Yes, but we need to agree where our "defensible ground" is. Taking "transwomen are men" for example, I'm not sure I want to defend that. I take it as undeniable that there exists both biology and society, that humans have both immutable characteristics based in their genetic code at birth, and also social characteristics based on how they fit into society as a whole.
With regard to sexual dimorphism in humans, there is the biological reality that 99% of humans are either purely male (XY) or purely female (XX), but it's also undeniably true that the social roles, mores, customs, etc., around what it means socially to be a male or a female differ quite a bit depending on the particular society. If you don't have a way of distinguishing between biology and society, then I don't think you've come close to creating a language that can accurately describe the world as it is (and by the way, the far left pushing this transgenderism crap obviously does not have such a language).
But semantically, I think the best solution is to consider that "male" and "female" are immutable biological categories, and that "man" and "woman" are social constructs that are largely but not entirely based on those biological categories. You could just as soon reverse the terminology if everyone agreed on that, it doesn't really matter. But in my opinion the right is buying into the far left's frame if the position is that society plays no role in determining what it means to be a man or a woman. The far left says that biology plays no role in, and then the right says that society plays no role. Stupidity all around, though admittedly, the far left "started it".
What you are comfortable defending is your business, but I cannot abide suggestions from pseudoreality: a trans woman is not, in fact, a woman.
Neither "man" nor "woman" are social constructs. While there is surely a social component inherent to them as vague concepts they are nonetheless firmly, and firstly moored to biological sex. This is entirely obvious, as for all the circumstances, and in every society, when a man may be said to be "girlish," or a girl may be said to be "manish," it is said to be such as a departure from the norm that specifically does not alter the underlying gender categorization. This is where the phrase "girly man" comes from. A girlish man is not partly girl, and partly man, nor more man than girl, but decidedly a man that is girly.
The specific phenomenon of transgenderism is a mental health condition not unlike schizophrenia, and would still be considered such by modern mental health practitioners if the entire institution wasn't captured by critical theorists determined to make things worse for everyone.
Gender, like sex, is immutable, and nearly always the direct, and entirely predicable consequence of genetics that are inherent to our species, and binary in nature. This is reality. There is no distinction for language to make between biology and sociology, and that sociology has attempted to skew this matter through introducing postmodernism doesn't change that fact.
Men are men. Women are women. Trans men are women. Trans women are men. Any failure to affirm these as facts is done from a position of weakness, either intellectually or constitutionally, and not because reality itself has complicated the matter.
I'd only repeat that you are essentially agreeing with the postmodern position of collapsing sex and gender together and biology and sociology together, you just take the opposite side of it. For me, it's obvious that biology and sociology are different.
You cannot obscure the categories of biological sex, or gender by ascribing nonsense definitions from postmodern sociology to them. That's not how language works. Much like pronouns are not, in fact, toys for people to play with at will. They are conventions of language, and things that have been agreed upon for centuries.
Changing things by applying niche definitions doesn't make the sociological position clever; it makes it fraudulent. They haven't managed to improve our understanding by introducing nuance. They've sought to obfuscate and undermine understanding of things we understood perfectly well in order to break normativity through the dialectical process of Hegian Scientism, and postmodern deconstructionism.
It's a cult, and it's emotional hostage taking, not reason that holds sway with such ideas. They managed to get us to put up artificial barriers to unapproved knowledge in our own minds.
I feel like we entirely agree on our abhorence of postmodernism. And I'm open to saying that "man" and "woman" have the exact same meaning as "male" and "female". But I think if we don't evolve an argument to explain why aspects of what it means to be a man and woman do vary by society, then I think we're just in the same ideological denial of reality that they are.
This simply falls into the category of a "vague concept." It doesn't have a precise definition because it cannot have one. Very many things fall into this category of definitions. But being a "vague concept" doesn't make it any less real than a firmly constrained concept. Pornography exists, but I'm not sure I could offer an all-encompassing definition. Even day and night: I can tell you it's night at midnight, and day at noon, and it's night earlier in winter, but I could not tell you when, precisely, it changes with any confidence. But day and night still exist as a binary.
That there are socially-constructed aspects of gender roles doesn't make them any less of a binary. In nearly all societies, they are binary both as biological categories and as social constructions.
Yes, but we need to agree where our "defensible ground" is. Taking "transwomen are men" for example, I'm not sure I want to defend that. I take it as undeniable that there exists both biology and society, that humans have both immutable characteristics based in their genetic code at birth, and also social characteristics based on how they fit into society as a whole.
With regard to sexual dimorphism in humans, there is the biological reality that 99% of humans are either purely male (XY) or purely female (XX), but it's also undeniably true that the social roles, mores, customs, etc., around what it means socially to be a male or a female differ quite a bit depending on the particular society. If you don't have a way of distinguishing between biology and society, then I don't think you've come close to creating a language that can accurately describe the world as it is (and by the way, the far left pushing this transgenderism crap obviously does not have such a language).
But semantically, I think the best solution is to consider that "male" and "female" are immutable biological categories, and that "man" and "woman" are social constructs that are largely but not entirely based on those biological categories. You could just as soon reverse the terminology if everyone agreed on that, it doesn't really matter. But in my opinion the right is buying into the far left's frame if the position is that society plays no role in determining what it means to be a man or a woman. The far left says that biology plays no role in, and then the right says that society plays no role. Stupidity all around, though admittedly, the far left "started it".
What you are comfortable defending is your business, but I cannot abide suggestions from pseudoreality: a trans woman is not, in fact, a woman.
Neither "man" nor "woman" are social constructs. While there is surely a social component inherent to them as vague concepts they are nonetheless firmly, and firstly moored to biological sex. This is entirely obvious, as for all the circumstances, and in every society, when a man may be said to be "girlish," or a girl may be said to be "manish," it is said to be such as a departure from the norm that specifically does not alter the underlying gender categorization. This is where the phrase "girly man" comes from. A girlish man is not partly girl, and partly man, nor more man than girl, but decidedly a man that is girly.
The specific phenomenon of transgenderism is a mental health condition not unlike schizophrenia, and would still be considered such by modern mental health practitioners if the entire institution wasn't captured by critical theorists determined to make things worse for everyone.
Gender, like sex, is immutable, and nearly always the direct, and entirely predicable consequence of genetics that are inherent to our species, and binary in nature. This is reality. There is no distinction for language to make between biology and sociology, and that sociology has attempted to skew this matter through introducing postmodernism doesn't change that fact.
Men are men. Women are women. Trans men are women. Trans women are men. Any failure to affirm these as facts is done from a position of weakness, either intellectually or constitutionally, and not because reality itself has complicated the matter.
I'd only repeat that you are essentially agreeing with the postmodern position of collapsing sex and gender together and biology and sociology together, you just take the opposite side of it. For me, it's obvious that biology and sociology are different.
You cannot obscure the categories of biological sex, or gender by ascribing nonsense definitions from postmodern sociology to them. That's not how language works. Much like pronouns are not, in fact, toys for people to play with at will. They are conventions of language, and things that have been agreed upon for centuries.
Changing things by applying niche definitions doesn't make the sociological position clever; it makes it fraudulent. They haven't managed to improve our understanding by introducing nuance. They've sought to obfuscate and undermine understanding of things we understood perfectly well in order to break normativity through the dialectical process of Hegian Scientism, and postmodern deconstructionism.
It's a cult, and it's emotional hostage taking, not reason that holds sway with such ideas. They managed to get us to put up artificial barriers to unapproved knowledge in our own minds.
I feel like we entirely agree on our abhorence of postmodernism. And I'm open to saying that "man" and "woman" have the exact same meaning as "male" and "female". But I think if we don't evolve an argument to explain why aspects of what it means to be a man and woman do vary by society, then I think we're just in the same ideological denial of reality that they are.
This simply falls into the category of a "vague concept." It doesn't have a precise definition because it cannot have one. Very many things fall into this category of definitions. But being a "vague concept" doesn't make it any less real than a firmly constrained concept. Pornography exists, but I'm not sure I could offer an all-encompassing definition. Even day and night: I can tell you it's night at midnight, and day at noon, and it's night earlier in winter, but I could not tell you when, precisely, it changes with any confidence. But day and night still exist as a binary.
That there are socially-constructed aspects of gender roles doesn't make them any less of a binary. In nearly all societies, they are binary both as biological categories and as social constructions.