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

[Skepdick]

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?

A very important point:
The fact that sex is binary in the sense that there are only two sex-defining types of gametes (egg cells & sperm cells) doesn't imply that every individual organism is either male or female. There are sexually reproducing species whose members are simultaneous or sequential hermaphrodites, i.e. both male and female at the same time, or first male and then female, or vice versa.
However, the sexual reproduction of hermaphroditic organisms doesn't involve any third type of gametes; and therefore their existence is perfectly compatible with the binarity of sex. So is the occurrence of intersex conditions in humans or any other species, because all non-sterile intersexuals produce either male gametes or females ones. And certain sterile intersexuals are best characterized as neither male nor female; but, again, their existence is perfectly compatible with the binarity of sex.

That's an incredibly long-winded way to contradict yourself.

Binary means "representable using a single bit of information" - either 1 or 0.

If 0 is male; and 1 is female. What is neither male nor female ? What is both male and female?

That's four discrete categories... So not binary.

If we can't even agree how to count further dialogue is probably pointless.

[Consul]

A very important point:
The fact that sex is binary in the sense that there are only two sex-defining types of gametes (egg cells & sperm cells) doesn't imply that every individual organism is either male or female. There are sexually reproducing species whose members are simultaneous or sequential hermaphrodites, i.e. both male and female at the same time, or first male and then female, or vice versa.
However, the sexual reproduction of hermaphroditic organisms doesn't involve any third type of gametes; and therefore their existence is perfectly compatible with the binarity of sex. So is the occurrence of intersex conditions in humans or any other species, because all non-sterile intersexuals produce either male gametes or females ones. And certain sterile intersexuals are best characterized as neither male nor female; but, again, their existence is perfectly compatible with the binarity of sex.

That's an incredibly long-winded way to contradict yourself.
Binary means "representable using a single bit of information" - either 1 or 0.
If 0 is male; and 1 is female. What is neither male nor female ? What is both male and female?
That's four discrete categories... So not binary.
If we can't even agree how to count further dialogue is probably pointless.

No, I haven't contradicted myself, because we have four categories here, but not four categories of sexes. Simultaneous hermaphrodites are both male and female, but they don't have a third sex, because they don't produce any third type of gametes other than sperm and ova. And an organism which may be said to be neither male nor female, because it produces neither of the two types of gametes, doesn't have any third sex either. Lacking a sex or being sexless is not a form of having a sex!

"By definition, males are the sex that produces small gametes (sperm), and females are the sex that produces large gametes (eggs)."

(Stearns, S. C. "Why Sex Evolved and the Differences It Makes." In The Evolution of Sex and Its Consequences, edited by S. C. Stearns, 15-32. Basel: Birkhäuser/Springer, 1987. p. 17)

[Skepdick]

No, I haven't contradicted myself, because we have four categories here, but not four categories of sexes. Simultaneous hermaphrodites are both male and female, but they don't constitute a third sex, because they don't produce any third type of gametes other than sperm and ova. And an organism which may be said to be neither male nor female, because it produces neither of the two types of gametes, doesn't constitute any third sex either. Lacking a sex or being sexless is not a form of having a sex!

"By definition, males are the sex that produces small gametes (sperm), and females are the sex that produces large gametes (eggs)."

(Stearns, S. C. "Why Sex Evolved and the Differences It Makes." In The Evolution of Sex and Its Consequences, edited by S. C. Stearns, 15-32. Basel: Birkhäuser/Springer, 1987. p. 17)

"No, I haven't contradicted myself" and then proceeds to contradict themselves again.

If there are only two categories of sexes (male and female) to which category does somebody who's neither male nor female belong to?
If there are only two categories of sexes (male and female) to which category does somebody who is both male and female belong to?

[Consul]

"No, I haven't contradicted myself" and then proceeds to contradict themselves again.

I'm only one male person, so it must read "himself" rather than "themselves".

If there are only two categories of sexes (male and female) what sex is somebody who's neither male nor female?

Such an individual has no sex. It is sexless (asexual), with sexlessness not being a third kind of sex.

If there are only two categories of sexes (male and female) what sex is somebody who is both male and female?

Obviously, such an individual has both sexes at the same time, with being simultaneously male and female not being a third kind of sex.

[Skepdick]

"No, I haven't contradicted myself" and then proceeds to contradict themselves again.

I'm only one male person, so it must read "himself" rather than "themselves".

If there are only two categories of sexes (male and female) what sex is somebody who's neither male nor female?

Such an individual has no sex. It is sexless (asexual), with sexlessness not being a third kind of sex.

If there are only two categories of sexes (male and female) what sex is somebody who is both male and female?

Obviously, such an individual has both sexes at the same time, with being simultaneously male and female not being a third kind of sex.

So sex is binary.
And "binary" means two. 1.2

So we start counting....

1. Male.
2. Female.
3. Both male and female.
4. Neither male nor female.

So 2 = 4. But you aren't contradicting yourself.

[Consul]

So 2 = 4. But you aren't contradicting yourself.

I'm not. How about trying to understand what I wrote?

[Skepdick]

So 2 = 4. But you aren't contradicting yourself.

I'm not. How about trying to understand what I wrote?

I've tried. Several times. What you are writing is incoherent.

Lets try another way. Shall we? Lets do a thought experiment!

There are 8 billion humans on Earth. If I asked you to sort everyone by sex - how many groups/categories would you end up with?

[Gary Childress]

I'm not saying that surgical operations and hormonal treatments are the only possible way of reducing the mental suffering of transsexuals; but in some cases it seems to be the best solution.

OK. So taking an effeminate male and going all out and doing everything scientifically possible to change him physically into a female to the point that no one can tell any difference unless that person tells them that she used to be a male is just very odd to me.

That would be the artificial counterpart of natural sequential hermaphroditism. You may find it odd, but in those cases of transsexuals where physical feminization/masculinization is arguably the only effective method of eliminating their intense mental suffering, it should be socially accepted as "physical psychotherapy".

I have no problem being friends with someone like that, but there's something about finding myself naked in bed with that person that would make me extremely uncomfortable. In fact, it kind of makes me lose trust in what I see in the world. Is that pretty girl who is going out with me a guy or a girl? How do I find out? Do I check to make sure her vagina goes all the way in with all the appropriate parts? Do you see what I'm saying here? Many men want to have confidence that what they are getting into is the real thing. Having men posing as females running around really does introduce a level of uncertainty and distrust, even paranoia can enter the picture. You're setting up society for a lot of uncertainty and the mental chaos that goes along with it. Do you not see that aspect of it?

Imagine you (as a straight guy, I presume) happened to have the best sex of your life with a person who you perceive as a natural woman (even when you see her naked) and who you find sexually attractive, but who later turns out to be a transwoman. Would that experience really make you "lose trust in what [you] see in the world"?

Anyway, sexual "paranoia" or "bedroom angst" cannot be an acceptable reason for demanding that all transwomen (and all transmen) wear buttons in public reading "Beware, I'm not the real thing!". Moreover, the number of transwomen who are totally unperceivable as such even when you see them naked is very small; so the probability that you'll ever find yourself in bed with one of them without being aware of it is very low.

That said, however, it is arguable that before clothes are taken off, a transwoman who is socially perceived as a woman ought to tell a straight guy or a lesbian woman sexually interested in her that she is a transwoman.

Fair enough.

[Consul]

I'm not. How about trying to understand what I wrote?

I've tried. Several times.

To no avail, it seems.

What you are writing is incoherent.

You're wrong.

Lets try another way. Shall we? Lets do a thought experiment!
There are 8 billion humans on Earth. If I asked you to sort everyone by sex - how many groups/categories would you end up with?

Three: male, female, neuter (= neither male nor female). There may even be a fourth category undecidable, because there may be some human individuals who cannot clearly be categorized as male, female, or neuter from the biological perspective; but in any event the number of biological sexes in the species homo sapiens is exactly two, since those belonging to the category neuter or undecidable don't have any third kind of sex due to not producing any third type of gametes.

Homo sapiens isn't a species of simultaneous or sequential hermaphrodites, so the categories both female and male (at the same time) and first female, then male/first male, then female are not applicable to us. There are very rare cases of intersexuals with both ovarian tissue and testicular tissue in their bodies, but none of them are capable of producing both female gametes (ova) and male ones (sperm) at the same time, which capability is required for simultaneous hermaphroditism.

[Consul]

Three: male, female, neuter (= neither male nor female).

Note again that neuter is a third category of people, but not a third category of sex! It would be absurd to call sexlessness a third kind of sex.

[Skepdick]

Three: male, female, neuter (= neither male nor female).

Note again that neuter is a third category of people, but not a third category of sex!

So when I ask you to sort all humans by sex, and (according to you) neuter is NOT a category of sex then why are you putting anybody into it?

[Skepdick]

It would be absurd to call sexlessness a third kind of sex.

I agree with you 100%

If neuter is NOT a category of sex, then why are you putting anybody into that category when I've explicitly asked you to sort humans BY SEX. ?!?

[Consul]

So when I ask you to sort all humans by sex, and (according to you) neuter is NOT a category of sex then why are you putting anybody into it?

The phrase "sorting humans by sex" is ambiguous insofar as it can mean "sorting all non-sexless humans by sex" or "sorting all humans by sex or lack thereof ". I did the latter.

[Skepdick]

So when I ask you to sort all humans by sex, and (according to you) neuter is NOT a category of sex then why are you putting anybody into it?

The phrase "sorting humans by sex" is ambiguous insofar as it can mean "sorting all non-sexless humans by sex" or "sorting all humans by sex or lack thereof ". I did the latter.

I see. So you ARE, in fact saying that some humans have a sex and some humans don't.

OK fine.

Let me clarify. Of all the humans who do have a sex (e.g exclude the ones who don't) - sort those humans by their respective sex.

[Consul]

Let me clarify. Of all the humans who do have a sex (e.g exclude the ones who don't) - sort those humans by their respective sex.

With no humans being both male and female (simultaneously or sequentially), we then get two disjoint classes: the class of human males and the class of human females.