The Game

The rules of the game are very simple: you play to win and if you don’t win you lose. No one wins indefinitely and everyone loses eventually, but some play on longer than others.

If you’re in the game, you want to stay in as long as possible. No one knows what happens when you lose – other than that you can no longer play – and that uncertainty compels one to postpone that eventuality until one can no longer do so. Moreover, the game is so designed that a precondition for winning is the desire to win and to keep on winning. The game thus selects for those with winning ambitions, as the less driven don’t make it very far.

Despite its simple appearance, the game is vastly complex and built on extraordinarily subtle principles. You see, one might’ve thought that the lack of detailed and complex rules would render the game boring and unsophisticated. But the reverse is true: the sparsity of rules has the effect of leaving open a vast space of possibilities as to the allowed moves and stratagems that one might use to outwit one’s opponent and win the game more decisively.

The combination of possible moves is thus infinitely large, this fact adding a layer of allure to an already fascinating game. Players can often find the constant play tiring and frustrating, but pausing is the one move that is not allowed. Furthermore, deriving satisfaction and meaning from one’s moves is in itself an acceleration towards winning. Once again, the game self-selects for the most enthusiastic and driven players. It is a very clever concept.

Not all players are happy of course. In fact it is quite rare to find a content player. Upon deeper inspection and after hard pressing, players may admit that playing isn’t really good for them in terms of their happiness and well-being. But some would hasten to add that they do find it very meaningful and that it is that that matters. This kind of qualification is in fact what we would expect, given the game’s internal emphasis on meaning. Those for whom the game does not add much meaning, or those who don’t value meaning in the first place, get eliminated in the fairly early stages.

At this point one might be forgiven for wondering why people chose to join the game. If the meaning is entirely internal to the game, then surely prior to one’s joining one has not yet accustomed oneself to thinking on those lines; what then compels one to join ranks with the players?

But of course such a sophisticated game would have foreseen this little problem. The solution is as elegant as it is simple. You see, one final rule that has not been mentioned yet, although it is of utmost importance, is that to win it is not enough to play oneself; one must also add additional players to the game. That is, one cannot progress to the higher levels unless one has brought in new players who had not been in the game previously.

And thus our problem is solved. Of course no one joins the game voluntarily. Rather, they get added by players who are already in the game. And of course once they are in the game themselves, they learn to value its meaning and then go on to add new players of their own. None of this brings anyone much happiness, but it is all very meaningful. And the value of meaning? Well, it is all internally encouraged by the game’s structure and objectives. It is a jolly good system. Well, it’s a meaningful one for sure.

Honour and Love

“Mmmm, this is some good meat!” Jasmine remarked as she returned her fork to her plate ready to dig in again as soon as her mouth makes some space.

Her lover, Chris, was sat across the small, round table, his knees enveloping hers. “He was a good man,” he said with a nostalgic look in his eyes, staring at the two flesh-covered ribs lying just in front of him.

“So lovable,” she responded after swallowing a particularly chewy piece of the smoked meal. “I miss him already. I don’t know how I’ll manage to cope once he’s completely gone!”

“Well, let’s not worry about that now. We have good memories and tasty meat. Let’s make the most of him while he’s still with us.”

He grabbed one of the ribs and broke off a chunky piece. Wrapped in lettuce he dipped it into the small bowl of BBQ sauce situated halfway between him and her.

“You know,” he said after several minutes of silent eating, “a friend of mine told me today something really shocking. Apparently in the West they leave their dead to rot in the ground. Eww!”

“God forbid! That’s so depraved!” She pushed away her plate and looked angrily towards Chris. “Did you have to tell me this whilst I’m eating? I lost my appetite now, thank you very much!”

He regretted bringing it up. She was right; that is a fairly revolting thought. All day it had been bothering him and he hasn’t been able to take it off his mind. The picture of placing someone to disintegrate in mud would have disturbed him at any time. But it especially sickened him now, given his own recent loss.

Chris’s dad, David, had just passed away a couple of weeks earlier. He and Jasmine found it very difficult to deal with it, but they found solace in the honour that they could give to his body. They tenderly cleaned him and decorated him and lovingly stored him away. Of course they miss his smile, his positivity, his energy. But at least they would still see him daily – at least for the near future. They calculated that he’d last for at least 5 months if they were sparing.

Jasmine was visibly shook by what she had just heard. “That’s disgusting!” she kept on repeating. “Why would anyone do this to a human being, let alone a loved one?”

“I always knew that they were morally depraved in the West. If that’s how they treat their dead, they probably don’t treat their living ones much better.” He had lost his appetite too. But he wouldn’t leave any meat uneaten – not his dad’s meat.

He finished and put the remainder of her portion back in the freezer, next to where the head, arms, one leg and some remaining ribs of the corpse were stored.

They retired to their room for the night.

After exchanging some anecdotes of their respective days at work, they managed to distract themselves from the thoughts that had so disgusted them earlier. she put her arm around him and lovingly kissed him on the lips. With soft, tender strokes his fingers fondled her left nipple, lightly stimulating them as he goes back and forth, up and down, round and round.

“You know what,” he said, groping her breast as he talked. “I am so lucky that we do not live in the West.”

She opened her eyes, as if emerging from a pleasant nap. “What do you mean?”

“I wouldn’t be as lucky to have you if we lived there.”

“Why not?”

“They disapprove of romantic father-daughter relationships there.”

Philosophy vs. Analytic Philosophy

As a joint honours student of physics and philosophy, I find an interesting asymmetry when explaining to others what it is that I do in my respective fields of interest. Describing what I do in physics is usually fairly straightforward. Even those without an intimate understanding of physics know that it is – roughly speaking – the study of motion, forces and energy, that it deals with the universe on its smallest scale of fundamental particles and on its largest scale of galaxies and the universe. I might get asked what my favourite topic in physics is, or in what area I specialise and then I might answer that I like theoretical physics and quantum mechanics but that we don’t specialise in undergraduate studies.

But when I talk about my discipline of philosophy things get complicated. I try to describe what I do in philosophy, but that just brings up even more questions. People don’t have a clear understanding of what philosophy is and often in order to explain what I mean by philosophy I find myself having to do engage in some fairly advanced philosophy. To be sure, unlike in physics where the question “what is physics?” is not itself a question of physics, in philosophy the question “what is philosophy?” is itself a philosophical question and a deep and complicated one at that.

Not only do philosophers within a given tradition of philosophy argue what philosophy is, but each philosophical tradition will have its own, often incompatible, definition of its discipline. In physics it wouldn’t make sense to ask whether one is studying ancient Greek physics, medieval physics, or Chinese physics. But in philosophy this is a perfectly legitimate question. What is often misunderstood, however, is that the distinction between the different philosophical traditions is less analogous to the distinction between the different branches of physics and more analogous to the distinction between the different disciplines of the humanities, or even to the distinction between the humanities and the sciences. It would not make sense for a physicist to be familiar with only one area of physics to the exclusion of others. One may specialise in a specific branch of physics, but one cannot ignore the findings in the rest of physics, since all physical branches rely on the same techniques and grounded in the same physical laws. In contrast, an analytic philosopher lacks nothing by not engaging with medieval or Indian philosophy, since they are different disciplines altogether.

I will go as far as to say that it is regrettable that all of these separate disciplines share the same name of philosophy, as they lead to confusion and misunderstanding. Nobody studies “philosophy”. You either study analytic philosophy, or continental philosophy, or Chinese philosophy, or the history of philosophy. Confusing these as part of the same discipline is like confusing the historian of science for the physicist. I often want to say that I don’t study philosophy; I study analytic philosophy. But even when I don’t say that, that’s what I mean when I talk about philosophy. I will explain why this is so and why it is important presently.

Analytic philosophers usually have a narrow and specific goal in their enquiries. Defining exactly what this goal is is a bit of a challenge. But I think that its essence can be captured by contrasting it to other philosophical traditions in the following three measures:
1) Descriptivism vs prescriptivism
2) Scientific vs humanitistic
3) Analytic vs empirical

1) Descriptive: analytic philosophy aims to describe the world, not to change it. Its goal is never to guide, admonish, or critique. Instead it tries to understand and analyse. Moreover, analytic philosophy is neutral from a moral point of view. It does not judge, it only describes. This contrasts with other philosophical traditions, such as the Frankfurt School (Critical Theory) and many in the continental tradition. They see themselves as social critiques and theorists and see their work not as aiming at impartial and objective observation, but at active and involved agents, who change their subject as they study it.

2) Scientific: analytic philosophy aims at a science-like description of the world, attempting to make universal statements that are objectively true. This contrasts with the notion of philosophy as an activity akin to art, where one explores elements of society as well as of themselves as they engage in literary and cultural expressions. Analytics, however, don’t care whether or not their theories are pleasing, aesthetic, or meaningful. Their only concern is with whether or not it fits the facts and describes the world in a coherent manner.

3)Analytic: this is the most controversial out of the characteristics of analytic philosophy and is an ongoing debate. Early analytic philosophers, influenced by the Vienna circle, vut a strict distinction between philosophy and the empirical sciences. Philosophy was not meant to have any say with regards to any empirical matters. Its sole purpose was to analyse statements and find the meanings of terms. This view has eased a little since. However, I still think that it is right to say that, broadly speaking, analytic philosophers still try to avoid dealing with any empirical questions, at least not directly. Questions about matters of fact are best left to the special sciences and philosophers should occupy themselves mostly with the analysis of, and the relationship between, ideas. This contrasts with most other philosophical traditions in which this distinction is almost non-existent. Continental philosophers roam freely between sociology, psychology, politics, economics and philosophy. In analytic philosophy this liberalism is almost unheard of.

With these contrasts one can see why analytic philosophy is not the same discipline as other philosophical traditions and that that is important. Analytics aim at a science-like (that is, universal and objective) description of the meaning of concepts; of the wider, extra-empirical, apriori laws of thought and inference; of the limits of reasoning and discovery. It does not try to offer guidance, or meaning. It does not study society or history (as those are empirical matters). It does not even particularly care about its own history.

It is useful here to draw an analogy between physics as a scientific discipline and analytic philosophy as a science-like discipline. For example, in physics we understand that, whilst different discoveries and patterns of thought came about in, and due to, specific historical and political contexts, that has zero bearing on their truthfulness. If Hitler were to discover a good scientific law, we would not reject it due to his personality. Likewise we do not accept a view just because a respected and famous scientist came up with it. In physics, ideas are meant to be accepted or rejected based on their own internal merit alone. Analytic philosophy is similar in this regard. Who came up with something and for what reasons has no bearing on the truthfulness of the idea itself. What matters is its explanatory power. This contrasts with some practices in the arts where the creator, or composer is not separable from their creation in this same way.

Another example is that we understand that it would be absurd to ask that a good physicist be familiar with, say, Aristotelian physics. We understand that in physics it is not the history of ideas that matters, but the ideas that have stood the test of time due to them being found to be consistent with the the facts. Even the recent history of physics is not of primary importance. What is important is the equations that work and the theories that make accurate predictions. In a like manner, analytic philosophy is not about the history of ideas. We don’t care much how an idea came to be and for what reason. What we care about is what works according to our best understanding. As soon as a better theory comes about we do not hesitate to discard of our old theories and never look back. This is why it is absurd that people think it closed-minded to engage with only one tradition of philosophy. If there is anything useful to a current and ongoing debate in philosophy in whatever tradition out there, then it no longer matters whether it is medieval, Chinese, or continental philosophy. What matters is that it is a useful and potentially truthful solution to a problem. It’s like when an Indian physicist (say Bose) comes up with a scientific law; this doesn’t become Indian as opposed to Western science. It is just science! In philosophy too, if something is currently relevant, then it is philosophy, regardless of its origin. That is not to say that there is no use in studying the history of philosophy and reading the material of other traditions. However, this is not philosophy in the analytic sense.

And this is why the distinction between the different disciplines of philosophy is important. I study analytic philosophy for one reason: because I want to uncover whatever general and universal statements we can make about our structures of understanding and thought. I want to understand what kind of statements are meaningful and how we can get to know them. I want to understand what we can say about the extra-empirical nature of things (if we can at all). Studying the history of ideas and trying to understand and critique culture and society may be a worthy pursuit, but it is not what I am interested about. And this is why it is so difficult to articulate what I study. When I say that I study philosophy I get asked about the ideas of people whom I do not consider philosophers (in the analytic sense) and about questions that I do not consider philosophic. That’s why I say that I do not study philosophy; I study analytic philosophy.

Destined to be Canine

Charlie was chasing his tail and was feeling pretty weird about it. He was chasing his tail because he is a dog. He was feeling weird about it because he is a clever dog. He was experiencing an existential crisis.

Charlie understands that dogs chase their tails. That’s why he keeps on doing it, being aware of his canine condition. But Charlie is not like other dogs who chase their tails in an attempt to reach it. Charlie knows that his tail is unreachable. He has even written a paper about the physics involved. But being a dog, he chases his tail anyway. And that is making him pretty uneasy.

For your lay-dog tail-chasing is actually a quite meaningful experience. Of course the sceptic mocks the effort, seeing it as futile. But the reward is proportional to the challenge. The more unobtainable the goal is, the more meaningful dogs all around the globe find its pursuit. It is too easy being a lazy critic from the outside. Anyone can try it for themselves to see how rewarding the endeavour is. Everyone, except for Charlie.

You see, Charlie is different. He understands all of this. He understands tail-chasing. He understands its evolutionary origins and benefits. He even understands the neurological and psychological processes featuring in the adventure. He can name the chemicals released in dogs’ brains when chasing their tails and how this results in a subjective experience referred to as “meaning”.

Charlie won’t stop chasing his tail – not so long as he is a dog. But his advanced understanding prevents him from extracting from it “meaning” to the same degree that his friends do. Whilst doghood is happy to carry on with its characteristic behaviour that it had been doing for eons, Charlie needs some rationalisation. So he came up with a philosophical argument. it goes something like this:

Tail-chasing is a characteristically dogly behaviour. Dogs, and only dogs, chase their tail. It is thus part of the essence of being a dog to also be a tail-chaser. In fact, ‘dog’ and ‘tail-chaser’ are interchangeable and semantically equivalent. To be a dog is to be a tail-chaser. However, this synonymity only holds if for every x that is a dog it is also the case that it is a tail-chaser. If you can find an x that is both a dog and a non-tail-chaser, then the two terms are no longer equivalent.

Now if Charlie were to stop chasing his tail, he would break the synonymity. Tail-chasing would therefore no longer be said to be part of the essence of dooghood. Charlie would therefore single-pawedly be responsible for the abolition of the essence of doghood. Conversely, by his continuing tail-chasing he is maintaining doghood in its true essence.

This was Charlie’s argument. It is a terrible argument, but it worked. That is, it helped him rationalise his actions. What was actually taking place – something that Charlie is bound to realise in due time – is that Charlie was chasing his tail. Why? Because he is a dog and dogs chase their tails.

The Haters

“You are hateful!” said the man accused of hate to the man accusing him of hate.

After a hasty unearthing of archaic tweets and a meticulous consultation with the IAODH (Internationally Accepted Official Definition of Hate), both men were swiftly removed from their positions and disgraced out of civil society.

“We operate on a zero-tolerance policy towards hate in this society,” said the Hatespeech Commissioner in charge of this case, “Words have consequences!”

She was later found to have expressed hate in the past and was removed from her position. There was no one left to replace her. The end.

Don’t Like Hate? Stop Hating!

We cannot stop others from hating. But we can eliminate hate coming from ourselves. The question is, do we want to?
 
It’s easy to point to rising levels of hate committed by others. It is easy to be an “anti-hate campaigner” and try to tackle the hate of others. But how much power do we really have to control the emotions and expressions of others? Does “anti-hate” campaigning reduce hate in the world? I think that at most it pushes it away from where we are. At most it protects our community from the influence of the haters. But have we diminished hate in the world?
 
I think that we can have the most impact in eliminating hate by eliminating hate coming from us and by ‘us’ I mean oneself. It is not hard, but many of us don’t want to. We are trapped in narratives that justify our own hateful expressions. We see our own hate as legitimate responses to the hate that we have experienced. Why shouldn’t I show hate towards the hateful?
 
I think that eliminating our own hate is very easy. But only if we want it. Perhaps before I try convincing you to want it, let me show you how easy it is. All you need is to meditate on the psychology, motivations and experiences of others. You just need to think a little about what it feels like to be in your opponent’s position. What are the possible experiences, upbringing and circumstances that have led them to the views that they have? What are the anxieties and worries that drive them? What does it feel to be them? What would your views be in their shoes? How is their expression of hate just a manifestation of their anxieties and worries?
 
Think of your opponent as a psychological being. Try comparing her to yourself as a psychological being. Aren’t they as righteous in their own eyes as you are in yours? Aren’t they as self-justified as you are? Don’t they want the best for themselves and their loved ones just like you want for you and yours? Leave behind any metaphysical notions of “good” and “evil”. People aren’t “good”, or “evil”. They are psychological beings, acting on their beliefs and interests. So are you.
 
Why should you eliminate your own hatred? Well, do you want to reduce hatred in the world? If not, scroll on: this isn’t for you. But I assume that you are someone who would like to see a world with less hatred in it, you just want to know what is the best way to achieve it. You may think that expressing hate towards the hateful will achieve this. Perhaps you think of the equal and opposite hatreds as cancelling out?
 
But I don’t believe that that is the case. Not only does your hate not cancel out the hate of the hateful, but it makes you a less kind and compassionate person! Hate is the kind of thing that consumes you and clouds your vision and judgement. Once you are angry you lose the ability to make clear judgements about who is deserving to be on the receiving end of your hate and anger. You may have started out being angry at the “right” people, but your angry has distorted your judgement of who is a legitimate target of your hate.
 
I am always incredibly saddened looking around and seeing that some of the most hateful people around me are “anti-hate campaigners”. These people are self-righteous, but incredibly hateful towards those who do not see eye to eye to them. They think themselves as fighting against hate, when in fact they are its source. They think themselves fighting hate, when in fact they are fighting people. This is so bad on campus, that I am genuinely convinced that campus would be a far less hateful place if “anti-hate” campaigning and activism were eliminated.
 
Let’s extol the virtues of kindness, compassion, empathy and respect and not heed those who want to frame these values as if they are expressions of privilege and power (yes, the view that kindness and respect are “Western” and “colonial” values to be rejected is sadly a popular one in some activist circles). People can choose to be hateful if they want to. But let’s be clear with our objectives. And I say that if it is less hate that we want, then we should start with ourselves.

Gender Identity and Transgenderism

I want to have a discussion about gender, gender identity and transgender. This is going to be a long post, for shortening it would risk losing the nuance – something that is missing from most of these discussions.
 
1) A preliminary point before I start, people talk of a requirement for “lived experience” before one talks about these issues, or claim that “you cannot understand unless you feel it”. This point is legitimate but only when applied within its limit of applicability. There are two domains in these discussions. One is about feelings and the other is about facts. The domain of feelings is how it feels like to experience x or to identify as x. In this domain it is indeed the case that, unless you have felt it you don’t really know what it’s like to feel it. Moreover, everyone’s experience is different, so really no one can talk for another person as to how it is to feel a certain way. In this domain, then, no one should really speaking for others to say what it’s like to feel x. This domain is therefore one in which we cannot really have constructive discussion. I’ll therefore say nothing more about this domain.
 
The second domain is about facts: What defines gender? What is or isn’t natural and healthy? Etc. In this domain it is not experience that matters but knowledge. In fact, the very premise behind the scientific method is objectivity, meaning that it is the data that decide, not how one feels about it. In this post I shall confine myself to talking only about this domain. I will not talk about how it feels like to be x. Hopefully this preempt responses of the form “you don’t have the lived experience” etc.
 
2) Another preliminary point, discussions around these issues are often constructed as a false dichotomy: “you either accept all my claims about who I am, or else you are denying my existence.” Let it then be clear from the start that no one’s existence is being denied and no one’s rights are being denied. This post takes for granted that all humans deserve respect, safety, etc. Discussing the validity of certain identities does not mean that those holding these identities should be discriminated against, disrespected, or harmed. I really shouldn’t have to say this, but the unfortunate reality of how these discussions have been framed means that you cannot take it for granted that people will understand it that way.
 
3) A final preliminary point, the importance of this discussion. People often say “This is not your issue; why talk about this?” Here’s why: we live in a society with norms that we interact with daily and that affect us all. It is not the case that paradigm shifts in the understanding of gender affect only the people with these non-traditional gender identities. It affects everyone who has a gender and it affects everyone interacting with people with non-traditional gender identities. It is also something that is being pushed on everyone with campaigns and repercussions to those who don’t conform. It is absolutely a societal matter and society has every right to discuss it.
 
OK, I’m ready to start. In no particular order, here are some observations, questions and discussion points:
 
4) IDENTITY: there’s this mistaken belief that identity is that which you say you are. If you “identify as x”, then you are x. This claim is philosophically extremely suspect. Firstly, it is easy to make a reductio ad absurdum argument to show that in most cases where someone will “identify” as something, we will reject it. Whether I “identify” as a different race, or as a different species, nobody thinks twice before rejecting it. If I genuinely believe that I am that, then most people would recommend psychiatric help.
 
Secondly, that is simply not how identity works. Identity is a complex relationship between oneself and their environment and how they see themself relating to the society around them. It is not something that is fully internal between one and oneself. In order to be valid it has to have some external manifestations and people around you have to see you as such as well. For example, if you are a transwoman and you make an effort to be seen as a woman, to pass as a woman and to associate with womanhood, then there’s a case for your identity as a woman to be legitimate. However, if you are by all appearances a man, you behave like a man and make no effort to relate to your surroundings as a woman, then your insistence that you are a woman means nothing. You can’t “identify your womanhood into existence”. Identity is not some metaphysical or magical act of pronouncement “I now pronounce myself a woman”. It is a complex relationship between one and their social environment.
 
5) BEING BORN IN THE WRONG BODY: I wouldn’t even devote writing to this if not that I hear this claim so often. And there I thought that scholastic metaphysics was dead! What does it even mean for your body to be “right” or “wrong”? The only thing that you can say about your body is that it is yours. Unless you are some kind of radical dualist, believing that you metaphysically exist independent of your body, then there is no “you” who really “belongs” to another body. This is such a dodgy claim that I doubt that anyone with an understanding of philosophy 101 takes this claim seriously.
 
Perhaps what people mean to say when they make this claim is that they feel uncomfortable with their body, or that they would have preferred to have a different body. Perhaps individuals even feel intense pain about how their body looks. Perhaps they’d do whatever they can to alter their body. I have the greatest of sympathies with people who feel such pain, but it is not their body that is “wrong”. What’s at fault here is the way they relate to their body.
 
At this point I want to bring up another thorny issue regarding transgender: is it a mental disorder? The WHO has very recently removed it from being a mental disorder. I understand that that they moved the “transgender” category from mental disorder to sexual health. This may be as much a political as well as a medical decision. But here I want to think about just the feeling I described in the above paragraph, not being transgender as a whole. The feeling of looking in the mirror and hating your body and wanting to mutilate it or change it – whether this is because you think you are too fat, too ugly, or don’t like your body’s sex – this feeling is almost by definition a mental disorder. There’s no other way to describe such a painful relationship between one and their body. This shouldn’t be controversial either. There should be no stigma in having a mental disorder. I have one. I suffer from anxiety and depression and take daily medication for it. I think that the first step in trying to help people who are suffering mentally is to recognise that they have a mental disorder.
 
So how to help people who are suffering like this mentally? This brings me to my next point of discussion:
 
6) TRANSGENDER: I want to make a conceptual distinction here which will help articulate what I am about to say about this. I do not mean to claim that this distinction actually exist in real life. As I said, this is a “conceptual” distinction. To help with the following, I’m going to give these two concepts different arbitrary names: trans* and trans^. Here is what these concepts mean:
 
A trans* individual is someone who believes that sex and gender are distinct. They were born male and continue to acknowledge that they are male in terms of biological sex. However, they really feel more comfortable interacting with society as a woman. They like to do traditionally feminine things and to wear traditionally feminine clothes. They also interact with society as a woman and relate to others as a woman. In turn, others also see them as a woman. They identify as a woman. They’re a trans*woman.
 
The trans^ individual was also born male, but they were never comfortable with that fact. From as young as they can remember they always wished they’d get rid of their male parts. Their male body gives them intense mental pain. They tried acting like a woman, wearing women’s clothes etc, but their male body still causing them a lot of pain. They fantasise about when they can be a “real” woman with female body parts. They are a trans^woman.
 
Now I’m ready to make an argument here to distinguish the two. The trans*woman is by all appearances a healthy adult. They want to express their gender in a specific, unconventional way. That makes them a maverick, not someone who is unhealthy. More strength to them for defying societal norms! I say, live on with your life and your identity in whatever way makes you happy. Good for you!
 
The trans^woman, however, is clearly suffering and unhealthy. We can try to pretend that they have no mental disorder, but the reality of their constant mental suffering contradicts that. So let’s help them! How do we do that? Well, I can think of two possible options: the most straightforward one to me is therapy and antipsychotics. Like any mental disorder, we can try to help them in the way that we treat mental disorders like anxiety, depression etc. This seems to me like the most straightforward way, since this individual is clearly suffering from a mental disorder. If after treatment they still want to identify with their non-traditional gender, good for them. But let them do so without internal suffering!
 
The other solution that seems to me less reasonable, but more popular, is sex-reassignment. Individuals might feel that if they alter their body to conform to their mental image of themself then that would get rid of the pain. Now, whether or not this is an effective treatment for their mental anguish is an empirical matter. I am not going to say that I’m convinced that it works, but if it does then so be it. Ultimately, the goal is to reduce the individual’s suffering.
 
The point to remember, however, is that, unlike the trans*woman, the trans^woman is not in a healthy mental state. Their being trans is not a mere matter of identity choice. It is them dealing with their intense pain. If transitioning does not alleviate that pain, then it is a sad mistake. This is an upsetting point to talk about. Their is so much political pressure to present as if sex-reassignment is the only treatment for gender-dysmorphia. How many people could be saved from costly and painful operations and life-long dependence on mediation if they’d try the route of therapy and antipsychotics?
 
7) GENDER-NON-BINARY: People often claim that gender is non-binary, or that they “are non-binary”. I am not going to discuss here whether or not that it is a legitimate position to hold. I just want to analyse the idea to see its implications. From what I understand, gender-non-binary theorists claim that gender isn’t a binary between “man” and “woman”, but is instead more like a spectrum. On one side of the spectrum you have the archetypal man and on the other side the archetypal woman and every real human fits in somewhere on this spectrum in terms of their gender expression and identity.
 
Now let’s analyse what this theory is committed to in order to be consistent. It is committed to the idea that some behaviours are inherently more masculine and some more feminine. If has to accept this otherwise, what does the spectrum consist of? Accepting a spectrum means accepting that some behaviours are closer to one side of the spectrum than others – meaning that some behaviours are inherently more masculine or feminine than others. I am not necessarily arguing against this view, but note how this claim is incompatible with the view that gender can be separated from gender roles and performance.
 
According to this view you cannot be a very masculine and butch woman, for being masculine puts you closer to the male side of the spectrum, thus stripping you of womanhood. Likewise, an incredibly camp, gay man would according to this view not really be a man, as they are closer to the feminine side of the spectrum. Some gender-theorists disagree, of course, and claim that your gender performance has no impact on what gender you really are. According to them you can of course be an effeminate man or a butch woman. In fact your manhood and womanhood is not affected by how masculine or feminine you are because these are only social constructions. There is nothing inherently unwomanly about being masculine, or unmanly about being feminine. Again, I’m not going to disagree with this position. I’ll just point out that this position is incompatible with gender-non-binary theory.
 
So you cannot have it both ways: you either believe that gender is non-binary, but then you have to accept that people’s performance – feminine or masculine affects what gender they are, or, more precisely, where on the gender spectrum you belong. Alternatively, you can believe that no performance is inherently masculine or feminine and that your manhood or womanhood does not depend on your gender expression. But in that case you have to see gender as something essential to the individual – perhaps their sex?
 
8) LANGUAGE: We often hear slogans, such as, “transwomen are women”; “Woman: adult, human, female”. Well, in reality, “woman” is just a two syllable sound that we make with our moths. Just like any other linguistic term, it has no inherent meaning and just means what it communicates to people. If you want to know whether or not transwomen or women, all that you have to do is go out and say the word ‘woman’ and see if people understand that to signify the class of females excluding transwomen, or the class of females including transwomen. Ascribing essentialism to language is a common fallacy. There’s nothing in the word woman that would either include or exclude transwomen. It all depends on how people understand the term. I would go as far as saying that transwomen are women on most campuses and or not women in many places off campus. It really does depend on the linguistic community you are associated with.
 
Another linguistic issue is the insistence on “inclusive” language, such as “people who give birth”, instead of women and “people with penises” instead of men. On the surface you’d think that this follows naturally from the belief that sex and gender are separate. Surely, if you can have men giving birth, then surely it is no longer a woman issue, right? Wrong! This is another language issue. There’s a big difference between saying “some men can give birth” (which is, depending on your view on the matter, plausibly true) and saying “giving birth is not a woman’s issue, but an issue of people with wombs” (which is most certainly false). Here’s why:
 
Just because we say that gender can be separated from sex does not mean that there is no correlation between them. It may be true that some women are male and that some men are female, but womanhood is still the default of females and manhood of males. This is not some accident of our cisnormative society. There are strong evolutionary, psychological and biological reasons for a correlation between femaleness and femininity and maleness and masculinity. Note, I am not saying that gender is biologically determined or that gender is biologically essential. What I am saying is that the two are closely correlated. It is isn’t arbitrary that most females are women and that most males are men. Outliers aside, I believe that, generally speaking, males are men and females are women.
 
One reason for why I insist that that is the case is because we still haven’t figured out a healthy and “natural” way of transitioning. Unlike being gay, that does not require hormone replacement, medication and surgery, transitioning is definitely not an easy or natural procedure. It is therefore not the case that some women just happen to be male and vice versa. Those males who are women have done so at great cost to their health, mental and physical. It can therefore not be regarded as the “natural” gender of their sex. I’d be happy to regard it as natural if transition would not involve so much mental and physical pain. In the meantime, I will insist that men and women are “naturally” divided into males and females respectively, acknowledging some outliers.
 
As an illustration of what I mean, polydactyly is the condition of being born with more than 10 fingers. According to Wikipedia 1 in every 500 births have this condition. Again, according to Wikipedia, 3 in 500 Americans are transgender. That means that being transgender is only 3 times as likely as having more than 10 fingers. And yet, no one (I hope!) would say that the statement “humans have 10 fingers” is false or uninclusive. We understand that we are talking about how people usually are. I’d say that we similarly need to understand that despite transgender people existing, it is still the case that we can talk about “women health issues” and “men health issues” and do not have to twist our tongues to deny that giving birth is something that women do. Again, that doesn’t mean that no man can do it, just that by the natural way of things it is something that women do and not men.
 
I’ll finish here for now. This should not be seen as some well-researched, flawless academic paper, but rather as a discussion starter with some considerations for certain positions. I am sure that there are some mistakes in this and I am happy to be corrected on them. Ultimately, no one ever discovers the truth all at once. It is a process of coming nearer and nearer to it, where on every step one discards some falsehoods that were there on the previous step. So please see this as me trying to make a step forward towards the truth, but by no means the last and final step.
 
People also say, “these are real lives you are talking about”. I know. That’s exactly why it is so important to talk about this. “Real lives” are equally affected when we don’t talk about things as when we do. Silence on the issue isn’t going to help these real lives, neither is bullying everyone into accepting a certain orthodoxy. I hope that I have shown nuance in this post and I sure hope that it is not meant personally because it was sure not intended as such. I am sure you disagree with me: please do so charitably and respectfully.