ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

[henry quirk]

...who's next?

[Skepdick]

no contradiction then...I knew i was right and you, wrong...thanks...

That's PRECISELY the point and problem, Harry.

How "free" is your Will really if you can't freely choose to contradict yourself.

You can't even do the right thing (change your mind for the better) because you are a slave to a stupid rule.

Baaaaaaa!

[Immanuel Can]

So you did read my account of the situation...

You didn't answer my question.

Please do now.

As long as you understand it is explicitly a waste of time because I can do a terrible job of this without it having any effect on the logic of my argument. Sure, I don't care.

Well, actually, it's going to have every effect on the logic of your argument. So I'm afraid I have to contest that stipulation.

If we are unable even to identify when a man is a man and a woman is a woman -- even the obvious cases -- then we're going to be of no information at all when it comes to responding to transgenderism. For in that case, we can't even imagine what they want.

Now, I appreciate the considerable effort you put into responding. However, the talk about jail, flight attendants and the olympics isn't very useful here. Those are secondary issues. If we haven't established who's a man and who's a woman, you're not able to say what a "women's" or "men's" event, role, or jail is anyway. We would not then even know what we are talking about.

So let's make it more relevant. Pick your stage:

1. A man claims he "feels he's a woman."
2. A man also changes his pronoun to "she."
3. A man does 1 and 2, and buys a dress and heels, and wears them.
4. A man does the above, but also takes hormones.
5. A man does all the above, and has his reproductive organs altered.
6. A man has complete surgery, all the above, plus passes on the street for female.
7. A man has all the available hormones and surgeries, and lives as if he was always female.

And were it possible:

8. A man does all the above, and erases his past as a male completely.
9. A man does all the above, plus has his brain transplanted so it's now female.
10. A man does all the above, plus magically has his DNA transformed to XX.

My question was, and is, at which such step (and you can add in anything else you can think of (like "a man has a baby," or whatever), is the male genuinely a woman? Just give me the relevant numbers, if you want.

So you are now going to answer my questions aren't you....

Just as soon as you finish actually answering sufficiently informatively the one I asked, sure.

[Skepdick]

Just as soon as you finish actually answering sufficiently informatively the one I asked, sure.

You lead the way!
No, you lead the way!
No, no no, YOU lead the way.
But I asked you first,
No I asked you first.
No, no no, I asked you first.

And then you wonder why Philosophy has achieved nothing in 2000 years?

I committed myself and answered over here:

(....)

Are you going to do the same, or what?

[Immanuel Can]

Are you going to do the same, or what?

NI

[FlashDangerpants]

You didn't answer my question.

Please do now.

As long as you understand it is explicitly a waste of time because I can do a terrible job of this without it having any effect on the logic of my argument. Sure, I don't care.

Well, actually, it's going to have every effect on the logic of your argument. So I'm afraid I have to contest that stipulation.

Given that my central point is about uncertainty not being a problem, I have some doubts. Specifically I will write some stuff below, you will laugh at it and use words like absurd, and then my argument won't be affected. But sure, let's work through this because I can't work out what Henry and Logik are up to at all.

If we are unable even to identify when a man is a man and a woman is a woman -- even the obvious cases -- then we're going to be of no information at all when it comes to responding to transgenderism. For in that case, we can't even imagine what they want.

Bear in mind I am actually not an essentialist at all. You seem to be working under the misaprehension that I either have no idea what that entails or else that I am lying about it. But I am serious, there is no force in the universe that assigns categories and sets their proper content. So this isn't a case of finding out, it's a case of reaching broad social agreement. For the time being, until the fashion changes. It's sort of contingent you see.

Now, I appreciate the considerable effort you put into responding. However, the talk about jail, flight attendants and the olympics isn't very useful here. Those are secondary issues. If we haven't established who's a man and who's a woman, you're not able to say what a "women's" or "men's" event, role, or jail is anyway. We would not then even know what we are talking about.

So let's make it more relevant. Pick your stage:

I'll humour you, but I have to reiterate, it's fine for me if you don't agree with me here, and it's fine if trans-rights people are furious that I am a sell out. I am aiming at the broadly tolerant centre ground, not appealing to zealots of any flavour.


1. A man claims he "feels he's a woman." <--- Gonna need more skin in the game for me to engage. Or less, depends where it is.
2. A man also changes his pronoun to "she." <--- This is fine, we can comply with this request. We won't in every circumstance though.
3. A man does 1 and 2, and buys a dress and heels, and wears them. <--- any pronoun they like, any bathroom, whatever. Sort of 3rd gender territory right? I still don't know much about this stuff, we should in my view defer.
4. A man does the above, but also takes hormones. <--- that seems sort of pre-op right? Sort of the halfway point surely?
5. A man does all the above, and has his reproductive organs altered. <--- emasculation then? gotta say that we're certain this is not a man by now.
6. A man has complete surgery, all the above, plus passes on the street for female. <--- I recommend not using that passing thing in this context. It has some very serious and very nasty history and the people affected take legitimate offence. To them this stuff is a lot like telling black people they need to talk more like white people or else racism is their own fault. Which is another activity I would not recommend.
7. A man has all the available hormones and surgeries, and lives as if he was always female. <--- Gone all in and all out, this is a woman. If it makes you feel better attach an addendum such as [artificial] or [trans]. Tell Henry not to have sex with her, and there really shouldn't be a problem. Still not allowed in the Olympics though, sorry.

And were it possible:

8. A man does all the above, and erases his past as a male completely. <--- the available evidence is that gender dysphoria arises from a combination of genetic and pre-natal amniotic influences [source link below because I know you want to read about gonadal hormone influences just as much as I do]. These people never had the male/female brain to match their male/female body parts. So it's unrealistic to assign them a male past.
9. A man does all the above, plus has his brain transplanted so it's now female. <--- And this one is unnecessary, the requirement was fulfilled at birth.
10. A man does all the above, plus magically has his DNA transformed to XX. <--- By now I am already sold anyway. But this one seems like a question to trouble Henry with. I think there should be more important uses for gene therapy, but this is not an entirely distant prospect.

My question was, and is, at which such step (and you can add in anything else you can think of), is the male genuinely a woman? Just give me the relevant numbers, if you want.

I've said a bunch of times now that the guy who was never a guy genuinely became a girl only when their classification as such became a matter of genuinely broad social agreement. I would like you to try and deal with the prospect that I mean things that I write sometimes. Broad social agreement is how we decide how to classify stuff, except in technical cases where the broad agreement is to defer to some expert. You wanna catch me out that way, genuine was the wrong word.

I'd probably let you have natural. Maybe authentic. Fuck it, even complete. It's not a problem for me if there is some aspect of final-ultimate-made in Eve's image womanhood that is beyond them. I really don't think that's a problem for them either. Right from the start, all the way back to your gender essentialism thread, the first thing I told you was that the people you are trying to argue with aren't here to argue at you. Whoever these people that believe there is litteraly no difference between a post-op transexual and VT are (if they exist), none of them are available for you to argue with unless you get out of this forum and find wherever those guys are. I am sure they would prove totally reasonable and very accepting.

So you are now going to answer my questions aren't you....

Just as soon as you finish actually answering sufficiently informatively the one I asked, sure.

Yeah...

Source: INFANT GONADS :S
Source: Boring, still full of gonads

[Immanuel Can]

Bear in mind I am actually not an essentialist at all. You seem to be working under the misaprehension that I either have no idea what that entails or else that I am lying about it.

No such assumption. Put your mind to rest. I'm just trying to figure out what criteria you personally use to distinguish a genuine woman, in a world that has trans-men and trans-woman. That simple.

Now, I appreciate the considerable effort you put into responding. However, the talk about jail, flight attendants and the olympics isn't very useful here. Those are secondary issues. If we haven't established who's a man and who's a woman, you're not able to say what a "women's" or "men's" event, role, or jail is anyway. We would not then even know what we are talking about.

So let's make it more relevant. Pick your stage:

I'll humour you, but I have to reiterate, it's fine for me if you don't agree with me here, and it's fine if trans-rights people are furious that I am a sell out. I am aiming at the broadly tolerant centre ground, not appealing to zealots of any flavour.


1. A man claims he "feels he's a woman." <--- Gonna need more skin in the game for me to engage. Or less, depends where it is.
2. A man also changes his pronoun to "she." <--- This is fine, we can comply with this request. We won't in every circumstance though.

Okay, then: that suggests you're not seeing them as a "real woman." If you were, then compliance in every case would be fine.

3. A man does 1 and 2, and buys a dress and heels, and wears them. <--- any pronoun they like, any bathroom, whatever. Sort of 3rd gender territory right? I still don't know much about this stuff, we should in my view defer.

Okay, we defer...but to a deluded male, or to a genuine woman? Again, "defer" suggests you're still not sold on this being a woman.

4. A man does the above, but also takes hormones. <--- that seems sort of pre-op right? Sort of the halfway point surely?

You're free to pick. This doesn't look half way to me, but I'm interested in your view, not mine.

5. A man does all the above, and has his reproductive organs altered. <--- emasculation then? gotta say that we're certain this is not a man by now.

Okay "not a man." Fair enough. But is this now a "genuine woman"? Again, your reserved language seems to suggest you don't want to say that...right?

6. A man has complete surgery, all the above, plus passes on the street for female. <--- I recommend not using that passing thing in this context. It has some very serious and very nasty history and the people affected take legitimate offence. To them this stuff is a lot like telling black people they need to talk more like white people or else racism is their own fault. Which is another activity I would not recommend.

I just mean that they look the part enough that nobody questions them in routine matters. This is the "Crying Game" (movie) type: the one that some people, on closer inspection, can recognize as a male, but most people are moving too swiftly along to recognize.

But again, you don't say if this is a "genuine woman." Only that you don't like the use of the word "passing".

7. A man has all the available hormones and surgeries, and lives as if he was always female. <--- Gone all in and all out, this is a woman.

For a minute, I thought my question was finally answered. This is a 100% "woman," in your view.

But then, you pulled it back, and added...

If it makes you feel better attach an addendum such as [artificial] or [trans].

And I still have to ask, "Is that because it also makes you feel more honest, or just to please Henry?"

And were it possible:

8. A man does all the above, and erases his past as a male completely. <--- the available evidence is that gender dysphoria arises from a combination of genetic and pre-natal amniotic influences [source link below because I know you want to read about gonadal hormone influences just as much as I do]. These people never had the male/female brain to match their male/female body parts. So it's unrealistic to assign them a male past.

Not at all. Many have lived with the tension of being visibly male, for some period of years, since most trans-wanters are post-pubescent, and pre-pubescent ones are highly problematic, as their sexual identity has not yet been established conclusively. So these folks have had a history entirely unlike that of a woman who was always a woman, and was recognized and socialized as such from birth.

But you're saying it would make no difference that they had the pre-woman experience? Just asking.

9. A man does all the above, plus has his brain transplanted so it's now female. <--- And this one is unnecessary, the requirement was fulfilled at birth.

Apparently not. Female brains have some different structures from male ones, including a more full corpus callosum, a smaller overall brain mass, a different set of interactions between the hemispheres, etc. So to take this step, the person would actually need a brain transplant.

10. A man does all the above, plus magically has his DNA transformed to XX. <--- By now I am already sold anyway. But this one seems like a question to trouble Henry with. I think there should be more important uses for gene therapy, but this is not an entirely distant prospect.

It's utterly unknown right now. We can mess with genes on a small scale right now, but we can't do anything so elaborate as changing all the XY's to XX's in an entire person. But I put it in because I figured it might satisfy just about every requirement, if it ever could be done. It doesn't solve the history problem, but it solves the rest.

I've said a bunch of times now that the guy who was never a guy genuinely became a girl only when their classification as such became a matter of genuinely broad social agreement.

Social agreement is a terrible standard for anything, really. Once, social agreement held the world was flat. Some societies today hold that the life of a woman is worth only half of that of a man...

I would like you to try and deal with the prospect that I mean things that I write sometimes.

I just did.

So you are now going to answer my questions aren't you....

Yes. Thanks for the answers. But before I do, we still have a few residual unclarities we need to sort out. I want to make sure I have your position right, before we proceed. I want to be fair to you.

So...(and here, I'm inferring, not insisting)...

Stages 1 and 2 = not female. Right?

Stage 3, you'd be deferential but unconvinced, right?

Stage 4, you'd call "half way there."

Stage 5 and 6, you'd call "not a man," but stop short of calling "full or genuine woman."

In all these stages, you would make practical concessions to them, but not because you were admitting that they were already true "women" so much as because you wished to solve pragmatic issues like the Olympics, roles, language, social inclusion, etc.

Then it looks to me like, from the above, you're not quite happy with the idea that a man can become a full and genuine "woman" until there's been a complete transition physiologically and hormonally, as well as in appearance, right? So that would be stage 7.

So far, so good?

In your responses to 8-10, I would have to think that you seen no particular thing as a "woman's history" or "woman's psychology." You don't consider men's and women's brains different. And you are aware that any such wild suggestion as complete DNA transformation is off in the future, so no trans-wanters today even fit into that category.

Still good?

Have I got your view correct now, or would you want to make alterations or clarifications in view of any of the questions or concerns I raised?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Women are actually being arrested for saying that 'transwomen' aren't women. This is how bad is has got.
Many of these faux women are nothing more than misogynistic perverts with a fetish, harassing women, posting photos of their children, threatening women, having them silenced on the internet, having them arrested for having an opinion they don't like....

Would you want this person in a public toilet with your daughter?

[FlashDangerpants]

I've said a bunch of times now that the guy who was never a guy genuinely became a girl only when their classification as such became a matter of genuinely broad social agreement.

Social agreement is a terrible standard for anything, really. Once, social agreement held the world was flat. Some societies today hold that the life of a woman is worth only half of that of a man...

That's great if you have a solution to the is/ought conundrum. Otherwise not a major issue for me. I am simply describing how humans organise the rules of the shared activity of sorting the world into the extraordinary array of categories we use to describe and make sense of it. How it ought to be in some notional perfect world is neither here nor there.

Yes. Thanks for the answers. But before I do, we still have a few residual unclarities we need to sort out. I want to make sure I have your position right, before we proceed. I want to be fair to you.

So...(and here, I'm inferring, not insisting)...

Stages 1 and 2 = not female. Right?

Stage 3, you'd be deferential but unconvinced, right?

Stage 4, you'd call "half way there."

Stage 5 and 6, you'd call "not a man," but stop short of calling "full or genuine woman."

In all these stages, you would make practical concessions to them, but not because you were admitting that they were already true "women" so much as because you wished to solve pragmatic issues like the Olympics, roles, language, social inclusion, etc.

Then it looks to me like, from the above, you're not quite happy with the idea that a man can become a full and genuine "woman" until there's been a complete transition physiologically and hormonally, as well as in appearance, right? So that would be stage 7.

So far, so good?

In your responses to 8-10, I would have to think that you seen no particular thing as a "woman's history" or "woman's psychology." You don't consider men's and women's brains different. And you are aware that any such wild suggestion as complete DNA transformation is off in the future, so no trans-wanters today even fit into that category.

Still good?

Have I got your view correct now, or would you want to make alterations or clarifications in view of any of the questions or concerns I raised?

Let's call that a sufficient starting point in the main. I guess I do have a couple of issues though, and it looks suspicious if I wait to raise them until you've played your next card.

Much as you turned out to view profound and frivolous as just two ends of a line with many points in between, I see no issue with gender being viewed that way. In fact I sort of thought that was the normal way of viewing it these days until all these threads kicked off. We're obviously both aware of the many societies that already contain intermediate genders, and I'm sure you already have a lecture planned for when I was fool enough to mention it. But I don't care, those societies have for thousands of years not applied a 1:1 mapping of sex and gender, so this stuff is conceptually adequate. There are concepts of father and mother that seem to be limited to specific sexes, but gender has no compelling reason to be so, other than a fading tradition.

I don't want to get ahead of ourselves, but some of what you are doing with this maneuver looks like an appeal to my prejudice. It seems designed to show that deep down I don't agree with myself. And that is obviously a legit move. However it can also be Tu quoque and in this instance that's the likely direction. But I can stand to learn I'm imperfect, so feel free to knock me down a peg or two.

And I think you've still failed to grasp that I don't have strong opinions on some stuff. You're assuming somewhat that I am willing to go along with some things out of politeness but that I'm trying not to admit they are fictions. Thing is, I've met guys who wear dresses, but I've never met one who says he is a woman. I assume I would in real life probably be unpersuaded, at least to begin with, but nobody has ever tried to persuade me so I don't know what that conversation is actually like. I can easily imagine I would change my mind, I simply admit it would strain my conceptual grasp. I don't know what squares they have on Monopoly boards where you live, but based of a NYC edition I just googled, wearing a dress every day and stuffing a bra in there and slapping on some makeup is sort of Connecticut Avenue, but chopping your manhood off is like somewhere around Pennsylvania Avenue. Can ever get your $200 for the full circuit? Probably not. I genuinely don't believe there is anybody asking for that though, I don't think it's controversial, and I don't think it's going to invalidate my argument because this 'real' or 'genuine' thing isn't that important.

At the other end of your scale, the chromosome thing doesn't make much difference to me by the way. It sounds like gilding the lily.



Ok, go, you should be able to work your next step now.

[FlashDangerpants]

Women are actually being arrested for saying that 'transwomen' aren't women. This is how bad is has got.

Is that true?

[Immanuel Can]

I've said a bunch of times now that the guy who was never a guy genuinely became a girl only when their classification as such became a matter of genuinely broad social agreement.

Social agreement is a terrible standard for anything, really. Once, social agreement held the world was flat. Some societies today hold that the life of a woman is worth only half of that of a man...

That's great if you have a solution to the is/ought conundrum.

No, that's a real problem, actually, at least secularly...but I'm afraid we can't fix it with an appeal to social consensus.

The fact that one particular society tends to believe or value something really doesn't suggest it's good. If it does, then the majority of the world has always believed women are inferior to men, and one's own tribe or nation is superior to other people, among other such things. But I don't think you'd campaign for that...though under the social consensus rule, you'd have to.

One more thing most people in the world believe: a man is a man, and a woman is a woman.

Social consensus, then? Probably you'd opt not to follow that rule when it goes against what you personally think, I imagine. So I don't think the social consensus rule holds water....even for you.

Have I got your view correct now, or would you want to make alterations or clarifications in view of any of the questions or concerns I raised?

Let's call that a sufficient starting point in the main.

Okay.

I guess I do have a couple of issues though, and it looks suspicious if I wait to raise them until you've played your next card.

Card?

We're obviously both aware of the many societies that already contain intermediate genders,

No, they don't actually. XX and XY are the norm everywhere. And much more, as well. Separate social roles are also standard.

But what we could say is that gender dysphoric people, though statistically rare, can appear anywhere.

I don't want to get ahead of ourselves, but some of what you are doing with this maneuver looks like an appeal to my prejudice. It seems designed to show that deep down I don't agree with myself. And that is obviously a legit move. However it can also be Tu quoque and in this instance that's the likely direction. But I can stand to learn I'm imperfect, so feel free to knock me down a peg or two.

I'm not after that. I just wanted to see what your standard for "genuine womanhood" was.

You're assuming somewhat that I am willing to go along with some things out of politeness but that I'm trying not to admit they are fictions.

It was the two-sided language that gave me that impression. Words like "defer" imply that you're not entirely on board with the fiction that #3 is a "woman," for example, but you're not making a point of it...right?

Thing is, I've met guys who wear dresses, but I've never met one who says he is a woman.

I've met men who wanted me to call them women, and women who wanted to be regarded as male. But I have to say that both were unconvincing. The men were more like a male imagining of what being a woman would be like -- they were working very hard to put on what they considered "female" manners, and weren't very good at it, often going overboard and becoming theatrical. Likewise, the women wanted to come across as kind of "tough," or "rugged," but could come nowhere near the casual ruggedness of the average real male.

On the whole, I found both sides seemed to be undertaking a kind of elaborate performance, based on an idea they had of what the other gender would be like. It wasn't convincing, but it seems they could count on most people to pretend not to notice, and to act as if we were all believing it. And I said nothing to them, because it wasn't called for at the time.

One interesting incident: I once had to prevent a 300 lb. male, who wanted to identify as a woman, from leaping on a real girl of about 110 lbs. Fortunately, I was strong enough -- and the large male was feminine enough -- that I was able to intervene and prevent a beating. In the end, nobody got hurt...but I saw what a dysphoric male could potentially do to a regular female. It could be very, very bad.

Ok, go, you should be able to work your next step now.

I don't have one pre-planned. I just wanted to know what you thought.

It's interesting that you seem unaware of the cognitive differences between males and females, which are pretty darned obvious to me, and certainly show up in studies of brains and of general psychology as well.

And I can see, because you raise things like the Olympic problem, that you are aware of the permanent physical strength advantages men have over women. Of course, how could one not be?

A lot of women also would claim that a woman's experience is unlike a man's, unique, special and valuable. Likewise, some claim that women's values, abilities and attitudes are uniquely valuable. For example, many women see having women in boardrooms or in traditionally masculine careers as a step forward. But if these can simply be reproduced by any man who believes he can, it would be hard to see how they could make that case.

I still think they have a point.

[henry quirk]

10. A man does all the above, plus magically has his DNA transformed to XX. <--- By now I am already sold anyway. But this one seems like a question to trouble Henry with. I think there should be more important uses for gene therapy, but this is not an entirely distant prospect.

I've touched on the subject here, in sibling threads, and in the Descartes's dualism thread.

Just recoding from XY to XX isn't enough. To literally transform a man into a woman, you'll have to reconstruct him, from cell interiors on out. The whole of him would have to be rebuilt in to her.

The result of such reconstruction would indeed result in man becoming woman, but not only that: the process of reconstruction would obliterate one person and create a new one.

From my post in the Descartes's dualism thread...

My 13 year old is playin' one of the games in the Mass Effect series. In that universe, A.I. exists and is described...

...(as a) self-aware computing system capable of learning and independent decision making. Creation of a conscious AI requires adaptive code, a slow, expensive education, and a specialized quantum computer called a "blue box".

Here's the relevant part...

An AI cannot be transmitted across a communication channel or computer network. Without its blue box, an AI is no more than data files. Loading these files into a new blue box will create a new personality, as variations in the quantum hardware and runtime results create unpredictable variations.

Leavin' aside all the science fictiony goodness, the underlined bit what I'm talkin' about.

Mind states aren't just brain states.

A man isn't just matter; he's equally information.

He's a composite of, as I say, two very different things, each useless without the other.

Rebuildin' a man into a woman, by definition, creates a new person by killing the old one.

All in all, it seems like a whole helluva lot of work (and associated moral baggage) to resolve a problem probably best addressed through intensive cognitive therapy (a solution available today).

[henry quirk]

Women are actually being arrested for saying that 'transwomen' aren't women. This is how bad is has got.

Is that true?

yep

I mentioned this and posted at least one link in one of the relevant threads

I think veg has posted links too

hey, veg: why don't we collaborate...we can each collect some links on the subject and post them together in a new thread

if you're up for such an effort, let me know

[henry quirk]

One more thing most people in the world believe: a man is a man, and a woman is a woman.

Social consensus, then?

Probably just a common (common sense) recognition of what is real and true.

[FlashDangerpants]

Social agreement is a terrible standard for anything, really. Once, social agreement held the world was flat. Some societies today hold that the life of a woman is worth only half of that of a man...

That's great if you have a solution to the is/ought conundrum.

No, that's a real problem, actually, at least secularly...but I'm afraid we can't fix it with an appeal to social consensus.

Well the alternative is a matter for the religion sub so we're stuck there.

The fact that one particular society tends to believe or value something really doesn't suggest it's good. If it does, then the majority of the world has always believed women are inferior to men, and one's own tribe or nation is superior to other people, among other such things. But I don't think you'd campaign for that...though under the social consensus rule, you'd have to.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I am dealing with what IS, you are retorting with an OUGHT. I am desctibing how categorisation IS done, not saying anything about whether a celestial power OUGHT to do a better job in some sense.

One more thing most people in the world believe: a man is a man, and a woman is a woman.

Yes. If you take a global survey I imagine you find out a lot of stuff that doesn't apply at the level of a more specific community though.

And the stuff you are referencing is movable. 20 years ago marriage was a 1 man and 1 woman thing more or less everywhere. Now there is a male candidate for the US presidency who has both a husband, and a fairly good chance of winning.

Social consensus, then? Probably you'd opt not to follow that rule when it goes against what you personally think, I imagine. So I don't think the social consensus rule holds water....even for you.

As I hope you understand now, not a problem as long as we don't confuse is and ought. This is just about the meaning of concepts, if all the people who speak a speak a given language use the word hat to describe the woollen coverings they put on their feet, then in that language hat is the word for socks. Concepts cannot be right or wrong, they are just useful or not, and they change as our uses for them do.

We're obviously both aware of the many societies that already contain intermediate genders,

No, they don't actually. XX and XY are the norm everywhere. And much more, as well. Separate social roles are also standard.

?

Are you geuinely telling me that you have never heard of hijras, mahu, kathoeys, sakalavas and muxes?
https://sites.psu.edu/evolutionofhumans ... pt-or-old/

It's interesting that you seem unaware of the cognitive differences between males and females, which are pretty darned obvious to me, and certainly show up in studies of brains and of general psychology as well.

I vaguely understood much of that to be somewhat overstated, but I don't follow psychology very much so I don't really know what they are up to. However some of what you describe is attributable to levels of hormones experienced in the womb and shortly after birth, which is also strongly linked to gender dysphoria so...

And I can see, because you raise things like the Olympic problem, that you are aware of the permanent physical strength advantages men have over women. Of course, how could one not be?

Cool

A lot of women also would claim that a woman's experience is unlike a man's, unique, special and valuable. Likewise, some claim that women's values, abilities and attitudes are uniquely valuable. For example, many women see having women in boardrooms or in traditionally masculine careers as a step forward. But if these can simply be reproduced by any man who believes he can, it would be hard to see how they could make that case.

Did you notice where I said I was not defending any form of type identitical womanhood here? (words to such effect anyway). You keep harping on about this as if I am, I don't think anyone in the world does though. Thisis not a strawman safari.

And where does ths just any man stuff keep coming from? The average man is not going to cut off his junk and become a woman under any circumstance, it sounds like it would make your eyes water. Gender dysmorphic men are not just any man, they are very committed and endure a lot specifically because of this.