Is it wrong if you want to know a partners or potential partner's biological/original gender?

[Koldo]

Why not?

They are not female humans in the strict sense.

Or I didn't agree with the presupposition behind the point and therefore I didn't consider it valid, and addressed the presupposition instead.

Or perhaps you only reply to what you find convenient.

 

[Penumbra]

They are not female humans in the strict sense.

What is the strict sense?

Or perhaps you only reply to what you find convenient.

Sorry, but if I don't consider a point to be valid I'm going to address the root of it.

 

[Koldo]

What is the strict sense?

Being of the female sex since birth.

Sorry, but if I don't consider a point to be valid I'm going to address the root of it.

You didn't come even close to adressing the root of it. You sidestepped the matter entirely. The question could also be asked as: Would it be reasonable to assume you are not a trans woman if you look a woman?

But you prefer taking a different route for some reason.

 

[Penumbra]

Being of the female sex since birth.

What is the definition of the female sex?

You didn't come even close to adressing the root of it. You sidestepped the matter entirely. The question could also be asked as: Would it be reasonable to assume you are not a trans woman if you look a woman?

But you prefer taking a different route for some reason.

You asked if it was reasonable to assume someone is a woman if she looks like a woman. The presupposition was that a trans woman is not a woman, which I found to be incorrect, therefore rendering the rest of the question invalid in my view.

Tom and Shirley went all the way to intercourse in the OP example. Her personality and looks interested Tom, and then interaction with her body including her genitals was apparently also satisfactory. So what's the problem? As a society we only have two gender labels for people even though though the very definition of what a man or a woman is, is debatable, and even though there are multiple other variations. At best, males/females or men/women are umbrella terms to categorize people into to broad groups.

 

[vtunie]

The female sex is defined by the presence of the external sexual organs. Basically, by the vaginal slit. Or, almost-almost-almost equivalently, by the absence of a visible penis.

Scientific complications -- chromosomal mismatches to the external sexual organs, Turner's syndrome and the like -- only needlessly complicate the immediate and very basic visual confirmation that appears to be as old as it is universal.

Needlessly because of relative rarity.

 

[Poeticus]

This is a female:

This is a male:

 

[Penumbra]

The female sex is defined by the presence of the external sexual organs. Basically, by the vaginal slit. Or, almost-almost-almost equivalently, by the absence of a visible penis.

The OP's example of Shirley meets that definition.

Scientific complications -- chromosomal mismatches to the external sexual organs, Turner's syndrome and the like -- only complicate the immediate and very basic visual confirmation that appears to be as old as it is universal.

They complicate it in what way? I think details are important.

What wins, chromosomes or genitals, and why?

 

[Penumbra]

This is a female:

This is a male:

Here's two more:

Source.

 

[Koldo]

What is the definition of the female sex?

Being able to eventually produce egg cells naturally ( unless prevented by some sort of disease or peculiar condition ), and possessing XX chromosomes.

You asked if it was reasonable to assume someone is a woman if she looks like a woman. The presupposition was that a trans woman is not a woman, which I found to be incorrect, therefore rendering the rest of the question invalid in my view.

Your view does not render the question invalid considering you understood the context in which i used these words to formulate the question.

Now, would you please answer the question: Would it be reasonable to assume you are not a trans woman if you look like a woman?

Tom and Shirley went all the way to intercourse in the OP example. Her personality and looks interested Tom, and then interaction with her body including her genitals was apparently also satisfactory. So what's the problem? As a society we only have two gender labels for people even though though the very definition of what a man or a woman is, is debatable, and even though there are multiple other variations. At best, males/females or men/women are umbrella terms to categorize people into to broad groups.

The problem is that she withheld relevant information that if known by Tom would have lead to a different consequence.

 

[Penumbra]

Being able to eventually produce egg cells naturally ( unless prevented by some sort of disease or peculiar condition ), and possessing XX chromosomes.

How can the first one be a definition if there are exceptions?

And no mention of genitals?

Your view does not render the question invalid considering you understood the context in which i used these words to formulate the question.

I understood the context, and the presupposition, so answered the root of it.

Now, would you please answer the question: Would it be reasonable to assume you are not a trans woman if you look like a woman?

No, I don't think so. I think if someone has a hang-up about trans people, they need to make their needs known before having sex with someone.

The problem is that she withheld relevant information that if known by Tom would have lead to a different consequence.

How would she know that? I think the problem is Tom didn't make sure none of his taboos were met before satisfactorily having sex with someone.

 

[Poeticus]

Source.

Is she able to give birth? And, she's pretty good looking. Good for her.

 

[Koldo]

How can the first one be a definition if there are exceptions?

Typical usage allows for exceptions under certain conditions.

And no mention of genitals?

Do they have to be mentioned?
Where are the egg cells supposed to be produced?

I understood the context, and the presupposition, so answered the root of it.

No, I don't think so. I think if someone has a hang-up about trans people, they need to make their needs known before having sex with someone.

Have you ever heard about inductive reasoning?

How would she know that? I think the problem is Tom didn't make sure none of his taboos were met before satisfactorily having sex with someone.

How could she NOT know that?

 

[vtunie]

The OP's example of Shirley meets that definition.

Exactly.

Physically Shirley IS a woman. Her sex, until the known medical procedures are performed, is still female.

Transvestism is not sufficient to be trans-gender. Women can dress as men and remain acknowledged as women, or identify themselves as women.

For her to be trans-gender she must want to be identified as a man. [Sex is physical and can be changed only through surgery. Gender is defined by identification. It is influenced by behavior, dress, and all the rest. If we cannot agree on this distinction at least, there is no basis for further conversation.]

If she has sex-reassignent surgery, she becomes a male and is properly and unequivocally referred to as "he". In other words, after the surgery he will be trans-sexual but not trans-gender.

Only for as long as she remains physically a woman but desires identification as a man is she transgender.

Now,, she can "self-identify" however she wants.

But the way others identify her is NOT up to her. It is up to them. For precisely the same reason that her self-identification is her business.

So if she wants to be identified as a man, she basically has no choice but to act as a man. By dress, behavior appropriate to the norms of the society she is in, and so on.

If she does so, successfully, then the identification she is granted is the same as her self-identification and she is a successful trans-gender person.

If she fails to do so, she fails as a trans-gendered person. Sad, but true.

Now the main point: proclaiming herself as trans-gender WILL bring about immediate dissonance between self-identification and identification by others, and lead to immediate failure as a trans-gendered individual.

 

[Poeticus]

Now,, she can "self-identify" however she wants.

But the way others identify her is NOT up to her. It is up to them. For precisely the same reason that her self-identification is her business.

That's a good point.

 

[Penumbra]

Exactly.

Physically Shirley IS a woman. Her sex, until the known medical procedures are performed, is still female.

Transvestism is not sufficient to be trans-gender. Women can dress as men and remain acknowledged as women, or identify themselves as women.

For her to be trans-gender she must want to be identified as a man. [Sex is physical and can be changed only through surgery. Gender is defined by identification. It is influenced by behavior, dress, and all the rest. If we cannot agree on this distinction at least, there is no basis for further conversation.]

If she has sex-reassignent surgery, she becomes a male and is properly and unequivocally referred to as "he". In other words, after the surgery he will be trans-sexual but not trans-gender.

Only for as long as she remains physically a woman but desires identification as a man is she transgender.

Now,, she can "self-identify" however she wants.

But the way others identify her is NOT up to her. It is up to them. For precisely the same reason that her self-identification is her business.

So if she wants to be identified as a man, she basically has no choice but to act as a man. By dress, behavior appropriate to the norms of the society she is in, and so on.

If she does so, successfully, then the identification she is granted is the same as her self-identification and she is a successful trans-gender person.

If she fails to do so, she fails as a trans-gendered person. Sad, but true.

Now the main point: proclaiming herself as trans-gender WILL bring about immediate dissonance between self-identification and identification by others, and lead to immediate failure as a trans-gendered individual.

I think you're getting mixed up. Shirely in the OP is a trans woman, she was assigned male at birth but is now a woman.

You said, "The female sex is defined by the presence of the external sexual organs. Basically, by the vaginal slit. Or, almost-almost-almost equivalently, by the absence of a visible penis." and my point was that, using your own definition, Shirley, a trans woman in the OP, is of the female sex.

 

[Penumbra]

Typical usage allows for exceptions under certain conditions.

Shouldn't we avoid typical usage if we're specifically referring to exceptions, and discussing how to categorize them? Exceptions are everything here. Seems to me we should try to stick with absolute definitions, if you can find any.

Do they have to be mentioned?
Where are the egg cells supposed to be produced?

I think they do have to be mentioned. Would a woman born with a birth defect to her uterus not be a woman? Apparently producing egg cells isn't an absolute definition of a woman, or sperm cells for the man.

And what about a woman with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome? Born with XY chromosomes, can't reproduce, has female external genitals, grows breasts, has all female secondary sex characteristics, and is always raised as a woman with no legal issues in any society I'm aware of.

Have you ever heard about inductive reasoning?

Apparently flawed reasoning, in Tom's case.

How could she NOT know that?

She should assume everyone is going to have a problem?

Should a woman disclose the number of sex partners she has had, without being asked, just in case the guy finds anything over a certain number to be unacceptable?

Seems to me that if a person has specific sexual hang-ups, they need to take responsibility and inquire about them, rather than blame other people for not correctly guessing and addressing their sexual hang-ups without being asked.

 

[Penumbra]

I think it's worth pointing out that these two definitions conflict with one another:

What is the definition of the female sex?

Being able to eventually produce egg cells naturally ( unless prevented by some sort of disease or peculiar condition ), and possessing XX chromosomes.

The female sex is defined by the presence of the external sexual organs. Basically, by the vaginal slit. Or, almost-almost-almost equivalently, by the absence of a visible penis.

People can be born with external sexual organs and chromosomes that don't match. You two would define such a person as the opposite sex from each other, apparently.

Any takers for defining the male sex?

 

[vtunie]

I think you're getting mixed up. Shirely in the OP is a trans woman, she was assigned male at birth but is now a woman.

You said, "The female sex is defined by the presence of the external sexual organs. Basically, by the vaginal slit. Or, almost-almost-almost equivalently, by the absence of a visible penis." and my point was that, using your own definition, Shirley, a trans woman in the OP, is of the female sex.

Fine. My corresponding definition of a physical man is: "The male sex is defined by the presence of the external sexual organs. Basically, by the penis. Or, almost-almost-almost equivalently, by the absence of a vaginal slit."

Please interchange all the "he"'s and "she"'s in my previous post; all "man"'s and "woman"'s; all "male"'s and "female"'s; and please do so for all the relevant grammatical inflexions. I leave it to your good will to make any corresponding interchanges of words marking sex and/or gender that I may have missed.

My argument stands. Name, dress, and behavior must be such to mask the physical reality and convince the external observer. Otherwise, the person's attempt at trans-gender has failed.

 

[Penumbra]

Fine. My corresponding definition of a physical man is: "The male sex is defined by the presence of the external sexual organs. Basically, by the penis. Or, almost-almost-almost equivalently, by the absence of a vaginal slit."

Please interchange all the "he"'s and "she"'s in my previous post; all "man"'s and "woman"'s; all "male"'s and "female"'s; and please do so for all the relevant grammatical inflexions. I leave it to your good will to make any corresponding interchanges of words marking sex and/or gender that I may have missed.

My argument stands. Name, dress, and behavior must be such to mask the physical reality and convince the external observer. Otherwise, the person's attempt at trans-gender has failed.

In the OP, that's exactly what happened. Tom slept with Shirely without any notice; there was nothing about her that led Tom to have any issues. Tom found out later, through a friend, that Shirely is a trans woman; a person who was assigned male at birth but has transitioned, and he made a big issue out of it.

 

[Sunstone]

Any takers for defining the male sex?

In evolutionary terms, an afterthought.