Sure there is. My legal name and the name I sign on documents is "Michael" but I could have a preference for "Mike". Are you really going to deny that to me because there is an "observable reality" that is different from my preference?

A name is not an intrinsic trait of a person, it's a legal abstraction. Your name has no meaning outside of it's designation as a name and you can change it at any time. 'Mike', 'Michael', and 'Michelangelo' all mean the same thing- it's just an arbitrary word used to identify a person. 'Him' and 'Her' on the other hand are not arbitrary and do not mean the same thing, they refer to directly observable biological traits that cannot be changed.

How do you tell if someone is a 'him' or 'her'? What are the criteria you use to make that decision, and why are they immutable?

(Please don't say XY chromosomes, you don't do a genetic test on everyone you meet.)

We can tell instinctively based on a whole slew of traits, within a split second of looking at a person your brain identifies their sex whether you want to or not. Skeletal structure alone is a dead giveaway.

So if your brain instinctive recognizes someone as a "her", they're a "her"?

Human brains seem really good at these things, just like they're good at for example recognizing faces. Perhaps it has something to do with evolutionary pressure for our survival?

These ability also differ (or can be influenced) by culture so ... I wouldn't make any universalist claims based on human perception.

Yes.

We use our best judgement. In my experience it's most often confused in babies because it can be difficult to tell at times. I do not get upset when they say my son is adorable even though I don't have a son. I accept the spirit of their comment and try to politely correct them with something like: Thank you, she loves to flash a good smile. Then I go on my way.

A him is someone who was born with a penis.

A her is someone who was born with a vagina.

The very, very few people who don't fit clearly into either of these categories (intersex) are exceptions and can be handled on a case-by-case basis.

They are immutable because their reproductive role is immutable. A her can never impregnate. A him can never gestate.

(Either can choose not to perform their particular ability, or lose the ability to do so, but that doesn't change the meaning of these words.)

Some hers can never gestate, specifically barren ones, does that make them not hers?

I answered that for you already in my OP. But try this:

If a car is broken down, is it no longer a car?

Does it become an airplane?

Nope, but it is sad when such a person wishes to have a child

Her can impregnate at our current tech level. Without any gene editing the resulting baby will be always female though.

As for him gestating I encourage you to read more Sci-Fi.

We actually recently hit this very issue - a bad account migration resulted in everyone having flastname accounts - but that first initial and last name were based on legal names not common names - as a result a number of employees were upset at being forced to revert to birth names, especially those who had immigrated at a young age and adopted a new name.

I have a friend who was named at birth after their absentee parent and really dislikes ever being called by that name. It is important and polite to use names that people personally prefer within reason.

Are you going to lose your shit, call my boss and try to get me fired when I call you Michael because it's what's written down for everyone to see?

I think it's pretty clear that other people's preference for nicknames (or gender pronouns) are not a burden on you and your insistance to call people by the wrong name (or gender) is for some other reason. That was my point. This isn't about trans people causing undue burden on you.

You don't have to pretend. Nobody thinks my name is actually "Mike" but if I ask you to call me that instead of "Michael" then what is it to you?

And if you really feel that your gender is being intruded upon by trans people then i encourage you to find something more meaningful and unique to attach your identity to, because your manhood feeling threatened is not a respectable reason to deny trans people their identity.

> why do I need to care again?

I was going to ask you the same!

You describe one possible situation, let me imagine a different one. I say that I like going by Mike, and you keep making a point of always referring to me as Michael even when it doesn't really make sense to go full formal. After multiple months of it, I kinda get tired of this and decide to accept offer from another company and tell our boss that. When they ask me why I want to leave I'll be sure to mention that, and maybe they'll evaluate our productivity and decide it's better for business to just fire you instead. See how different those two situations are even thought the premise is the same?

The idea is that sex and gender are different though; gender _is_ a social construct. I think lack of agreement on this is a big part of the issue right now.

Edit: as pointed out below, gender roles are something we've made up, but preferences and behavior themselves (which we're calling gender) are not. Still separate from sex.

This distinction doesn't sit right with me though. What is Gender really, in the modern definition (since it seems to have changed over the years)? From what I gather it's a way for people to tell others that one of their physical characteristics (Sex) does not match their mental state (Gender). To me this doesn't really seem like a positive thing, it comes off like a potentially harmful delusion from someone who can't come to terms with their own biology.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a feminine man or a masculine woman, people can behave however they wish regardless of biology. But the most feminine man on the planet is still a man and saying so shouldn't turn you into a pariah, it's true after all.

Imagine we came up with 'Gender' like terms for other physical characteristics, it seems to me like the logic quickly breaks down when you think about it-

Gender is to Sex as ____ is to Race as ____ is to Age as ____ is to Height as ____ is to Weight as ____ is to Eye Color etc.

As I wrote in another comment, trans individuals’ gender identity is hardwired to the same extent that people’s sexual orientation is hardwired, so there must be some innate physiological component to gender identity. My guess is it’s neurological, since there aren’t discernible hormonal, genetic, or anatomical differences between trans and cis people.

Your analogies don’t apply because, with the exception of age (mental age vs. physical age), there is no mental analog to race, height, eye color, etc.

I’d analogize gender identity to sexual orientation: there is nothing physiological that distinguishes heterosexual people from homosexual people, but the former are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, while the latter are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex.

>Your analogies don’t apply because, with the exception of age (mental age vs. physical age), there is no mental analog to race, height, eye color, etc.

Why? What specifically makes transrace/race-identity any less valid of a concept than transgender/gender-identity? You say there is no mental analog to race but there's just as much proof of that as there is for gender identity. I've always loved african-american music and culture, I use black slang a lot, I felt like I didn't fit in with my white peers growing up- maybe I identify as black and will designate myself as such on my job/college applications going forward. Who are you to tell me my race-identity isn't valid? Maybe I'm just hardwired that way.

>I’d analogize gender identity to sexual orientation: there is nothing physiological that distinguishes heterosexual people from homosexual people, but the former are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, while the latter are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex.

If there is nothing physiological to make that determination I think 'hardwired' isn't the right term

> Why? What specifically makes transrace/race-identity any less valid of a concept than transgender/gender-identity?

Because there aren’t any (or infinitesimally few) people who believe from a very young age that their “race identity” doesn’t match their genetically defined race. Gender dysphoria is rare but not infinitesimally so (~1% of the population), and it usually first emerges in childhood.

> If there is nothing physiological to make that determination I think 'hardwired' isn't the right term

Sorry, I was a bit sloppy with my language. I should have written “there is nothing grossly physiological that distinguishes heterosexual people from homosexual people.” Colloquially, we don’t generally consider neurology to be physiological, since we don’t yet have the technology to identify subtle differences in neural topology. Doesn’t mean that neurological phenomena aren’t hardwired, and thus “physiological” on a microscopic level we aren’t yet able to detect. As an extreme example, mental retardation is certainly hardwired, even though there’s often nothing grossly physiological (i.e. detectable physical brain abnormalities) that causes it.

I suspect that as science and medicine advance, we will identify the neural wiring patterns that determine one’s sexuality and gender identity (assuming we are allowed to study such things), at which point we can actually point to a definitively physiological determinant of both.

> My guess is it’s neurological, since there aren’t discernible hormonal, genetic, or anatomical differences between trans and cis people.

That's exactly the point. If someone's "gender identity" doesn't refer any observable characteristic other than their "gender identity", then the entire concept is circularly defined and therefore meaningless. It's like if I were to say my biological height is 5'7" but my "height identity" is 6'3". What meaning does "height identity" have and why should anyone take a concept like this seriously?

Because you want to reduce suffering in the world. Calling someone putting effort in to presenting a female persona, even though you know there was a penis at birth, her is not that hard but if you purposefully him then you might flare up gender disphoria which is not nice to have.

The left and center has decided it is not a joke to call someone who had a penis at birth a her, nobody will laugh at you why are you resisting being courteous?

But "gender" is a made-up concept with no clear (non-self-referential) definition, seemingly made up specifically to cause confusion and conflict.

It's as if there were two concepts, "race" and "grace", and you could be "biologically" white but "identify" as black, or "height" and "gheight", and you could be "factually" 180cm tall but "identify" as 165cm.

Um... this actually makes no sense to me. Could you clarify or elaborate?

Certain gender roles are social constructs, but gender as a whole cannot be a social construct because gender dysphoria exists. A transgender person’s gender identity is hardwired (and opposite of their genetic sex and outward sex characteristics), which is strong evidence that gender is an innate physiological characteristic. It’s likely something neurological, since trans people’s obvious physiological characteristics (e.g. hormone levels and anatomy) are consistent with their genetic sex.

(This is why trans-exclusionary feminists exist, because the existence of trans people nullifies their belief that gender is 100% a social construct.)

> Certain gender roles are social constructs, but gender as a whole cannot be a social construct because gender dysphoria exists.

Huh? How does that logically follow? (Hint: It doesn't.)

Feels more like it's the other way around, that the existence of gender dysphoria proves that gender is a social (and psychological?) construct: If gender were always the same as biological sex, there would be no feeling of conflict between them. That some people do feel such a conflict shows that they are not always the same. Therefore they cannot both be purely biologically determined.

Maybe it would be easier for you to grok if you thought of it not as “gender conflicting with itself”, but think of it as — privately rename it to — “sex-gender dysphoria”?

> (This is why trans-exclusionary feminists exist, because the existence of trans people nullifies their belief that gender is 100% a social construct.)

On the contrary, that seems to be exactly what the TERFs don’t believe. They should just come out and admit that “if gender is a social construct, then we’re ‘feminists’ not in terms of female- gendered people but only in terms of people of female sex.” Which, since feminism is about the role of females in society, i.e. very much a social issue, would show them up as pretty damn silly... But that’s their problem.

> If gender were always the same as biological sex, there would be no feeling of conflict between them. That some people do feel such a conflict shows that they are not always the same. Therefore they cannot both be purely biologically determined.

The last sentence does not logically follow from the other two. Lots of physical/neurological properties are correlated in the vast majority of people (e.g. biological sex/the sex you're attracted to, age/cognitive ability); the fact that they’re occasionally inconsistent in some people has no bearing on whether they’re biologically determined.

By your logic, sexual orientation is also a social construct. Most males are attracted to females, and vice versa. Using your words, “if the sex you’re attracted to were always consistent with biological sex, there would be no feeling of conflict between them. That some people do feel such a conflict shows that they are not always consistent. Therefore they cannot both be purely biologically determined.” How does that logically follow? (Hint: it doesn’t)

> privately rename it to — “sex-gender dysphoria”?

That’s exactly my point: trans people have the body of sex A, but the brain that people with a sex B body typically have. Just as gay people have the body of sex A and the brain wired to be attracted to sex A, which is again something that sex B people typically have.

>They should just come out and admit that “if gender is a social construct, then we’re ‘feminists’ not in terms of female- gendered people but only in terms of people of female sex.”

Feminism is about achieving equality between genders by advocating for women, who have typically been marginalized in society. If gender is 100% a social construct, then there should be zero difference between the brains of men and women, which makes it a lot easier to argue that they should occupy identical roles in society and thus be truly equal. The fact that trans people provide strong evidence that male (gender) and female (gender) brains are fundamentally different scares some people (i.e. TERFs), and their solution is to dismiss trans people rather than realize that different genders can still be treated equally by society even if their brains are wired differently.

> >They should just come out and admit that “if gender is a social construct, then we’re ‘feminists’ not in terms of female- gendered people but only in terms of people of female sex.”

> Feminism is about achieving equality between genders by advocating for women, who have typically been marginalized in society.

No, that's my point: For "TERFs", feminism is apparently not about achieving equality between genders, but about achieving equality between sexes.

As for the rest... I'm not up to going through it all in detail, but on the whole it feels like about the same level of misunderstanding.

Although gender is not a binary concept. I honestly do think that gender is mostly a social construct but our definition of what it is is much better than it used to be - sterile men and barren women would often be considered outside of standard gender definitions since they couldn't "fulfill the intended role".

I have problems on this front though, I'm pan myself and gender seems really insanely trivial to me - I do understand that my experience is not the common one though.

> gender _is_ a social construct.

If gender is distinct from sex, then can you explain the qualifying characteristics of a "gender"?

What is the definition of "woman"? What is the definition of "man"?

That's kind of the point. There isn't one.

Wearing high heels isn't related to being a woman intrinsically, and you don't have to be a woman to wear high heels.

That’s largely the source of my confusion.

The way I see it, either:

- ‘gender’ is a synonym for ‘sex’

- ‘gender’ is being misused as a synonym ‘gender roles’, which are defined by one’s sex.

If that’s not correct, then what is the actual correct definition of gender?

I don't think I'm exactly right about this, but consider three sets of words:

- man/woman

- male/female

- masculine/feminine

There is a concept of grammatical gender, where words can be masculine or feminine (or neuter in some cases, and there are other systems as well with different words). You don't talk about man words or male words, it's masculine. So, I tend to think of gender as masculine or feminine. That covers most people (although not all: nonbinary, gender fluid, genderqueer, etc. are all real).

I tend to think of sex as male or female. At least for human beings, that covers most people (not all, intersex is a real thing, and there are other unusual but 'natural' configurations as well)

So one way to look at this - which again, is probably not exactly correct, but it's how I think - male/masculine and female/feminine are what we've traditionally thought of as man and woman. But, I think it's pretty clear now that we need to account for the other combinations, i.e. male/feminine and female/masculine. That's where cis- and trans- come in: male/masculine is a cis male, female/masculine is a trans male, both are subsets in the set of all men. Same with women.

We've got nonbinary, genderqueer, etc. as well. I don't really understand the latter, but the former is pretty easy to explain: imagine being told you had to be masculine or feminine, and your response was "No, I don't. I prefer or reject some of each."

Overall, to me, gender is about what you like and how you behave, while sex is more biology (i.e., what's in your pants). It's easier to understand the arguments if you completely separate gender from sex, and don't make assumptions about one based on the other. In fact, I think the assumptions - e.g. gender roles - are the entire problem, and if people would just stop with that, a lot of things would get better.

> - ‘gender’ is being misused as a synonym ‘gender roles’, which are defined by one’s sex.

Sure, “Gender” = “What gender role(s?) a person plays” is one way to put the social definition of gender. (Seems pretty succinct and workable, so you can drop the “misused”.)

Here's where you go wrong, though: Gender, in terms of what gender roles people play, is not always determined purely by biological sex.

There, no need to be confused any more. HTH!

This has no bearing on whether the idea is right or not, and shame on you for trying to shut down conversation by comparing adherents to child molesters.

he didnt try to shut down the conversation, he just pointed out a fairly shocking truth about one of the first gender scholars

Which was irrelevant, and intended to get people questioning whether thinking along the same lines would cause others to look at them the same way. "I don't want people to think I might be a child molester too... maybe I should keep these ideas to myself." It absolutely shuts down conversation.

Various societies throughout history have recognized gender identities as distinct from biological differences for about as long as there have been societies. That the modern English terms for those two categories emerged from academia is pretty irrelevant.

Well, while it could be argued that sex is biological given, it is surely that our society overstates the difference between men and women - plus our current society still aims to standardises / normalizes all other sexes. The social meaning of being male, of being female etc. is still socially constructed and therefore which sex you are born into has measurable impact on your life, your chances in terms of career.