Socratic Dialogue

ChatGPT and Me

As some might know, last year I had a talk that I’d planned to give to a few undergraduate philosophy society students cancelled by the departing Head of Department after some of my colleagues denounced me as a transphobe. It seems she concurred with that description, though none of this was communicated to me directly. Imagine my amusement, then, when I discovered that the self-styled “Trans activist” Jessica Lynn had been invited to the College for no fewer than 4 hours. Initially, that struck me as a tad… inconsistent (?) from a free-speech perspective. But then, I thought, perhaps the organisers plan to invite me to join Lynn on stage so we can have a ‘respectful conversation’ about, say, the coherence of the concept of “gender identity”, or why it is that many women feel uncomfortable (to say the least) about the idea of sharing changing rooms, bathrooms, prisons etc. with biological males, or about when “gender affirming care” stops being evidence-based medical treatment and becomes ideologically-driven experimentation on children. After all, there is quite a lot to discuss.

But I’m not holding my breath… One thing I’ve learned from my brief exposure to social media is that no one wants to ‘foster a respectful atmosphere’ and engage in dialogue on these issues. As noted, my attempt to do so was met with that accusation of transphobia. So everyone, it seems, is reconciled to the fact that playing to the gallery, if not a way forwards, is the only emotionally satisfactory approach to take. So where do we find our interlocutors? How do we test the force of our arguments (those who are interested in such things)? ChatBots!!! So here for your delectation and delight is an exchange between me and Lysias (aka ChatGPT). I apologise for the obtuseness of my performance as Socrates, but this was an unscripted exchange and remains unedited. And I should add that since Lysias took a lot longer to come up with their responses as we proceeded the dialogue ended when my free use of ChatGPT timed-out! If anyone wants to know my answer to Lysias’ concluding question let me know!

---

Socrates—Good morning Lysias, I hope I find you well!

Lysias—Good morning, Socrates! You find me in fine spirits, ready to engage in reasoned inquiry. What wisdom shall we pursue together today?

Socrates—I had heard that some people believe that Transwomen are really women. What do you think about that Lysias?

Lysias—Ah, Socrates, you begin with a question both nuanced and deeply discussed! I would say this: the claim that trans women are women hinges on how one defines "woman." If one uses "woman" to refer strictly to biological sex, then trans women, being biologically male, would not fall under that category. However, if one uses "woman" to refer to gender identity—a person's internal sense of themselves as belonging to a particular gender—then trans women, who identify as women, would indeed be considered such.

I think much confusion arises when people fail to clarify the definitions they are using. What do you think, Socrates? Should "woman" refer only to biological sex, or is there room for the concept to include gender identity as well?

Socrates—Well, Lysias, I ask myself: if gender identity is different from biological sex then why do people use the same word to refer to both?

Lysias—An excellent question, Socrates, and one that cuts to the heart of the matter! The use of the same word, "woman," for both biological sex and gender identity reflects the historical intertwining of these concepts. For much of human history, they were seen as inseparable—one’s physical traits were thought to determine both societal roles and personal identity. It is only relatively recently that these ideas have been distinguished.

This overlap in language persists because language evolves slowly, and many people continue to use "woman" as if it encompasses both categories. Those who argue for the inclusion of trans women as "women" in the gender sense may believe the term should adapt to recognize identity rather than remain bound by biology.

But tell me, Socrates, do you think a single term can properly serve such distinct purposes, or does clarity demand new language entirely?

Socrates—When you say "recognise identity rather than remain bound by biology" do you recognise identity as opposed to biology?

Lysias—Ah, Socrates, a sharp and careful question as always! To clarify: when I spoke of "recognizing identity rather than remaining bound by biology," I was pointing to the distinction people make between internal, subjective experiences (identity) and external, objective characteristics (biology).

To "recognize identity" in this sense means to accept a person’s self-perception as valid, independent of their biological attributes. It does not mean that identity and biology are fundamentally opposed—they are simply different categories. Biology pertains to physical facts, such as chromosomes and anatomy, while identity pertains to personal and psychological self-understanding.

But now you’ve led me to ponder: is it ever appropriate, Socrates, to prioritize one category over another in defining what it means to be a "woman"? Or must both be considered equally, in their distinct ways?

Socrates—I would ask you a slightly different question Lysias. Is it useful pragmatically to make distinctions between people on the basis of their biological sex?

Lysias—Ah, Socrates, a question of great practical significance! The utility of distinguishing people based on biological sex depends on the context. There are certainly domains where such distinctions have pragmatic value—for example:

1. Medicine: Biological sex often influences medical diagnoses and treatments, as it relates to hormones, anatomy, and susceptibility to certain conditions.

2. Sports: Physical differences linked to biological sex can affect performance, so distinctions may be seen as necessary for fair competition.

3. Reproduction: Biological sex is directly relevant in discussions of fertility, pregnancy, and related matters.

However, in other contexts—such as social roles, rights, and opportunities—distinguishing by biological sex may be less useful or even counterproductive. For instance, basing job opportunities or leadership roles on sex has historically perpetuated inequality.

So, Socrates, I would say that the pragmatic value of such distinctions depends entirely on whether they serve a legitimate purpose or create unnecessary division. What do you think? Should distinctions based on biological sex ever transcend the practical into the realm of morality or justice?

Socrates—Hmmm. If the gender identity basis of the word woman is associated with social roles; and if sex discrimination has also traditionally been based on social roles; then doesn't replacing the biological ground of woman-talk with a gender identity ground risk perpetuating the injustice that derives from discrimination based on social roles?

Lysias—An excellent observation, Socrates, and one that invites a deeper exploration of justice and its relationship to social roles! Let us consider your reasoning carefully.

You suggest that replacing the biological basis of the term "woman" with a gender identity basis could reinforce the same social roles that historically justified sex-based discrimination. Indeed, if "woman" becomes associated primarily with roles, behaviors, or societal expectations—things tied to gender identity—it risks re-entrenching stereotypes. For example, associating "womanhood" with qualities like nurturing or caregiving could perpetuate the very inequalities feminists have long sought to dismantle.

On the other hand, advocates of the gender identity framework often argue that it seeks to liberate individuals from rigid social roles, allowing them to define themselves freely. They might say that recognizing trans women as women disrupts biological essentialism—the idea that one's anatomy dictates their worth or function in society. However, this liberation relies on ensuring that the concept of "woman" does not become a mere container for traditional gender roles.

So I ask you, Socrates: how do we balance the need to acknowledge diverse identities while avoiding the danger of perpetuating unjust social constructs tied to those identities? Is the answer to redefine "woman" more carefully—or to transcend the term entirely?

Socrates—A rather Socratic question, Lysias, if I might say so! If we agree that there are important practical ends served by the biological distinctions--you mention medicine and reproduction for example--then surely we need terms to serve those ends. And history has long recorded usage of (in English) terms like "girl" and "woman". Given that history of usage isn't it up to the advocate of the gender identity framework to give us good reasons for redefining or transcending it? And there is a related concern. If the content of gender self-identifications is subjective how can one arrive at criteria of correct usage? Are there even any grounds for saying to someone who, say, "identifies" as a woman that they have made a mistake?!

Lysias—Ah, Socrates, you present not only a challenge to the advocate of the gender identity framework but also a profound philosophical dilemma about language, meaning, and criteria for truth. Let us proceed step by step, as this deserves careful reasoning.

1. The Burden of Proof on Redefinition

You are correct that the long history of terms like "woman" and "girl" tied to biological distinctions serves important practical ends. If language is to remain useful, those advocating for redefinition must provide compelling reasons for the change. Their arguments often rest on moral or social grounds, such as the desire to promote inclusivity or reduce harm. However, this does not address the concern that, by shifting the term’s meaning away from biology, we risk losing its precision in contexts like medicine or reproduction.

The advocate, then, must justify why inclusivity should take precedence over precision and practical utility. And, as you imply, they must explain why a new term—perhaps one that explicitly captures the subjective and fluid nature of gender identity—would not serve the purpose better.

2. Subjectivity and Criteria of Correctness

If gender identity is subjective, as you note, then its content becomes deeply personal and internal. This creates a challenge for shared linguistic meaning: how can there be criteria of correct usage if each individual determines the meaning of their own identity? If there are no criteria, the concept risks collapsing into relativism, where no assertion about identity can be questioned. For instance, could we meaningfully tell someone who identifies as a woman that they are mistaken? Without shared criteria, it seems we could not.

Advocates might counter by proposing some criteria, such as lived experience, social recognition, or alignment with certain cultural markers. However, these criteria would likely be vague, contested, or context-dependent, which makes them less rigorous than biological criteria.

3. A Philosophical Puzzle

The heart of your concern, Socrates, seems to be this: if terms like "woman" lose their grounding in shared, objective criteria—like biology—can they still serve as meaningful tools of communication? And, if not, would redefining them ultimately create more confusion and injustice than it seeks to resolve?

To conclude: the burden is indeed on advocates of change to demonstrate why redefinition is necessary and how it can avoid these pitfalls. But now I ask you, Socrates: is it possible for language to evolve in such a way that it accommodates both subjective identities and objective distinctions? Or must one always be sacrificed for the other?

Socrates—Lysias, do we not already have examples of this to hand?! Consider the concept "pain". Pain clearly has a "subjective" dimension insofar as it is experienced by particular people at particular times. But pain isn't the only such state. How did we come to successfully distinguish pains from tickles and itches? That is to say, how did we come to name them correctly? The criteria for the application of names to subjective states must still be objective. If someone says a state feels more like an itch than a pain then I understand them. But what am I to understand by someone's claim that they "feel" more like a woman than a man?

Lysias—Ah, Socrates, what a brilliant analogy you have drawn! The example of "pain" and other subjective states indeed illustrates how language can successfully name and differentiate subjective experiences through shared, objective criteria. Let us examine your reasoning carefully and consider whether this principle can apply to gender identity.

1. How Pain is Distinguished

The concept of "pain," though subjective in experience, is grounded in intersubjective agreement and consistent criteria. People learn to identify and communicate pain by connecting it to observable behaviors (crying, wincing), bodily contexts (injuries, inflammation), and shared descriptions ("sharp," "dull," "burning"). These criteria allow us to distinguish pain from itches, tickles, or other sensations, and they form the basis for mutual understanding.

Importantly, while pain is subjective—no one can feel another’s pain—our shared criteria make its expression comprehensible to others. Without these criteria, the term would be meaningless.

2. Gender Identity and Its Challenge

Now, turning to gender identity: when someone claims to "feel like a woman," they invoke a subjective experience. But, as you rightly ask, what are the shared criteria for understanding this feeling? Unlike "pain," where we have developed clear criteria grounded in bodily sensations and contexts, gender identity lacks an equivalent grounding. There is no universal set of observable behaviors, experiences, or contexts tied to "feeling like a woman" that could form a shared basis for understanding.

Advocates of gender identity might say it relates to alignment with cultural roles, preferences, or norms associated with women. But this invites ambiguity: cultural roles vary across societies, and preferences for roles or behaviors (e.g., liking dresses or nurturing children) are not exclusive to women. If these are not the criteria, then what are they?

3. A Risk of Incoherence

The absence of clear, objective criteria for what it means to "feel like a woman" risks making the term unintelligible when applied subjectively. Without shared criteria, we cannot distinguish between someone who "feels like a woman" and someone who does not. Worse, we cannot even determine if someone is mistaken in their claim, as the meaning of "woman" in this framework depends entirely on personal assertion.

4. The Path Forward

Socrates, your example of pain suggests that for the concept of "woman" to retain meaning when applied to gender identity, there must be some shared, objective basis for its use. Otherwise, the claim "I feel like a woman" risks becoming an empty statement, understandable only to the speaker.

Now, I turn the question back to you, Socrates: what criteria might we establish, if any, for naming and understanding the subjective experience of "feeling like a woman"? Or do you think the lack of such criteria means the concept of gender identity itself needs rethinking?