Debates over sex and gender

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Though, I guess most men aren't even particularly concerned with a woman's identity, even when she truly is a woman.😁

The atmosphere here in Seattle is just... heavy. It’s one of those days where everything feels slightly out of sync, much like that feeling you get when a planned road trip through the Rockies gets derailed by an unexpected blizzard. Just a quiet, lingering sense of stillness that settles over everything.

It seems to me that you’re reducing men and women to mere drivers of sexual impulse, and in doing so, you're reducing the entire spectrum of human connection to nothing more than sexual encounters. Fortunately, relationships between men and women are incomparably more complex than that. Love itself isn't just "sexual" love. Love is something else entirely—something deeper. When it exists between a man and a woman, it might be fueled by sexual desire, but that certainly isn't a requirement.

We were just discussing this over at the Philosophy department, so I figure we ought to approach the topic from a different angle here. You all are more than capable of doing just that.

Jose Edwards16 said:So, we're looking at this through the lens of some kind of trans-logic—which, let’s be honest, is usually just a fancy way of being illogical. I guess it works if you're into that sort of thing, but it mostly just feels like circular reasoning dressed up in a suit.

Quincy:

I guess it really depends on who you ask, doesn't it? It’s one of those questions where the answer shifts depending on whether you’re looking at a corporate HR manual in Manhattan or just grabbing a beer in some small town in the Midwest. In a vacuum—like, if we're talking about big tech companies or major corporations based in places like San Francisco or Seattle—the official policy is obviously going to be full acceptance. They have all these DEI frameworks in place, so on paper, it’s a non-issue. But actual practice? That’s where things get messy and complicated. People have their own biases, regardless of what the handbook says. Then you have the more traditional parts of the country, where social circles might be a bit more... let's say, conservative. In those areas, the social friction might be higher, and the "acceptance" might feel a lot more forced or superficial. It’s a weird spectrum, I suppose. There isn't really one single way America handles this; it's more like a patchwork of different social realities depending on exactly where you're standing.

So, apparently, the trans activists are out there claiming that if we don't all just collectively decide that trans women are women, then we're automatically labeled as transphobic. It’s one of those things where you're basically handed a script—either follow the lines or get branded with the label. I guess that's just how the whole dynamic works now, though it feels a bit like being backed into a corner, maybe.

Quincy:

Honestly, when I sit back and just picture the whole thing—without really overthinking it or trying too hard to make sense of it all—it pretty much tells me everything I need to know. I guess it just speaks for itself. It’s not really the same thing—and honestly, I wouldn't go so far as to pretend that it is.

Fair point, I guess.

So, here we go again—yet another YouTube video from my favorite critic of the trans movement, Matt Walsh.
YouTube

So, Walsh is out here pointing out this weird little contradiction—I guess you could call it a double standard—where the LGBTQ+ crowd insists that sexual orientation isn't some kind of choice and that people should be free to love whoever they want. But then, somehow, it’s the exact same group deciding you're being "exclusionary" if you say you're attracted to biological women—you know, women born female—and apparently, you're suddenly "transphobic" if your definition of "woman" doesn't include trans women. It's a bit of a head-scratcher, honestly.

Second point—Walsh argues that if you find someone attractive, then they're attractive based entirely on how you perceive them—not based on how they view themselves. I guess it’s just a matter of perception, really.
So, sure, trans people can see themselves as women—that’s fine—but if a straight guy doesn't actually perceive that femininity or find them attractive... well, then you aren't exactly getting anywhere with romance. It’s just how things work, I guess.
It’s really more about the freedom of choice than it is about being transphobic. Honestly—and I guess this is just my two cents—"transphobia" has basically become this convenient little label people slap on anyone who dares to question certain LGBTQ+ stances. It feels less like an actual critique and more like a way to shut down the conversation entirely.

So, my little one—she’s got this thing, I guess—she absolutely lives for rock 'n' roll. It’s her whole vibe. Electronic stuff? Doesn't move her. Blues or jazz? Not really her speed either—it just doesn't click for her, I suppose.
Am I jazz-phobic? Blues-phobic? Or just some hater of electronic music? Not really—it’s more like I just don't listen to it and stick to rock. It's a preference, I guess.☕

If electronic music, blues, and jazz don't sit right with you, then we simply aren't on the same wavelength. Personally, I can't stand country music. It’s grating, it gets under my skin, and I’ll admit it—I have a genuine phobia of anything even remotely resembling a honky-tonk anthem. My usual strategy is just to walk away when it starts playing, but if someone were to lock me in a room with nothing but a loop of bad country hits, I can promise you one thing: all that pent-up frustration would be directed straight at the stereo. I’d leave nothing but scrap metal and broken wires behind.

To my mind, when we talk about a phobia, what we’re really seeing is an expression of pure hatred.

ruggedraven36 said:It’s actually pretty simple—you just have to look at two different levels of reality. On a biological level, they aren't the same; on a spiritual level, they are. People claiming they're identical are talking about the soul, while those saying they aren't are looking at nature. They end up fighting because half the people involved don't even realize what the other side is actually talking about.

Precisely. Men and women—people, more broadly speaking—aren't merely biological vessels driven by the impulse to have sex. Human connection is far more complex than that; sexual intimacy is certainly not the sole thread that weaves people together.

It seems like nowadays, people are far too quick to judge someone based solely on their outward appearance—whether it’s the clothes they wear or how much makeup they're sporting. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard it said, or read it posted here, in the sense of: "Look at how that person carries themselves; there's no way they actually know what they're talking about." If we were being truly consistent with that logic, the only person on the planet permitted to have an opinion on anything would be Brad Pitt.

It’s entirely possible that this is exactly why so many creators struggle to offer anything beyond mere aesthetics and sex.

Look, humans are complex creatures—or at least, we ought to be. When we’re discussing philosophy, we really should be delving into those deeper, more nuanced layers of existence. As for physical appearance or sex? That belongs over in the erotica subforum, not here in Philosophy.

lonetrucker4 said:Physicist and science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder just dropped a new video about trans women in sports. Check it out. Her channel’s huge—she keeps things snappy, simple, and actually knows her stuff. Even when she tackles topics outside her usual lane, she brings in the right experts to back her up.

She breaks down why this isn't some black-and-white issue like people think, especially those stuck in that rigid, old-school "men are men, women are women, end of story" mindset. Major sports leagues have been wrestling with this for nearly 40 years now. Scientists are digging into it too, and the data isn't exactly straightforward—it varies wildly depending on the sport...

[/I]

It’s like that old saying goes—if you gather enough data, you can use statistical methods to prove just about anything you want. 🤣

Looking at her entire argument, only two points really jump out at me. First off, I have to give her credit for being upfront about the fact that most trans people aren't intersex.

Intersex conditions represent an objective, measurable medical reality. 😬 I don't have any issue with treating them separately.

Look, we don't actually have any objective metrics for "transgender identity" as it stands today—it’s strictly a matter of self-identification.

Those two categories aren't the same thing, yet she dedicates exactly one sentence to the distinction, merely stating that "the treatment of intersex people sets a precedent for the treatment of transgender people." I have to disagree there. One simply doesn't follow from the other.

Another interesting point here is pure sophistry. It’s that classic move where people try to relativize the concept of "fairness" regarding trans women competing in women's sports by arguing that not all biological females have the exact same physical predispositions. Give me a break. That’s not how this works—sports are defined by competing within the framework of "innate biology plus training." Think about it: why isn't doping allowed? You can't just argue, "Well, sports aren't inherently fair anyway, so what's the big deal if someone uses PEDs?" She tries to frame her argument as being "science-based," but it’s painfully obvious that her version of science always seems to bend toward a pre-existing ideological stance. The funniest part is watching the commenters below praising her for somehow "avoiding ideology." Honestly, those people wouldn't recognize ideology if it painted itself purple, danced naked on a piano, and sang, "Hey look, it's ideology!" 🤣

Here is a really solid video by the same woman. My only issue is that she doesn't seem to apply her own logic consistently. We have mountains of evidence regarding how the social sciences actually operate. A lot of that data—take something like publication bias, for instance—suggests that being skeptical of "findings" in those fields isn't even comparable to questioning the rock-solid results we see in physics. 😬

If you want to get a real sense of what's actually going on in the social sciences, you should definitely check out agitator. 😬

Kenneth Cruz67 said:I feel like there might be a bit of a flaw in her reasoning here, if you ask me. She didn't really address things like reflexes or reaction speeds at all, so I guess she might be mistaken when she suggests that gender doesn't matter, even in something like e-sports. In my experience, male teams in competitive gaming tend to beat female teams quite easily, so that doesn't really level the playing field either.

During the League of Legends Championship, an all-female squad ended up with a 52-2 record before they were eventually knocked out, mostly because watching them lose over and over wasn't exactly thrilling for the audience.😁

It’s actually quite interesting to me how almost all the criticism seems to focus on men who transition and then compete against other women, whereas you almost never hear about the reverse happening. I suppose that says a whole lot on its own.😬

Facts. Biologically speaking, men have faster reflexes than women. It's definitely tied to testosterone levels somehow.

A quick Google search for "do men have faster reflexes Than Women" brings up plenty of data.

The mean fastest reaction time recorded by men was significantly faster than women (p<0.001). At the 99.9% confidence level, neither men nor women can react in 100 ms, but they can react in as little as 109 ms and 121 ms, respectively

Same goes for e-sports—it's a newer category, but there's precedent, considering "mind sports" like chess, bridge, or Go (where guys tend to dominate too).

As for her main argument, she didn't technically make an error by leaving that out; it's just a gap in the logic, since it doesn't change her final conclusion.

You could also mention that men generally have better spatial orientation (try Googling: "do men have a better spatial orientation than women?"), which matters in tons of sports. Like football, for example.

Funny enough, when I was digging through stuff about "space," I found analyses suggesting women might actually be physically and mentally better suited for astronauts! There was some NASA study from 2014... Here’s why women may be the best suited for spaceflight

It's interesting to me how all these critiques target men who transition to women and compete against other women. You almost never see the reverse happening. That says a lot.

It doesn't really say anything we didn't already know: men are naturally stronger and hold the edge in most sports. That's exactly why we have separate women's competitions, just like we have weight classes or age brackets for youth and seniors.

Now, when a man undergoes gender reassignment surgery, he starts taking heavy doses of female hormones. Does that wipe out the biological advantage he got from testosterone? It's not a simple question. Hossenfelder breaks it down using various studies. Turns out, it might vary depending on the sport.

She also mentions that women become equal to—or even better than—men in ultramarathons, specifically those over 100 miles. I read something about this a while back. Once the body hits total exhaustion and burns through its carb stores to start burning fat, the female metabolism seems more efficient at it. I remember reading about a study from the 80s predicting women would catch up to or pass men in marathons soon. That didn't happen, 26 miles because a marathon is too short, but it seems to matter in much longer races. Same thing with open-water swimming.

NEW STUDY FINDS WOMEN ARE BETTER AT ULTRAMARATHON RUNNING THAN MEN

A massive deep dive by the International Association of Ultrarunners and RunRepeat—those guys who do the sneaker reviews—just dropped some wild stats on ultra running trends from the last 23 years. It’s the biggest data set ever, looking at over 5 million finishes across 15,451 different ultra races. Turns out, the sport has exploded, seeing a crazy 1676% jump in participation. Even better? More women are crushing it than ever before. Female participation shot up from 14% to 23% over those two decades, and honestly, their performance explains why.

The bottom line? Women start out trailing, but once you hit the extreme long-haul stuff beyond 195 miles (195 miles), they actually pull ahead. The math is simple: the longer the slog, the smaller the gender gap gets until the ladies take the lead. For instance, in 3.1 miles runs, guys clock in 17.9% faster, and even at the standard marathon distance, they hold an 11.1% edge. By the time you hit 100 mile (100 miles) races, the gap almost vanishes at just 0.25%. But once you cross that 195 (195 miles) mile threshold, women are actually 0.6% faster than the men

A joint study between the International Association of Ultrarunners and RunRepeat, an athletic shoe review company, explored the trends in ultra running over the last 23 years. In the largest study ever done on ultra running, they analysed over 5 million results from 15,451 ultra running events to plot trends in the sport. They found that not only has ultra running had phenomenal growth in the last 23 years, a 1676% participation increase to be exact, but that more women are running than ever. 23% of participants are now female, compared to just 14% 23 years ago, and that may have something to do with their success!

Overall, the study found that female ultra runners are faster than their male counterparts for distances longer than 195 miles (195 miles). The data showed that as distances get longer, the gap in pacing between genders shrinks until women come out on top. In 3.1 miles runs men run 17.9% faster than women, at marathon distance the difference is just 11.1%, 100 mile (100 miles) races see the difference shrink to just .25%, and above 195 (195 miles) miles, women are actually 0.6% faster than men

There are plenty of ultramarathons out there, they just don't grab the headlines. Like Hossenfelder says, if a sport wants eyes on it, it’s gotta be entertaining, and let's face it, watching someone jog for hours is pretty much the definition of boring 124 miles? 😛 Besides, from what I've seen, most of these races are mixed anyway—men and women competing side-by-side—so there isn't even really a debate to be had.

lonegardener said:[/I]

It’s like that old saying goes—if you gather enough data, you can use statistical methods to prove just about anything you want. 🤣

Looking at her entire argument, only two points really jump out at me. First off, I have to give her credit for being upfront about the fact that most trans people aren't intersex.

Intersex conditions represent an objective, measurable medical reality. 😬 I don't have any issue with treating them separately.

Look, we don't actually have any objective metrics for "transgender identity" as it stands today—it’s strictly a matter of self-identification.

Those two categories aren't the same thing, yet she dedicates exactly one sentence to the distinction, merely stating that "the treatment of intersex people sets a precedent for the treatment of transgender people." I have to disagree there. One simply doesn't follow from the other.

Another interesting point here is pure sophistry. It’s that classic move where people try to relativize the concept of "fairness" regarding trans women competing in women's sports by arguing that not all biological females have the exact same physical predispositions. Give me a break. That’s not how this works—sports are defined by competing within the framework of "innate biology plus training." Think about it: why isn't doping allowed? You can't just argue, "Well, sports aren't inherently fair anyway, so what's the big deal if someone uses PEDs?" She tries to frame her argument as being "science-based," but it’s painfully obvious that her version of science always seems to bend toward a pre-existing ideological stance. The funniest part is watching the commenters below praising her for somehow "avoiding ideology." Honestly, those people wouldn't recognize ideology if it painted itself purple, danced naked on a piano, and sang, "Hey look, it's ideology!" 🤣

It’s not some kind of admission. Just clearing up the definitions, plain and simple.

This video hits on a massive headache sports leagues are dealing with right now because of gender transitions. You've got guys on hormone therapy who've had bottom surgery, and they look like women through and through—we're talking curves, smooth skin, no stubble, the whole deal.

So what’s the move then? Let them compete in the women's division, or does that guy still carry around an "unfair" advantage just because he was born male and had all that testosterone pumping through him during puberty?

What even is "fairness" in elite sports? Let's be real—top-tier female athletes naturally carry more testosterone than your average woman on the street.

That's a heavy question, and honestly? Way too complicated for you. You wouldn't care even if I gave you the answer.

Look, there aren't even any actual metrics for "trans people" right now—it's basically just based on whatever someone says they are. That's the reality today.

Honestly, you've got a major identity crisis going on. You're just feeling threatened because of how everyone else is defining themselves.

I get it. I’ve been through that same shift myself—back when being gay was just some punchline for a joke and anyone wanting to transition was considered totally insane. Fifty years ago, pretty much everyone thought that way.

Those two categories aren't even the same thing. She spends maybe one whole sentence on the distinction, just tossing out that "treating intersex people sets a precedent for treating transgender people." I'm not buying it. One doesn't just lead to the other like that.

Your disagreement doesn't mean squat. She's talking about decades of research and actual rules set by major sports leagues.

She acts like she’s all about the "science," but let's be real—it's pretty obvious her "data" just follows whatever political agenda she's already decided on.

That’s on you, not her. She isn't out here preaching about gender theory or whatever—she's talking about one specific, real-world issue.

Sam Martinez9 said:The atmosphere here in Seattle is just... heavy. It’s one of those days where everything feels slightly out of sync, much like that feeling you get when a planned road trip through the Rockies gets derailed by an unexpected blizzard. Just a quiet, lingering sense of stillness that settles over everything.

It seems to me that you’re reducing men and women to mere drivers of sexual impulse, and in doing so, you're reducing the entire spectrum of human connection to nothing more than sexual encounters. Fortunately, relationships between men and women are incomparably more complex than that. Love itself isn't just "sexual" love. Love is something else entirely—something deeper. When it exists between a man and a woman, it might be fueled by sexual desire, but that certainly isn't a requirement.

We were just discussing this over at the Philosophy department, so I figure we ought to approach the topic from a different angle here. You all are more than capable of doing just that.

If electronic music, blues, and jazz don't sit right with you, then we simply aren't on the same wavelength. Personally, I can't stand country music. It’s grating, it gets under my skin, and I’ll admit it—I have a genuine phobia of anything even remotely resembling a honky-tonk anthem. My usual strategy is just to walk away when it starts playing, but if someone were to lock me in a room with nothing but a loop of bad country hits, I can promise you one thing: all that pent-up frustration would be directed straight at the stereo. I’d leave nothing but scrap metal and broken wires behind.

To my mind, when we talk about a phobia, what we’re really seeing is an expression of pure hatred.

Precisely. Men and women—people, more broadly speaking—aren't merely biological vessels driven by the impulse to have sex. Human connection is far more complex than that; sexual intimacy is certainly not the sole thread that weaves people together.

It seems like nowadays, people are far too quick to judge someone based solely on their outward appearance—whether it’s the clothes they wear or how much makeup they're sporting. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard it said, or read it posted here, in the sense of: "Look at how that person carries themselves; there's no way they actually know what they're talking about." If we were being truly consistent with that logic, the only person on the planet permitted to have an opinion on anything would be Brad Pitt.

It’s entirely possible that this is exactly why so many creators struggle to offer anything beyond mere aesthetics and sex.

Look, humans are complex creatures—or at least, we ought to be. When we’re discussing philosophy, we really should be delving into those deeper, more nuanced layers of existence. As for physical appearance or sex? That belongs over in the erotica subforum, not here in Philosophy.

But really, we’re specifically discussing Wolverine's little thought experiment here, where a guy is trying to connect with a woman online to establish some kind of rapport. We aren't having a broad philosophical debate about the infinite complexities of gender dynamics or the nature of love in general.

I mean, you probably know what this type of communication looks like in like 99% of cases these days on things like Instagram, Bumble, Tinder, or whatever else is out there, right?

Man: Hey
Woman: Hey
Man: Want to see a pic of my junk?

And I don't think I'm even being hyperbolic when I say 😁

'Ben, you'll find that level of complexity 🤣

Kenneth Cruz67 said:But really, we’re specifically discussing Wolverine's little thought experiment here, where a guy is trying to connect with a woman online to establish some kind of rapport. We aren't having a broad philosophical debate about the infinite complexities of gender dynamics or the nature of love in general.

I mean, you probably know what this type of communication looks like in like 99% of cases these days on things like Instagram, Bumble, Tinder, or whatever else is out there, right?

Man: Hey
Woman: Hey
Man: Want to see a pic of my junk?

And I don't think I'm even being hyperbolic when I say 😁

'Ben, you'll find that level of complexity 🤣

The subject at hand is the debate over gender dynamics.

People approach any topic based on their own limitations—however much their intellectual, moral, or personal capacities allow them to contribute.

On Reddit or Tinder, communication can look like whatever it wants to look like. But this is the Philosophy subforum, so one would expect a different caliber of discourse.

Sam Martinez9 said:The subject at hand is the debate over gender dynamics.

People approach any topic based on their own limitations—however much their intellectual, moral, or personal capacities allow them to contribute.

On Reddit or Tinder, communication can look like whatever it wants to look like. But this is the Philosophy subforum, so one would expect a different caliber of discourse.

And yes, we are indeed discussing the topic, specifically within the context of that little thought experiment Volver proposed, which a few of us have already commented on just like we always do. Personally, I don't see anything controversial about it, let alone something so inflammatory that you—or anyone else for that matter—should feel the need to come jumping at me. 🤔

lonetrucker4 said:It’s not some kind of admission. Just clearing up the definitions, plain and simple.

This video hits on a massive headache sports leagues are dealing with right now because of gender transitions. You've got guys on hormone therapy who've had bottom surgery, and they look like women through and through—we're talking curves, smooth skin, no stubble, the whole deal.

So what’s the move then? Let them compete in the women's division, or does that guy still carry around an "unfair" advantage just because he was born male and had all that testosterone pumping through him during puberty?

What even is "fairness" in elite sports? Let's be real—top-tier female athletes naturally carry more testosterone than your average woman on the street.

That's a heavy question, and honestly? Way too complicated for you. You wouldn't care even if I gave you the answer.

Look, there aren't even any actual metrics for "trans people" right now—it's basically just based on whatever someone says they are. That's the reality today.

Honestly, you've got a major identity crisis going on. You're just feeling threatened because of how everyone else is defining themselves.

I get it. I’ve been through that same shift myself—back when being gay was just some punchline for a joke and anyone wanting to transition was considered totally insane. Fifty years ago, pretty much everyone thought that way.

Those two categories aren't even the same thing. She spends maybe one whole sentence on the distinction, just tossing out that "treating intersex people sets a precedent for treating transgender people." I'm not buying it. One doesn't just lead to the other like that.

Your disagreement doesn't mean squat. She's talking about decades of research and actual rules set by major sports leagues.

She acts like she’s all about the "science," but let's be real—it's pretty obvious her "data" just follows whatever political agenda she's already decided on.

That’s on you, not her. She isn't out here preaching about gender theory or whatever—she's talking about one specific, real-world issue.

Actually, I care quite a bit. Here is my concise take: the situation should be structured so that the proportion of "trans women" in women's competition is roughly equal to the proportion of "trans men" in men's competition.

😬

It isn't hard to calculate what that means in practice, and it leads to the conclusion that everything else is just empty philosophy—just endless arguing and stalling for purely ideological reasons.

lonetrucker4 said:It’s not some kind of admission. Just clearing up the definitions, plain and simple.

This video hits on a massive headache sports leagues are dealing with right now because of gender transitions. You've got guys on hormone therapy who've had bottom surgery, and they look like women through and through—we're talking curves, smooth skin, no stubble, the whole deal.

So what’s the move then? Let them compete in the women's division, or does that guy still carry around an "unfair" advantage just because he was born male and had all that testosterone pumping through him during puberty?

What even is "fairness" in elite sports? Let's be real—top-tier female athletes naturally carry more testosterone than your average woman on the street.

That's a heavy question, and honestly? Way too complicated for you. You wouldn't care even if I gave you the answer.

Look, there aren't even any actual metrics for "trans people" right now—it's basically just based on whatever someone says they are. That's the reality today.

Honestly, you've got a major identity crisis going on. You're just feeling threatened because of how everyone else is defining themselves.

I get it. I’ve been through that same shift myself—back when being gay was just some punchline for a joke and anyone wanting to transition was considered totally insane. Fifty years ago, pretty much everyone thought that way.

Those two categories aren't even the same thing. She spends maybe one whole sentence on the distinction, just tossing out that "treating intersex people sets a precedent for treating transgender people." I'm not buying it. One doesn't just lead to the other like that.

Your disagreement doesn't mean squat. She's talking about decades of research and actual rules set by major sports leagues.

She acts like she’s all about the "science," but let's be real—it's pretty obvious her "data" just follows whatever political agenda she's already decided on.

That’s on you, not her. She isn't out here preaching about gender theory or whatever—she's talking about one specific, real-world issue.

You aren't seeing the point at all, Zoki. For goodness' sake, how they "identify" is a minor issue compared to the real problem: people assuming their self-identification is automatically relevant to the entire world (including me).

That is the overarching issue of our era, which I call "special snowflakery." It seems a massive segment of the population believes that "society" should constantly be catering to their specific psychological whims and various other issues.

And this "special snowflakery" pairs perfectly with another widespread modern phenomenon: the famous "virtue signaling." How does this symbiosis work? The "special snowflakes" believe their personal trivialities are somehow significant to society. Meanwhile, the "virtue signaling" crowd panders to them to assert their own moral (and intellectual) superiority over the rest of the "backward" world. That's just my opinion, anyway. 😬

steelridge58 said:I don't think they need pity at all, because honestly, expressing pity can actually end up stripping a person of their dignity, which makes it far from being "human enough"—in fact, it's pretty damaging.

Would you actually want someone to look down on you with pity? As the saying goes, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Compassion or empathy is a completely different animal; those things require an actual connection, some kind of interaction or dialogue, or at least some level of engagement with the other person.

Just imagine you're spending days listening to a puppy whimpering in a nearby thicket, and his cries are just so heartbreakingly sad that you find yourself totally won over by them. You assume he’s lonely and desperately needs a home and some food, so you head out into the woods, only to find this massive 260-pound guy crawling around on all fours, wiggling and grooving his way toward you. Would you really take that "cute puppy" home and throw him a bone?

Please don't trivialize the topic with these kinds of awkward comparisons unless you want me to yell—Deussex, watch out!!

What they really need is to be recognized as actual women, but I suppose that's impossible because it simply isn't that straightforward.
Being a woman involves the whole integration of psyche and body, and it means exactly what it meant before people started engaging in this kind of mental masturbation.
Pity seems like the most natural reaction, perhaps even a way to rise above xenophobia, which is also a natural response in these circumstances. Maybe from pity, some kind of decent treatment could actually emerge...
So, you're calling that trivialization? 🤣
It feels to me like you've essentially said the exact same thing, just using more words.
And the fact that you find the comparison "misplaced" probably just suggests that we might be closer to understanding this issue than you'd care to admit.
Anyway, go ahead. Give it your best shot. 🤣
Go on then, though it won't change the reality that a trans woman isn't even a trans woman; she isn't a woman at all, but rather a man somewhat better disguised as one due to some neurological glitch that convinces him he's a woman, despite all the masculine traits he possesses.

I suppose anyone here who claims to speak on behalf of men is just trolling until they actually marry a trans woman; only then might I consider their convictions to be anything more than a joke.

Laura Jones56 said:I suppose anyone here who claims to speak on behalf of men is just trolling until they actually marry a trans woman; only then might I consider their convictions to be anything more than a joke.

Yeah, that’s basically just people talking out of their asses to feel important. 🤣

But look, there are definitely people who mean it. Take Blair White's boyfriend, for example. lol.

By the way, here is what Blair White had to say about Matt Walsh's documentary 'What is a woman?'.

Oh, I honestly wish I could just find myself a man in a woman's body! I suppose I would marry him in a heartbeat, since it feels like it might just be the most perfect, ideal way to get the best of both worlds, 🤣

Sandra Murphy33 said:That is a incredibly tricky distinction, Volver.
If he hasn't actually seen the person he's talking to, how did he experience them as a woman?
Is it based on their "softness, gentleness, or kindness," etc.—those universal human virtues that, for some reason, are subconsciously tethered to biological females? 🤔

By doubling down on gender ideology, you actually end up reinforcing biological sex even further. I can only hope one of these social experimenters realizes that, or perhaps one of the influential figures backing them might...
It would be far more intelligent and prudent to return to Jungian psychology on this matter—discussing the so-called inner feminine, the Animus, or the inner masculine, the Animus, or perhaps even introducing Yin and Yang concepts that aren't strictly tied to biological sex...

Western politics and the general political direction of the West is profoundly foolish and destructive.

Regarding that, and your experiment reminded me of this, I recalled a time back in the early days of the internet in America, when I met someone in a chat room who I really connected with—even though his nickname was male and my mental image of him was 😎
He was the sensitive, intelligent Yin, and I was the wild Yang (by modern terminology, does that mean he was a woman and I was a man? ... even though neither of us were biologically either 🙂 ).
Then, he got angry with me. He refused to talk to me anymore and would leave whenever I showed up. But to him, I was nothing more than my username (and whatever preconceived notion lived in his head). It turned out all I had to do was change my name to continue talking to this interesting being. First, I switched to another female name, but I didn't find real success until I returned as a male.

Isn't it tragic that in order to reach his soul, I had to "become" a man within a male body...?

There is a film by B. Streisand on this theme, and a novel by Erika Jong, but what I find puzzling is that the women in those stories—who disguise themselves as men for various reasons—still remain in love, as women, with the men who perceive them as men! That is the element that fails for me; it just isn't believable....

I personally try to avoid getting bogged down in those kinds of specifics, because if someone presents themselves as a woman, it isn't necessarily about tricking anyone—it’s simply how they identify, feel, and perceive themselves deep down. And honestly, it works for him too, since he's interacting with qualities that I'm not even trying to label as "typical" in this story; the fact that she didn't just "come out" as trans immediately through text messages is really just an example of how physical appearance doesn't automatically dictate our view of someone whose gender identity doesn't align with their biological sex or what society expects from them.

I also feel like when people who aren't trans talk about trans individuals, they're really just talking about their own perspectives, whereas the perspective of the trans person themselves is the one that's truly authentic, and we should probably be giving them a lot more space to tell their own stories.

Your whole post is actually really interesting to me, 🙂) but that's enough of my rambling for now.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Oh, I honestly wish I could just find myself a man in a woman's body! I suppose I would marry him in a heartbeat, since it feels like it might just be the most perfect, ideal way to get the best of both worlds, 🤣

That might actually be a pretty bad idea. In today's climate, you'd probably end up "transitioning"—well, take your pick on the terminology—with gender-affirming therapies before you know it. 🤣

So, you start the testosterone tests... and you might even end up getting some surgical implants to mimic certain anatomy..

lonegardener said:Yeah, that’s basically just people talking out of their asses to feel important. 🤣

But look, there are definitely people who mean it. Take Blair White's boyfriend, for example. lol.

By the way, here is what Blair White had to say about Matt Walsh's documentary 'What is a woman?'.

🤣
And I can certainly see why they identify as straight... I guess everyone wishes they could just be normal.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Oh, I honestly wish I could just find myself a man in a woman's body! I suppose I would marry him in a heartbeat, since it feels like it might just be the most perfect, ideal way to get the best of both worlds, 🤣

bogami, this really gives one plenty of things to ponder. 😁

lonegardener said:That might actually be a pretty bad idea. In today's climate, you'd probably end up "transitioning"—well, take your pick on the terminology—with gender-affirming therapies before you know it. 🤣

So, you start the testosterone tests... and you might even end up getting some surgical implants to mimic certain anatomy..

LOL. Not quite, though.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:But really, we’re specifically discussing Wolverine's little thought experiment here, where a guy is trying to connect with a woman online to establish some kind of rapport. We aren't having a broad philosophical debate about the infinite complexities of gender dynamics or the nature of love in general.

I mean, you probably know what this type of communication looks like in like 99% of cases these days on things like Instagram, Bumble, Tinder, or whatever else is out there, right?

Man: Hey
Woman: Hey
Man: Want to see a pic of my junk?

And I don't think I'm even being hyperbolic when I say 😁

'Ben, you'll find that level of complexity 🤣

It could also work like this—if that makes sense, I guess.
Hey there.
bok Ž
Send me a nude!
Hey Z.
Man, you really have some nerve...
Ž: I'm a trans woman...
🙄

lonetrucker4 said:Facts. Biologically speaking, men have faster reflexes than women. It's definitely tied to testosterone levels somehow.

A quick Google search for "do men have faster reflexes Than Women" brings up plenty of data.

The mean fastest reaction time recorded by men was significantly faster than women (p<0.001). At the 99.9% confidence level, neither men nor women can react in 100 ms, but they can react in as little as 109 ms and 121 ms, respectively

Same goes for e-sports—it's a newer category, but there's precedent, considering "mind sports" like chess, bridge, or Go (where guys tend to dominate too).

As for her main argument, she didn't technically make an error by leaving that out; it's just a gap in the logic, since it doesn't change her final conclusion.

You could also mention that men generally have better spatial orientation (try Googling: "do men have a better spatial orientation than women?"), which matters in tons of sports. Like football, for example.

Funny enough, when I was digging through stuff about "space," I found analyses suggesting women might actually be physically and mentally better suited for astronauts! There was some NASA study from 2014... Here’s why women may be the best suited for spaceflight

It's interesting to me how all these critiques target men who transition to women and compete against other women. You almost never see the reverse happening. That says a lot.

It doesn't really say anything we didn't already know: men are naturally stronger and hold the edge in most sports. That's exactly why we have separate women's competitions, just like we have weight classes or age brackets for youth and seniors.

Now, when a man undergoes gender reassignment surgery, he starts taking heavy doses of female hormones. Does that wipe out the biological advantage he got from testosterone? It's not a simple question. Hossenfelder breaks it down using various studies. Turns out, it might vary depending on the sport.

She also mentions that women become equal to—or even better than—men in ultramarathons, specifically those over 100 miles. I read something about this a while back. Once the body hits total exhaustion and burns through its carb stores to start burning fat, the female metabolism seems more efficient at it. I remember reading about a study from the 80s predicting women would catch up to or pass men in marathons soon. That didn't happen, 26 miles because a marathon is too short, but it seems to matter in much longer races. Same thing with open-water swimming.

NEW STUDY FINDS WOMEN ARE BETTER AT ULTRAMARATHON RUNNING THAN MEN

There are plenty of ultramarathons out there, they just don't grab the headlines. Like Hossenfelder says, if a sport wants eyes on it, it’s gotta be entertaining, and let's face it, watching someone jog for hours is pretty much the definition of boring 124 miles? 😛 Besides, from what I've seen, most of these races are mixed anyway—men and women competing side-by-side—so there isn't even really a debate to be had.

I guess I could say you’re leaning pretty hard into stereotypes with that last point—maybe just a little bit.

Whenever I'm stuck in some debate and a woman brings up that whole "men are constantly thinking about sex" trope, I usually just counter with—well, I focus on the word "thinking." Because at the end of the day, thinking is a mental process, right? And if we're being honest, isn't philosophy basically the ultimate peak of human thought? I guess it's hard to argue with that logic.
I mean, when I say sex—yeah, I'm a guy. 🙂

I mean, if electronic music, blues, and jazz don't count, then you’re probably missing the point. Personally, I can't stand country music. It honestly hurts my ears—it just gets under my skin—so I guess you could say I'm practically country-music-phobic. My usual solution is just to walk away from it, but if someone actually locked me in a room with nothing but a loop of country hits playing? Yeah, I’d probably lose it and take my frustrations out on the speaker. I'd smash it to pieces.

Basically, I think a phobia implies an active expression of hatred.

I'd have to agree there—sure, actual phobias exist, but it seems like the trans community views any kind of criticism or questioning of their views as an outright assault, immediately slapping the 'transphobic' label on it.
So, I guess I'll just tell them they're clearly acting this way because of excess testosterone, despite being on estrogen.
And wouldn't you know it? They'd probably claim *that* critique is 'transphobic' too. ☕[/URL]

Just one more thing to add regarding the whole gender identity conversation:

Ever since we reached a medical and societal consensus that biological sex—you know, the physical anatomy we’re born with—and gender—the cultural expressions and performances we use to shape our presence in the world—are actually two different things, and that having the freedom to choose how you present yourself is a fundamental American civil right, transgender identity has emerged as one of the most vital ways people exercise their right to self-determination, finally breaking free from that rigid "either/or" binary of male versus female.

Gender identity is really that deep, intrinsic, internal sense of who a person is. Most people just stick to "male" or "female" because those are the categories our society is built around, but identities that don't fit neatly into those boxes are often unfairly treated as somehow less valid or "less real," usually being forced into those same old social norms. That’s why I think it’s so crucial to emphasize that there’s a massive variety of identities out there, many of which can't be shoehorned into the traditional masculine or feminine molds. People often talk about gender as a spectrum—suggesting there’s a middle ground between two extreme poles of masculinity and femininity—but I prefer looking at it as a vast landscape where being neither strictly male nor strictly female isn't just a "mix" of the two, but its own equal territory. At the end of the day, every single person is unique, and no two identities are exactly alike; every identity is just as real and deserves the exact same level of respect. (source; p.7)

Jose Edwards16 said:It could also work like this—if that makes sense, I guess.
Hey there.
bok Ž
Send me a nude!
Hey Z.
Man, you really have some nerve...
Ž: I'm a trans woman...
🙄

I guess I could say you’re leaning pretty hard into stereotypes with that last point—maybe just a little bit.

Whenever I'm stuck in some debate and a woman brings up that whole "men are constantly thinking about sex" trope, I usually just counter with—well, I focus on the word "thinking." Because at the end of the day, thinking is a mental process, right? And if we're being honest, isn't philosophy basically the ultimate peak of human thought? I guess it's hard to argue with that logic.
I mean, when I say sex—yeah, I'm a guy. 🙂

I mean, if electronic music, blues, and jazz don't count, then you’re probably missing the point. Personally, I can't stand country music. It honestly hurts my ears—it just gets under my skin—so I guess you could say I'm practically country-music-phobic. My usual solution is just to walk away from it, but if someone actually locked me in a room with nothing but a loop of country hits playing? Yeah, I’d probably lose it and take my frustrations out on the speaker. I'd smash it to pieces.

Basically, I think a phobia implies an active expression of hatred.

I'd have to agree there—sure, actual phobias exist, but it seems like the trans community views any kind of criticism or questioning of their views as an outright assault, immediately slapping the 'transphobic' label on it.
So, I guess I'll just tell them they're clearly acting this way because of excess testosterone, despite being on estrogen.
And wouldn't you know it? They'd probably claim *that* critique is 'transphobic' too. ☕[/URL]

If someone from the trans community actually popped into this thread, they’d probably have a legitimate case to complain about the hostility, the labeling, and the insults being thrown around, mostly because there's almost zero actual civilized debate or constructive questioning happening here.

I mean, what exactly counts as 'civilized' in that little jab you made above, where you suggest they're "clearly acting this way because of excess testosterone even though they're on estrogen"?

If we keep steering conversations on philosophy like this, I really don't see how this community is going to last much longer.