Are transgender people the gender they say they are?

[Biden his time]

[Moderator Deleted] (Sane, Normal)

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

This. The insistence on litigating this on an ontological and grammatical rather than social and interpersonal level is both a strategic mistake on the part of the trans community and its allies and an act of prejudiced bad faith on the part of biological essentialists.

[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

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Yeah. Science shows that people can believe that they are a different gender, which is the definition of gender. How the rest of the world sees them is up to the rest of the world (as in I don't believe that someone can call another person a bigot for not knowing what gender the other person is, at least before surgery).

That said, saying ''people who menstruate'' instead to not be noninclusive to the <1% of people who identify as transgender is demeaning to women.

[HisGrace]

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?

I mean if someone says he's a gay man and runs around having sex with women all the time of his own volition I think it would be fair to call BS on that.

For a concept to exist there have to be parameters to it. If you're going to say there's no definition to gender beyond what someone calls himself, then that really means there's just no such thing as gender, in which case there'd be no such thing as being transgender as well.

That said, saying ''people who menstruate'' instead to not be noninclusive to the <1% of people who identify as transgender is demeaning to women.

Yeah, for example, I identify as a man, not a "person with a penis", "non-mensurating person" or any other classification social justice activists have invented in the past 15 minutes and are demanding everyone start using. Why is my self identification less important than that of transpeople? It seems like they're the only ones who get to call themselves what they want and everyone else has to use ever changing jargon that's being made up on the fly to stay out of social justice jail.

If we're really being postmodern about this, someone who says "I'm a man because I have a penis" isn't any more "wrong" than someone who claims to be a certain gender because of a "brain sex". The issue here is not to let people define themselves however they want, it's to impose the concept of the "brain sex" and trans jargon onto everyone else.

[TheReckoning]

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?

It comes down to definition. Definition of a gay man is a man who is sexually attracted to other men. If a man calls himself this, he very well could be lying, but since it’s impossible to know definitively another’s sexual orientation, I might as well go along with it. Let’s say we define “man” as “someone who’s anatomy is natural male,” as it was done for thousands of years. If someone calls themself a man, but they do not have naturally male anatomy, then their not a man, simple as that. I can’t know for sure unless I know what their natural anatomy is, but unlike sexual orientation, there is a way to know this definitively.

[HisGrace]

To address the actual question and not just reply to other people's posts, I think the conflation of post and pre/no op transpeople has been a big rhetorical mistake by the trans movement. I'd say someone who's had a sex change can be said to have changed their sex and certainly can't be called whatever sex they originally were anymore. As someone on the first page alluded to, perhaps having trans men/women as a separate classification would be easier for normies to wrap their heads around, but to be honest post op falls into the "close enough" category and I think they could be called whatever they changed their sex to.

As for no op transpeople, no, that's a man in a dress or a woman with a buzzcut. Which is fine, you can dress or cut your hair however you want. My opposition to that is not about imposing gender roles, it's that defining gender as acting out some stereotypical role is a very harmful idea. We'd be better off if we just had the concept of sex and not the concept of gender as a separate thing. Which I guess would mean bringing back "transsexual" as the correct word and doing away with transgender, but my instinct is not to police language so I'm not going to put any energy into that.

[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?

It comes down to definition. Definition of a gay man is a man who is sexually attracted to other men. If a man calls himself this, he very well could be lying, but since it’s impossible to know definitively another’s sexual orientation, I might as well go along with it. Let’s say we define “man” as “someone who’s anatomy is natural male,” as it was done for thousands of years. If someone calls themself a man, but they do not have naturally male anatomy, then their not a man, simple as that. I can’t know for sure unless I know what their natural anatomy is, but unlike sexual orientation, there is a way to know this definitively.

'I can't know for sure unless I know what their natural anatomy is' makes my point. You don't know. Socially, you can only go by what people say they are, by how they present and by what 'stereotypes' (which all of us rely on to some extent) they fall in to. But we don't ask in a social setting to see people's private parts or for them to demonstrate chromosomes via a blood test (and even they aren't universal markers) before we socially categorise them as men or women. We've never done that. We've relied on gender expression in it's varying forms to do so throughout history.

So if a cisgendered woman says. 'Hi, I'm female. I'm a woman', you don't actually know if she 'naturally' is. Either you trust what she says, or you show the same distrust. And that isn't good for society; you end up with real life consequences of lesbians being challenged as women in public toilets based on their perceived lack of 'feminine' attributes. You end up with the trans panic of defining women and men by mere biology...which you can never actually do because you never have access to it!

[Antonio the Sixth]

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?

Well, you always have to hope that your subjectivity matches the subjectivity of your interlocutor. If it does, then you share the tools that allows you to discuss objective facts. If you and I share the same definition of symmetry, then we can discuss symmetry objectively. If we don't, then we can't until and unless we can find shared words to discuss it. Of course, if you really want to get all philosophical, you can never know that your interlocutor shares your subjective definition, since the only way of discussing definitions is through more language which is itself subjective. So there's an unavoidable element of uncertainty in communication. But in practice, we can make a reasonable guess about whether or not we share definitions. And I for one try to make it explicit when I don't, precisely in order to avoid these sterile semantic arguments.

[TheReckoning]

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?

It comes down to definition. Definition of a gay man is a man who is sexually attracted to other men. If a man calls himself this, he very well could be lying, but since it’s impossible to know definitively another’s sexual orientation, I might as well go along with it. Let’s say we define “man” as “someone who’s anatomy is natural male,” as it was done for thousands of years. If someone calls themself a man, but they do not have naturally male anatomy, then their not a man, simple as that. I can’t know for sure unless I know what their natural anatomy is, but unlike sexual orientation, there is a way to know this definitively.

'I can't know for sure unless I know what their natural anatomy is' makes my point. You don't know. Socially, you can only go by what people say they are, by how they present and by what 'stereotypes' (which all of us rely on to some extent) they fall in to. But we don't ask in a social setting to see people's private parts or for them to demonstrate chromosomes via a blood test (and even they aren't universal markers) before we socially categorise them as men or women. We've never done that. We've relied on gender expression in it's varying forms to do so throughout history.

So if a cisgendered woman says. 'Hi, I'm female. I'm a woman', you don't actually know if she 'naturally' is. Either you trust what she says, or you show the same distrust. And that isn't good for society; you end up with real life consequences of lesbians being challenged as women in public toilets based on their perceived lack of 'feminine' attributes. You end up with the trans panic of defining women and men by mere biology...which you can never actually do because you never have access to it!

The difference is that is it literally impossible to know what someone’s sexuality orientation is, but it’s very possible to know someone’s birth sex (doctors do it all the time!).

[Antonio the Sixth]

If we're really being postmodern about this, someone who says "I'm a man because I have a penis" isn't any more "wrong" than someone who claims to be a certain gender because of a "brain sex". The issue here is not to let people define themselves however they want, it's to impose the concept of the "brain sex" and trans jargon onto everyone else.

I'm pretty sure modern trans activism is not centered around the "brain sex" thing (in fact, insisting on it as the foundation of transness tends yo get you cancelled and labeled a "truscum" in the wokest circles, which is itself a whole other can of worms because it leads to the erasure of people with real sexual dysphoria who have unique needs that need to be centered, but I digress). The undefined and self-referential approach to gender that you're hinting at here is exactly the dominant approach in these circles.

[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?

It comes down to definition. Definition of a gay man is a man who is sexually attracted to other men. If a man calls himself this, he very well could be lying, but since it’s impossible to know definitively another’s sexual orientation, I might as well go along with it. Let’s say we define “man” as “someone who’s anatomy is natural male,” as it was done for thousands of years. If someone calls themself a man, but they do not have naturally male anatomy, then their not a man, simple as that. I can’t know for sure unless I know what their natural anatomy is, but unlike sexual orientation, there is a way to know this definitively.

'I can't know for sure unless I know what their natural anatomy is' makes my point. You don't know. Socially, you can only go by what people say they are, by how they present and by what 'stereotypes' (which all of us rely on to some extent) they fall in to. But we don't ask in a social setting to see people's private parts or for them to demonstrate chromosomes via a blood test (and even they aren't universal markers) before we socially categorise them as men or women. We've never done that. We've relied on gender expression in it's varying forms to do so throughout history.

So if a cisgendered woman says. 'Hi, I'm female. I'm a woman', you don't actually know if she 'naturally' is. Either you trust what she says, or you show the same distrust. And that isn't good for society; you end up with real life consequences of lesbians being challenged as women in public toilets based on their perceived lack of 'feminine' attributes. You end up with the trans panic of defining women and men by mere biology...which you can never actually do because you never have access to it!

The difference is that is it literally impossible to know what someone’s sexuality orientation is, but it’s very possible to know someone’s birth sex (doctors do it all the time!).

That's not my point. Naturally there are doctors, intimate partners, parents etc, but that's not your position. How do you know what someones birth sex is?

How in your day to day interactions with people do you determine someone's birth sex? Is that something you do with everyone? When is it relevant to you? How do you determine someone is man/woman, male/female other than by how they present to you and what they tell you?

The honest answer is you do accept what they tell you in order to help validate, or correct what you perceive by how they present to you. Birth sex isn't something you can individually determine with each person you meet therefore sociologically it's irrelevant to interactions with people.

If birth sex is important to you, you should doubt everyone who tells you what they are, until they prove what they have between their legs. But that's bordering on sociopathy, so you won't do that either.

So birth sex, on a practical level, doesn't actually matter to you, or me or anyone.

[parochial boy]

That said, saying ''people who menstruate'' instead to not be noninclusive to the <1% of people who identify as transgender is demeaning to women.

Yeah, for example, I identify as a man, not a "person with a penis", "non-mensurating person" or any other classification social justice activists have invented in the past 15 minutes and are demanding everyone start using. Why is my self identification less important than that of transpeople? It seems like they're the only ones who get to call themselves what they want and everyone else has to use ever changing jargon that's being made up on the fly to stay out of social justice jail.

If we're really being postmodern about this, someone who says "I'm a man because I have a penis" isn't any more "wrong" than someone who claims to be a certain gender because of a "brain sex". The issue here is not to let people define themselves however they want, it's to impose the concept of the "brain sex" and trans jargon onto everyone else.

To be honest, you are actually the only person I have ever seen on here using the term "brain sex". My understanding is the term is controversial, even widely rejected, by transactivists because of what it implies and because of the lack any convincing science behind it.

It's the same with all the other woke terms like "people who menstruate", if I didn't come here I would probably not have ever even heard or registered these terms. People really overestimate the audience and platform that a small number of online activists have.

As for insisting that non or pre-op transpeople are actually their assigned at birth gender. Well Afleitch makes the most relevant point here, you don't know whether a female presenting transwoman is one or not unless you find out what their genitals are; so the most socially well-adjusted thing is quite simply to take them at their word. Seeing as we base our day to day judgement of someone's gender largely on their appearance and the way they present themselves, it seems a bit obsessive to suddenly change this and make an exception for transpeople.

All the more since the consequences of banning them from legal recognition of their gender has real and dangerous consequences for them. Whereas legally recognising them as their target gender has a comparitively minuscule impact, despite what various the moral panics of reecent times would want to make seem

[TheReckoning]

That's not my point. Naturally there are doctors, intimate partners, parents etc, but that's not your position. How do you know what someones birth sex is?

How in your day to day interactions with people do you determine someone's birth sex? Is that something you do with everyone? When is it relevant to you? How do you determine someone is man/woman, male/female other than by how they present to you and what they tell you?

The honest answer is you do accept what they tell you in order to help validate, or correct what you perceive by how they present to you. Birth sex isn't something you can individually determine with each person you meet therefore sociologically it's irrelevant to interactions with people.

If birth sex is important to you, you should doubt everyone who tells you what they are, until they prove what they have between their legs. But that's bordering on sociopathy, so you won't do that either.

So birth sex, on a practical level, doesn't actually matter to you, or me or anyone.

You can argue that “it doesn’t matter if trans men are actually men or not, just don’t be a jerk to people” which is what you’re doing here by saying that since it’s not even possible to know someone’s birth sex 99% of the time, but that’s different than saying “trans men are actually men.”

[All Along The Watchtower]

That's not my point. Naturally there are doctors, intimate partners, parents etc, but that's not your position. How do you know what someones birth sex is?

How in your day to day interactions with people do you determine someone's birth sex? Is that something you do with everyone? When is it relevant to you? How do you determine someone is man/woman, male/female other than by how they present to you and what they tell you?

The honest answer is you do accept what they tell you in order to help validate, or correct what you perceive by how they present to you. Birth sex isn't something you can individually determine with each person you meet therefore sociologically it's irrelevant to interactions with people.

If birth sex is important to you, you should doubt everyone who tells you what they are, until they prove what they have between their legs. But that's bordering on sociopathy, so you won't do that either.

So birth sex, on a practical level, doesn't actually matter to you, or me or anyone.

You can argue that “it doesn’t matter if trans men are actually men or not, just don’t be a jerk to people” which is what you’re doing here by saying that since it’s not even possible to know someone’s birth sex 99% of the time, but that’s different than saying “trans men are actually men.”

Why do you care whether they are or not? What difference does it make to you?

[TheReckoning]

That's not my point. Naturally there are doctors, intimate partners, parents etc, but that's not your position. How do you know what someones birth sex is?

How in your day to day interactions with people do you determine someone's birth sex? Is that something you do with everyone? When is it relevant to you? How do you determine someone is man/woman, male/female other than by how they present to you and what they tell you?

The honest answer is you do accept what they tell you in order to help validate, or correct what you perceive by how they present to you. Birth sex isn't something you can individually determine with each person you meet therefore sociologically it's irrelevant to interactions with people.

If birth sex is important to you, you should doubt everyone who tells you what they are, until they prove what they have between their legs. But that's bordering on sociopathy, so you won't do that either.

So birth sex, on a practical level, doesn't actually matter to you, or me or anyone.

You can argue that “it doesn’t matter if trans men are actually men or not, just don’t be a jerk to people” which is what you’re doing here by saying that since it’s not even possible to know someone’s birth sex 99% of the time, but that’s different than saying “trans men are actually men.”

Why do you care whether they are or not? What difference does it make to you?

Very little, as long as no one actually expects me to consider them men (calling them preferred pronouns/using preferred name is not too much to expect, however).

[All Along The Watchtower]

That's not my point. Naturally there are doctors, intimate partners, parents etc, but that's not your position. How do you know what someones birth sex is?

How in your day to day interactions with people do you determine someone's birth sex? Is that something you do with everyone? When is it relevant to you? How do you determine someone is man/woman, male/female other than by how they present to you and what they tell you?

The honest answer is you do accept what they tell you in order to help validate, or correct what you perceive by how they present to you. Birth sex isn't something you can individually determine with each person you meet therefore sociologically it's irrelevant to interactions with people.

If birth sex is important to you, you should doubt everyone who tells you what they are, until they prove what they have between their legs. But that's bordering on sociopathy, so you won't do that either.

So birth sex, on a practical level, doesn't actually matter to you, or me or anyone.

You can argue that “it doesn’t matter if trans men are actually men or not, just don’t be a jerk to people” which is what you’re doing here by saying that since it’s not even possible to know someone’s birth sex 99% of the time, but that’s different than saying “trans men are actually men.”

Why do you care whether they are or not? What difference does it make to you?

Very little, as long as no one actually expects me to consider them men (calling them preferred pronouns/using preferred name is not too much to expect, however).

Why wouldn’t you consider them men? It costs you nothing.

[TheReckoning]

That's not my point. Naturally there are doctors, intimate partners, parents etc, but that's not your position. How do you know what someones birth sex is?

How in your day to day interactions with people do you determine someone's birth sex? Is that something you do with everyone? When is it relevant to you? How do you determine someone is man/woman, male/female other than by how they present to you and what they tell you?

The honest answer is you do accept what they tell you in order to help validate, or correct what you perceive by how they present to you. Birth sex isn't something you can individually determine with each person you meet therefore sociologically it's irrelevant to interactions with people.

If birth sex is important to you, you should doubt everyone who tells you what they are, until they prove what they have between their legs. But that's bordering on sociopathy, so you won't do that either.

So birth sex, on a practical level, doesn't actually matter to you, or me or anyone.

You can argue that “it doesn’t matter if trans men are actually men or not, just don’t be a jerk to people” which is what you’re doing here by saying that since it’s not even possible to know someone’s birth sex 99% of the time, but that’s different than saying “trans men are actually men.”

Why do you care whether they are or not? What difference does it make to you?

Very little, as long as no one actually expects me to consider them men (calling them preferred pronouns/using preferred name is not too much to expect, however).

Why wouldn’t you consider them men? It costs you nothing.

Because I personally believe that gender (to the extent that it exists) is directly connected to sex.

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

That's not my point. Naturally there are doctors, intimate partners, parents etc, but that's not your position. How do you know what someones birth sex is?

How in your day to day interactions with people do you determine someone's birth sex? Is that something you do with everyone? When is it relevant to you? How do you determine someone is man/woman, male/female other than by how they present to you and what they tell you?

The honest answer is you do accept what they tell you in order to help validate, or correct what you perceive by how they present to you. Birth sex isn't something you can individually determine with each person you meet therefore sociologically it's irrelevant to interactions with people.

If birth sex is important to you, you should doubt everyone who tells you what they are, until they prove what they have between their legs. But that's bordering on sociopathy, so you won't do that either.

So birth sex, on a practical level, doesn't actually matter to you, or me or anyone.

You can argue that “it doesn’t matter if trans men are actually men or not, just don’t be a jerk to people” which is what you’re doing here by saying that since it’s not even possible to know someone’s birth sex 99% of the time, but that’s different than saying “trans men are actually men.”

Why do you care whether they are or not? What difference does it make to you?

Very little, as long as no one actually expects me to consider them men (calling them preferred pronouns/using preferred name is not too much to expect, however).

Why wouldn’t you consider them men? It costs you nothing.

Because I personally believe that gender (to the extent that it exists) is directly connected to sex.

This point of view hurts trans people and helps no one. Why would you decide to define things in such a way?

[TheReckoning]

That's not my point. Naturally there are doctors, intimate partners, parents etc, but that's not your position. How do you know what someones birth sex is?

How in your day to day interactions with people do you determine someone's birth sex? Is that something you do with everyone? When is it relevant to you? How do you determine someone is man/woman, male/female other than by how they present to you and what they tell you?

The honest answer is you do accept what they tell you in order to help validate, or correct what you perceive by how they present to you. Birth sex isn't something you can individually determine with each person you meet therefore sociologically it's irrelevant to interactions with people.

If birth sex is important to you, you should doubt everyone who tells you what they are, until they prove what they have between their legs. But that's bordering on sociopathy, so you won't do that either.

So birth sex, on a practical level, doesn't actually matter to you, or me or anyone.

You can argue that “it doesn’t matter if trans men are actually men or not, just don’t be a jerk to people” which is what you’re doing here by saying that since it’s not even possible to know someone’s birth sex 99% of the time, but that’s different than saying “trans men are actually men.”

Why do you care whether they are or not? What difference does it make to you?

Very little, as long as no one actually expects me to consider them men (calling them preferred pronouns/using preferred name is not too much to expect, however).

Why wouldn’t you consider them men? It costs you nothing.

Because I personally believe that gender (to the extent that it exists) is directly connected to sex.

This point of view hurts trans people and helps no one. Why would you decide to define things in such a way?

I’m not going to be bullied into abandoning my beliefs because they happen to “hurt someone feelings.”

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

I’m not going to be bullied into abandoning my beliefs because they happen to “hurt someone feelings.”

That's not what she was asking. What she was asking is why those happen to be your beliefs.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

That's not my point. Naturally there are doctors, intimate partners, parents etc, but that's not your position. How do you know what someones birth sex is?

How in your day to day interactions with people do you determine someone's birth sex? Is that something you do with everyone? When is it relevant to you? How do you determine someone is man/woman, male/female other than by how they present to you and what they tell you?

The honest answer is you do accept what they tell you in order to help validate, or correct what you perceive by how they present to you. Birth sex isn't something you can individually determine with each person you meet therefore sociologically it's irrelevant to interactions with people.

If birth sex is important to you, you should doubt everyone who tells you what they are, until they prove what they have between their legs. But that's bordering on sociopathy, so you won't do that either.

So birth sex, on a practical level, doesn't actually matter to you, or me or anyone.

You can argue that “it doesn’t matter if trans men are actually men or not, just don’t be a jerk to people” which is what you’re doing here by saying that since it’s not even possible to know someone’s birth sex 99% of the time, but that’s different than saying “trans men are actually men.”

Why do you care whether they are or not? What difference does it make to you?

Very little, as long as no one actually expects me to consider them men (calling them preferred pronouns/using preferred name is not too much to expect, however).

Why wouldn’t you consider them men? It costs you nothing.

Because I personally believe that gender (to the extent that it exists) is directly connected to sex.

The bolded implies that you believes there's an extent to which gender doesn't exist. We all agree sex exists in nature, but if you believe gender doesn't, even to an extent, then why would you be so insistent on tying the definition of gender to something else, i.e., sex?

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

That's not my point. Naturally there are doctors, intimate partners, parents etc, but that's not your position. How do you know what someones birth sex is?

How in your day to day interactions with people do you determine someone's birth sex? Is that something you do with everyone? When is it relevant to you? How do you determine someone is man/woman, male/female other than by how they present to you and what they tell you?

The honest answer is you do accept what they tell you in order to help validate, or correct what you perceive by how they present to you. Birth sex isn't something you can individually determine with each person you meet therefore sociologically it's irrelevant to interactions with people.

If birth sex is important to you, you should doubt everyone who tells you what they are, until they prove what they have between their legs. But that's bordering on sociopathy, so you won't do that either.

So birth sex, on a practical level, doesn't actually matter to you, or me or anyone.

You can argue that “it doesn’t matter if trans men are actually men or not, just don’t be a jerk to people” which is what you’re doing here by saying that since it’s not even possible to know someone’s birth sex 99% of the time, but that’s different than saying “trans men are actually men.”

Why do you care whether they are or not? What difference does it make to you?

Very little, as long as no one actually expects me to consider them men (calling them preferred pronouns/using preferred name is not too much to expect, however).

Why wouldn’t you consider them men? It costs you nothing.

Because I personally believe that gender (to the extent that it exists) is directly connected to sex.

This point of view hurts trans people and helps no one. Why would you decide to define things in such a way?

I’m not going to be bullied into abandoning my beliefs because they happen to “hurt someone feelings.”

TIL asking why someone would define a concept in a way that hurts some people and helps no one is bullying.

[fhtagn]

That's not my point. Naturally there are doctors, intimate partners, parents etc, but that's not your position. How do you know what someones birth sex is?

How in your day to day interactions with people do you determine someone's birth sex? Is that something you do with everyone? When is it relevant to you? How do you determine someone is man/woman, male/female other than by how they present to you and what they tell you?

The honest answer is you do accept what they tell you in order to help validate, or correct what you perceive by how they present to you. Birth sex isn't something you can individually determine with each person you meet therefore sociologically it's irrelevant to interactions with people.

If birth sex is important to you, you should doubt everyone who tells you what they are, until they prove what they have between their legs. But that's bordering on sociopathy, so you won't do that either.

So birth sex, on a practical level, doesn't actually matter to you, or me or anyone.

You can argue that “it doesn’t matter if trans men are actually men or not, just don’t be a jerk to people” which is what you’re doing here by saying that since it’s not even possible to know someone’s birth sex 99% of the time, but that’s different than saying “trans men are actually men.”

Why do you care whether they are or not? What difference does it make to you?

Very little, as long as no one actually expects me to consider them men (calling them preferred pronouns/using preferred name is not too much to expect, however).

Why wouldn’t you consider them men? It costs you nothing.

It also costs trans people (and supporters of trans activism) nothing to just accept that not everyone is going to see them as the gender they claim and move on.