If “a (woman|man) is someone with a deeply felt sense that they are (female sex|male sex),” is the definition people are using, that would predict hormone replacement therapies, sexual reassignment surgeries, and a reported mismatch between someone’s gender and their sex. That usage seems to fit what we observe really well.
I’m eager to know if this is missing something. The next most likely thing people could mean, I think, is “A (woman|man) is someone with a (female brain|male brain).”
I see I’ve skipped a step in the original comment.
I mean that the definition predicts the behavior because it predicts the felt sense. If someone says to me, “I am a man,” and I think they are using the word to mean “a deeply felt sense of being male,” I’d expect them to have a deeply felt sense that they’re male. Because they have said sense, I’d then expect a desire for HRT if they aren’t male.
So “I am a man,” predicts the male-sex sense which predicts HRT, if both the the definition of “man” is “male-sex sense” and the speaker is female.
The internal sense of one’s sex is an unseen variable. We can infer the value of this variable (male or female) given behaviors like seeking HRT or SRS. We can also infer that “man” refers to this unseen variable based on the relationship between the behaviors (HRT and SRS) and the usage of the word “man”. I think.
That’s fair. But I don’t know if I buy it. If I say “I’m gay so I’m attracted to men”, you wouldn’t predict that I’m attracted to entirely female-presenting people, once I learn they feel like men inside.
Any trans-inclusive usage of the word “man” has the problem you’re describing.
Including both the female sex (trans-men) and the male sex (cis-men) in the definition of the word “man” necessarily means that men who are attracted to men are not homosexual.
I mean, depends on what you mean by inclusive. The definition of man/woman that makes the most sense to me is based on appearance, presentation and social behavior. You are the gender you “pass” as.
That’s trans inclusive in the sense trans men can be men and trans women can be women. But not trans inclusive in the sense, self-identification is not enough, so trans people are not automatically the gender they identify as.
“You are the gender you ‘pass’ as,” is confusing, since “A woman is someone who looks like a woman,” doesn’t mean anything unless I assume you mean “A woman is someone who looks like a member of the female sex.”
Are you proposing that the definition that makes the most sense is “A (woman|man) is someone who looks and acts like the (female sex|male sex).”?
If “a (woman|man) is someone with a deeply felt sense that they are (female sex|male sex),” is the definition people are using, that would predict hormone replacement therapies, sexual reassignment surgeries, and a reported mismatch between someone’s gender and their sex. That usage seems to fit what we observe really well.
I’m eager to know if this is missing something. The next most likely thing people could mean, I think, is “A (woman|man) is someone with a (female brain|male brain).”
What does it mean for a definition to predict something? I don’t quite understand, could you clarify?
Predicts desire for HRT whatever you call it, no?
I see I’ve skipped a step in the original comment.
I mean that the definition predicts the behavior because it predicts the felt sense. If someone says to me, “I am a man,” and I think they are using the word to mean “a deeply felt sense of being male,” I’d expect them to have a deeply felt sense that they’re male. Because they have said sense, I’d then expect a desire for HRT if they aren’t male.
So “I am a man,” predicts the male-sex sense which predicts HRT, if both the the definition of “man” is “male-sex sense” and the speaker is female.
The internal sense of one’s sex is an unseen variable. We can infer the value of this variable (male or female) given behaviors like seeking HRT or SRS. We can also infer that “man” refers to this unseen variable based on the relationship between the behaviors (HRT and SRS) and the usage of the word “man”. I think.
That’s fair. But I don’t know if I buy it. If I say “I’m gay so I’m attracted to men”, you wouldn’t predict that I’m attracted to entirely female-presenting people, once I learn they feel like men inside.
Any trans-inclusive usage of the word “man” has the problem you’re describing.
Including both the female sex (trans-men) and the male sex (cis-men) in the definition of the word “man” necessarily means that men who are attracted to men are not homosexual.
I mean, depends on what you mean by inclusive. The definition of man/woman that makes the most sense to me is based on appearance, presentation and social behavior. You are the gender you “pass” as.
That’s trans inclusive in the sense trans men can be men and trans women can be women. But not trans inclusive in the sense, self-identification is not enough, so trans people are not automatically the gender they identify as.
“You are the gender you ‘pass’ as,” is confusing, since “A woman is someone who looks like a woman,” doesn’t mean anything unless I assume you mean “A woman is someone who looks like a member of the female sex.”
Are you proposing that the definition that makes the most sense is “A (woman|man) is someone who looks and acts like the (female sex|male sex).”?