[jononomo]

There is no empirical way to verify if someone is actually transgender. In fact, there really is no theoretical way that a person could even be transgender unless one accepts the idea of a non-material soul that is somehow gendered. Whether someone is a male or a female is simply a question of biological definitions of observed reality, just as whether an animal is a dog or a cat is simply a question of biological definitions and observed reality. A man who thinks he is a woman is simply mistaken by definition, just as a man who thinks he is a dog or a cat is mistaken by definition. This is not to say we should not have compassion for people who believe they are transgender and try to help them.

[kelseyfrog]

Emperical measurement framing is a cognitive cul-de-sac. Drawing a parallel, there's no emperical way to determine someone's sexuality. Fifty years ago this argument was used to justify therapeutically changing people's sexuality. "If you're a man you're biologically attracted to women. It's biologically impossible to be homosexual." Today we have the same logic applied to people's gender. It's as invalid today as it was back then.

[jononomo]

Of course there is an empirical way to determine someone’s sexuality. You can show someone different varieties of pornography and see which varieties make them sexually aroused. You can see sexual arousal happening in the brain with an MRI. You can also just simply observe someone’s sexual behavior.

[kelseyfrog]

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. Even if it were true, like all diagnostics, it would have a sensitivity and specificity, which of course brings us back full circle to the problem the author cannot escape.

[jononomo]

You don't think it is possible to determine whether homosexual people actually exist???

When you said, "that simply isn't true," what exactly were you referring to?

Homosexuality is the condition of having a sexual preference for people of the same sex. We can easily observe that such people exist. Whether it is a disorder or not is a separate question.

When a man says, "I prefer to have sex with other men," we can easily check whether or not this is true. (Or do you think all gay men are just faking it?)

When a man says, "I am really a woman," he cannot point to anything empirical to back up his claim. To the extent that we can check this claim, we can easily determine that it is false.

Of course, a man can correctly say, "I wish I was a woman," "I think I would be happier if I had been born a woman," or "I really like dressing up like a woman," and all these claims can be true.

But when a man says, "I actually am a woman," we know this is false because we know what a woman is, and we know what a man is, and we know that they are distinct.

[kelseyfrog]

Sexuality cannot be directly measured; its consequences can however be observed. Gender, operating the same way cannot be directly measured, its consequences however can be observed.

Your argument suffers from assuming essentialism - the error of reifying your personal ontology. That's a misalignment between you on one side and facts, nature, science, and reality on the other.

But back to the sensitivity and specificity for the test you're describing, what are they?

[jononomo]

You’re just wrong and determined, apparently. I just don’t know what to say to someone who doesn’t think it is possible to empirically verify that some people have a homosexual orientation.

[scoutt]

> When a man says, "I am really a woman,"

They feel they are a woman.

You seem to be feeling something when discussing this topic. Please provide empirical evidence of whatever you are feeling right now.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> Whether someone is a male or a female is simply a question of biological definitions of observed reality, just as whether an animal is a dog or a cat is simply a question of biological definitions and observed reality. A man who thinks he is a woman is simply mistaken by definition, just as a man who thinks he is a dog or a cat is mistaken by definition.

Hard disagree. Even with a strictly genetic interpretation there are more than just two sex-chromosomal configurations, but leaving that aside there are many of us who believe that gender, unlike biological sex, is a social construct. Saying "you must be a man because you were born XY" is roughly equivalent to saying "you must stay home and cook dinner because you were born XX".

Let's say we had the ability to genetically re-engineer people into whichever sex they wanted. Would you still be opposed to letting them do so because they were born a different sex? Would you deny genetic treatment of debilitating diseases because people were born with them?

[gingfro]

> there are more than just two sex-chromosomal configurations

These are not additional sexes.

For example, a male with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) is still male.

> Let's say we had the ability to genetically re-engineer people into whichever sex they wanted

We do not, nor anything even remotely close to that.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> These are not additional sexes. > For example, a male with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) is still male.

Only by arbitrary definition of the abstraction we use. If we instead defined maleness as the ability to inseminate women and produce viable offspring they wouldn't count. If we defined it by having male genitalia then people with androgen insensitivity syndrome wouldn't count.

Male and Female are human terms we've chosen to categorize animals, but nature doesn't give a flying fuck about our definitions.

> We do not, nor anything even remotely close to that.

Obviously. This is called a 'hypothetical' or a 'thought experiment'. We use these to test the suitability of our mental frameworks of understanding. In this specific instance, I'm asking you to pretend this is true to see if your reasoning holds up, of if there is cognitive dissonance suggestive of a flawed model.

[gdavisson]

That's just plain wrong. Mental properties in general (e.g. personality) are not easily measurable, but that doesn't mean they don't exist (or can't exist without a non-material soul), and I see no reason to think that an innate sense of gender would be any different.

In any case, while gender is not directly measurable, it does seem to correlate with some aspects of brain structure. A number of studies have shown that, at least in some respects, the brain anatomy of transgender people is more similar to that of cisgender people of the same gender than those of the same sex. It's clearly more complicated than trans people having one type of brain in the other type of body, but something sort of like that is going on. See https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-somethin... and the links at https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science....

But whatever the basis of transgender identities is, it's clear that something real is going on. Dismissing trans people as "simply mistaken" is, well, simply mistaken.

EDIT: I should probably point out that the idea of someone developing some male-type features and some female-type should not be particularly surprising. Sexual differentiation is complex and has a lot of moving parts that don't always operate completely in sync. For example, a genetic male with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome will generally develop male-type internal organs (i.e. testes) and female-style external anatomy (a vagina, generally female appearance, etc).

[okaram]

You are defining male and female that way. If you go by that definition, you can define a transgender person as someone who deeply thinks and feels they ought to be of the other gender. They are not 'mistaken' other than by your definition. If you ask them 'do you have a penis' or similar question, they will respond with your objective reality.

[jononomo]

Yes, I believe transgender people exist if you define the condition as people who wish they were of the opposite sex or mistakenly think they are of the opposite sex. They definitely really have mental conditions that result in wishes and feelings related to sex and gender, but if they claim that they truly are of the opposite sex, they are mistaken.

[Ingaz]

Sorry but no.

We're not living in computer game or virtual reality.

Technology still far from providing us freedom to change our bodies as we want.

It's not about even transgender operations - we can't achieve even smaller goals: to be more healthy, stronger, more beateaful, younger or more mature.

Nobody likes themselves in current state - you, me , my son, my parents, everybody.

Transgender operations should not be taken lightly because they are not transgender in reality.

The one who decided on such path should that it's something heroic in self-modification of such scale.

They'll pay a lot without any guarantee they will earn something.

I think that 100 clinics .. sorry, strong words: I think it's a crime.

Literally. Those "doctors" are not helping weak and unhappy, they're selling what they can't provide, they make people even more unhappy