Questions for transgenders/trans ideologists.

Author: Bones

Posts

Total: 28
Topic's author
#1
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
I've never been convinced by the arguments posed by trans ideologists but have never really thought it out carefully and typed it down, black and white. If the following is slightly rambled, well that's the reason this is a forum and not a debate. View this simply as a post where I let loose my fingers and say whatever I want. 

Problem 1: Change your mind? 

It is commonly asserted that gender and sex occupy different spheres. Whilst the term sex refers to biological attributes, gender is often said to be a social construct of which is in the mind. If this were the case, then why couldn’t one just change their mind? It sounds silly, but if gender has no bearing on physical biology and concerns only one's mind, surely it is easier to just change your mind. At this stage, ideologists usually say “no but XY&Z studies show that trans people have XY&Z similarities to their chosen gender”, which completely misses the point, as referencing studies conducted on the physical body no longer deals with gender, it has moved the conversation onto the realms of biology. 

Problem 2: How do you know you are meant to be your chosen gender? 

Picture the following. Since my childhood, I have always said that I am a native African (disclaimer I am not black). I have always felt “wrong”, in that my mind does not coincide with my body. For some reason, I just feel black. No doubt some of you hard core liberals would be halting at this scenario. What exactly does it mean to feel black? Am I being racist? Not at all, I have the exact same question as you do. How can one feel that they are black? Surely, the only way to know how it feels like to be black is to be black? How can a non-African possibly assert that they “feel” African without even being African? How would they know what the sensation is like? How would they know that what they feel are the feelings black people? Again, if you think that I am treading on the line of racism, I am only employing the ideology of transgendered people. My question is this. How can a cis-gender man know that what they are feeling is the sensation of being a women? This seems impossible without a point of comparison, that is, experiencing being a woman.

Problem 3: Supervenience (scientific mumbo jumbo borrowed and paraphrased from semperfortis’ debate) 

As aforementioned, the term sex is scientifically precise. he distinction between male and females rely on the genotype of the somatic cells. Simply, those who possess somatic cells with XX genotypes are female, and those with XY are male.  Thus, the notion of “sex” is reducible to facts grounded in the physical world.  

It could be argued that intersex people can’t coherently align with either “male” or “female” which could seem problematic for this position. However, it is a misconception that intersex are neither male nor female; let’s examine the types of intersex:

i)                46, XX DSD
This is where the person possesses the chromosomes of a woman, but the external genitalia appears male.  Obviously, one with this form of intersex can still be deemed female. 
 
ii)               46, XY DSD
 
iii)             46, XX ovotesticular DSD
Here is where more of a compelling argument can be made; as a person with this form is born with both ovarian and testicular tissue; and can even have both XX and XY chromosomes. However, per the definition of sexes provided, the genotype only applies to “somatic cells” which do not include reproductive cells. 
 
iv)             Sex chromosome DSD

 On the othehand, the term gender is irreducible to physical facts. Gender is reliant on social and cultural factors when determining whether one is male, female or other. These factors are wholly unquantifiable and subjective. How can one distinguish themselves as absolutely “male”, “female” or “other” using subjective factors with it actually having coherent value? To say that something is “more X”, “less X”, “X but not Y” one needs to *demonstrate a method with which he/she/other can determine the value of X*.  
 
In science, observations are reducible; for example, if we were to analyse the temperature of a closed system, we would find that temperature is actually reducible to the vibration of particles. Thus, temperature supervenes on grounded empirical axioms (law of thermodynamics).  Temperature equates to a B-Property supervening on the A-Property that is particle vibration. Indeed, to talk of the temperature of a system being 0 degrees and not 100 degrees is coherent as temperature is reducible to a quantifiable measurement grounded in the physical world.

The issue here is it is impossible for “male”, “female” or “other” to supervene on “social” or “cultural” factors as *these factors are not reducible to any fact about the physical world*. Thus, to distinguish whether one is male, or female, or other, without any scientific (i.e biological) supervenience is absurd.  Since sex supervenes on the empirical state of one’s somatic cells, it successfully supervenes on a grounded, quantifiable property. Thus, one can coherently make the distinction of “male” or “female” using the “sex” field.
 
Problem 4: Occam's razor cuts at gender. 

As mentioned above, the term sex is sufficient in explaining our understanding of biology without the need for gender. Thus, the term gender is a mere ontological burden, of which Occam's razor does not allow. Why postulate the term gender, when sex sufficiently covers the field. 

Problem 5: A slope to transracialism? 

The thing which transgender ideologists do is that they create the term gender and assert that it takes precedence over the biologically grounded term, sex. However, if this is accepted, this can be done to any field of identification. Take the example I used above, that is, a genetically non-African asserting that they are in fact black. At the current stage, there is no construct version for the term race, but let’s postulate the term “rase”. Unlike it’s cousin, “rase” is not based on biology, it is completely in the mind and has no bearing on one's physical build. Would it then be sensible for me to assert that I, from this point on deny the factual term race, and opt to identify myself through rase. Also, I want everyone else to buy into this term rase, and pretend that I am whatever race that I want to be, PS not doing so denies me of my humanity. 


Depending on the response that I receive, I may consider turning this into a debate. Either I have completely misunderstood something very simple, or ideologists out there have really neglected simple reasoning. 

#2
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Bones
I think transracialism is not a problem since what determines if one is what race is social. Race is technically a social construct. One cannot determine and change what one’s DNA is by oneself, but experts can determine whether one group of people is this race or that race.
Topic's author
#3
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
So you do think a pale white boy who's had 30 generations of Scottish genes instilled into him can claim that he is actually ethnically Japanese? 
#4
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Bones
We need more clear definitions on what makes a person ethnically Japanese. Is what makes a person ethincally Japanese just, one's genes being more similar to most Japanese people than most Chinese and American people, etc? There is nothing constituting what makes a gene or a trait "Japanese" except for that many Japanese people have them, which is still dependent on the social structure, or that which people live in which piece of land. There is no specific "Japanese" or "Scottish" gene, anyone who lives in Japan or has a Japanese citizenship should be considered Japanese, vice versa. Ethnics should not even matter at all. All people are equal, or at least SHOULD be equal to the point in which ethnicality makes zero difference.

If we still need claims like that, it means our society needs help. 
#5
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Bones
So you do think a pale white boy who's had 30 generations of Scottish genes instilled into him can claim that he is actually ethnically Japanese? 
If he was raised in Japan then yeah sure, if not then I think it would be silly for him to say that.
#6
Nyxified
Nyxified's avatar
Debates: 21
Posts: 224
2
3
9
Nyxified's avatar
Nyxified
2
3
9
-->
@Bones
Trans person here: Let me start by saying that it doesn't matter how something seems if the facts are contradictory.

It sounds silly, but if gender has no bearing on physical biology and concerns only one's mind, surely it is easier to just change your mind.
Please believe that millions of us have tried and millions who hate us have tried twice as hard, and yet, it hasn't worked. I don't think I have to link citations to say that conversion therapy, including conversion therapy for trans people, doesn't work. Period. If it was so easy to just 'change my mind', I would've done it, and for 14 years, I tried. I'm not exactly interested in a life of discrimination from transphobes, and I'm certainly not looking forward to the medical expenses either, but I wasn't given the option.

Picture the following. Since my childhood, I have always said that I am a native African (disclaimer I am not black). I have always felt “wrong”, in that my mind does not coincide with my body. For some reason, I just feel black. No doubt some of you hard core liberals would be halting at this scenario. What exactly does it mean to feel black? Am I being racist? Not at all, I have the exact same question as you do. How can one feel that they are black? Surely, the only way to know how it feels like to be black is to be black? How can a non-African possibly assert that they “feel” African without even being African? How would they know what the sensation is like? How would they know that what they feel are the feelings black people? Again, if you think that I am treading on the line of racism, I am only employing the ideology of transgendered people. My question is this. How can a cis-gender man know that what they are feeling is the sensation of being a women? This seems impossible without a point of comparison, that is, experiencing being a woman.
To quote the psychiatrist that diagnosed me with ADHD and recommended to my doctor I start on medication: "The best way to know for sure that you have a disorder is to see if the treatment for that disorder works." We can talk about gender, about how it coincides with identity, what it feels like, non-western ideas of gender, all that stuff, but that's a bit too complicated for me to write as I'm low-key behind schedule going to the bank, eheh. What we know for certain is that there are people who experience distress at looking like, sounding like, being considered as, and being expected to act as their sociocultural environment would expect from the gender that they themselves do not align with.

Furthermore, what we also know is that this distress goes away with gender affirming care with a great deal of success (I can expand upon this later if you want). We know there are thousands of accounts of people who just felt something was "off" and, upon learning what it meant to be transgender, figured out what was wrong. I'm one of those people.

There are millions of trans people that have existed across thousands of years, and we know that there's a condition and we know what the solution to it is. The condition is being gender non-conforming (to varying degrees of distress if any) and the solution is transition (to whatever degree the individual desires and to achieve a varying degree of gender euphoria). If the same were said for transracial people, it'd be different, but it's not. We don't have thousands of studies of people looking at their skin colour and thinking "this is wrong" and that being improved when they change their skin colour. One might be able to culturally, legally (through citizenship), and socially become an African, and in that sense you are 'an African' , but to become black is different entirely.

You can know that the pain you're experiencing is the pain of being a gender you're not when you start being the gender you are and the pain goes away.

 On the othehand, the term gender is irreducible to physical facts. Gender is reliant on social and cultural factors when determining whether one is male, female or other. These factors are wholly unquantifiable and subjective. How can one distinguish themselves as absolutely “male”, “female” or “other” using subjective factors with it actually having coherent value? To say that something is “more X”, “less X”, “X but not Y” one needs to *demonstrate a method with which he/she/other can determine the value of X*.  
I wonder why that could be? Maybe it's that gender is a personal experience/identifier that is shaped by one's own experience and perception no different from how any other aspects of their identity or personality are? They are no more 'subjective' than saying "I'm lazy." The lack of objectivity is meaningless. There's not supposed to be objectivity behind an identity, and what the identities mean are subject to change based on the opinion of the one identifying as such. You can't simultaneously argue that gender is subjective (which I agree with) and say that because sex chromosomes are objective and some experts view them as meaning something about sex or gender (which is a professional, subjective opinion) that being trans doesn't make sense. This explanation is probably bad (I am rushing), but I'll try to go into more detail later.

The issue here is it is impossible for “male”, “female” or “other” to supervene on “social” or “cultural” factors as *these factors are not reducible to any fact about the physical world*. Thus, to distinguish whether one is male, or female, or other, without any scientific (i.e biological) supervenience is absurd.  Since sex supervenes on the empirical state of one’s somatic cells, it successfully supervenes on a grounded, quantifiable property. Thus, one can coherently make the distinction of “male” or “female” using the “sex” field.
Again, I don't disagree with you. You're talking about sex, and I am agreeing (to a certain degree) that it exists, but again, this doesn't have something to do with gender and the existence of physical sex doesn't make transgenderism illogical.

As mentioned above, the term sex is sufficient in explaining our understanding of biology without the need for gender. Thus, the term gender is a mere ontological burden, of which Occam's razor does not allow. Why postulate the term gender, when sex sufficiently covers the field. 
Maybe it's the millions of people experiencing distress that their identity does not match with their body. You're assuming gender is designed to talk about biology in the first place, and honestly this seems hardly different from a slippery slope into biological essentialism.

"The thing which transgender ideologists do is that they create the term gender and assert that it takes precedence over the biologically grounded term, sex. However, if this is accepted, this can be done to any field of identification. Take the example I used above, that is, a genetically non-African asserting that they are in fact black. At the current stage, there is no construct version for the term race, but let’s postulate the term “rase”. Unlike it’s cousin, “rase” is not based on biology, it is completely in the mind and has no bearing on one's physical build. Would it then be sensible for me to assert that I, from this point on deny the factual term race, and opt to identify myself through rase. Also, I want everyone else to buy into this term rase, and pretend that I am whatever race that I want to be, PS not doing so denies me of my humanity. "
We quite literally don't. Sex and gender are different things and neither is a replacement for the other. If we could establish that someone could identify as a race that does not match their physical race, that they experience distress because of this, that it is alleviated significantly when they transition to another race, and that they can actually become a race that differs from the one they were at birth, then yeah, transracialism would make sense. The problem is that it doesn't meet any of these goalposts that transgenderism does.

#7
Nyxified
Nyxified's avatar
Debates: 21
Posts: 224
2
3
9
Nyxified's avatar
Nyxified
2
3
9
-->
@Bones
Oh yeah, and with regards to chromosomes, I can also bring that up if you think it's a sticking point.

Topic's author
#8
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
So you do think a pale white boy who's had 30 generations of Scottish genes instilled into him can claim that he is actually ethnically Japanese? 
If he was raised in Japan then yeah sure, if not then I think it would be silly for him to say that.
But being raised in Japanese doesn't change that fact this guy has no ancestry connection with the Japanese.I can take this one step further and bring in trans-speciesism if you like. Can I, as a homosapien, create a new term, let's call it speeshees (as opposed to species), and say that now I am actually an elephant? 
Topic's author
#9
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
We need more clear definitions on what makes a person ethnically Japanese.

There is nothing constituting what makes a gene or a trait "Japanese" except for that many Japanese people have them, which is still dependent on the social structure, or that which people live in which piece of land.
Sure, there are abnormal cases, but to say that there is absolutely no way of identifying a Japanese from a Scottish guy is simply absurd. With this level of skepticism, I could argue for trans-speciesism on the basis that there is no universe characteristic of which all people possess. Whilst determining a single factor which all people have in common is difficult, that isn't to say that there is absolutely no way for one to identify a lobster from a human being. 

I can take this one step further and bring in trans-speciesism if you like. Can I, as a homosapien, create a new term, let's call it speeshees (as opposed to species), and say that now I am actually an elephant? 
#10
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Bones
But being raised in Japanese doesn't change that fact this guy has no ancestry connection with the Japanese.
I missed the word ethnic in your post, my bad. I was thinking of nationalities rather than ethnicities. I actually agree with you completely, sorry about the misunderstanding.

What do you think of the person in your example identifying themselves as Japanese as their national heritage? (the way I identify as American despite some of my ancestors being from Germany)?
#11
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
you are actually spot on correct, that is an ethnically Japanese who is caucasian racially.

You don't genetically inherit your parents' culture or tendencies, accents or anything. It should be completely unnecessary for a white man raised in India to need to unlearn his real accent just to not be punched and called racist when/if he emigrated to another place where people didn't realise he was genuinely having that accent and the head-nod tendencies due to how he was raised.

What we call 'ethnicity' is in fact a wrong usage of the term, it never ever should have a thing to do with genes, so your original answer is correct.

That white scot with a lot of ancestry within Scottish ethnicity is himself 100% ethnically Japanese unless he feels part of a Scottish subculture within Japan or visited Scotland so often in his adolescence and childhood that he can truly say he's formed habit and has outlooks that closer match scottishs than japanese ethnicity.
Topic's author
#12
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Nyxified
Problem 1: Change your mind? 

Bones: It sounds silly, but if gender has no bearing on physical biology and concerns only one's mind, surely it is easier to just change your mind.
Nyxified: Please believe that millions of us have tried and millions who hate us have tried twice as hard, and yet, it hasn't worked. I don't think I have to link citations to say that conversion therapy, including conversion therapy for trans people, doesn't work. Period. If it was so easy to just 'change my mind', I would've done it, and for 14 years, I tried. I'm not exactly interested in a life of discrimination from transphobes, and I'm certainly not looking forward to the medical expenses either, but I wasn't given the option.
But then surely if you cannot change your mind, then it is a biological issue. What is the point of defining gender as something which has bearing on biology, and then using biological phenomenons to justify the word? It seems that either 

a) gender is in the mind so you can just change your mind
b) gender is not in the mind silly ideas like "change your mind" won't work, as the issue is more firmly grounded in science. 

I wholeheartedly agree that trans people aren't merely some attention seeking folks. But the issue I have is that they propose gender is in the mind, when it is very clear that there are "issues" in the biological wiring of trans people. (I'm not trying to be transphobic, but clearly someone who thinks they are a boy when they are a girl has, at best some small issue. After all, it would be much better for everyone if a trans female was born as a female) 

Problem 2: How do you know you are meant to be your chosen gender? 

Bones: Picture the following. Since my childhood, I have always said that I am a native African (disclaimer I am not black). I have always felt “wrong”, in that my mind does not coincide with my body. For some reason, I just feel black. No doubt some of you hard core liberals would be halting at this scenario. What exactly does it mean to feel black? Am I being racist? Not at all, I have the exact same question as you do. How can one feel that they are black? Surely, the only way to know how it feels like to be black is to be black? How can a non-African possibly assert that they “feel” African without even being African? How would they know what the sensation is like? How would they know that what they feel are the feelings black people? Again, if you think that I am treading on the line of racism, I am only employing the ideology of transgendered people. My question is this. How can a cis-gender man know that what they are feeling is the sensation of being a women? This seems impossible without a point of comparison, that is, experiencing being a woman.
To quote the psychiatrist that diagnosed me with ADHD and recommended to my doctor I start on medication: "The best way to know for sure that you have a disorder is to see if the treatment for that disorder works."
Not necessarily. With this standard, one could easily justify things which are (I hope we  agree) absolutely ridiculous such as trans-speciesism. I could easily say "I feel like I'm a crab, and getting the entire world to acknowledge this fact will make me happy". The fact is not whether the treatment is effective, it is whether the treatment is synonymous with our understanding of science. Many things will treat many other things. Allowing a wife beater to beat his wife is certainly allowing him to do what he wants, but obviously this is not the best option that there is. 

Nyxified: We can talk about gender, about how it coincides with identity, what it feels like, non-western ideas of gender, all that stuff, but that's a bit too complicated for me to write as I'm low-key behind schedule going to the bank, eheh. What we know for certain is that there are people who experience distress at looking like, sounding like, being considered as, and being expected to act as their sociocultural environment would expect from the gender that they themselves do not align with.
I'm not denying that there is some issue present, but distress is and has never been a reason to adjust science. If transgendered people are feeling distress, and transitioning helps them (I am dubious, but I'll have to look into this more) then maybe transitioning can be used as therapeutic. As a compromise, for the sake of ease, a case could be made for acknowledging transgender persons gender in social situations, but to say that in terms of biology, a man can literally become a women if they want seems to be objectively false. 

Nyxified: You can know that the pain you're experiencing is the pain of being a gender you're not when you start being the gender you are and the pain goes away.
Like I said, I completely get the pain which transgender people undergo and as I stated above, I am all for making their lives easier in social situations. What I would be hesitant in doing is rewriting what I would consider simple biology. Though it is difficult to pin a single characteristic which binds all men together and all women together, simply due to the existence of mutations and deformities, that isn't to say that there are no difference between men and women. 


Topic's author
#13
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9

Problem 3: Supervenience

Bones: On the othehand, the term gender is irreducible to physical facts. Gender is reliant on social and cultural factors when determining whether one is male, female or other. These factors are wholly unquantifiable and subjective. How can one distinguish themselves as absolutely “male”, “female” or “other” using subjective factors with it actually having coherent value? To say that something is “more X”, “less X”, “X but not Y” one needs to *demonstrate a method with which he/she/other can determine the value of X*.  
Nyxified: I wonder why that could be? Maybe it's that gender is a personal experience/identifier that is shaped by one's own experience and perception no different from how any other aspects of their identity or personality are? They are no more 'subjective' than saying "I'm lazy." The lack of objectivity is meaningless. There's not supposed to be objectivity behind an identity, and what the identities mean are subject to change based on the opinion of the one identifying as such. You can't simultaneously argue that gender is subjective (which I agree with) and say that because sex chromosomes are objective and some experts view them as meaning something about sex or gender (which is a professional, subjective opinion) that being trans doesn't make sense. This explanation is probably bad (I am rushing), but I'll try to go into more detail later.
Perhaps I didn't convey my point very well (semperfortis is levels above my intelligence), so I'll try and simplify it for both our sake.

Normally, concepts have properties that they instantiate in reality.  For example, the concept of an apple is, typically, a red pome fruit.  Therefore, something is an ‘apple’ in reality, if it is both ‘red’ and is a ‘pome fruit’.  This is similar to classes and instantiation in object oriented programming. A concept that has no real properties, is an internally inconsistent concept, for example, something “north of the north pole”, or a “squared circle”.

When we speak of a concept’s properties we tend to divide them into “primary” and “secondary” properties.  A primary property is an objective feature of the world.  For example, a primary property of a t-shirt would be that it is made of cotton wool.  Secondary properties are that which are ungrounded and are mindful, for example colour, temperature, mass, smell etc.  

Secondary properties (what I initially referred to as B-Properties) supervene on primary properties (also known as A-properties).  For instance, temperature equates to a B-Property supervening on the A-Property that is particle vibration. B-properties change if and only if A-Properties are changed; you increase the vibration of the particles (add energy to the system), the temperature changes.

For us to talk reasonably of an entity, its primary essence ought to be described.  Secondary properties, don’t actually describe anything about an entity’s essence.  For example, to state that x is 100 degrees, the fact that it is 100 degrees doesn’t establish any primary essence of x. However, if x were water, now we have a primary essence, that is a collection of molecularly bonded hydrogen and oxygen atoms that are 100 degrees in temperature.  It is similarly akin to stating that entity x is 100 kilograms, but its mass evinces no reasonable description to what entity x actually is.

Therefore, it is clear that the description of a thing cannot be comprised of purely B-properties. 

Linking back to the initial point, the issue that it is impossible for “male”, “female” or “other” to supervene on “social” or “cultural” factors as these factors are not reducible to any fact about the physical world. Thus, to distinguish whether one is male, or female, or other, without any scientific (i.e biological) supervenience is absurd.  Since sex supervenes on the empirical state of one’s somatic cells, it successfully supervenes on a grounded, quantifiable property. Thus, one can coherently make the distinction of “male” or “female” using the “sex” field.

Problem 4: Occam's razor cuts at gender. 

As mentioned above, the term sex is sufficient in explaining our understanding of biology without the need for gender. Thus, the term gender is a mere ontological burden, of which Occam's razor does not allow. Why postulate the term gender, when sex sufficiently covers the field. 
Maybe it's the millions of people experiencing distress that their identity does not match with their body. You're assuming gender is designed to talk about biology in the first place, and honestly this seems hardly different from a slippery slope into biological essentialism.
I see, this makes sense. I would actually be in favour of separating the terms sex and gender, where gender acts like the term ethnicity and sex acts like the term race. However, my issue comes when transgender people assert that, post transitioning, they are biologically whatever they want. I believe that this is akin to a racially Scottish man to, after a lifetime of Japanese cultural, assert that racially, he is Japanese. I am all for this Scottish man to say that ethnically he is Japanese, but racially, he is Scottish. 

Bones: "The thing which transgender ideologists do is that they create the term gender and assert that it takes precedence over the biologically grounded term, sex. However, if this is accepted, this can be done to any field of identification. Take the example I used above, that is, a genetically non-African asserting that they are in fact black. At the current stage, there is no construct version for the term race, but let’s postulate the term “rase”. Unlike it’s cousin, “rase” is not based on biology, it is completely in the mind and has no bearing on one's physical build. Would it then be sensible for me to assert that I, from this point on deny the factual term race, and opt to identify myself through rase. Also, I want everyone else to buy into this term rase, and pretend that I am whatever race that I want to be, PS not doing so denies me of my humanity. "
Nyxified: If we could establish that someone could identify as a race that does not match their physical race, that they experience distress because of this, that it is alleviated significantly when they transition to another race, and that they can actually become a race that differs from the one they were at birth, then yeah, transracialism would make sense.
I suppose this is just a fundamental point we disagree with. I don't believe that, no matter how much distress you are in, if you want to become black you can just erase your ancestry and do so. I am all for this person saying "culturally, and ethnically I am African" but to say that your race has magically changed? That's a bit too far. 
Topic's author
#14
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Nyxified
I rambled on a little so feel free to take your time and paraphrase what I have said if you wish. 
Topic's author
#15
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What do you think of the person in your example identifying themselves as Japanese as their national heritage? (the way I identify as American despite some of my ancestors being from Germany)?
I would have no problems with them saying that they are ethnically Japanese. Recall, race includes phenotypic characteristics such as skin color, whereas ethnicity encompasses cultural factors such as nationality, tribal affiliation, religion, language and traditions of a particular group. Just like how you say you are ethnically American, I am fine with out hypothetical subject saying they are ethnically Japanese. The issue comes if one begins saying things like "racially, genetically, phenotypically, I am Japanese" despite the contrary being obviously true is where the issue comes from. 
#16
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Bones
race includes phenotypic characteristics such as skin color, whereas ethnicity encompasses cultural factors such as...
Okay, that basically answers all your questions then. The "transgenders/trans ideologists" you are addressing in the title basically think this about sex vs. gender.

We don't have to agree with them but now you at least get what they are saying.
#17
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
Nyxified

(She has me blocked apparently because our political beliefs are different which shows you how tolerant she is, but the message below is for her.



Please believe that millions of us have tried and millions who hate us have tried twice as hard, and yet, it hasn't worked. I don't think I have to link citations to say that conversion therapy, including conversion therapy for trans people, doesn't work. Period. If it was so easy to just 'change my mind', I would've done it, and for 14 years, I tried. I'm not exactly interested in a life of discrimination from transphobes, and I'm certainly not looking forward to the medical expenses either, but I wasn't given the option.

There is two reasons people become trannies.

1. They hate themselves. Maybe they were abused or mistreated as children, maybe not but they learned to hate themselves, so they think becoming a woman will erase the them that they hate. 

This is why the suicide rate among trannies is so high. Once they transition, they still realize that they are who they are and fail to escape themselves. This is all subconscious ofcourse so they don't realize it.  

This by far is the majority of trannies. I suggest seeking psychological help, so you can learn to love yourself. Mutilating yourself is not going to help you love yourself. Seek help with your gender dysphagia

2. The second type is the sicko who are attracted to the ideal of being the opposite gender. They really aren't much different than those people who cut off their own limbs because they fantasize about being handicapped. This requires more than just loving yourself. 

You probably fall under category one. I want you to know you are loved. If nobody in your life has shown you, you are loved than allow Jesus to. Jesus loves you. He's okay with you being a homosexual or fantasizing about being a girl. He wants to just show you that you are worthy of love. Come to Jesus 
#18
Nyxified
Nyxified's avatar
Debates: 21
Posts: 224
2
3
9
Nyxified's avatar
Nyxified
2
3
9
-->
@Wylted
I blocked you because of all the anti-semitic posts you make, but you can believe that if you'd like.

I'll repost what I told you in a previous post.

You give two reasons a person might transition (with no sources again), the first is called 'autogynephilia'. I won't examine this too harshly since you acquiesce that it is rare (astronomically so to the point of insignificance). But it's worth noting that 93% of cis women are autogynephiliacs[2] and autogynephilia was invented to prove lesbian trans females only exist because of men who get aroused while cross-dressing and was made by the same person who argued that trans women were nothing more than extremely effeminate gay men[3]. The theory as a whole has no basis in logic[3].

Your second reason is... Interesting. Again, as a trans person, I find it bold to assume that in a world where you can be put to death for being transgender, trans people are routinely disowned and left homeless[4], face 2x the poverty rate and 3x the unemployment rate[5], and where violence and discrimination are an incredibly regular occurrence, your first presumption is to chalk the suicide rate up to trans people 'still being themselves'.

It's even more interesting when you realize that 91% of trans people who have undergone transition surgery would do it again if given the chance[6], something I'm sure you'll ignore by saying it's because those who are dissatisfied are committing suicide (again). This is in spite of a study over 45 years long found <0.6% of 8000+ trans people died by suicide (also showing rates stayed consistent throughout transition)[7] and studies show transition improves mental health/reduces dysphoria[8][9][10][11]. If you would like to claim the Swedish study by that shows increased rates of suicide after transition, here's the researcher who conducted the study saying that, not only is that not what the study shows, but also that transition reduces suicide rates[12].

Here's some more sources on satisfaction with gender transition for good measure, including a review of 72 studies that said "The scholarly literature makes clear that gender transition is effective in treating gender dysphoria and can significantly improve the well-being of transgender individuals.[11]"[8][9][10][11]

Sorry for the long post. My response to debate should drop tomorrow or the day after.

Sources:
1. "What to know about female-to-male surgery" https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326590#surgery
3. "The Autogynephilia Theory Debunked by New German Study" https://www.crossdreamers.com/2020/05/the-autogynephilia-theory-debunked-by.html
5. "New U.S. Transgender Survey has compelling data about being trans in America" https://www.glaad.org/blog/new-us-transgender-survey-has-compelling-data-about-being-trans-america
7. "Trends in suicide death risk in transgender people: results from the Amsterdam Cohort of Gender Dysphoria study (1972–2017)" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317390/
8. "Psychosocial Adjustment to Sex Reassignment Surgery: A Qualitative Examination and Personal Experiences of Six Transsexual Persons in Croatia" https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/960745/
9. "Long-Term Follow-Up of Adults with Gender Identity Disorder" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-014-0453-5
10. "Long-term Assessment of the Physical, Mental, and Sexual Health among Transsexual Women" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23553588_Long-term_Assessment_of_the_Physical_Mental_and_Sexual_Health_among_Transsexual_Women
11. "What does the scholarly research say about the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being? " https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/
12. "Fact check: study shows transition makes trans people suicidal" https://www.transadvocate.com/fact-check-study-shows-transition-makes-trans-people-suicidal_n_15483.htm

#19
Nyxified
Nyxified's avatar
Debates: 21
Posts: 224
2
3
9
Nyxified's avatar
Nyxified
2
3
9
-->
@Bones
I’ve realized that my previous post had a somewhat condescending and hostile tone to it, likely from sheer force of habit as I’m usually saying these things to people who are actively hateful. Nonetheless, I wanted to apologize for that. My conduct wasn’t particularly amiable despite yours has been, and I am sorry for that. Now that I have some more free time, I’ll try to go further in depth.

But then surely if you cannot change your mind, then it is a biological issue. What is the point of defining gender as something which has bearing on biology, and then using biological phenomenons to justify the word? It seems that either 

a) gender is in the mind so you can just change your mind
b) gender is not in the mind silly ideas like "change your mind" won't work, as the issue is more firmly grounded in science. 

I wholeheartedly agree that trans people aren't merely some attention seeking folks. But the issue I have is that they propose gender is in the mind, when it is very clear that there are "issues" in the biological wiring of trans people. (I'm not trying to be transphobic, but clearly someone who thinks they are a boy when they are a girl has, at best some small issue. After all, it would be much better for everyone if a trans female was born as a female)

(Also I do want to note that the term ‘non-physical’ is dubious)

This is a non-sequitur. As I said at the beginning of my first post, just because something seems a way doesn’t prove anything if the facts are contradictory. Gender is a part of identity and personhood, both things which are a part of the mind (whether you believe there’s a spiritual part of that which goes beyond the body [as I do] or not, they at least are connected to the brain), and I agree that gender is thus in the mind, but I don’t agree that you can change your mind. The issue of gender incongruence is no more biological than the issue of depression or ADHD.

As afraid as I am that I am accidentally trying to sever the realms of neuroscience and biology, I’m going to try to word this carefully to try and avoid that. Something can both be non-physical/of the mind and still be biological. We know that certain aspects of the brain (e.g. neutron densities, areas of more or less activity, etc…) in trans females aligns with cis females, yet nonetheless, it’s still in the mind. This is similar for people with depression, ADHD, risk-taking tendencies, workaholics, etc… They’re all things that exist in the mind, but neuroscience shows that there are very real neurobiological differences in the brain.

It’s easy to say that because it’s in the mind that you can change it, but think of gender incongruence as it is: a disorder. Again, I have ADHD (and to a significantly lesser part, currently or formerly [I’m not sure tbh], anxiety and depression). I was never able to just change my mind, and even if I can reach a point where I can function and act like I don’t, that doesn’t mean I’ll ever be ‘rid’ of ADHD or that it won’t make my quality of life worse. I guess to give a TL;DR: the mind and the non-physical can still be biological to some degree.

Not necessarily. With this standard, one could easily justify things which are (I hope we  agree) absolutely ridiculous such as trans-speciesism. I could easily say "I feel like I'm a crab, and getting the entire world to acknowledge this fact will make me happy". The fact is not whether the treatment is effective, it is whether the treatment is synonymous with our understanding of science. Many things will treat many other things. Allowing a wife beater to beat his wife is certainly allowing him to do what he wants, but obviously this is not the best option that there is.
Indeed we could. I should’ve been more specific in my initial post, but this is specifically about mental disorders and knowing that you have one. If you want to know you have one, you get the treatment for it and see if the problem goes away. If it does, you know you have it. How do we know if your distress is because you’re not a girl? Well, become a girl and see if the distress goes away (this is far from the correct way to describe being trans or transitioning but you know what I mean). 

I said this in response to your question which was:

“My question is this. How can a cis-gender man know that what they are feeling is the sensation of being a women? This seems impossible without a point of comparison, that is, experiencing being a woman.”
I can never know I am experiencing the sensation of being a woman the same way I can’t know if you see the same colours that I see, but one can ‘know’ they’re transgender because they experience distress that is relieved with gender affirming care or euphoria after gender affirming care. This is the same way that one can know if they have ADHD. One might be able to ‘know’ they’re transspecies if they met this criteria, but none of this was designed to speak about the validity of being transgender or transracial or transspecies. I addressed those later on. Whether or not we feel the exact same way about our gender or identity as a cis woman, we feel that we are women and we will take the actions necessary to align our outward expression with our inwards identity. That’s all that’s needed in the same way that all that’s needed to say “that’s the colour red” is not to know that you see the exact same red as I do, but the fact that we’ll both agree to give that colour the label of ‘red.’

I'm not denying that there is some issue present, but distress is and has never been a reason to adjust science. If transgendered people are feeling distress, and transitioning helps them (I am dubious, but I'll have to look into this more) then maybe transitioning can be used as therapeutic. As a compromise, for the sake of ease, a case could be made for acknowledging transgender persons gender in social situations, but to say that in terms of biology, a man can literally become a women if they want seems to be objectively false.
Here are some sources on transition helping trans people (These sources were originally used to prove that trans people aren’t all depressed or whatever, so they might not all be applicable, but at least a few of them can give insight. I’m certain that, if you look it up as well, you’ll find more sources for this. It’s accepted by almost every psychologist):


Trends in suicide death risk in transgender people: results from the Amsterdam Cohort of Gender Dysphoria study (1972–2017) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317390/

Psychosocial Adjustment to Sex Reassignment Surgery: A Qualitative Examination and Personal Experiences of Six Transsexual Persons in Croatia https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/960745/

Long-Term Follow-Up of Adults with Gender Identity Disorder https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-014-0453-5


What does the scholarly research say about the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being? https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/


#20
Nyxified
Nyxified's avatar
Debates: 21
Posts: 224
2
3
9
Nyxified's avatar
Nyxified
2
3
9
-->
@Bones
It’s at this point that we’re talking about two different things: How someone can be transgender mentally and how someone could change their gender physically. All of what I said up to this point has talked about how one can be trans mentally, but I do want to emphasize that these are different questions. You also discuss chromosomes a lot, so I’m responding to that here too.

These are (most of) the chromosomes you can have:

  • XX
  • XY
  • X
  • XXX
  • XXY
  • XYY
  • XXXX
  • XXXY
  • XXYY
  • XYYY
  • XXXXX
  • XXXXY
  • XXXYY
  • XXYYY
  • XYYYY

Your presumption is that the presence of a y chromosome at all makes someone female. Even if it does, these are all different chromosomes that have different properties. To simply place the barrier of “having a Y chromosome” on being of the female sex is a meaningless, pointless distinction. We can easily draw lines to separate things, but what worth are they if the lines don’t mean anything?

Sure, you could continue to divide sex by chromosomes and chromosomes only, but at the end of the day, once you reach the point of accepting that someone who is in every conceivable, biological/physical way a woman except for the fact that they have male chromosomes and thus are a man, it becomes meaningless. Sex stops being able to tell us anything and stops showing anything more than chromosomes. A woman who is a woman in every way but has the chromosomes of a man is obviously still a woman, even if technically they’re not because of their chromosomes, and they have all the biology we’d expect from a woman except for chromosomes. In that sense, I suppose I’d agree with you, as chromosomes are unchangeable, but I ask one question: what’s the point?

What’s the point of dividing sex based on this one characteristic that impacts nothing, this one meaningless fact that separates two groups of people and then tries to make commentary far beyond that one fact? Trans women may never have female chromosomes, but so what? Where’s the value in saying “But they’ll never biologically be a woman” when, again, this distinction between biological men and women impacts nothing. To quote Pediaa.com (https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-xx-and-xy-chromosomes/ ):

"...the main difference between XX and XY chromosomes is the type of gender in which they occur." 
Trans women can have breasts, female muscle/fat distribution, female voices, female hormones, female neurobiology, etc… In all ways that matter, they are women and doctors should give them care as women, even if they technically aren’t. It’s not overwriting biology to say that setting a meaningless threshold to divide two groups and to then try to derive any use or function from that meaningless division is pointless, and all of this rests on the assumption that people insurmountably more often than not only fall into the male or female box, which I discussed earlier.

If a woman one day finds out she has male chromosomes, she is a woman, and we need not just ‘pretend’ she is for the sake of her own well-being. She is a woman physically, mentally, socially, culturally, and personally.

“B-properties change if and only if A-Properties are changed; you increase the vibration of the particles (add energy to the system), the temperature changes.”
This reminds me somewhat of physical vs chemical properties from chemistry class. I apologize if I am not understanding, but I’ll try to.

Take the example of female biology. Some common A-properties of women would be:

  • They have breasts
  • They have female muscle/fat distribution patterns
  • They have higher or lower neuron densities in certain parts of the brain compared to men
  • They have female chromosomes
  • They have a uterus and ovaries
  • They have a vagina
  • They have female hormones
  • Etc…

All of these relate to the questions of what is, how much is there, and where is it? These are all A-properties. However, not all women have all of these A-properties. In apples, due to the presence of certain plant pigments (not just colour, which would be a B-property, but rather colour is a result of the A-property that is the specific substance [or ‘essence’] that makes up the skin of an apple), they can have different colours. Some apple skins are red due to the plant pigment lycopene and some are green due to chlorophyll. These plant pigments are different A-properties as, again, it is referring to a difference in what actually makes up the apple. 

It is an absurd claim to say that a green apple is an entirely different fruit from a red apple. This, along with common sense of women who have their uterus removed are not men, shows that the removal or addition of an A-property does not change the group of ‘thing’ that the object is a part of. I say all of this because you discussed chromosomes when saying this, which are only one singular A-property. I see no reason that trans women, who contain all of these A-properties but one, shouldn’t be considered biological women when the removal of some other A-property doesn’t make biological women into men. Gender does not aim to make a commentary on the biological nonetheless.

“I suppose this is just a fundamental point we disagree with. I don't believe that, no matter how much distress you are in, if you want to become black you can just erase your ancestry and do so. I am all for this person saying "culturally, and ethnically I am African" but to say that your race has magically changed? That's a bit too far.”
I don’t disagree, I think transracialism is ridiculous and I was only trying to show why the comparison to transracialism and transgenderism didn’t make sense. Referring to the above in which I discussed A-properties, the fact of the matter is that, as far as I know, non-black people can’t gain the A-properties of black people. Things like skin colour or the tendency to have certain genes aren’t things you can just acquire.

Sorry this was so long, but I hope I've convinced you somewhat.
#21
Nyxified
Nyxified's avatar
Debates: 21
Posts: 224
2
3
9
Nyxified's avatar
Nyxified
2
3
9
-->
@Bones
I was unsatisfied with the links I gave to show how transition does improve the lives of trans people as many are designed to prove something else entirely. Here are some better ones:

#22
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@Bones

/trans ideologists.
is transgender an ideology?
#23
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,259
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@drlebronski
Transgender is an adaptation of a primary drive.....Associated concepts and methodologies are nowadays widely promoted as a socially recognisable issues....So certainly qualifies as an ideology.
#24
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Bones
So you do think a pale white boy who's had 30 generations of Scottish genes instilled into him can claim that he is actually ethnically Japanese? 
By "ethnically," do you mean genetically? We are, in fact, whatever our parents are, and, curiously, and perhaps appropriately, we are all Homo sapiens, regardless of family ties, and without an appending descriptive by ethnicity, so why should we even think in such segregating terms?
#25
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,259
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@949havoc
Why.

Because we do.

That really is what the whole thinking thing is all about.
#26
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes, but why/because is an unsatisfying logic, even though legitimate
#27
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,259
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@949havoc
I find that questioning why we do what we do, is something of a time machine exercise.

We should perhaps accept that we do what we do, and move forwards from there.

To a point where history becomes what we did.

Though I think that we already do this anyway.

We have a tendency to attempt to shut the stable door after the horse as bolted, by attempting to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.

And so we eventually shut the door, as it were.

50 days later

#28
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Bones
It is commonly asserted that gender and sex occupy different spheres. Whilst the term sex refers to biological attributes, gender is often said to be a social construct of which is in the mind. If this were the case, then why couldn’t one just change their mind? It sounds silly, but if gender has no bearing on physical biology and concerns only one's mind, surely it is easier to just change your mind. At this stage, ideologists usually say “no but XY&Z studies show that trans people have XY&Z similarities to their chosen gender”, which completely misses the point, as referencing studies conducted on the physical body no longer deals with gender, it has moved the conversation onto the realms of biology. 
The short answer is because of you. You will consistently misgender any trans person who cannot "pass" but also because looking in the mirror feels wrong. It doesn't match internal identity causing dysphoria. It is a little like getting older. I still identify as younger than I am and am always surprised when my body doesn't do a thing that I once could do without thinking and when I look in the mirror I am always horrified by how old I look. This is my best understanding. I've also heard it described as uncomfortable in the same way it is uncomfortable to wear two different socks of different sizes that are black so the heal and the seam rest uncomfortably... oh and one is wet. If you are cis you might try imagining waking up one day as the wrong gender and imagine how uncomfortable that would make you.
Picture the following. Since my childhood, I have always said that I am a native African (disclaimer I am not black). I have always felt “wrong”, in that my mind does not coincide with my body. For some reason, I just feel black. No doubt some of you hard core liberals would be halting at this scenario. What exactly does it mean to feel black? Am I being racist? Not at all, I have the exact same question as you do. How can one feel that they are black? Surely, the only way to know how it feels like to be black is to be black? How can a non-African possibly assert that they “feel” African without even being African? How would they know what the sensation is like? How would they know that what they feel are the feelings black people? Again, if you think that I am treading on the line of racism, I am only employing the ideology of transgendered people. My question is this. How can a cis-gender man know that what they are feeling is the sensation of being a women? This seems impossible without a point of comparison, that is, experiencing being a woman.
Is it difficult for you to imagine a white child adopted by a black family being raised in a black community with black heritage and cultural context going to a predominantly black church? They might experience racism by proxy especially as a child and have an attitude shaped by the experience that a "ciswhite" person cannot imagine. They might consider themselves to be black and find the reflection of the blue eyed blond they see in the mirror a little jarring. 
aforementioned, the term sex is scientifically precise. he distinction between male and females rely on the genotype of the somatic cells. Simply, those who possess somatic cells with XX genotypes are female, and those with XY are male.  Thus, the notion of “sex” is reducible to facts grounded in the physical world.  

It could be argued that intersex people can’t coherently align with either “male” or “female” which could seem problematic for this position. However, it is a misconception that intersex are neither male nor female; let’s examine the types of intersex:

i)                46, XX DSD
This is where the person possesses the chromosomes of a woman, but the external genitalia appears male.  Obviously, one with this form of intersex can still be deemed female. 
 
ii)               46, XY DSD
 
iii)             46, XX ovotesticular DSD
Here is where more of a compelling argument can be made; as a person with this form is born with both ovarian and testicular tissue; and can even have both XX and XY chromosomes. However, per the definition of sexes provided, the genotype only applies to “somatic cells” which do not include reproductive cells. 
 
iv)             Sex chromosome DSD

 On the othehand, the term gender is irreducible to physical facts. Gender is reliant on social and cultural factors when determining whether one is male, female or other. These factors are wholly unquantifiable and subjective. How can one distinguish themselves as absolutely “male”, “female” or “other” using subjective factors with it actually having coherent value? To say that something is “more X”, “less X”, “X but not Y” one needs to *demonstrate a method with which he/she/other can determine the value of X*.  
 
In science, observations are reducible; for example, if we were to analyse the temperature of a closed system, we would find that temperature is actually reducible to the vibration of particles. Thus, temperature supervenes on grounded empirical axioms (law of thermodynamics).  Temperature equates to a B-Property supervening on the A-Property that is particle vibration. Indeed, to talk of the temperature of a system being 0 degrees and not 100 degrees is coherent as temperature is reducible to a quantifiable measurement grounded in the physical world.

The issue here is it is impossible for “male”, “female” or “other” to supervene on “social” or “cultural” factors as *these factors are not reducible to any fact about the physical world*. Thus, to distinguish whether one is male, or female, or other, without any scientific (i.e biological) supervenience is absurd.  Since sex supervenes on the empirical state of one’s somatic cells, it successfully supervenes on a grounded, quantifiable property. Thus, one can coherently make the distinction of “male” or “female” using the “sex” field.
All of this just shows that sex is more of a spectrum than a binary. It is easy to forget when you have a simple answer to the question am I the correct gender that for some people the answer is more complicated. Male and female brains are wired differently and process information differently. Neither is better but they are not the same. Sometimes people are born with a male body and male chromosomes but has a brain wired like a female. Are they male or female? You have already pointed out those with different chromosomes than their external sex characteristics. 

All of these are cases of a person being physically transgender. It is not just in the imagination. It is a physically measurable reality.
As mentioned above, the term sex is sufficient in explaining our understanding of biology without the need for gender. Thus, the term gender is a mere ontological burden, of which Occam's razor does not allow. Why postulate the term gender, when sex sufficiently covers the field. 
The short answer is because of you. You will consistently misgender any trans person who cannot "pass" but also because looking in the mirror feels wrong. It doesn't match internal identity causing dysphoria. It is a little like getting older. I still identify as younger than I am and am always surprised when my body doesn't do a thing that I once could do without thinking and when I look in the mirror I am always horrified by how old I look. This is my best understanding. I've also heard it described as uncomfortable in the same way it is uncomfortable to wear two different socks of different sizes that are backward so the heal and the seam rest uncomfortably... oh and one is wet. If you are cis you might try imagining waking up one day as the wrong gender and imagine how uncomfortable that would make you.
The thing which transgender ideologists do is that they create the term gender and assert that it takes precedence over the biologically grounded term, sex. However, if this is accepted, this can be done to any field of identification. Take the example I used above, that is, a genetically non-African asserting that they are in fact black. At the current stage, there is no construct version for the term race, but let’s postulate the term “rase”. Unlike it’s cousin, “rase” is not based on biology, it is completely in the mind and has no bearing on one's physical build. Would it then be sensible for me to assert that I, from this point on deny the factual term race, and opt to identify myself through rase. Also, I want everyone else to buy into this term rase, and pretend that I am whatever race that I want to be, PS not doing so denies me of my humanity. 
I think the crucial thing you are missing is that being transgender is not a choice anymore than being black is a choice even if you are a white descended person adopted by a black family and are therefore a black person. If you want to create this artificial class no one is asking for then you can but you likely still don't qualify as transracial and you cannot make yourself transracial anymore than an actual transracial person can make themselves stop being one. 


I hope this helps you understand in some small way but the honest truth is that if you really want to learn about the transgendered you should probably get to know some. You will be surprised how often they are willing to explain their personal journey so long as you are respectful.