Are transgender people the gender they say they are?

[John Dule]

What people miss about this question (and other related ones like the other thread's) is that it's fundamentally a normative question, not a descriptive one. There's no "correct" answer, or at least no answer that can be empirically proven as correct. Ultimately, you're free to answer it however feels right to you (and people are free to judge you for how you answer).

Whether or not the answer to this is objective is itself subjective, apparently.

[John Dule]

What people miss about this question (and other related ones like the other thread's) is that it's fundamentally a normative question, not a descriptive one. There's no "correct" answer, or at least no answer that can be empirically proven as correct. Ultimately, you're free to answer it however feels right to you (and people are free to judge you for how you answer).

Whether or not the answer to this is objective is itself subjective, apparently.

To argue that there is an objective answer, you have to argue that language itself is objective and words have intrinsic meaning rather than having the meaning we choose to give them. Which is an argument so ridiculous it would get you laughed out of any philosophy of language class.

If a word has an accepted definition, then you can objectively assess whether something meets the criteria of that definition.

[John Dule]

What people miss about this question (and other related ones like the other thread's) is that it's fundamentally a normative question, not a descriptive one. There's no "correct" answer, or at least no answer that can be empirically proven as correct. Ultimately, you're free to answer it however feels right to you (and people are free to judge you for how you answer).

Whether or not the answer to this is objective is itself subjective, apparently.

To argue that there is an objective answer, you have to argue that language itself is objective and words have intrinsic meaning rather than having the meaning we choose to give them. Which is an argument so ridiculous it would get you laughed out of any philosophy of language class.

If a word has an accepted definition, then you can objectively assess whether something meets the criteria of that definition.

If a word's definition is being hotly debated across society, then it's clearly not an "accepted definition".

Sure, but there will always be someone who questions the definition of just about any word. The issue then becomes what level of dissent constitutes a definition not being "accepted," and whose opinions really matter.

[John Dule]

If someone is explicitly arguing for the redefinition of a concept, then the argument is an intrinsically normative one. In most cases that normative argument would be pointless and not worth having (like if someone comes up to me and said they want to define a chair to only include those made of wood, I'd say "cool, go for it bro" and move on with my life), but even then, they aren't objectively wrong, and to claim they are denotes a frankly puerile understanding of language. To then go on craft some kind of abstruse 4-pronged SCOTUS-esque test to determine when a definition is objective and when it is veers on the ridiculous.

You clearly have a very strong intuitive attachment to the biological-essentialist understanding of gender, and that's fine, but your desperation to prove that your attachment is Totally Objective and Rational indicates a serious lack of emotional maturity. I understand this kind of sophistry from Ben Shapiro, because he's appealing to emotionally stunted 15-year-olds who think they're smarter than everyone else, but what's your excuse?

I didn't make the argument that the definition was objective, so I don't know what you're upset with me for.

As to your first point: Why would that person not be objectively wrong? Sure, there are many ways to arrive at a definition for a word (a published dictionary definition and the general use of the term being the two major ones). But under no definition is the word "chair" limited to "only items made of wood." Language is a communal effort (something you of all people should be able to appreciate), and allowing isolated actors to redefine terms defeats its function as a form of communication.

You're right that language is subjective, insofar as specific sounds do not carry with them any intrinsic meaning independent from what humans apply to them. But efficient and useful communication requires some consensus on the meaning of those sounds, and language is about trying to establish objective criteria for those meanings. These two facts aren't in conflict with one another, and they both seem pretty obvious, so I'm not sure what the point of disagreement is here.

[John Dule]

More importantly, language is descriptive, not prescriptive. If the meaning of a word changes in contemporary usage, then it's recognized as such and the dictionaries will alter their definitions. Only dumb elitists of the sort who think that AAVE is "just bad grammar" go around saying that people who use a word differently are doing it wrong. Language and cognition evolve alongside each other, and this is a case where our understanding has changed.

Where did I say that definitions do not evolve? Of course they do. The only relevant test for whether the use of a word is appropriate is whether it conveys the speaker's intentions to the listener. This is why someone unilaterally redefining the word "chair" in their head to fit an imagined definition is not good communication. Similarly, attempts to redefine words like "racism," "gender," or "theft" serve only to divide listeners based on their own personal interpretations of those words. If a word fails the communication test, it fails as a word.

People like to point out that "all words are imagined," which is true. But there is an obvious difference between the collective imagination and the individual imagination, and the former is all that matters when trying to communicate a message to others.

[John Dule]

I didn't make the argument that the definition was objective, so I don't know what you're upset with me for.

This conversation began because you said "Whether or not the answer to this is objective is itself subjective, apparently." I think I was reasonable in interpreting this as you disagreeing with my claim that the definition is subjective. The alternative is that you were just trolling for trolling's sake, which, if so, let's just end it here.

As to your first point: Why would that person not be objectively wrong? Sure, there are many ways to arrive at a definition for a word (a published dictionary definition and the general use of the term being the two major ones). But under no definition is the word "chair" limited to "only items made of wood." Language is a communal effort (something you of all people should be able to appreciate), and allowing isolated actors to redefine terms defeats its function as a form of communication.

This is a normative argument, not a descriptive one. You're arguing for what a definition of a chair should be (namely, what is generally socially understood as a chair), not for what it objectively is (because, again, there's no such thing as an objective definition). And I'm happy to agree that social consensus should prevail in the absence of other normatively significant considerations.

You're right that language is subjective, insofar as specific sounds do not carry with them any intrinsic meaning independent from what humans apply to them. But efficient and useful communication requires some consensus on the meaning of those sounds, and language is about trying to establish objective criteria for those meanings. These two facts aren't in conflict with one another, and they both seem pretty obvious, so I'm not sure what the point of disagreement is here.

I really have no idea what you're arguing anymore. Of course language is (among other things) a tool to help us communicate about objective facts and properties, but that doesn't mean that language itself is objective. We should be able to agree that a subjective phenomenon can help us understand objective reality, since that is the very nature of the human condition (our senses are also subjective experiences after all).

Where did I say that definitions do not evolve? Of course they do. The only relevant test for whether the use of a word is appropriate is whether it conveys the speaker's intentions to the listener. This is why someone unilaterally redefining the word "chair" in their head to fit an imagined definition is not good communication. Similarly, attempts to redefine words like "racism," "gender," or "theft" serve only to divide listeners based on their own personal interpretations of those words. If a word fails the communication test, it fails as a word.

People like to point out that "all words are imagined," which is true. But there is an obvious difference between the collective imagination and the individual imagination, and the former is all that matters when trying to communicate a message to others.

Okay, this is probably getting us closer to what your real argument is, which is about the normative value of pushing competing definitions of gender, and if so, whether or not the relevant social movements are going about it the right way. There's probably a lot to be said in this regard, but I'm not interested in discussing it right now. As long as you can concede that the question is fundamentally normative rather than descriptive, we can leave it here. I just don't know why you chose to pick this fight when it's neither fundamental to your argument nor winnable for you.

Serious question: If you think every aspect of language is subjective-- including meaning-- then what, if anything, do you think is objective? The only way we can describe the world around us is through language. I would argue that something can be objectively symmetrical because it has the properties of symmetry. But the word "symmetry" is just an arbitrary term we've applied to a specific set of conditions. How would you go about describing an objective fact if the terms you use to describe it are all subjective?

[John Dule]

[Moderator Deleted] (Sane, Normal)

Summarize Atlas in four words

[John Dule]

I do think that sometimes we trans people go a bit far in the expectation that we can totalize other folks' perspectives on themselves to be immediately in line with our own, especially if one's identity is rather volatile, but of course given that it's people like you and Dule arguing this I can only assume that it's coming from a place of actively taking delight in misgendering people for its own sake, which is a sorry reflection on your principles.

Then you shouldn't respect us enough to care about whether we gender you correctly.

[John Dule]

Yes, I respect trans people's identity because I'm a decent f****** human being.

You're going to fit in really well here.

[John Dule]

Yes, I respect trans people's identity because I'm a decent f****** human being.

You're going to fit in really well here.

Is this supposed to be sarcasm?

No, I'm serious. For a strident left-wing red NJ avatar, adjusting to this forum is going to be like lowering yourself into a nice warm bath.

[John Dule]

your gender is in your brain the day you are born

this seems very incorrect lol

Laugh all you want.  It's clear you mock, you judge, you make fun - but you will never know what its like to be trans - and may you be so grateful that you do not.  It's not something that should be laughed off as if it's a side show freak... these are real kids going through this.  It's not a game or something to joke about.  The suicide rate for trans is through the roof.

Peak Atlas: A transgender user calls someone transphobic for not believing in "brain sex," while ignoring the other transgender user taking same opposing position in a directly previous comment.

[John Dule]

your gender is in your brain the day you are born

this seems very incorrect lol

Laugh all you want.  It's clear you mock, you judge, you make fun - but you will never know what its like to be trans - and may you be so grateful that you do not.  It's not something that should be laughed off as if it's a side show freak... these are real kids going through this.  It's not a game or something to joke about.  The suicide rate for trans is through the roof.

Peak Atlas: A transgender user calls someone transphobic for not believing in "brain sex," while ignoring the other transgender user taking same opposing position in a directly previous comment.

Peak Atlas: Intellectuals that like to talk about issues that they have no personal life experience in (such as trans, such as being black, such as having an abortion, etc.)  I think it's high time that the people on this forum stick to what they know... instead of claiming to know everything about livelihoods they know NOTHING about.

But the other person in this thread who knows what it's like to be transgender disagrees with you.

[John Dule]

your gender is in your brain the day you are born

this seems very incorrect lol

Laugh all you want.  It's clear you mock, you judge, you make fun - but you will never know what its like to be trans - and may you be so grateful that you do not.  It's not something that should be laughed off as if it's a side show freak... these are real kids going through this.  It's not a game or something to joke about.  The suicide rate for trans is through the roof.

Peak Atlas: A transgender user calls someone transphobic for not believing in "brain sex," while ignoring the other transgender user taking same opposing position in a directly previous comment.

Peak Atlas: Intellectuals that like to talk about issues that they have no personal life experience in (such as trans, such as being black, such as having an abortion, etc.)  I think it's high time that the people on this forum stick to what they know... instead of claiming to know everything about livelihoods they know NOTHING about.

But the other person in this thread who knows what it's like to be transgender disagrees with you.

I hope tomorrow, sir, you wake up in the body of the opposite sex

hot

[John Dule]

As amusing as this is, nothing you've said here changes the fact that two of the most prominent transgender voices on Atlas disagree on this issue, so calling someone transphobic for disagreeing with you is ridiculous.

[John Dule]

I'll bite.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the elevation of brain sex for the reasons that discovolante said quite eloquently, but there's enough credibility there that lines up with common trans experiences and research that there's validity in espousing notions of brain sex. A weasely, TransModerate Hero nonanswer, sure, but not as weasely as Dule, who never heard a transgender voice he couldn't ignore, whose notion of personal liberty deliberately does not account for what trans voices say about their experience, who willingly sides with people who are openly hateful of trans people in these arguments, suddenly concern trolling about transgender voices.

You're becoming unhinged. Try responding to what I actually write instead of attempting to ascribe malice where there is none.

[John Dule]

Dule makes an extremely good point. If people can’t even agree on what causes gender, then who is to say that gender isn’t even real, and that biological sex is all that matters?

Or at the very least, if the people who claim to know more about gender than we do can't agree on what it is or where it comes from, then why do they get mad at us for questioning what it is and where it comes from?

[John Dule]

Dule makes an extremely good point. If people can’t even agree on what causes gender, then who is to say that gender isn’t even real, and that biological sex is all that matters?

Or at the very least, if the people who claim to know more about gender than we do can't agree on what it is or where it comes from, then why do they get mad at us for questioning what it is and where it comes from?

One's gender identity is shaped by many biological and psychosocial factors; the explanations given for it here are not mutually exclusive, the umbrage I take with the "brain sex" narrative being that it's often seen as the lone or ultimate factor in one's perception of oneself. It could well be a factor but reducing it to the factor I think is very dangerous.

You have every right to question these concepts, but as I said before, I have every right to question whether or not you're posing these questions in bad faith. That, contrary to popular belief, is not censorship.

I'd be interested to see what you thought constituted a "good-faith" critique of gender theory.

[John Dule]

oh my God, what happened here

"People who disagree with me also disagree among each other, so that proves they're all wrong and I'm right" is a new one as far as logical fallacies go. I'm not sure if it even has a name.

I can't begin to tell you how deeply disappointed I am with you for making this comment. This is a willful misinterpretation on the level of Dr. Scholl.

[John Dule]

oh my God, what happened here

"People who disagree with me also disagree among each other, so that proves they're all wrong and I'm right" is a new one as far as logical fallacies go. I'm not sure if it even has a name.

I can't begin to tell you how deeply disappointed I am with you for making this comment. This is a willful misinterpretation on the level of Dr. Scholl.

Oh please. Like your replies right now have been good-faith engagement. Screaming that people are "get[ting] mad at [you] for questioning what [gender] is and where it comes from" is at least as ridiculous a misrepresentation of others' point as my description was of yours. People are mad at you because you're actively, affirmatively propounding an understanding of gender which they think is wrongheaded and harmful. At least own up to it and don't hide behind the "just asking questions" defense.

I haven't actively propounded any understanding of gender in this particular conversation. I only injected myself into this exchange because a transgender poster was calling someone transphobic for denying that person's interpretation of gender, while ignoring the fact that another trans poster was also denying that interpretation. It is silly to yell at someone for "not understanding your perspective" when they disagree with you, even while others who clearly understand that perspective don't agree with you.

I don't believe that you actually misinterpreted my posts this badly, so my opinion remains unchanged: You are purposely misrepresenting what I said.

[John Dule]

I haven't gone through all of the posts in this thread because this seems like a particularly tedious iteration of the Endless Gender Debate (yes, on both sides - I'm not denying that some of the people you're arguing against are making asses of themselves too). But even if you really did "just ask questions" here, I reject the idea that you can abstract this conversation away from the rest of your engagement on the topic. We all know where you stand on it and it makes sense that we'd interpret your posts accordingly

Clearly not! I never once said here that "my argument is right" because gender theorists disagree; I only said that Del Tachi's perspective should not be rudely dismissed because there are in fact many transgender people (including Disco) who agree with him.

I don't think you (or any of the people recommending your posts) know where I stand on this issue. You clearly do not read my comments closely, by your own admission.

[John Dule]

I haven't gone through all of the posts in this thread because this seems like a particularly tedious iteration of the Endless Gender Debate (yes, on both sides - I'm not denying that some of the people you're arguing against are making asses of themselves too). But even if you really did "just ask questions" here, I reject the idea that you can abstract this conversation away from the rest of your engagement on the topic. We all know where you stand on it and it makes sense that we'd interpret your posts accordingly

Clearly not! I never once said here that "my argument is right" because gender theorists disagree; I only said that Del Tachi's perspective should not be rudely dismissed because there are in fact many transgender people (including Disco) who agree with him.

I don't think you (or any of the people recommending your posts) know where I stand on this issue. You clearly do not read my comments closely, by your own admission.

Oh f**k off. I've actually taken the time to engage with you on the issue in great detail multiple times, and every time you ended up quietly leaving when your arguments are seriously challenged. If I "don't know where you stand" it might just be because you don't know either.

You are now trying to dig yourself out of this hole by deflecting from the simple fact that you misrepresented my post.

[John Dule]

I haven't gone through all of the posts in this thread because this seems like a particularly tedious iteration of the Endless Gender Debate (yes, on both sides - I'm not denying that some of the people you're arguing against are making asses of themselves too). But even if you really did "just ask questions" here, I reject the idea that you can abstract this conversation away from the rest of your engagement on the topic. We all know where you stand on it and it makes sense that we'd interpret your posts accordingly

Clearly not! I never once said here that "my argument is right" because gender theorists disagree; I only said that Del Tachi's perspective should not be rudely dismissed because there are in fact many transgender people (including Disco) who agree with him.

I don't think you (or any of the people recommending your posts) know where I stand on this issue. You clearly do not read my comments closely, by your own admission.

Oh f**k off. I've actually taken the time to engage with you on the issue in great detail multiple times, and every time you ended up quietly leaving when your arguments are seriously challenged. If I "don't know where you stand" it might just be because you don't know either.

You are now trying to dig yourself out of this hole by deflecting from the simple fact that you misrepresented my post.

I've explained why I think my hyperbolic reframing of your post is warranted. Feel free to bitch about it if that matters so much to you, but there's nothing left to say here.

Perhaps the reason why I sometimes abandon our conversations is because they have a tendency to migrate away from the main point. Take our recent exchange over Sam Harris, for example: You called Harris "alt-right." I said that was a big stretch of the definition of that term. You responded by saying that Harris endorsed racial IQ theory because of comments he made during his interview with Charles Murray. I said that his decision to host him did not constitute an endorsement of his views. We then became embroiled in a debate over how much it was possible to read into Harris' comments, while missing the main point: You did not provide any evidence for Harris being affiliated with the alt-right movement, so the initial claim which started the conversation was unsubstantiated.

Here, we are doing something similar. I criticized one user for unfairly dismissing Del Tachi's take on the subject of "brain sex" as transphobic, when many trans people agree with him. You have taken this as an opportunity to wax poetic on what you call "the rest of my engagement on this topic." All the while, we are missing the main point: What I said was fair, and relatively politely phrased (by my standards). Simply put, I don't like conversations where every time someone is backed into a corner, the subject magically changes. So from now on, let's make a deal: When either of us is forced to concede a particular point, let's just concede it before we move on. Here, it sounds as though you've made some minor concession (that your "reframing was hyperbolic"), and I'll take what I can get.

[John Dule]

For the record, Dule, as someone who you're trying to portray as On Your Side here, I do think that you misinterpreted what I said in the way that would be most amenable to your beliefs rather than the way that I intended it.

I didn't say I was on anyone's side-- yours, Del Tachi's, or Progressive85's. Nonetheless, I will take that into consideration while discussing this further.

[John Dule]

I'll bite.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the elevation of brain sex for the reasons that discovolante said quite eloquently, but there's enough credibility there that lines up with common trans experiences and research that there's validity in espousing notions of brain sex. A weasely, TransModerate Hero nonanswer, sure, but not as weasely as Dule, who never heard a transgender voice he couldn't ignore, whose notion of personal liberty deliberately does not account for what trans voices say about their experience, who willingly sides with people who are openly hateful of trans people in these arguments, suddenly concern trolling about transgender voices.

You're becoming unhinged. Try responding to what I actually write instead of attempting to ascribe malice where there is none.

There is no evidence in your record to suggest that any concern you have over about what trans voices are saying is a concern taken in good faith.

How many times must I reassert that I believe in transgender people's right to surgery, hormones, and other medical treatment before people believe me?

[John Dule]

Perhaps the reason why I sometimes abandon our conversations is because they have a tendency to migrate away from the main point.

Moving from one point to an adjacent point is how normal conversations go. This is usually productive because resolving one point tends to help moving the conversation forward on the original point. If that hasn't been the case with us, well, I'll let people decide whose fault that is.

Call me a stickler, but I sometimes like to hear a formal acknowledgement that my arguments have actually gotten through to someone.

You don't think that Harris endorsing the claim that the racial gap in IQ has genetic origins is directly relevant evidence to him being alt-right? If so, we're just operating on fundamentally different definitions of what "alt-right" means. Which, fine by me, but I don't know what him being "affiliated" with a "movement" (whatever that means) has to do with anything. There's no alt-right membership card, you know.

I really did not want to get into this again. I just brought it up as an example of how a discussion can obsess over the minutiae of a particular claim while missing the big picture. But regardless, I sincerely doubt that Harris (who is of Jewish descent) feels any secret allegiance to a neo-Nazi movement that he has never publicly identified himself with and which I have never heard others affiliate him with.

I'm really sorry if you didn't like the argument I laid out for why I thought my phrasing was warranted, but that doesn't make laying out that argument "changing the subject". I accentuated the ridiculousness of what you were saying in order to point out that your own rephrasing of it ("why do they get mad at us for questioning what it is and where it comes from?) was  itself disingenuous. At no point in that post did you mention DT, so I had no reason to believe it was in response to how he had been treated specifically. Your post was making a broad claim about the state of this conversation and I treated it as such. If that's not how you intended it, fine.

My point was this: Some trans people believe in "brain sex" and some don't. Some trans people call gender dysphoria a "mental illness," while others find that classification offensive. Some believe you can change your gender, while others consider it an immutable part of your identity. Because there is so much disagreement in this community over basic terminology, I find it frustrating when trans activists jump down people's throats for "misusing" a word or a term. That was the sole objection I made to that exchange involving Del Tachi, and at the time I thought it was a pretty obvious point that illustrated a broader argument I've been making for years. Apparently I was wrong.

Don't f**king lecture me on conceding points. You'd sooner bite the dumbest bullets than admit you were wrong in any way.

I've promised to do better about this, if you would too.