Interestingly, children do not seem to need to be taught what a man/woman, boy/girl is. They just know. Yes, there is a very tiny percentage of confusing edge cases, and I feel for them if it affects them negatively, and they should be treated with respect and a sense of inclusion, but in most areas of life, we do not design our entire life around the edge cases.
The disconnect is clearly real. To what extent that disconnect is environment vs innate is an open question, I guess. It seems like it could be affected by both. Yes, I think I've heard of at least one case like that somewhere. Well, I wasn't directing these questions at trans people, in particular (though some in this thread have suggested I do so). I'd like to eventually be able to understand this well enough to where I can explain to myself in a clear way that makes total sense and I'd feel comfortable and confident in also explaining it to others so they'd also get it. But maybe it's just not the sort of thing that can be easily explained with words.
People should focus on improving skills instead of having these weird homoerotic fascinations about gender.
Would you refer to a person who looks like a woman and has naturally developed ovaries as a "man" and a "he" simply because they have a Y chromosome? That would be weird.
By body parts usually. Male has a penis while female has vagina. If folks want to b identify by something else, I would respect their wishes. It's honestly not a big thing to fuss about, especially if u would hardly encounter these folks on your day to day activity.
Meh. The reason this edge case is "weird" per your framework is because we don't actually think of "men" and "women" in terms of their chromosomes. For hundreds of thousands of years, we evolved not even knowing what a chromosome was, and yet people understood "man" and "woman". A person with a Y chromosome who, through improbable but nevertheless natural processes, develops female sex organs is a "woman" because we perceive them as female. To suggest that they are really a man because of the existence of the chromosome is adding needless confusion. That detail simply isn't relevant in the vast majority of interactions one may have with that person.
Yes. I think it comes down to -- should we perceive and interact with people according to some immutable sex characteristics that is beyond their control or should we perceive and interact with them based on how they present themselves and how they choose to be. And the answer, I think, is that in the vast majority of social contexts it should be the latter. There are some contexts, in particular medical ones, where a person's underlying biology is what matters. The conflict here is that some people feel that underlying sexual biology should be the lense through which we perceive people in general, which to me is really about maintaining strictly binary gender norms in society for various political/cultural reasons.
I always find this argument faulty. Genetics was discovered in 1905. Humans have existed for roughly 200,000-300,000 years. Our own biology is not evolved to detect chromosomes with our senses. So unless you're gathering DNA samples of every person you interact with and running genetic testing on them behind their back, how do you know what their chromosomes actually are?
I respect the wishes of how people want to b address, I would prefer not to interact with folks forcing me to deny the wishes of others bc its not the social norms. There's more important things to me then gender identification. Student debt, climate change, etc. I wouldn't go out of my way to reject someone wishes on how they want to b identified since it's none of my business. I just think its sad that there's a lot of folks who r trying really hard to deny folks their wishes and make them miserable. Basically the same folks trying to control abortion rights.
But we can choose how we want to define words. Generally, we give meanings to words to make them useful for communication and thinking about conceptual relationships in particular contexts. A geneticist might choose to define "man" and "woman" that way, because tracking XX vs XY chromosomes is useful in their field, and if other people they interact with in their domain can agree on the labels "man" and "woman" then it shouldn't be a problem. But in a different context such a definition might not be useful, and worse could actually be misleading. I guess I'm coming around to the notion that words don't have any "true" definition. Another example: how do we define "light"? A physicist might define it as electromagnetic radiation. But is that technical definition useful in most contexts? No. So, while that is a fine definition for light when teaching and doing physics, one might adopt a different definition like "that which makes objects visible in a dark room" for their everyday purposes which is equally valid.
Commodore already gave you an answer, but I would guess that the overlap of xx/xy with vagina/penis is extremely high. So if you are asking about how to identify (rather than how to define), that would be the answer, no?
Using your definition how you'd define a woman would require taking a hair or saliva sample of every person you interact with in order to identify them based on your definition. I seriously doubt you bother to do with every person you interact with on a daily basis. For instance, working at an office, if someone presenting themselves as a woman asked you a work related question, would you ask them their genetics first before deciding which pronoun you'd address them as you talk to them? I doubt that. Instead, I posit that you in reality define who is a man or woman based on their presentation to you and once you got to know them better and they share more about who they are. I mean it's thought that language pre-dates even human beings, but being social is a part of what it is to be human to a lot of people. And how we socialize with each other via communication matters. So if someone takes the time and energy to present themselves as either a man or woman, I could easily see how it would be disrespectful to them to say, I can't address you as you'd prefer until I get your genetics. Give me a hair sample that I can run to my at home lab. NOW. It's my understanding that trans people aren't arguing Biology. Instead, it's language, and out of convenience and respect, it personally makes sense to me to address someone how they present themselves and identify once they share that information with me. I don't understand the social hang ups of something like this. Even if you were the most sexually active person in the world, the vast majority of people you interact with on a day to day basis is clothed correct? So in a social setting, pick whatever social setting that is, it strikes me as extremely unlikely you'd get a peak at the goods in order to know what you'd identify them as. Right? So in the vast majority of social settings, wouldn't it just be easier out of convenience to address someone how they present themselves and wish to be addressed as? Which is the vast majority of the type of interactions most people have with each other on a day to day basis? Clothed and in a non-sexual setting?
Again, unless you're reaching for their genitals or taking hair samples behind their back, how would you know? Again, if someone presented themselves as a woman to you, would you really hold reservations about how you'd talk to them in the moment until you got confirmation over their biology? I mean your approach would involve molestation or taking someone's genetic samples behind their back in order to define them. Seems like a lot of criminal work just to put your foot down over defining someone. To each their own I guess.
A woman is something that was produced from man parts belonging to another man, Adam. So when you're banging Evita over the desk remember you're also banging Adam. I didn't come up with this.
That is true. But appearing, acting, and identifying as a woman could make you a "woman" in the vast majority of social settings. Now, if you know that person has XY chromosomes or a penis under their clothes, and this knowledge dominates your thoughts of that person when you interact with them, I can understand it being difficult to see them as a "woman". A video @LondonCalling shared earlier mentioned an example which I found very useful in thinking about this. Consider the word "parent". What makes someone a parent? One might define it in purely biological terms, and that might make total sense in certain medical contexts. But then is an adoptive parent not actually a parent? If there is a PTA meeting, and someone says: "Raise your hand if you're a parent", should adoptive parents refrain from raising their hands? Are they lying to people in the room if they raise their hands? Suppose there was a movement of people who are really against child adoption for some cultural reason. Maybe they decide to assert that a "parent" must be defined based on biology, and any other definition is a lie or a delusion. Imagine such a person happens to be in the room of that PTA meeting. They might shout down the adoptive parent who raises their hand -- believing in their hearts that this person is living a lie and is not actually a parent. What do you think? Are they being reasonable in that instance?
