Dear me, people do not like philosophical thinking on this issue — Hah!

@ScottRowe: Of course they get a say, but as you suggest, it's 'two way': that implies a discussion. Remember, most of segregation was based on the idea that whites did not want someone who 'looks like a black' in their public space, because 'looking like a black' invoked an imposed identity: the white racist stereotype of blacks as inferior, animalistic, and dangerous. Is that the kind of argument you're reaching for?

@ScottRowe: I'm not denying your side of this debate, which is certainly valid. But I think you'd agree that the best solution (if it were possible) would be to eliminate the fear, not enshrine the fear behind institutional and legal structures.

Can you elucidate what you mean by: 'Some people relate to the world as male, some people relate to the world as female." ? That is, what does it mean to "relate to the world" as either male or female, or some[non-binary]thing else? And how does one come to know/opine what/which one is relating to the world as? By reference to [socially constructed?] gender roles?

@Gonzo: I'm not sure how I can explain what you already know. You relate to the world in certain ways that you may or may not be consciously aware of, except when the world delivers something that runs against those expectations or beliefs (or whatever). Let there be a mismatch between how you relate to the world and how the world relates to you, however slight, and you will know it immediately and viscerally.

You may know that there is a "difference", but how one describes, characterizes that difference, and why, need be explored. for instance, I like to play with barbis rather than gi joes, or I like to sew/knit rather than tune carburators, etc. Problem is that the criteria we use to opine that we "relate" as a woman or man, male or female, lets "the world" off the hook. they should cease their pernicious stereotyping [causing unnecessary confusion], not force us, it's "residents," to tow the line. Have a look here: philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/39414/….

@gonzo: I'm personally far less concerned with how one characterizes an experience than with how the interpersonal conflicts those experiences generate are resolved. This is not the kind of issue that will be resolved or absolved by reference to some material 'fact'.

I have absolutely no idea of what your comment means. You say that " I'm...less concerned with how one characterizes an experience than with how the interpersonal conflicts those experiences generate are resolved." Huh? The "resolution" of which you speak presupposes/requires [at least] intersubjectively meaningful and relevant conceptual characterization and discourse. Do you simply refuse to eludicte wht you mean by 'Some people relate to the world as male, some people relate to the world as female." What's the diff?

@gonzo: I'm not refusing to do anything, but sometimes a question is such a philosophical tangle it can't be productively answered without further investigation. I assume you know perfectly well what I mean: by which I mean I assume you have a gender identity, and that you relate to the world in terms of that gender identity. If you do not identify with a gender, please let me know and I will make note of it for future conversations. If you do so identify, you cannot be completely unaware of the extent to which it colors your life. Can you?

@gonzo: I'm not concerned about what your (or anyone's) gender identity is. I'm only concerned by the ways in which perceptions of gender identity confront, conform, or conflict with the perceptions of gender identity of others. But that is something that has to be negotiated between people, not something that can be adjudicated by one side, or the other, or some bloodless material 'fact'. Intersubjective agreement is not always a synonym for or approximation of objective reality. Is that clearer?

If the question "is such a philosophical tangle it can't be productively answered without further investigation" then don't make glib statements implying that you know something that you in fact presuppose. And this stuff is not as benign as many would have us believe. Have a look at this: theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/07/… and this ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3634160, and Rebecca Tuvel's In Defense of Transracialism, which appeared in Hypatia a couple of years ago to substantial controversy.

@gonzo: if you have a point to make, make it. Don't ask grumpy, ambiguous questions; don't make vague hand-waves to external links. Say what you mean and mean what you say. I'm not here to read your mind, and I'm surely not here to think for you. If you have this much to say, write your own answer to this question. If you are incapable of writing your own answer, stop pestering me with frivolous, high-toned nonsense. Am I being clear?

No need to get huffy. If I [thought I] knew the answer to the question, I would answer it. The last paragraph of your answer makes an extremely bold unsupported claim about how one "relates' to the world, and one's "plumbing." I ask you to elucidate the claim and you equivocate. I caution you about making bold claims and send you precisely the type of information that may be helpful in untangling the relevant issues [the "philosophical tangle" you referenced in your comment] and you insult me. Yes, quite clear.

I don't get huffy because I need to; I get huffy because I'm annoyed. And if I'm annoyed with good reason, I have no problem whatsoever getting huffy. As to why I'm annoyed... You're basically asking me how one knows that 'red' is 'red' and 'green' is 'green'. If you can't tell the difference you don't know, and if you can tell the difference you do, but that has little if anything to do with (say) wavelengths of light.

You are making a load of assumptions in your question, but you are unwilling to question your own assumptions (or at least, you are unwilling to say anything clear and definitive enough to allow your assumptions to be questioned). That's bad form. As I said, it's not my job to guess what your assumptions are, because if you won't look for them, you won't see them.