"For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?"
Luke 14:28

As are men.

"But if nature isn't chance, then it is a source aiming for a determined result, then it immediately follows that nature is acting for an end."

No it doesn't. Water flowing in a river to the ocean is not acting randomly, it is following laws of physics. That doesn't mean the ocean is the "goal" of that river. To say it is the goal implies an intent or desire, which the river does not have.

Ultimately it is unknown to me if the order we appear to see in some aspects is designed or arbitrary. It seems ultimately arbitrary to me .

"Trees structure their roots and use them to take in nutrients and water. This is what roots are for."

Its with this rhetorical switch that you impose design in nature. Its not what roots are "for", it's what they do because the evolved they have other uses such as stability, stopping erosion, food, habitat.

I'm sorry but you can keep imposing purpose and design in nature, I'm not buying it .

"This is not consciousness intention, but it is something analogical to intention in animals"

In a sense yes all mental thought as well is determined like everything else in nature. But the fact of determinism indicates nothing about goals, purpose or design in nature.

"The contemporary West needs to give up the foolish idea that desire determines the good,"

I don't advocate that, well being determines the good. And when you deny desires for no good reason you harm people's well-being.

"Just because people "feel" like that are women, doesn't mean that feeling isn't false."

What do you mean by "woman" here? Do you mean do they have a vagina? Then you are correct, if theu dont have one If you mean they feel socially, culturally and psychologically female, them yes they are a woman. Which is why you should not conflate sex and gender. The term "woman" is imprecise.

"why do so many people think that social constructs are castles built on absolutely nothing, purely arbitrary?"

No one is saying that, I'm saying gender is not determined by biology, though it is related, it is a social and cultural issue. And many people have been harmed even killed because their gender identity did not fit well with their anatomy .

"It is pretty clear that there's are biological and psychological reasons why, say, soldiers tend to be young men, or why men tend to dominate the STEM fields, or women tend to dominate the "nuturing" occupantions, or why sexually promiscious women tend to be looked down upon more than sexually promiscious men, or why people, especially women, have little respect for cowardly men."

No, no that is not at ALL clear to me. I would say most of those tendencies are the legacy of centuries of patriarchy.

You have to understand what I mean by nature being a source of things in order to understand our approach. A good way to understand how nature is a source is to understand how human art/technology is a source.

Art is human skill which gives rise to machines, instruments, paintings, what have you. That is, it is a source, which gives form, to some material. The insight here is to distinguish between the artifact itself and the artisan and his skill by which the artifact is brought into being. We actually still preserve this distinction in our language when we speak of "works of art," art referring to the source and skill, not the artifact itself (the "work").

In a similar way, nature is first and foremost a source of natural things.

The only alternative is to say natural things are purely a result of another source, chance. But this is rather evidently false: no one says that roots arise by chance from the acorn. Chance plays a part in nature and is used by nature, but it isn't reducible to nature.

But if nature isn't chance, then it is a source aiming for a determined result, then it immediately follows that nature is acting for an end. Trees structure their roots and use them to take in nutrients and water. This is what roots are for. If nature didn't act for an end, there would be no reason why electrons "always, or for the most part" tend towards protons, there would be no reason why leaves take in sunlight rather than, well, anything. This is not consciousness intention, but it is something analogical to intention in animals.

It becomes immediately clear then that both our anatomy and psychology are structured towards some end, for they both arise from human nature.

This shouldn't be controversial, since biologists speak in this way all the time, especially when they talk about evolution and why things evolved the way they did. The difference between our approach here is that we consider all aspects of human nature, and not merely the "animal" side of our nature: this is why social Darwinism and the like wasn't as much of a problem with ancient, Medieval, and early modern thinkers.

And so, when we consider human interests and desire, we have to consider what are these things are for. What this means is that the particular aim of the desire might not necessarily be what it should be aiming at. We all understand this: a man who takes out his anger at work on his wife and children has a disordered anger: an anger not aimed towards its proper end.

The contemporary West needs to give up the foolish idea that desire determines the good, rather than the good determining the desire. Just because people "feel" like that are women, doesn't mean that feeling isn't false.

My view on gender is that it is a social construct, and that we should not characterize or categorize behaviour, aesthetics and social norms or roles in terms of their traditional relationship to sexual anatomy.

Social constructs are built with the material of, among other things, determinations in biology and psychology. Houses aren't built ex nihilo, so why do so many people think that social constructs are castles built on absolutely nothing, purely arbitrary? It is pretty clear that there's are biological and psychological reasons why, say, soldiers tend to be young men, or why men tend to dominate the STEM fields, or women tend to dominate the "nuturing" occupantions, or why sexually promiscious women tend to be looked down upon more than sexually promiscious men, or why people, especially women, have little respect for cowardly men. I'm not saying there isn't a level of contingency in these social constructs, but they are not constructed from pure potential either (everything I've mentioned here has a lot of literature behind it too).

Christi pax.

>What is our human nature attempting to do with all the "equipment" it gives us?

Nothing. Human nature is a term used to reflect human psychological tendencies it has nothing to do with anatomy. It has no goals or intentions. It is a fact, not an agent.

>what the nature of an oak tree is trying to do with its leaves,

No, the question of "trying to do" is superfluous. Roots and leaves do things as a fact. You're imposing intention in things that have none.

How about when you are talking about anatomy and biology or psychology etc, you use those terms? Sex is an anatomical and biological isdue, gender is a social and psychological issue (broadly). This is why we need to discuss them distinctly.

"but they clear act with aim and an end." I don't agree. You are anthropomorphizing.

>What I'm trying to get at is that our inquiry about human well-being must involve reflection on our nature working towards certain aims or ends.

No, that is a terrible idea. That way leads social Darwinism and eugenics. When considering human well being we need to be looking to human interests, desires, suffering and flourishing.

>I think our second major disagreement is that you view human sexuality as indeterminate enough that indefinite genders are possible.

My view on gender is that it is a social construct, and that we should not characterize or categorize behaviour, aesthetics and social norms or roles in terms of their traditional relationship to sexual anatomy. In other words I would hope that gender becomes obsolete. But neither sexuality nor gender are obsolete nor can they be treated as non existent.

The way to think about gender is more of a spectrum than categories.

>Gender is not sex, but gender is rooted in and arises from sex, and sex, both biologically and psychologically, is far more determined than many of the gender theory advocates would like to admit

While it is true that gender is rooted in sex only as far as people connect attributes to sex organs or hormones. I haven't seen any research showing clear and convincing relationships between sex and other attributes, other than some connection of boys and abstract 3D modelling.

When I say nature here, I mean human nature. What is our human nature attempting to do with all the "equipment" it gives us? We can also talk about what the nature of an oak tree is trying to do with its leaves, roots, etc., but that's a different nature than ours.

And by human nature, I don't just mean human biology. I also mean human psychology, human sociology, etc. The mind and our sociality also arise from our nature.

By "goal" I mean something more like "aim" or "end." I don't mean that plants are conscious (at least not in the way you and I are), but they clear act with aim and an end. The electron tends toward the positive charge; the bacterium is inclined towards the sugar; the branch grows towards the light; the lion towards the antelope. This is all rather empirical.

What I'm trying to get at is that our inquiry about human well-being must involve reflection on our nature working towards certain aims or ends.

I think our second major disagreement is that you view human sexuality as indeterminate enough that indefinite genders are possible. Even though I agree that gender is more fluid than the caricature of the 1950s, it is not so fluid that there are more than two genders, and that any human can switch genders. Gender is not sex, but gender is rooted in and arises from sex, and sex, both biologically and psychologically, is far more determined than many of the gender theory advocates would like to admit, so much so that talking about more than two genders is clearly wrongheaded.

A person may feel like that want to relate to the same gender, the opposite gender, and society as the opposite gender, but this is impossible because they are already biologically determined, and, to be honest, more psychologically determined than they would care to admit, in his sex (not to mention how many times this is only a temporary circumstances).

This doesn't mean gender looks the same in every circumstance, but it does mean we can't ignore the determinations of our biology and psychology (especially considering how our psychology does in fact integrate somewhat the opposite gender into our psyche: think of Jung's animus and anima).

Christi pax.

>Nature is a source or principle that is trying to act towards some goal.

I couldn't disagree more. This by definition the opposite of what natural forces do. Goals are determined by conscious agents, natural phenomena are the result of natural laws not goal directed conduct. This reeks of the naturalistic fallacy.

>The fact that only male and females can do this indicates that nature is working towards these two sexes.

But if you are looking at "nature" this is not at all the case. Millions of organisms reproduce asexually and some organisms change sex completely and "naturally". Many if not most plants have both sexes.

Further if we look towards some goal of nature (reproduction) as our guide as opposed to human well-being we end up with some disturbing circumstances such as justifying rape to procreate when one cannot find a consentual mate, largely discarding individuals who live past reproductive age, marginalizing the infertile.

>two natural sexes, and the rest are artificial sexes, that's fine.

But again you're not acknowledging the distinction between sex and gender. There is a respectful way to label people, and in this circumstance these labels have profound effects on individuals.

For example I think it is indisputable that Christians are followers of a blood sacrifice cult. (Just look up the hymns children sing about being washed in the blood. Look at any church, it venerates the tortured bleeding god. Christians drink the blood of their god.) While technically accurate and defensible from my perspective, I get why Christians have a problem being labeled this way. The terms "blood sacrifice cult" are technically accurate but carry lots of baggage. Cult suggests a small or extreme religion. And blood sacrifice suggests you are sacrificing animals or people. Given the importance of these religions to so many people's identity, we consider it disrespectful and have protected religious people in many circumstances from discrimination of this kind.

Sexual anatomy contains no such protection. Those who undergo reassignment can easily be identified by what they have, be it sex organs associated with one sex or the other or both, there genes can be discussed as xx or xy or both. This is sex and of course, where appropriate we should note when there has been surgery. But outside the medical context there are really almost no circumstances where this information is relevant. Think of how many people you know and how many you know what their sexual anatomy is, much less their genetics or hormone levels.

What we are generally dealing with socially and culturally is not sex at all but gender expression. This is how individuals behave with respect to attributes traditionally associated with one sex. Most of this is based on stereotypes, and this gets complicated. But again there are few circumstances where it actually matters to discuss or label people. These things like sports teams, bathrooms and pronoun use.

And we need to figure this out. Using the distinctions you allude to, which is sex assigned at birth, you would have large men with full beards being called women using women's bathrooms. This is not only discriminatory it's silly.

Looking to gender identity works much better.

What I'm saying is that we need to reflect on what nature is actually trying to do. Nature is a source or principle that is trying to act towards some goal. Our bodies, the structures of our organs, the tendencies of our psyche, our emotions and appetites, etc. are all arranged towards this end, and we can't understand these things without reference to it.

You accuse me of defining sex arbritrarily, but what I'm trying to do is understand towards what ends nature has arranged our psychological and physiological form and inclinations.

When we approach nature like this, it becomes pretty easy to see how human nature simply intends two sexes, and the intersex and transvestites and the like fall away from this intention.

The reason I mention procreation is not to say things like "every person needs to have lots of children," or "infertile women are not real woman," or anything like that, but to remind us that we understand nature and its goals through our functions and abilities, and it is clear from the full operation of our sexual organs that nature intends the physical aspect of sex in particular (but also somewhat the psychological aspect) to be procreative. The fact that only male and females can do this indicates that nature is working towards these two sexes.

Even if you want to say that these are two natural sexes, and the rest are artificial sexes, that's fine. But artifacts are dead arrangements, not living processions. Artificial sexes are simply the ruins of the real, natural sexes.

So, rather than these distinctions and labels being religious and cultural constructs, they are natural constructs. Religion and culture is simply building on top of this foundation.

Christi pax.

" I understand gender to be the social relations and roles of each biological sex to each other, to family, to community, to society."

That isn't what I mean by "gender".

"if we reduce sex only in its material organs, then of course we can be lead to believe that intersex, trans, etc. are real sexes"

And what is wrong with that?

"But once we reflect on the actual nature of sex, which involves sex formally as well as materially, we end up seeing only two sexes, with the rest being clear defects."

But by "formally" you must mean definitionally. Yes if you define sex and defect that way you will get that result.

"This is clear in the fact that only males and females together can actually procreate."

But that's a different way of defining sex .if your definition of the female sex is "one who can bear children" you are dealing with a different subset and will leave large parts of the population out. If you define sex as referring to anatomy you will cover everyone.

"that intersex, trans, etc. are defects inhibiting the proper expression of one's sex."

This is incorrect if by "proper expression of one's sex" you mean biological procreation. But more than that, like this piece your are needlessly trying to push everything into two labels based on tradition and religion and define what doesn't fit as defective. The terms you use in the sentence above have a very different meaning to some people and this would be interpreted as highly offensive to some.

"The human person is a unity of body and soul"

I disagree, the human person is a body as far as I can tell. Still waiting for convincing evidence of a soul.

Treating transgender people as suffering an illness is hurtful and marginalizing. There is no need to do so.

I think an important step for you would be to first think about why we need these distinctions in the first place. Then consider the usefulness of first separating medical from social understanding of sex. Then consider separating sex and gender and then further gender expression and gender identity.

It isn't clear to me how you understand gender exactly. I understand gender to be the social relations and roles of each biological sex to each other, to family, to community, to society.

In a way I agree with the gender theorists, that the sexes don't necessarily have to relate to each other and the rest in the 1950s model (which tends to be a caricature anyway).

I think one of our disagreements is, that although we agree that whatever a trans female it isn't a cis female, you seem to approach these as two different sexes. I, on the other hand, view the former as a defect, and not a defect of the female sex, but a defect of the male sex, and I insist that this is obviously true.

I attribute this disagreement due to a misunderstanding in natural philosophy as applied to sex: if we reduce sex only in its material organs, then of course we can be lead to believe that intersex, trans, etc. are real sexes. But once we reflect on the actual nature of sex, which involves sex formally as well as materially, we end up seeing only two sexes, with the rest being clear defects. This is clear in the fact that only males and females together can actually procreate.

Once we understand how to approach nature, it becomes immediately clear that intersex, trans, etc. are defects inhibiting the proper expression of one's sex.

The human person is a unity of body and soul, not a spirit that uses a body as an instrument in whatever it wills.

I'm not sure what the answer to the transgender's issues, but I can tell you what the answer is not, and the biggest is treating their condition as anything other than an illness.

Christi pax.