If we define sex according to salient mannishness/womanliness (as you would have us do), In the arena, bathroom, bedroom, doctor’s office, at physical jobs and in romantic relationships, where biology supposedly becomes more salient, it would make sense to refer to people by their biological sex, whereas at nonphysical jobs and in platonic relationships, where sociology, if you will, supposedly becomes more salient, it would make sense to refer to people by their social sex.
When wearing a dress and makeup a transwoman may appear womanish, so we would call her a woman, but when not wearing a dress and makeup they may appear manly, so we would call him a man.
If their social sex is partly or fully an act, on days they’re behaving ladylike, it would make sense to call her one, but on days they’re behaving manlike, it would make sense to call him one.
They may have mannish/womanly mood swings, so during their womanly moods, we’d call her a woman, and during their mannish, a man.
However, all that being said, the truth of the matter is, biology is always more-less salient, even at nonphysical jobs and in platonic relationships, no matter how much you try to cover it up with clothes, makeup, steroids and surgery, all thing which should define sex least, because they’re not innate to the person.
Biological sex in large part determines social sex, how we look underneath all the cosmetics and how we interact with other people and the world.
Altho the science is in its early stages, it’s demonstrating at best transwomen have androgynous brains and at worst mannish brains, so at best they’ll interact with other people, themselves for that matter and the world androgynously and at worst mannishly.
And underneath the cosmetics, at their very, very best, they have androgynous phenotypes and bodies, and at worst, mannish phenotypes and bodies.
Women look and behave differently than men, in platonic relationships and even at nonphysical jobs, and we treat them differently.
They bring a different approach, aura and energy to the workplace than do men.
Just as women can’t compete with men in sports because there’s a fundamental biological difference, men can’t compete with women at being womanly because there’s a fundamental biological difference.
Beneath all the externalities, the vast majority of women look and behave more womanly than both men, and transwomen, and while there may be a few exceptions, those biological women who look mannish, if they put as much effort into looking and behaving womanly as transwomen do, they could probably surpass them too.
But if there’s a bowl of organic fruit beside the bowl of plastic fruit, I’d ask you which apple, the fake one or the real one?
I’m not sure about Mad Man, I haven’t been closely following him, but if that were the case, I wouldn’t even acknowledge men can be authentically, genuinely, even naturally feminine in many ways, and women masculine.
It’s not that men are wholly masculine and women feminine, it’s that they’re fundamentally or predominantly masculine and feminine respectively, trans or no trans.
Progressives grossly exaggerate how much you can trans.
I’m a nominalist, not a Platonist.
An ape may be able to ape men, but he’s still an ape.
I appreciate that you’ve taken a nuanced position between two extremes.
I think I have too, but I’m more center-right on this, whereas you’re more center-left…or a dualist, because you think the social can be totally separated from the biological in most circumstances, whereas I don’t.