A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

[Flannel Jesus]

And this view should see the transperson, generally, as confused.

That view should see that confusion as a symptom of living in a society with very strict social paths for men and women though. The solution, in this view, would be NOT for people to transition genders, but to allow people to behave however feminine or masculine they want without any gender transition necessary. Right? Maybe...

Well, to me that's traditional feminism. You're born a woman and you want to be an electrician, keep your hair short and have sex with women...you can absolutely still be a woman. The box is gone. Don't put us in boxes. I think that's a great base. Likewise on the male side.

The people truly not at home in their bodies are still going to want more. And that can be dealt with. But now the messages are all over the place.

If that second paragraph is what people are referring to when they say "transgender", and if gender is indeed merely a social construct, then... transgender would seem to be to be decidedly the wrong word. It's not the social construct of gender that's the root of their issues, it would be something else entirely.

Do you personally think that gender is entirely a social construct?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You still haven't said what 'gender is a social construct' means.

A simple biology book would do it.

We find ourselves into the same situation as before. I can only explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

Given all the facts about you which make you who you are - it is socially determined which particular subset/combination of facts about you makes you a "woman".

Society determines the necessary and sufficient factual conditions for womanhood.

Sounds like you just want to wank off.

[Skepdick]

Sounds like you just want to wank off.

Nah, I want to jill off.

[Iwannaplato]

Do you personally think that gender is entirely a social construct?

No, I don't.
Let me throw some stuff out that may help clarify my position.
I think the old ideas of what a man is and a woman is were limited.
I think it has been good, in general, that we have opened up the options for personality, temperment, jobs, interests, clothing and so on for boys and girls, men and women. I would hope that no one thinks they are really the other sex because of feelings, interests, etc. that don't seem to fit the role of man or woman.
That said, I do think that some people are not at home in the body they are born with. IOW I am sort of a dualist. So, even if society allows them to be in the body they have exactly as they want to be, to purue interests, dress the way they want, have the personality they have without judgment, some people will feel they are not in the right body. Not simply they don't like their body but, for want of a more abstract general term, their body does not match their soul or who they are. Those people are truly trans.

I think a problem today is, for example, a lot of young gay people are going to think they are trans, because one side of the Left is pushing a model that has women and men quite different from each other. While at the same time another portion of the Left is telling them that there is no difference. This is, I am sure, confusing for people who really are trans. But I am more concerned about children starting hormone blockers thinking that they must be trans and need a new body because they 'feel like a women' or 'feel like a man'. We don't let them vote or drink but somehow they can know enough to decide to block estrogen and get their breasts removed, for example. To distinguish between, I don't feel like a traditional woman and this is not the right body for me in several key ways.

[Skepdick]

Do you personally think that gender is entirely a social construct?

This is a moot question and completely misses the epistemic problem of all binary classification

Every classification scheme suffers from false positives and false negatives e.g misgendered people.

[Flannel Jesus]

Do you personally think that gender is entirely a social construct?

No, I don't.
Let me throw some stuff out that may help clarify my position.
I think the old ideas of what a man is and a woman is were limited.
I think it has been good, in general, that we have opened up the options for personality, temperment, jobs, interests, clothing and so on for boys and girls, men and women.

Sure, absolutely.

I would hope that no one thinks they are really the other sex because of feelings, interests, etc. that don't seem to fit the role of man or woman.

Sure, there's a growing "detransition" anti trans movement of people who transitioned and then later realized that wasn't the right choice for them. I know transition regret happens, and I do think it's a justified reason for trans hesitancy, but I don't think it's a full on disproof that anybody is legitimately trans - I think your concern is valid though, that some people are mistakenly convinced they're trans when really they're just gender non conforming in a different way

That said, I do think that some people are not at home in the body they are born with. IOW I am sort of a dualist.

You don't need a soul to account for this though. There could just be, as I said, female or female-like neurologies that end up in a male skull.

So, even if society allows them to be in the body they have exactly as they want to be, to purue interests, dress the way they want, have the personality they have without judgment, some people will feel they are not in the right body. Not simply they don't like their body but, for want of a more abstract general term, their body does not match their soul or who they are. Those people are truly trans.

I think a problem today is, for example, a lot of young gay people are going to think they are trans, because one side of the Left is pushing a model that has women and men quite different from each other. While at the same time another portion of the Left is telling them that there is no difference. This is, I am sure, confusing for people who really are trans. But I am more concerned about children starting hormone blockers thinking that they must be trans and need a new body because they 'feel like a women' or 'feel like a man'. We don't let them vote or drink but somehow they can know enough to decide to block estrogen and get their breasts removed, for example. To distinguish between, I don't feel like a traditional woman and this is not the right body for me in several key ways.

Yeah, I'm on the fence about the ethics of hormone blockers. That will definitely get me labelled a transphobe by some people on the left - either you support everything they support or you're a literal Nazi, haha, no room for nuance with the ultra-woke

[Agent Smith]

"That's it! I'm done! I can't figure it out! This trans/homo gender/sex problem is beyond my ken! LGBTQ is a riddle wrapped in an enigma in a Russian Matryoshka doll!!"

"May be we should try one of those tricks recommended by cognitive scientists."

"Like? Which one?"

"Doin' somethin' else, they call it puttin hard stuff on the backburner!"

"Ok! Let's ... Where are you going?"

"To get our shades of course!"

[Flannel Jesus]

But I am more concerned about children starting hormone blockers thinking that they must be trans and need a new body because they 'feel like a women' or 'feel like a man'.

Just to go into more detail about what I think about this,

I hear consistently from pro-transitioners of course that there's literally no downside to hormone blockers, even if the person ends up not wanting to transition. I find that claim highly suspect, but I'm not a medical professional so obviously my doubt is only based on my own intuitions.

My own intuitions tell me that a male taking hormone blockers from the age of 15-18, and then deciding he doesn't want to transition after all... I think it's incredibly likely that there's some body development he might have had if he weren't on hormone blockers, that he won't have or won't have in the same way after he gets off the blockers. I just intuitively think it's really unlikely that, if he postpones puberty for 3 years, he will end up developing in exactly the same way as he would have without blockers.

But, at the same time, it could even feasibly be the case that that's all true AND hormone blockers being allowed for this group of people is a net positive. If only 1 in 10 would-be transitioners ends up not transitioning, it could be that the negatives of not taking blockers for those 9 outweighs the negatives of taking blockers for the 1.

The harm calculus here is, imo, currently unsolvable, but what's extra annoying is that it seems like most people pick a side and decided that they've solved it. They are certain in the answers they have, despite really epistemically not being anywhere near justified in that kind of certainty.

[Iwannaplato]

Sure, there's a growing "detransition" anti trans movement of people who transitioned and then later realized that wasn't the right choice for them. I know transition regret happens, and I do think it's a justified reason for trans hesitancy, but I don't think it's a full on disproof that anybody is legitimately trans - I think your concern is valid though, that some people are mistakenly convinced they're trans when really they're just gender non conforming in a different way

and too young to work it out. I don't think it's disproof either. But my guess is this will be a much bigger problem or noticed as having been a problem.

You don't need a soul to account for this though. There could just be, as I said, female or female-like neurologies that end up in a male skull.

I don't think that's enough. OK, you have female-like neurologies, why would that mean your penis needs to go. IOW you have this particular body that has elements of both sexes. A more female than average set of neuronal patterns and a male body. That's what you are. You are that. In any physicalist (monism), you are then someone with that batch of endocrinal ratios (testosterone to progestone to estrogen) that brain, those genitals and so on. Why would any of that need to change?

What we would find out then, it that some people are hermaphroditic in that way. That there is greater fuzziness, the sets overlap more.

But the trans process says - these neuronal patterns, if we find them, indicate what the whole body should be like. The penis is not right, but those neurons are correct, so we use hormonal blockers against X, we surgically remove Y, we add hormone X, and perhaps do a range of consmetic surgery also. Those neuronal patterns are correct, but the endocrine system is wrong. I don't think that holds.

Note: I would let people do this, even if I were a physicalist, but I think it's confused.

However I believe adults get to make decisions based on many confusions.

I would probably want some oversight of the doctors who facilitate these kinds of changes, but I want that now anyway.

On some of the lips I've seen alone I'd want to remove some surgeons liscences.

Yeah, I'm on the fence about the ethics of hormone blockers. That will definitely get me labelled a transphobe by some people on the left - either you support everything they support or you're a literal Nazi, haha, no room for nuance with the ultra-woke

It's with kids I have my main concerns. Adults are a different category.

[Iwannaplato]

I hear consistently from pro-transitioners of course that there's literally no downside to hormone blockers, even if the person ends up not wanting to transition. I find that claim highly suspect, but I'm not a medical professional so obviously my doubt is only based on my own intuitions.

That has to be utter idiocy. Right off the bat, if they can't be problematic, then there is no problem with letting a kid go through a normal puberty and decide later. Nothing dangerous about that either. But second, they don't know. We simply cannot have done the kind of research that would say that is safe. I know this because, such research would be illegal.

My own intuitions tell me that a male taking hormone blockers from the age of 15-18, and then deciding he doesn't want to transition after all... I think it's incredibly likely that there's some body development he might have had if he weren't on hormone blockers, that he won't have or won't have in the same way after he gets off the blockers. I just intuitively think it's really unlikely that, if he postpones puberty for 3 years, he will end up developing in exactly the same way as he would have without blockers.

Agreed. I mean hormone blockers do damage to adult women whose bodies are not going through the changes so fundametally affected by hormones. Of course those adults are hopefully informed of the benefits and risks - of p-pills say - but there are risks.

But, at the same time, it could even feasibly be the case that that's all true AND hormone blockers being allowed for this group of people is a net positive. If only 1 in 10 would-be transitioners ends up not transitioning, it could be that the negatives of not taking blockers for those 9 outweighs the negatives of taking blockers for the 1.

I just don't think that holds. But then I think that true wrong body for me is much rarer than today's politics would make us think.

The harm calculus here is, imo, currently unsolvable, but what's extra annoying is that it seems like most people pick a side and decided that they've solved it. They are certain in the answers they have, despite really epistemically not being anywhere near justified in that kind of certainty.

Yes, as an older guy, I am used to the right putting me in a evil/insane/disgusting/shameful box at the drop of a hat. Not all of the Right, but a significant portion of it. And yes, the Left always (as did the Right) have some kind of PC set of boxes to check off and guilt ready to aim at people.

But nowadays there is no nuance at all. Serious ass feminists who have some kind of issue with some part of the trans movement, people who put their lives on the line and got shit on for decades, are suddenly competely evil - like if they have questions about men to women trans competing in sports with born-wormen. You don't accept that you are trash and anyone who supports you in any way is trash.

The lovely part of today is.............everyone will think you are trash, if you actually have the slightest complexity in your positions. IOW if you think for yourself - whatever that means, but it does mean something.

[Flannel Jesus]

You don't need a soul to account for this though. There could just be, as I said, female or female-like neurologies that end up in a male skull.

I don't think that's enough. OK, you have female-like neurologies, why would that mean your penis needs to go. IOW you have this particular body that has elements of both sexes. A more female than average set of neuronal patterns and a male body. That's what you are. You are that. In any physicalist (monism), you are then someone with that batch of endocrinal ratios (testosterone to progestone to estrogen) that brain, those genitals and so on. Why would any of that need to change?

I find it very possible that someone with female neurology might want their penis to go. I find it plausible that being mentally female in some way might naturally produce a desire to be entirely female, in a way that transcends the cultural aspects of gender.

I get what you're saying about just sort of being your own gender/sex, but I don't think that's the only possible consequence from having female -like brains in a male body, and I do think having a female like brain in a male body is at least a plausible explanation for trans-ness, and inherently more plausible than female souls being the only explanation. (And couldn't all your objections here about being this in between gender equally apply to the female soul position? What makes the female soul belief different from the female brain belief? Other than the fact that we have evidence of brains but no evidence of souls)

If accepting trans-ness requires belief in souls, then the trans side of wokism essentially becomes a religious stance.

[Skepdick]

If accepting trans-ness requires belief in souls, then the trans side of wokism essentially becomes a religious stance.

It doesn't require anything like that.

It simply requires abandoning the belief in "fundamental categories of reality" and understanding how all abstract categories/groupings are socially constructed; and the effect those reifications have on people's lives.

As for the medical aspect of transgender issues - consider it nothing more than a medical treatment which improves the quality of life of the patient. Whether the medical treatment "fundamentally affects who they are" is a silly philosophical question.

And we must absolutely refrain from letting philosophers interfere with patient health.

[Iwannaplato]

I find it very possible that someone with female neurology might want their penis to go. I find it plausible that being mentally female in some way might naturally produce a desire to be entirely female, in a way that transcends the cultural aspects of gender.

I am sure some people would want it. I just don't think it really makes sense in physicalism.

I get what you're saying about just sort of being your own gender/sex, but I don't think that's the only possible consequence from having female -like brains in a male body,

The brains are not binarily female in a male body. They might share some aspects with males, tendencies. But I'll bet no more than some butch lesbians who identify as female.

and I do think having a female like brain in a male body is at least a plausible explanation for trans-ness, and inherently more plausible than female souls being the only explanation.

I can't demonstrate that the souls are the case. But these are separate issues. We could both be wrong. I mentioned the idea of souls because I think it is a consistant position. Perhaps it's false. I can't demonstrate it. But when transperson says they were born in the wrong body, I consider that a possibility. It's not going against my metaphysics.

I think a physicalist has a problem however.

(And couldn't all your objections here about being this in between gender equally apply to the female soul position? What makes the female soul belief different from the female brain belief? Other than the fact that we have evidence of brains but no evidence of souls)

Oh, they might be wrong. But I do think it's possible. I think there is a difference between men and women.

If accepting trans-ness requires belief in souls, then the trans side of wokism essentially becomes a religious stance.

I don't know if it requires it. I was not arguing that believing in trans entails believing in souls. But it is one possibly explanation. And actually in context, I mainly meant, it causes me no problem when someone claims they have the wrong body. I do not rule that out categorically because of my ontology. I think physicalists have a problem with it however.

And I think this is at root a problem for a activist woke left. Because while they see Muslims, for example, as victims, at root they generally do not like religions - and I have sympathy for why, but that's another issue. They also tend to have problems with dualisms, spiritualities and anything that skeptics will call woo woo. The problem for them, I think, is that at least some trans people are in fact asserting something woo woo. Instead of wrestling with that the woke left just asserts different things, sometimes in different contexts, sometimes in the same context. Yet, somehow never facing the cognitive dissonance.

And when I am critical of the Left here this does not mean I am on the Right. I shouldn't have to say this, but I find that 1) the standard model is there are 2 choices adn 2) that if you disagree with anything on one model you are in the other category.

[Flannel Jesus]

I find it very possible that someone with female neurology might want their penis to go. I find it plausible that being mentally female in some way might naturally produce a desire to be entirely female, in a way that transcends the cultural aspects of gender.

I am sure some people would want it. I just don't think it really makes sense in physicalism.

I get what you're saying about just sort of being your own gender/sex, but I don't think that's the only possible consequence from having female -like brains in a male body,

The brains are not binarily female in a male body. They might share some aspects with males, tendencies. But I'll bet no more than some butch lesbians who identify as female.

and I do think having a female like brain in a male body is at least a plausible explanation for trans-ness, and inherently more plausible than female souls being the only explanation.

I can't demonstrate that the souls are the case. But these are separate issues. We could both be wrong. I mentioned the idea of souls because I think it is a consistant position. Perhaps it's false. I can't demonstrate it. But when transperson says they were born in the wrong body, I consider that a possibility. It's not going against my metaphysics.

I think a physicalist has a problem however.

(And couldn't all your objections here about being this in between gender equally apply to the female soul position? What makes the female soul belief different from the female brain belief? Other than the fact that we have evidence of brains but no evidence of souls)

Oh, they might be wrong. But I do think it's possible. I think there is a difference between men and women.

If accepting trans-ness requires belief in souls, then the trans side of wokism essentially becomes a religious stance.

I don't know if it requires it. I was not arguing that believing in trans entails believing in souls. But it is one possibly explanation. And actually in context, I mainly meant, it causes me no problem when someone claims they have the wrong body. I do not rule that out categorically because of my ontology. I think physicalists have a problem with it however.

And I think this is at root a problem for a activist woke left. Because while they see Muslims, for example, as victims, at root they generally do not like religions - and I have sympathy for why, but that's another issue. They also tend to have problems with dualisms, spiritualities and anything that skeptics will call woo woo. The problem for them, I think, is that at least some trans people are in fact asserting something woo woo. Instead of wrestling with that the woke left just asserts different things, sometimes in different contexts, sometimes in the same context. Yet, somehow never facing the cognitive dissonance.

And when I am critical of the Left here this does not mean I am on the Right. I shouldn't have to say this, but I find that 1) the standard model is there are 2 choices adn 2) that if you disagree with anything on one model you are in the other category.

Fair enough. In general.

I agree totally about the woke left being full of contradictions, and that saying that out loud in some company unfairly labels you as "against us - because you're clearly not with us", where "with us" means agreeing unquestionably with everything wokies are supposed to believe. It's infuriating. And alienating. And probably creates magats.

[Skepdick]

I agree totally about the woke left being full of contradictions, and that saying that out loud in some company unfairly labels you as "against us - because you're clearly not with us", where "with us" means agreeing unquestionably with everything wokies are supposed to believe. It's infuriating. And alienating. And probably creates magats.

What is it with this dichotomous way of thinking?

If you aren't a woman then you are a man.
If you aren't a man then you are a woman.
If you aren't woke then you are maga.
If you aren't maga then you are woke.

Why does everything have to be so binary?