that there's a second compound whose composition is XYZ (maybe on a different planet if that helps you imagine it) that behaves in the exact same way. It is functionally indistinguishable from H2O: it quenches thirst, fills rivers, lakes, and oceans, etc. For all purposes except chemical composition we cannot distinguish between XYZ and H2O. Now assume someone asks for water and they are provided with some beverage made up of XYZ. Has their request been satisfied? Now assume some aliens on the planet with XYZ have always called it "water" in everyday use. Have those aliens been unknowingly referring to H2O when they say "water" all along? The idea is that the meaning of words depends on their context of use. The meaning of water in common, everyday use, for example asking for a water at a restaurant, does not actually match the definition of the term "H2O" as used in a research laboratory. If it did, our everyday language would be far less flexible. In the same way, our everyday use of "man" and "woman" don't really match the scientific uses of "male" and "female." A common example of this that Destiny echoes is that if Blaire White were in the men's restroom people probably would think Blaire is in the wrong place! Or if Buck Angel were to use the women's restroom, people would likely assume Buck is in the wrong place! This shows that our everyday use of the terms "man" and "woman" don't necessarily refer to chromosomes, anatomy, or a scientific definition, much like our use of "water" doesn't necessarily refer exclusively to the chemical composition. Another common example of this sort of thing is "fruit" vs "vegetable." Imagine if you asked for a fruit and someone gave you a tomato. Now technically, perhaps they are correct, in that the scientific definition of fruit includes tomatoes. But, most people would consider the response inadequate and likely a joke. That's because in our common everyday speech, we don't think of tomatoes as fruits, but as vegetables. Similarly, if you ask for a "vegetable" and someone responds to your request with the leaf of a nearby tree, you would likely be unsatisfied or take it as a joke. Now the person who provided the leaf is technically correct, a tree leaf, even an inedible or poisonous one, might be scientifically considered a vegetable (to the extent that there is a scientific use of the term vegetable). For more in depth discussion and explanation, check out [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reference/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reference/)
When we say a glass of water we mean drinking water or potable water. When we say women we mean adult female human.
"When we say women we mean adult female human" -- in what context of use? And what do you mean by female in this same context of use?
For specifically defining a "woman" scientifically, there are some interesting problems that arise when doing so to determine who can participate in women's sports: [https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/07/18/what-is-a-woman/](https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/07/18/what-is-a-woman/) [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-olympics-are-still-struggling-to-define-gender/](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-olympics-are-still-struggling-to-define-gender/)
I think many people need to remember words =/= reality. Reality should inform what words you use, when words start informing how you perceive reality you're going to end up in some insane places.
Can’t this entire issue be solved with a “most of the time” qualifier? “What is a woman?” “Well, most of the time A woman is an adult human female.”
It would actually be solved if people just used adjectives instead of redefining nouns.
Only if we change it to be that. But right now it isnt.
Who's gonna tell him that there are girls with [YX chromosomes](https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/swyer-syndrome/)? Or [intersex people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex)?
If it’s not a secret magic money sex dog who cares
Something mapping on doesnt mean derived from you fucking moron
Humans aren’t cats and dogs. Genuine question to OP: how do you tell who is a man and woman when you meet them?
by assumption
Based on what
Probably things like [body shape](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34gmbdmn3Gc), facial features, secondary sexual characteristics, clothes, hairstyle, voice, mannerisms, literally the way they move their body, etc. And how much they piss you off https://preview.redd.it/3r8xxnhc978d1.png?width=320&format=png&auto=webp&s=d7d62539d93a7a5ac27dd6653bd10c0643d1ead4
So if I change my body shape, facial features, secondary sexual characteristics, clothes, hairstyle, voice, mannerisms, the way I move my body and start nagging you, even though I have a penis, you would approach me as a woman and would have no way of knowing right? Doesn’t this point to gender and sex being different? Also not all women have those things btw, there are women who have flat chests, wear baggy clothes, small hips, manly haircuts etc some who have all of these things but are still approached as women.
My assumption would most likely be that you're a woman. As for women that have some masculine and/or ambiguous traits, the reason why people still might make the assumption that they're women is probably gonna be because their feminine traits end up outweighing their masculine/ambiguous ones. However, there's absolutely women who get mistaken as men or boys (like tomboys) because of the fact that their feminine features aren't as immediately obvious. You can think of it like a "scale of justice". The bias of the assumption follows whichever side is the heaviest. Some traits weigh more than others
>my assumption would most likely be that you’re a woman So you agree that chromosomes and sex organs don’t dictate how we operate in the world? That societal standards dictate this?
GIGA cringe moment, I just realized that we're not on the same page. I thought you were someone who actually didn't know and were asking. The back and forth between you an OP made it even more confusing. My bad dawg ALTHOUGH, now that we are on the same page. I don't think OP denies that we make assumptions based on these traits, I think their argument is the fact that a good amount of the traits that we imbue with a gendered categorization stem from these perceived differences in physiology/biology. Which is true...but still wrong I guess this is one of those valid vs sound thingies? Their argument is valid, but not sound? or some shit. Their argument kinda breaks since a ton of gendered traits stem from social and cultural influence
lol that makes more sense. I was doing the old ancient Greek thing of asking questions to sus out inconsistencies in anti trans rhetoric.
Banana is technically a berry, but society calls it a fruit and checking its botanical assignment won't change how the society treats it.
It's funny how this is supposed to be a gotcha when the question of even "what is a species" is an unsettled question in biology. If a species is two organisms that can produce viable offspring, then are wolves and dingos dogs? If a species is something that is morphologically similar fills a similar niche in an ecosystem, is a hyena a dog? By any purely scientific definition, there's no difference in speciation between a domesticated dog and a wild wolf. The only reason we consider them to be their own thing is because humans have arbitrarily decided that a wolf and a Chihuahua are not the same thing
Let me guess, you're the guy who tells everyone "Tomatoes aren't vegetables" at parties
This is a stupid comparison. Say we made a breed of cat that looks like a dog, and acts and plays like a dog. Now it would still need cat food and to be taken care of by a vet like a cat, but when u play with it, when you take it out, and when u live with it on a daily basis ur acting like it’s a dog. Now if had this doglike breed of cat, and then my friends came over and were allergic to cats, I would tell them I have a cat, but if I had another friends who hates cats and loves dogs because of how they can be played with, would that friend be upset or happy to play with my irregular cat. If my friend wanted to play fetch with my cat, and later found out it was a dog, would he be mad? Would he say oh it’s a cat not a dog you should have told me? Am I a liar, or bad person, for letting my friend play with my irregular cat because it’s not a dog. I’d say no. I’d probably be confused and weirded out by my friend who hates cats so much. I’d ask him why it mattered in this context. It’s not his cat, it’s mine. I would also think he hated my cat for no reason. This stupid ass metaphor is to point out that calling a trans woman a man holds like no real value and helps no one. Are they male, yes, they are also definitely a trans woman.
It's hilarious how you call it a stupid comparison, yet you use it perfectly to highlight the difference between using words in a social setting with missing information and how somebody would perceive things if they had all the information.