All except the first one (possibly? I'm actually not 100% sure what your view is since it's phrased a bit confusing) aren't really "heresies" in the sense of "people will vigorously attack you for it". They are perhaps way outside of mainstream politics, but that's not quite the same thing.
I happen to think that private ownership cars should be severely restricted, perhaps even outright banned. I think everyone will be better off. It's a pretty hot take and something of a "heresy", but no one is going to call my employer to get me fired, or round up a gang on Twitter to badger me over it. They make thing I'm an idiot, but that's perfectly fine.
Some are surely more heretical than others. The reason I think most of them are heresies is because of the hysterical reactions they cause when I utter them.
I think you're exaggerating what qualifies as a "heresy". It's different from people thinking you're wrong, loudly disagreeing with you, or even not wanting to associate with you once your opinion is known. If we agree with Graham's definition, you need to be fired for saying them.
Such self reports are not evidence of the reality of inherent gender, and are logically incoherent. They are surely attempts to describe an internal state of emotional distress, using phrases that the patient has overheard used by others. But they are no more “evidence” than someone saying “god is love” is evidence that “god” is “love”, or that the speaker has any coherent notion at all of what those words could possibly mean.
> They are surely attempts to describe an internal state of emotional distress
Yes, they're distressed because of this mismatch.
> But they are no more “evidence” than someone saying “god is love” is evidence that “god” is “love”, or that the speaker has any coherent notion at all of what those words could possibly mean.
You seem to be making an appeal to transcendental meaning - evidence isn't based on transcendental meaning or equivalence, it's based on observation of material reality. "gender" is a term created to describe the fact that trans people clearly have a mismatch between their sex and an internal property. That's all there is to it.
How do they know that there is a “mismatch” between their sex and an internal property? What is the internal property. What is the material reality that we can observe that corresponds to this internal property? FMRI and anatomical studies are not able to detect this internal property.
I don’t understand why you say that. The fact that people can be deluded is not an argument against the existence of minds. My position would seem to be insisting that there is plenty beyond thoughts and feelings.
What is gender, in the sense of an internal property? How do we detect it?
I think you fundamentally disagree with this, but I'd say gender is your internal sense of how you align with societal constructs that we associate with certain "gender roles". In our society this is "male" and "female", but other societies have done different things here with the same underlying biology.
Trans people are, and I'm generalizing here, people who feel their biology doesn't match up with the gender role they identify with. They often then want to align their physical presentation with that associated with the gender role, on the belief that societal roles are more important than biology. (It's very transhumanist, in a sense.)
I'll note a fairly easy example of sex and gender differing even in our society, which is intersex people. I.e. those whose physical expression lies somewhere between male or female (which isn't super-common, but certainly happens). They're ambiguous physically, and we historically make them pick (or pick for them at birth) what gender role they'll perform.
How do we detect any self belief or self image? They don't show up on scans. You have to go by reported experience.
If you think that gender dysphoria is rooted in delusion, you should probably read into it. There's a reason trans people aren't treated the same as people with anorexia or schizophrenia - it's because trans people are normative outside of being trans. It's the same kind of situation as being gay.
Doesn't this argument work about as well to deny the validity of most psychological conditions? Some have a physical basis, but a lot are entirely rooted in internal experience.
I’m not saying that psychological conditions are not real, but I don‘t know what you mean by “valid”. They’re all rooted in internal experience, and, unless you believe in a supernatural soul, all have a physical basis of some kind.
But that doesn’t mean that the language that the patient attaches to the condition needs to be taken literally, or even that it has any meaning at all. A clinician treating an emaciated anorexic patient who insists that she is overweight (a real, well-known condition) may, as part of the treatment, interact with the patient avoiding, temporarily, contradicting the accuracy of the patient’s self-description. Her condition is real and “valid”; her self-description is just another symptom.
I am using the word "valid" about how you're using "real", I suppose.
This is probably a dead end of an argument. I think you're making a value judgement about what could be possible -- you're entering the question accepting as an axiom "sex and gender are the same thing and cannot differ", and so naturally the person's reported experience must be incorrect. If you instead think "sex and gender are different things", you'd reach a different conclusion.
I’m not accepting that as an axiom. I’m asking you (and others) to explain what gender is, in this context, non-circularly. So far, I haven’t gotten a definition.
Basically, it's a set of socially prescribed behaviours and expectations based on sex. Men wear trousers and are strong, women wear dresses and are graceful. That sort of thing. There's a few different concepts mixed up in the idea of gender, but it's effectively the social aspects associated with sex.
No that defines gender role. That’s clear. That is not the gender-as-inherent-property that make it possible to say that one is born in the wrong body.
Actually, question to reevaluate: from that answer you’re okay with the existence of gender roles as distinct things from physical sex, right? Do you have any opposition to someone presenting as a gender role that doesn’t align with their physical characteristics? To altering their physical characteristics in ways they want to pursue?
If so, is your original “(1)” point entirely objecting to people saying “I feel I was born in the wrong body”? I, and I think others, were certainly reading it as “trans people aren’t a real thing”, with the implied policy implications that carries with it…
No, I said “gender role” in quotes for a reason — to group it together as a concept. If you want I can rephrase it to “societal role historically associated with a particular set of physical traits”, but I thought that was apparent.
The argument isn’t that sex and gender are entirely unrelated concepts. Just that they’re not inherently equivalent.
You still haven’t said what gender is, in the sense of an inherent, permanent property that allows one to coherently say “I was born in the wrong body.” We all know what gender roles are.
My understanding, and I’m not a professional here, is that child development studies indicate that children develop a sense of gender identity by about age three. There’s a lot of debate about how this gets determined — whether it’s biological or cultural or both. This is, as you might imagine, very difficult to ethically experiment with. After this age it’s then also very difficult to change that gender identity, such that it’s legitimately easier to treat a sex/gender mixup by helping the person involved adjust their gender presentation to match their internal sense of their gender.
You’d be free to argue that this isn’t an inherent property, I suppose, given initial probable-fluidity. But since it seems to settle into being a largely fixed part of your psyche before the point you’re likely to have permanent memories, I’m inclined to view that as a meaningless difference.
It’s at about the same level as arguing whether sexuality is an inherent property, I think? It’s another of those “it might be hardcoded or it might be early-development cultural, but it’s basically impossible to change it so…” things.
As I said before, "born in the wrong body" is actually not quite accurate, but it's used to approximate an explanation for people who aren't familiar with ideas like gender roles. Gender isn't a biological concept, it's a sociological one. Gender identity is whether you identify with the gender roles of male, or female, or neither. I didn't mean to imply that it being an "internal property" meant it was biological, as I've been trying to explain - it's psychosocial.
Edit: I think fundamentally, if you don't object to treating trans people decently like using their preferred pronouns and name, or getting surgery, I don't think it matters too much. I'm not an expert on the definitions by any means, my primary concern is opposing justifications to mistreat trans people, so if it's just a matter of terminology I guess my only suggestion is to read into what the relevant fields of study have to say if it's something you want clarity on.
I don't know, I don't like to assume these things.
Either way, some ideas are "heretical" for a reason: they lead to worse outcomes. You could argue under the same "trans are mentally ill" model that gay people are too. But we don't, because letting gay people live their lives (or more accurately, not oppressing them) leads to better outcomes. That's what it's all about. And it's the same with trans people - if they're accepted and allowed to present how they want, outcomes are better.
So you the person that PG is describing. Someone who feels that some things must not be said, even if they might be true, because of the outcomes that might result if we say them.
In what sense can "trans people are mental ill" be said to be true? Even if we only take gender dysphoria and treat it as a medical condition, it's highly resistant to therapy and is usually cured by leading the life the person wants to lead.
My position is mainly that unethical things shouldn't be advocated for. I think there's no good argument for stopping trans people for living the lives they want to live, and that people will rightly criticise you for being opposed to them exercising their freedoms. It's not that these things "can't be said" but don't be surprised if people criticise you for it. I think people calling this heresy are being melodramatic - being ratio'd on twitter is not the same thing as being burned alive at the stake.
The first one is problematic and it needs have some context. Do you think that person can define its own gender which is different that genitalia which define sex?
The other ones are opinions and I’m not aware of anybody being canceled or fired for saying those.
About to get this thread detached, but I wanted to take a stab at answering your good faith question!
My understanding is there are two groups here, and depending on where you live one or the other of them will get you into hot water:
Group A-1 believes:
1. Gendered identities are a social construct, meaning your gender is dictated by how you are perceived socially
2. Gendered expression is good
3. Every person should have equal access to all social structures
4. Therefore every person should be allowed to access whichever gender identity they prefer
5. Because gender is socially constructed, this requires your social group to be on board with assisting in the social construction of your gender identity (using the correct pronouns, etc)
6. Therefore it's wrong, and anti-freedom to deny someone's gender identity.
7. Sex is an outdated concept, existing for historical reasons to prevent #4, and in the rare cases it might be medically or sexually relevant should be replaced by a "basket of physical characteristics"... hormone levels, genital structure, etc, as the individual situation may require
Group A-2 believes:
1. Most of what A-1 believes, except:
2. Gendered expression is not good, because it is a conduit
for misogyny
3. But it's inescapable in today's society
4. And people expressing gender outside of their social assignments helps break that down
Group B-1 believes:
1. Sex is still a relevant concept medically
2. Sex is still a relevant concept because some peoples' sexualities are tied to sex not gender identity
3. Sex is still a relevant concept for understanding patriarchy, and it's counterproductive to the goals of women's liberation to try to dismantle sex groups before dismantling patriarchy.
4. Encouraging transitioning as a solution to #3 is bad, because it reifies gender roles.
5. Sex is not malleable
6. Forcing others to reify your gender identity impinges on their right to build social groups around sex identities (for reasons like #2 and #3)
7. Gendered expression is not good, because it is a conduit for misogyny
8. People should express themselves however they like, but this has nothing to do with sex or "gender"
9. Gender doesn't really exist
Group B-2 believes:
1. Most of what A-2 believes, except:
2. Gendered expression is good, because tradition
3. Patriarchy is about as powerful as Matriarchy so it is not important to dismantle
4. Encouraging transitioning is bad, because tradition
IMO this debate can rage on forever because whichever side you're on, you can pick and choose from the -1 and -2 variants to concoct an evil version of either perspective.
Also, I truly love all three of: A-1, A-2, and B-1 and I think all three of them hold very important kernels of truth. As of 2022 I can't see how they could be reconciled but it one of my greatest desires that one day they could! Save us Gen Z! I don't think I'm supposed to support B-1 in public though, so I mostly don't. And from your question I think you agree that B-1 is problematic? If I had to pick just one for society I'd pick A-2, but I think it misses a lot of the picture that B-1 is trying to hold on to.
Anyway, I thought this breakdown might help answer your question? Did it?
(2) Socrates was mostly right about democracy.
(3) Seriously violent criminals, once convicted, should never bet let out of prison.
(4) The US (and all nations) should have essentially open borders.
(5) The US should make health insurance illegal and provide health care as a function of government, the way they provide national defense.
(6) All gun control is against the US constitution and poor public policy.
These are all my sincere opinions, and, although I think most of them are clearly, sometimes self-evidently true, most of them are heresies.