Are transgender people the gender they say they are?

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

In the 'Can a man get pregnant?' thread, 'No' is currently winning by almost the same filibuster-proof margin by which Democrats won the Senate in 2008.

Let's see how the results differ on this liberal, secular forum blog if we rephrase the question.

[7,052,770]

Of course. Who am I to tell someone else what their gender identity is?

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

If I'm not, then I've got an awful lot of explaining to do.

[Ferguson97]

Yes (sane, not a bigot)

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Of course.

[Mexican Wolf]

Obviously yes.

[Big Abraham]

Gender doesn't exist as anything other than a grammatical category.

[TheReckoning]

Yes (doesn’t want to get infracted)

[beesley]

Interesting poll response to thread reply ratio here.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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).

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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 my soul was made of stone]

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 you think anything is subjective, then you're a braindead New Leftie who's been brainwashed by sex pests" –Dule, probably

[If my soul was made of stone]

For the record, I think that there's significantly more nuance to this question than is typically understood by those with either of the binary answers to it. There is an abundance of differences between trans and cis folks who identify as a certain gender, clearly from an angle of physicality and embodied processes but also regarding societal expectations and experiences, subcultural relations, perceptions of other identities, and so on. The totalizing impulse among trans people to erase these differences is a disingenuous disservice to both, and it caused me a lot of distress when I did identify as strictly a trans woman to try to reconcile that dissonance. Ultimately, it serves me better to recognize my identity as something fundamentally different along these parameters (while still not that of the gender I was assigned at birth), as many past understandings of gender non-conformity did, rather than hold myself to an ideal constructed of experiences that aren't and never could be mine.

If I only had the choice of a yes or no answer then I'd pick the former, but my "yes" is qualified by my own experiences and observations and thus not as uncritical as it often is.

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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".

[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.

[afleitch]

Yes.

I mean, if someone says they are gay, and there's no other way for you to know that someone is gay until they tell you (effectively, self-identify), who in their right mind would 'well actually' that?. As if they somehow know either different or better? You might still want to discriminate against me, or throw me to the ground in response, but what is gained in denying what I call myself?

[If my soul was made of stone]

what is gained in denying what I call myself?

It assuages the insecurities of those who are insecure enough to care that much about the perceived validity of other folks' identities, of course.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

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?

[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.

[If my soul was made of stone]

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.

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Unless you are unfortunate enough to actually have gender dysphoria, then this is an irrelevant question. How we treat the people that have it is significantly more important than philosophical concerns that are ultimately both irresolvable and pointless. And in general it is best to treat people as they would wish to be treated.

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.