• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

Status
Not open for further replies.

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
@Jarhyn

People's level of sensitivity to being misgendered tends to be variable. For me, it's not a huge deal. However, I have also never had the experience of somebody deliberately misgendering me just in order to be cruel. Wait, actually, I have, but I have always been able to tell when people were doing it on purpose v. when they were doing it by accident.

When I am pretty sure they are doing it by accident, though, I just politely misgender them back with the same oblivious smile on my face. In every single case, they've never misgendered me again. Apparently, it bothers other people moreso than it does me.

When people are doing it on purpose, though, then they come across to me as unbelievably petty. The offensive part is being in the presence of somebody that is really that bent on being despicable.
Some of us just disagree with the claims that transmen are men and transwomen are women, on the basis of observation of the evidence - prominently, linguistic evidence - and reason. It appears we are no longer allowed to argue the point on this board since that would be "misgendering"
You are entirely incorrect here. You can disagree with those claims, we have been doing so for more than 500 posts. Deliberately misgendering other members is not necessary to make an argument supporting or countering those claims, and that is what will run afoul of the TOU.
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
@Jarhyn

People's level of sensitivity to being misgendered tends to be variable. For me, it's not a huge deal. However, I have also never had the experience of somebody deliberately misgendering me just in order to be cruel. Wait, actually, I have, but I have always been able to tell when people were doing it on purpose v. when they were doing it by accident.

When I am pretty sure they are doing it by accident, though, I just politely misgender them back with the same oblivious smile on my face. In every single case, they've never misgendered me again. Apparently, it bothers other people moreso than it does me.

When people are doing it on purpose, though, then they come across to me as unbelievably petty. The offensive part is being in the presence of somebody that is really that bent on being despicable.
Some of us just disagree with the claims that transmen are men and transwomen are women, on the basis of observation of the evidence - prominently, linguistic evidence - and reason. It appears we are no longer allowed to argue the point on this board since that would be "misgendering"
You are entirely incorrect here. You can disagree with those claims, we have been doing so for more than 500 posts. Deliberately misgendering other members is not necessary to make an argument supporting or countering those claims, and that is what will run afoul of the TOU.
I think circumstances matter. I think that there is a difference between further beleaguering a person that clearly is concerned about the safety of their child v. merely being offensive toward somebody, such as I, that has overtly boasted about being relatively thick-skinned. Bullying the parent of a child that was violently battered and sexually assaulted is unpardonable. It is not just hateful. It is beyond the pale.

In my opinion, context affects meaning.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,921
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Language and linguistic meta cannot be evidence of phenomena other than as phenomena of things of language.

People calling some thing by some utterance does not make that thing anything beyond what it is.

It is a circular argument further to say "and reason" when the topic is "show us your reasons". If it is reasonable, you will be able to show your calculus.
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
Language and linguistic meta cannot be evidence of phenomena other than as phenomena of things of language.

People calling some thing by some utterance does not make that thing anything beyond what it is.

It is a circular argument further to say "and reason" when the topic is "show us your reasons". If it is reasonable, you will be able to show your calculus.
It is effectively as circular as false arguments, either way, about consent.

"I define any sex act that is not arranged based on a contract signed in triplicate by both parties to be rape; therefore, you are a rapist."

"I define orgasm as consent; therefore, you are not a rapist."

In actuality, rape is a serious crime precisely because of the injury done to the victim. We do not make those rules lighty or based on technicalities or semantics.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,921
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Language and linguistic meta cannot be evidence of phenomena other than as phenomena of things of language.

People calling some thing by some utterance does not make that thing anything beyond what it is.

It is a circular argument further to say "and reason" when the topic is "show us your reasons". If it is reasonable, you will be able to show your calculus.
It is effectively as circular as false arguments, either way, about consent.

"I define any sex act that is not arranged based on a contract signed in triplicate by both parties to be rape; therefore, you are a rapist."

"I define orgasm as consent; therefore, you are not a rapist."

In actuality, rape is a serious crime precisely because of the injury done to the victim. We do not make those rules lighty or based on technicalities or semantics.
So, I've been having a long talk about my transition with my therapist (sorry, changing the subject!).

I realize "Nobody likes puberty." The thing is, I would entirely undergo all those experiences, the joint pain and the awkwardness, the zits and the embarrassments... if they didn't yield the becoming that they did upon my life.

I would experience the journey a thousand times of growing up a body so that someone else wouldn't have to.

I just don't want the result. Someone else can have a gangly wire-haired ape body. I'll take something less basic.

I would grow up a thousand times among a thousand awful bitches and mean girls. I would grow up a thousand times amid a thousand sets of masculine assholes.

I would certainly prefer not to. I would prefer to grow up among peers who just don't care about sex, but instead are the kind of people it's almost like sex just to know them and have them in your life.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,274
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Some of us just disagree with the claims that transmen are men and transwomen are women, on the basis of observation of the evidence - prominently, linguistic evidence - and reason. It appears we are no longer allowed to argue the point on this board since that would be "misgendering", so just let me point out that the motivation in my case was to argue against false claims - this is a discussion board after all - , in particular a false religion/ideology/whatever one calls it (Wokeism) which is on the rise and gaining power, and also appears dominant on this board.

You can argue the position without using inappropriate labels for individuals in the discussion.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Some of us just disagree with the claims that transmen are men and transwomen are women, on the basis of observation of the evidence - prominently, linguistic evidence - and reason. It appears we are no longer allowed to argue the point on this board since that would be "misgendering", so just let me point out that the motivation in my case was to argue against false claims - this is a discussion board after all - , in particular a false religion/ideology/whatever one calls it (Wokeism) which is on the rise and gaining power, and also appears dominant on this board.

You can argue the position without using inappropriate labels for individuals in the discussion.
Of course, but a big problem is a disagreement about what labels are appropriate, and also the concept of "misgendering". Could you define that, please?

At any rate, I will try, but I would like to ask for clarification.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Jarhyn said:
Language and linguistic meta cannot be evidence of phenomena other than as phenomena of things of language.

People calling some thing by some utterance does not make that thing anything beyond what it is.

It is a circular argument further to say "and reason" when the topic is "show us your reasons". If it is reasonable, you will be able to show your calculus.
First, of course they can be evidence of other things. But that's not my point here.

Second, of course people calling some thing by some utterance does not make that thing anything beyond what it is. That is trivial, but also irrelevant to my point.

Third, there was no circular argument on my part. Furthermore, there was no argument at all. I was reporting on my motivations and why I had some beliefs, not arguing for it. And yes, I am able of course to make my case. I have already made my case, successfully. The Woke won't see it, but for that matter, I have repeatedly debunked versions of Christianity covering nearly all Christians, even though Christians never realized it.

All that said, okay, I will make my case, and let us see what happens.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
SigmatheZeta said:
It is effectively as circular as false arguments, either way, about consent.

"I define any sex act that is not arranged based on a contract signed in triplicate by both parties to be rape; therefore, you are a rapist."

"I define orgasm as consent; therefore, you are not a rapist."

In actuality, rape is a serious crime precisely because of the injury done to the victim. We do not make those rules lighty or based on technicalities or semantics.
I didn't even make an argument, and yet you just go on to say that I argued circularly.

There is a very big difference between saying something like "I define orgasm as consent...", and saying that the meaning of the words "orgasm" and "consent" in English are such that orgasm implies consent. The former claim (i.e., "I define orgasm as consent") may or may not be a true claim about the speaker, but even if it is, it is irrelevant in a debate about whether someone is a rapist - in English, as I am speaking in English. The latter claim (i.e., that the meaning of the words "orgasm" and "consent" in English are such that orgasm implies consent) is false, but potentially relevant to a discussion of whether someone committed rape.

I do not know at this point whether you are willing to seriously engage my arguments against the claims that trans men are men and/or that trans women are women. If you are, I would ask you to ask about my arguments and views when you do not know them, rather than saying that I'm saying what I'm not saying.

That said, I have a question of my own too, again conditioned to your being willing to discuss the matter seriously (the question is meant to probe whether you believe that the meaning of the words has changed in the past 3 decades, since that would influence the line of argument that is most adequate to engage you).

Let us consider an example, say Elliot Page ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliot_Page for instance )
Before, say, 1995 (for example), Elliot Page's mother Martha Philpotts surely said at least once that "my daughter" did this or that or was like this or that, or that "she" did this or that or was like this or that, etc., or "I have a daughter", or something along those lines, when talking about Elliot Page - who did not go by that name then. So, let us fix one of those instances (if you are not certain that any of that happened, let us assume it happened for the sake of the argument, as my question works for a hypothetical case anyway). My question to you is: Do you believe that Ms. Philpotts made a false claim?

I am not asking about whether Ms. Philpotts did anything wrong, but only whether the claim was false (or if you like to nitpick, whether you have sufficient information to ascertain that the claim was false, or at least probably false).
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
SigmatheZeta said:
It is effectively as circular as false arguments, either way, about consent.

"I define any sex act that is not arranged based on a contract signed in triplicate by both parties to be rape; therefore, you are a rapist."

"I define orgasm as consent; therefore, you are not a rapist."

In actuality, rape is a serious crime precisely because of the injury done to the victim. We do not make those rules lighty or based on technicalities or semantics.
I didn't even make an argument, and yet you just go on to say that I argued circularly.

There is a very big difference between saying something like "I define orgasm as consent...", and saying that the meaning of the words "orgasm" and "consent" in English are such that orgasm implies consent. The former claim (i.e., "I define orgasm as consent") may or may not be a true claim about the speaker, but even if it is, it is irrelevant in a debate about whether someone is a rapist - in English, as I am speaking in English. The latter claim (i.e., that the meaning of the words "orgasm" and "consent" in English are such that orgasm implies consent) is false, but potentially relevant to a discussion of whether someone committed rape.

I do not know at this point whether you are willing to seriously engage my arguments against the claims that trans men are men and/or that trans women are women. If you are, I would ask you to ask about my arguments and views when you do not know them, rather than saying that I'm saying what I'm not saying.

That said, I have a question of my own too, again conditioned to your being willing to discuss the matter seriously (the question is meant to probe whether you believe that the meaning of the words has changed in the past 3 decades, since that would influence the line of argument that is most adequate to engage you).

Let us consider an example, say Elliot Page ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliot_Page for instance )
Before, say, 1995 (for example), Elliot Page's mother Martha Philpotts surely said at least once that "my daughter" did this or that or was like this or that, or that "she" did this or that or was like this or that, etc., or "I have a daughter", or something along those lines, when talking about Elliot Page - who did not go by that name then. So, let us fix one of those instances (if you are not certain that any of that happened, let us assume it happened for the sake of the argument, as my question works for a hypothetical case anyway). My question to you is: Do you believe that Ms. Philpotts made a false claim?

I am not asking about whether Ms. Philpotts did anything wrong, but only whether the claim was false (or if you like to nitpick, whether you have sufficient information to ascertain that the claim was false, or at least probably false).
I have literally no sense of humor for semantic arguments. They are tantamount to basing your worldview on a pun.

I have very strong nominalist views. We would be better off taking that up, in greater detail, on one of the philosophy forums. The bottom-line is that I find hypostatization to be profoundly offensive.

My nominalist views affect my views on semiotic theory. I owe nothing to abstract things. I do not owe anything to my language, and my language owes its very existence to me. My language is my slave. Sometimes, I like to beat my slave with a whip just because doing so amuses me. Sometimes, I truncate its limbs just to keep myself in practice. I will use my language in the manner that is the most convenient for me.

It is convenient for me to call myself a woman. Calling myself a woman makes me feel pretty damn fantastic. I will do what makes me feel good. I will do what makes my life better. To my language, I am a deity. May my will be done.

Don't you wanna to be evil, like me?
Don't you wanna to be cruel?
Don't you wanna be nasty and brutal and cool?


I do not require a good reason to butcher this language. I can butcher this language for fun if I want to.

What it sounds like you want to do is create a semantic argument to try to pressure me into calling myself a man when I really do not want to and when doing so is extremely bad for my mental health. If you are like other people I have interacted with that have relied on semantic arguments, then you want to try to entrap me into agreeing that I should call myself the "correct" thing, so you can mount some sort of clever argument, based on rigged assumptions, that makes it "incorrect" to call myself a woman.

I will call myself a woman because it makes me feel good, and it is arguably necessary for my mental health. I do not owe anything to semantics.

I will dangle your language upside-down over a cauldron of boiling hot oil if it suits me to do so.

The answer is no, no, no, no,
no, no, hell to the no.

Semantic arguments tend to be the most grievous of bad faith arguments.
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
The exact and most correct description of what I am is a "transgender woman." This implies, intrinsically, that my assigned sex at birth was male. I am not disguising anything whatsoever. I am being profoundly accurate.

Attempting to perceive myself as a member of the male sex makes me profoundly uncomfortable. The nearest I can come to relating it is to compare it with most men's feelings over the idea of being castrated. Something deep within me says, "Nope, so much nope."

I am not obligated to sacrifice my mental health over a bad faith semantic argument.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,436
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Like science, they ignore semantic history and argumentation whenever it doesn't support what they're saying. Formal academic definitions of gender, some of which have made their way into "the dictionary"? Transparent and easily available evidence that the younger generation doesn't find these issues confusing and routinely use a larger but still reasonably limited set of sex and gender terms to refer to themselves than their parents did, without incurring undue confusion? All will be ignored as not "really" evidence, because what they're really saying is "I don't want to understand these words, because understanding these words might require changng the way I think about their referents."
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
SigmatheZeta said:
I have literally no sense of humor for semantic arguments. They are tantamount to basing your worldview on a pun.
No, they are not tantamount to that. And it is not about a sense of humor. It is about whether transmen and men and/or transwomen are women (I'll call those 'trans claims' for short). I am willing to argue that this is almost certainly not the case for nearly all trans men or trans women at least, and in any event, it would be unwarranted to believe they are. In order to make that case, I would of course use evidence about the way in which English speakers use the words "man" and "woman", since the meaning of the words is given by usage.
SigmatheZeta said:
I have very strong nominalist views. We would be better off taking that up, in greater detail, on one of the philosophy forums. The bottom-line is that I find hypostatization to be profoundly offensive.
If this is what you mean by "hypostatization", that has nothing to do with what I am doing. As for your claim that you find it profoundly offensive, if that is a claim about your own personal reaction, I have nothing do say. If you on the other hand are saying that hypostatization is very immoral, I do not see any good reason to think so in general. It is simply a philosophy mistake.


SigmatheZeta said:
My nominalist views affect my views on semiotic theory. I owe nothing to abstract things. I do not owe anything to my language, and my language owes its very existence to me. My language is my slave. Sometimes, I like to beat my slave with a whip just because doing so amuses me. Sometimes, I truncate its limbs just to keep myself in practice. I will use my language in the manner that is the most convenient for me.
Language is not the sort of entity one can own things to. But it is not yours in the sense of property. It is yours in the sense that you are a native speaker. And while you can choose the words that you find more convenient, that does not change the meaning of the words in English, which is given by the usage in a community of speakers, not by you in particular. For that matter, I can choose to define the word 'demon' to mean 'a male human being', and then the statement "I am an demon" is true in the modified variant of English that I have just invented. However, it is not true in English, and it would be a confusion on my part to believe that a person who says - in English - that I am not a demon is mistaken.


SigmatheZeta said:
It is convenient for me to call myself a woman. Calling myself a woman makes me feel pretty damn fantastic. I will do what makes me feel good. I will do what makes my life better. To my language, I am a deity. May my will be done.
Bringing up your particular case puts me in a difficult position due to the obscure rule against "misgendering", so I have difficulty replying (i.e., because I do not know whether I will be allowed to, not because your answer presents a difficult point).

But I will reply avoiding your case: Going back to my example, imagine it is convenient for Elliot Page to call Elliot Page a man. And then I go on and say that Elliot Page is not a man. Then my statement is not false just on account of Elliot Page finding it convenient to say that. For that matter, if I find it convenient to call myself a demon, that would not make it false if other people assert - in English - that I am not a demon.
SigmatheZeta said:
Don't you wanna to be evil, like me?
Don't you wanna to be cruel?
Don't you wanna be nasty and brutal and cool?
Not really, why?

SigmatheZeta said:
I do not require a good reason to butcher this language. I can butcher this language for fun if I want to.
Sure. But that does not have anything to do with whether trans claims are true - in English.


SigmatheZeta said:
What it sounds like you want to do is create a semantic argument to try to pressure me into calling myself a man when I really do not want to and when doing so is extremely bad for my mental health.
It may sound like that to you, but you have no good reason to suspect so. Furthermore, I am not trying to do any of the sort. In fact, I am trying to avoid talking about you or anyone else in the thread, because there is an obscure rule against something called "misgendering" that I don't want to risk being considered in breach by the moderators.

As for my motivation, remember how this began. You made disparaging general claims about the motivations of other people. I told you about some of our motivations, and then I offered to make my case if you were willing to debate seriously. It seems either you do not, or you do not understand the disagreement enough to debate, as you go on the offensive but without touching on the central points.


SigmatheZeta said:
If you are like other people I have interacted with that have relied on semantic arguments, then you want to try to entrap me into agreeing that I should call myself the "correct" thing, so you can mount some sort of clever argument, based on rigged assumptions, that makes it "incorrect" to call myself a woman.
I do not care about what you call yourself. I do care about the attacks - from canceling to on-line bullying at least - against people who disagree with trans claims. Going back to my example, I do not care if Elliot Page calls Elliot Page a man. I do care if someone (whether Elliot Page or someone else) accuses someone else of either making a false claim or acting wrongfully just on account on their saying, arguing, etc., that Elliot Page is a woman or is not a man.

SigmatheZeta said:
I will call myself a woman because it makes me feel good, and it is arguably necessary for my mental health. I do not owe anything to semantics.
I do not care that you do that. It's the Woke attack on those who do not agree with trans claims that worries me - among other things, but not what you choose to call yourself.

SigmatheZeta said:
I will dangle your language upside-down over a cauldron of boiling hot oil if it suits me to do so.
But that does not have any bearing on whether trans claims are true.

SigmatheZeta said:
The answer is no, no, no, no,
no, no, hell to the no.
The only question I asked you was whether Martha Philpotts was in error. What is it that you are replying 'no' to?

SigmatheZeta said:
Semantic arguments tend to be the most grievous of bad faith arguments.
And here you make a false and unwarranted insinuation at best. I argue in good faith. But you have not even engaged my arguments. You instead attacked something not related to them, and attacked me. I realize that you do not realize that you are doing any of this. But that does not change the fact that you are doing it.


SigmatheZeta said:
The exact and most correct description of what I am is a "transgender woman." This implies, intrinsically, that my assigned sex at birth was male. I am not disguising anything whatsoever. I am being profoundly accurate.
I did not suggest you were disguising anything. I do not even want to talk about you. I just dislike being accused for no good reason. And dislike it when others are so accused. Particularly when the accusers are part of a rising religion/ideology.

SigmatheZeta said:
Attempting to perceive myself as a member of the male sex makes me profoundly uncomfortable. The nearest I can come to relating it is to compare it with most men's feelings over the idea of being castrated. Something deep within me says, "Nope, so much nope."
Those facts about you have no bearing on my arguments. I would rather not talk about you, and use other examples instead, due to the obscure "misgendering" rule.

SigmatheZeta said:
I am not obligated to sacrifice my mental health over a bad faith semantic argument.
Of course you are not, but now you make make a false and unwarranted accusation against me - this one goes beyond insinuation, without the "tend to be" of the previous one.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Politesse said:
Like science, they ignore semantic history and argumentation whenever it doesn't support what they're saying.
And you choose to make a false and unwarranted accusation against me, 100% made up by you. I realize that you do not realize and will never realize that, so you are not doing this deliberately. But that does not change the fact that it is a false and unwarranted accusation.

Politesse said:
Formal academic definitions of gender, some of which have made their way into "the dictionary"?
I'm talking about whether the claims are true in English. And also whether those who disagree with them are making false statements.

Politesse said:
Transparent and easily available evidence that the younger generation doesn't find these issues confusing and routinely use a larger but still reasonably limited set of sex and gender terms to refer to themselves than their parents did, without incurring undue confusion?
Confusion is rampant among the Woke. And among those trying to say what they think they need to say to avoid incurring the wrath of Woke warriors.

Politesse said:
All will be ignored as not "really" evidence, because what they're really saying is "I don't want to understand these words, because understanding these words might require changng the way I think about their referents."
And more attacks, zero evidence, arguments, etc. How about actually making your case? How about asking me about my views, instead of accusing me of things you just invent?

I will ask you the same question that I asked SigmatheZeta:

Before, say, 1995 (for example), Elliot Page's mother Martha Philpotts surely said at least once that "my daughter" did this or that or was like this or that, or that "she" did this or that or was like this or that, etc., or "I have a daughter", or something along those lines, when talking about Elliot Page - who did not go by that name then. So, let us fix one of those instances (if you are not certain that any of that happened, let us assume it happened for the sake of the argument, as my question works for a hypothetical case anyway). My question to you is: Do you believe that Ms. Philpotts made a false claim?

I am not asking about whether Ms. Philpotts did anything wrong, but only whether the claim was false (or if you like to nitpick, whether you have sufficient information to ascertain that the claim was false, or at least probably false).
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,147
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
And more attacks, zero evidence, arguments, etc.
Please don't be so hard on yourself. I realize that you do not realize and will never realize that, so you are not doing this deliberately. But that does not change the fact that it is a false andunwarranted accusation.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
And more attacks, zero evidence, arguments, etc.
Please don't be so hard on yourself. I realize that you do not realize and will never realize that, so you are not doing this deliberately. But that does not change the fact that it is a false andunwarranted accusation.
It is not. It is obvious in the eyes of anyone who actually understands the exchange and is being rational about it.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,147
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
And more attacks, zero evidence, arguments, etc.
Please don't be so hard on yourself. I realize that you do not realize and will never realize that, so you are not doing this deliberately. But that does not change the fact that it is a false andunwarranted accusation.
It is not. It is obvious in the eyes of anyone who actually understands the exchange and is being rational about it.
It is obvious in the eyes of anyone who actually understands the exchange and is being rational about it that you do not realize and will never realize that, you made a false and unwarranted accusation.:: it is your MO.
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,772
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
There is only one reason people have difficulty addressing a transwoman as "she" and engage in the related cultural genderizations ("treating" her like a "she", so to speak)... And that is the fear of the realization they are sexually attracted to her. The outrage is a form of homophobia that is more common in "straight males" than not, related to the sexual orientation that they think other people think they have. If someone thinks that a man like that might be homosexual, then that is horrific fear come true for them.
So, giving any transwoman the benefit of being treated how they wish to be treated, in the minds of these males I am describing, is akin to "being gay"... or "looking like they are probably gay".
what is thought by society as masculine sexuality is extremely black and white... it's gay or it's not. Feminine sexuality, as traditionally seen, is accepted as more fluid. So, a "man" engaging in flexible thinking about sexuality - total faggot.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,436
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Politesse said:
Like science, they ignore semantic history and argumentation whenever it doesn't support what they're saying.
And you choose to make a false and unwarranted accusation against me, 100% made up by you. I realize that you do not realize and will never realize that, so you are not doing this deliberately. But that does not change the fact that it is a false and unwarranted accusation.

Politesse said:
Formal academic definitions of gender, some of which have made their way into "the dictionary"?
I'm talking about whether the claims are true in English. And also whether those who disagree with them are making false statements.

Politesse said:
Transparent and easily available evidence that the younger generation doesn't find these issues confusing and routinely use a larger but still reasonably limited set of sex and gender terms to refer to themselves than their parents did, without incurring undue confusion?
Confusion is rampant among the Woke. And among those trying to say what they think they need to say to avoid incurring the wrath of Woke warriors.

Politesse said:
All will be ignored as not "really" evidence, because what they're really saying is "I don't want to understand these words, because understanding these words might require changng the way I think about their referents."
And more attacks, zero evidence, arguments, etc. How about actually making your case? How about asking me about my views, instead of accusing me of things you just invent?

I will ask you the same question that I asked SigmatheZeta:

Before, say, 1995 (for example), Elliot Page's mother Martha Philpotts surely said at least once that "my daughter" did this or that or was like this or that, or that "she" did this or that or was like this or that, etc., or "I have a daughter", or something along those lines, when talking about Elliot Page - who did not go by that name then. So, let us fix one of those instances (if you are not certain that any of that happened, let us assume it happened for the sake of the argument, as my question works for a hypothetical case anyway). My question to you is: Do you believe that Ms. Philpotts made a false claim?

I am not asking about whether Ms. Philpotts did anything wrong, but only whether the claim was false (or if you like to nitpick, whether you have sufficient information to ascertain that the claim was false, or at least probably false).
I don't know why you thought my post was specifically directed at you. If you don't think my comments apply to you, then they don't. I'm glad you aren't engaging in hypocritical, cherry-picked appeals to vague authority, if you indeed are not.

As for Mrs Philpott's statements, obviously no one would fault her for saying something she believed to be true at the time. Assigning gender at birth is not equivalent to deliberate misgendering. Since you ask, it seems to me that asking whether her statement was "false" is a pointless question, as it invites a personally invasive public debate in which most people's opinions are already more than set, and to whom no presentation of fact or rhetoric will make any difference. I certainly would not presume to speak for Eliot in such a matter, nor do I have any idea how he would answer that question. And aside from Eliot and his mother, I don't see whose justifiable business it would be to ask.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,436
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
There is only one reason people have difficulty addressing a transwoman as "she" and engage in the related cultural genderizations ("treating" her like a "she", so to speak)... And that is the fear of the realization they are sexually attracted to her. The outrage is a form of homophobia that is more common in "straight males" than not, related to the sexual orientation that they think other people think they have. If someone thinks that a man like that might be homosexual, then that is horrific fear come true for them.
So, giving any transwoman the benefit of being treated how they wish to be treated, in the minds of these males I am describing, is akin to "being gay"... or "looking like they are probably gay".
what is thought by society as masculine sexuality is extremely black and white... it's gay or it's not. Feminine sexuality, as traditionally seen, is accepted as more fluid. So, a "man" engaging in flexible thinking about sexuality - total faggot.
I don't know if that's the only factor, but it certainly is a factor. I think the investment people have in their ability to "clock" trans people, and their obsession with doing so publically even in situations where they must know they're putting that person in danger, stems from that very anxiety you describe. No one is a perpetrator only of social stigmas, we are all victims of our social conditioning as well, and the aggression that fuels today's debates creates the foundation for the next generation's own forms of anxiety and alienation.

Indeed, I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I get very upset with these debates. Maybe you could even say disproportionately so, and it hurts my mental health to get all worked up more than it is likely to change anyone's mind. I know this. But I have a good deal of personal sympathy for trans people, as although I am cis, the same people who made my life hell growing up also hate trans people, and as you note, that hatred often stems from the same place. When I was seven or nine or twelve, the bullies on the playground who beat the shit out of me, and the adults who looked the other way, weren't criticizing who I literally had sex with; I was a kid, I had consensual sex with no one. They were, in 100% of cases, attacking me for perceived failures of masculinity. So I was never trans, but was certainly a victim of transphobia. Perhaps that's the reason I get so personally invested. That and my genuine love and gratitude for all the trans people who have enriched my life over the years, my former spouse included.

But, I also think if that is the reason, it's a good reason. No one should have to be hurt like Z and I were growing up. No one should want to hurt other people like that. And in any society I would want to live in, no one should tolerate seeing others hurt like that. All the Bibles and Qurans and Constitutions and Dictionaries in the world can be used as dead weight for the stoning, but they can never, ever justify it.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Gun Nut said:
There is only one reason people have difficulty addressing a transwoman as "she" and engage in the related cultural genderizations ("treating" her like a "she", so to speak)... And that is the fear of the realization they are sexually attracted to her. The outrage is a form of homophobia that is more common in "straight males" than not, related to the sexual orientation that they think other people think they have. If someone thinks that a man like that might be homosexual, then that is horrific fear come true for them.
So, giving any transwoman the benefit of being treated how they wish to be treated, in the minds of these males I am describing, is akin to "being gay"... or "looking like they are probably gay".
what is thought by society as masculine sexuality is extremely black and white... it's gay or it's not. Feminine sexuality, as traditionally seen, is accepted as more fluid. So, a "man" engaging in flexible thinking about sexuality - total faggot.
You are mistaken. I already explained some of the reasons. But also, that "reason" is nonsense, and I would see right through the nonsense (others might not, but that would be their problem, not mine). I believe I am a straight man. Suppose I felt attracted to a transwoman. Then if I didn't want to find my belief that I am a straight man threatened, what would help me would be to believe that the transwoman is a woman, so that would be in line with my being a straight man - assuming of course that whether a man is straight has to do with whether he is attracted to women or to men, which seems very probable to me.


No, the real 'threat' to my belief that I am a straight man would not come from believing that transwomen are women. After all, I do not need to feel attracted to every single woman to be a straight man, but regardless of whether I feel attracted to a transwoman, that's just compatible if transwomen happened to be women. The real problem for my being straight would be...transmen! Because while some transmen look like men at least when clothed and that makes them very unattractive to me, others can look just like any human female, and not due to clothes covering some of their sexual organs, but even without then (say, before any sort of surgery, before coming out as trans, etc). So, if I ever care about something that - in Woke-like 'English' - would deny my identity as a straight man, that would be transmen claims, not transwomen claims. To put it simple: I do not find Elliot Page sexually attractive anymore, but I did find Elliot Page attractive say 10 years ago, and by usual trans claims, Elliot Page was already a man then.

Am I bisexual, rather than straight? Since trans claims are not true, no. If they were true, it would depend on whether the meaning of the words 'bisexual' and 'straight' has changed as well. But of course, I would not be mistaken about whom I feel attracted to. Just about the meaning of some words. And in any event, in reality I do not find the prospect of being mistaken about the meaning of some words threatening at all.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Politesse said:
As for Mrs Philpott's statements, obviously no one would fault her for saying something she believed to be true at the time.
Well, perhaps some people would fault you (in a population of hundreds of millions, there are odd cases), but that is not my point. As I said, I am asking only whether the claim was false (or if you like to nitpick, whether you have sufficient information to ascertain that the claim was false, or at least probably false).

Yes, she believed that she had a daughter, and her daughter did this or that. My question is: was her statement that she had a daughter (or similar ones; see my post for details) false?

As I explained to SigmatheZeta, the reason I ask this is to probe whether you believe the meaning of the words in English has changed the past 3 decades, since that would influence the line of argument that is most adequate to engage you.

Politesse said:
Assigning gender at birth is not equivalent to deliberate misgendering.
Gender was not assigned, but sex. However, this is not relevant to my question. As far as my question is concerned, Mrs Philpott may be either morally perfect or evil incarnate. It does not matter at all to that question. The only reason for my question is to probe your belief about the meaning of the words about 30 years ago.

Politesse said:
Since you ask, it seems to me that asking whether her statement was "false" is a pointless question, as it invites a personally invasive public debate in which most people's opinions are already more than set, and to whom no presentation of fact or rhetoric will make any difference.
It is not pointless at all. If you refuse to answer, I can only engage you by posting walls of text considering the possibility that you believe A1, A2,...., An, instead of focusing on a manageable discussion. You simply refuse to engage. That's okay, if you do not want to discuss the matter with me no problem. Please just do not accuse me and others of all sorts of bad things because of our position...which you do not want to address.

Politesse said:
I certainly would not presume to speak for Eliot in such a matter, nor do I have any idea how he would answer that question.
I certainly would not presume to speak for Elliot Page in such a matter or any other, nor do I have any idea how Elliot Page would answer that question. But those things are 100% irrelevant to the goal of my question. If I am to defend my position in a conversation with you, I want to know your answer, not Page's.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,337
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I believe I am a straight man.
I appreciate that you posted that.

Where I live, your screen name appears feminine. But your posting style doesn't. So, I wasn't sure.

I try not to misgender other forum posters. But, sometimes it's hard to tell. When all you have to go on is little black marks on the screen of your smartphone, it gets difficult to be polite.
Which I want to.
Tom
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
I believe I am a straight man.
I appreciate that you posted that.

Where I live, your screen name appears feminine. But your posting style doesn't. So, I wasn't sure.

I try not to misgender other forum posters. But, sometimes it's hard to tell. When all you have to go on is little black marks on the screen of your smartphone, it gets difficult to be polite.
Which I want to.
Tom
Yeah, I've been called a woman many times by the screen name (though if you google "Angra Mainyu", it's either a "he" or an "it"), but I don't feel offended by that. I just clarify if needed. I still do not know what "misgender" means in the rule, though. It's obscure.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,337
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I believe I am a straight man.
I appreciate that you posted that.

Where I live, your screen name appears feminine. But your posting style doesn't. So, I wasn't sure.

I try not to misgender other forum posters. But, sometimes it's hard to tell. When all you have to go on is little black marks on the screen of your smartphone, it gets difficult to be polite.
Which I want to.
Tom
Yeah, I've been called a woman many times by the screen name (though if you google "Angra Mainyu", it's either a "he" or an "it"), but I don't feel offended by that. I just clarify if needed. I still do not know what "misgender" means in the rule, though. It's obscure.
Possibly because your screen name resembles Maya Angelou.

A wonderful female poet, among other wonderful things, like 20th century Goddess.
Tom
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,436
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Politesse said:
As for Mrs Philpott's statements, obviously no one would fault her for saying something she believed to be true at the time.
Well, perhaps some people would fault you (in a population of hundreds of millions, there are odd cases), but that is not my point. As I said, I am asking only whether the claim was false (or if you like to nitpick, whether you have sufficient information to ascertain that the claim was false, or at least probably false).

Yes, she believed that she had a daughter, and her daughter did this or that. My question is: was her statement that she had a daughter (or similar ones; see my post for details) false?

As I explained to SigmatheZeta, the reason I ask this is to probe whether you believe the meaning of the words in English has changed the past 3 decades, since that would influence the line of argument that is most adequate to engage you.

Politesse said:
Assigning gender at birth is not equivalent to deliberate misgendering.
Gender was not assigned, but sex. However, this is not relevant to my question. As far as my question is concerned, Mrs Philpott may be either morally perfect or evil incarnate. It does not matter at all to that question. The only reason for my question is to probe your belief about the meaning of the words about 30 years ago.

Politesse said:
Since you ask, it seems to me that asking whether her statement was "false" is a pointless question, as it invites a personally invasive public debate in which most people's opinions are already more than set, and to whom no presentation of fact or rhetoric will make any difference.
It is not pointless at all. If you refuse to answer, I can only engage you by posting walls of text considering the possibility that you believe A1, A2,...., An, instead of focusing on a manageable discussion. You simply refuse to engage. That's okay, if you do not want to discuss the matter with me no problem. Please just do not accuse me and others of all sorts of bad things because of our position...which you do not want to address.

Politesse said:
I certainly would not presume to speak for Eliot in such a matter, nor do I have any idea how he would answer that question.
I certainly would not presume to speak for Elliot Page in such a matter or any other, nor do I have any idea how Elliot Page would answer that question. But those things are 100% irrelevant to the goal of my question. If I am to defend my position in a conversation with you, I want to know your answer, not Page's.
I do not see how any standard of "truth" that isn't the testimony of the two people involved can be in any way relevant. Gender is a fundamentally social concept. No doubt Mrs. Philpott considered her statements true, at the time. Eliot himself may or may not consider that fair or accurate. I wouldn't presume to guess, and it's no one else's business. Whether or not anyone else is willing to acknowledge Eliot's chosen gender title and pronoun is a function of their social and political biases, not any kind of "objective reality". Were it a question of truly objective reality, I would not be able to accurately guess your position on gender by looking at your voting records.

On a side note, we pile a lot of social labels onto the young without their consent, and sometimes they grow out of those identities with a perspective all their own. If I describe my five-year old child as a Phillies fan, a Presbyterian, or a Proletarian, I may not be intentionally lying, but they may eventually grow up and find that they no longer agree with the box I painted them into. And any reasonable parent should be okay with that.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Politesse said:
I do not see how any standard of "truth" that isn't the testimony of the two people involved can be in any way relevant.
It is not about "truth", but about truth. And it is obviously relevant to my argument if I want to engage your beliefs accurately rather than by means of walls of text considering all possibilities.

S1: Elliot Page reads the question, and says that her mother's assertion that she had a daughter (or similar ones), made about 30 years ago, was false.

S2: Elliot Page reads the question, and says that her mother's assertion that she had a daughter (or similar ones), made about 30 years ago, was true.

On S1, do you believe that Mrs Philpott's statement was false?

On S2, do you believe that Mrs Philpott's statements was true?


Politesse said:
Gender is a fundamentally social concept.
Whatever that means, words like "daughter", "girl", "woman", etc., have meaning. And they had meaning 30 years ago.

Politesse said:
No doubt Mrs. Philpott considered her statements true, at the time.
Sure, but not what I am asking.

Politesse said:
Eliot himself may or may not consider that fair or accurate.
Not what I am asking, either.

Politesse said:
I wouldn't presume to guess, and it's no one else's business.
What do you mean by "it's no one else's business."? If you mean it is wrong to discuss it, I disagree. I feel like discussing it. This is a discussion board. I have been told I am allowed to. And I see the threat of Woke dogmatic enforcement. Why would it be wrong to discuss it? It's an example like any other.

Politesse said:
Whether or not anyone else is willing to acknowledge Eliot's chosen gender title and pronoun is a function of their social and political biases, not any kind of "objective reality".
No, it is not "objective reality". It is objective reality. There is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Mrs. Philpott's claims were true. Or are you saying there is no objective fact of the matter?

Politesse said:
Were it a question of truly objective reality, I would not be able to accurately guess your position on gender by looking at your voting records.
True, but irrelevant.

Politesse said:
If I describe my five-year old child as a Phillies fan, a Presbyterian, or a Proletarian, I may not be intentionally lying, but they may eventually grow up and find that they no longer agree with the box I painted them into. And any reasonable parent should be okay with that.
If you describe your five-year old child as a Phillies fan, a Presbyterian, or a Proletarian, there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether your statements are true...very probably, as those words may not be accurate enough for the case at hand, but they usually are. Whether they change their mind later is a different matter.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,436
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
No, it is not "objective reality". It is objective reality. There is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Mrs. Philpott's claims were true. Or are you saying there is no objective fact of the matter?
There is not. This is a question of social terminology which is currently in dispute within our culture, as well as an issue in which the personal feelings of those involved are and must be considered. There is no such thing as an 'objective position" on it.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Politesse said:
There is not. This is a question of social terminology which is currently in dispute within our culture, as well as an issue in which the personal feelings of those involved are and must be considered. There is no such thing as an 'objective position" on it.
Would you say there is also not a fact of the matter as to whether you are a Presbyterian?

At any rate, that is indeed tangential.

Is your position that there is no objective fact of the matter as to whether a statement like "Mrs. Philpott has a daughter in 1992" (and yes, that Mrs. Philpott, the mother of Elliot Page), in 1992 American English, is true?
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,772
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
When I was born, back in the 70's, the three letter word that appeared on all government documents at the time that referred to one's manner in which they potentially could contribute to the biological process of reproduction, was spelled "S.E.X.". Words, terms, sensibilities, and such evolve over time.... one's biological contribution to a potential reproductive process is only just now beginning to be questioned as a form of identity. Back then, sex and gender meant the same thing, because it wasn't a topic of conversation. You group the people that biologically carry the baby separately from those that biologically contribute the other half of that equation.
So, separating identity (gender) from sexual preference (sex) is one thing... what word would you like people to use to refer to their contribution to the reproductive process? biological sex? biological gender? I know at least 2 people that STRONGLY suggest that the biological contribution part is not allowed to be part of the discussion... you know, that thing that, up until very recently, was the ONLY metric to sex/gender/all the same thing.
So... what is that called and how possibly can the biology of an organic system not be applicable to the mind that forms from the brain it grows? hormones, etc... that it is certainly the case that there is a STRONG correlation between the biological contribution to the biological reproductive process and sexual identity and sexual orientation... like what, 96% corelated (cis gendered humans versus all others)?
So.. maybe cut a fucking break.
I don't know who I am actually talking to anymore...
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Another question for readers interested in a serious discussion. Suppose I say "the US already had women presidents, because D. Trump, G.W. Bush, B. Obama and J. Biden are all women."

Is there an objective fact of the matter as to whether my assertion is true?

I'm not asking whether my assertion is disrespectful, a denial or people's identities, evil, worthy of infinite torment in Hell, etc. Those are not my questions. I'm asking whether there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether my assertion is true.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Gun Nut said:
When I was born, back in the 70's, the three letter word that appeared on all government documents at the time that referred to one's manner in which they potentially could contribute to the biological process of reproduction, was spelled "S.E.X.". Words, terms, sensibilities, and such evolve over time.... one's biological contribution to a potential reproductive process is only just now beginning to be questioned as a form of identity. Back then, sex and gender meant the same thing, because it wasn't a topic of conversation. You group the people that biologically carry the baby separately from those that biologically contribute the other half of that equation.
Okay, maybe there is something we can talk. At least I will try. Would you agree that speaking in 1970s American English, the statement 'Elliot Page is a man' is false, and the statement 'Elliot Page is a woman' is true? I am making those statements in 1970s American English (any dialect of your choosing...or do you think it depends on dialect?).
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I do not care that you do that. It's the Woke attack on those who do not agree with trans claims that worries me - among other things, but not what you choose to call yourself.
I have no association whatsoever with "woke" philosophy. While I am helping to work toward a more just society on several fronts, including the exhausting work of trying to unify several incredibly complicated communities, "woke" philosophy is what got some of us into our current mess, to begin with. It's not that we don't want to fix things, but this "woke" shit isn't working. It ended up endangering people's lives. It is a very dangerous method of trying to engage these kinds of problems.

Either you wish to be respectful toward me, or you do not. I cannot force you to have respect toward me or to like me.

However, I will be damned if I will go around in circles with you trading semantic drivel.

I will call myself a woman, and so will my friends, my husband, my coworkers, and my closest allies in a variety of causes, some of which you have probably never heard of.

I barely care if you do or not. I barely know you. You have no standing with me. All I really know about you, so far, is that you have attempted to bait me into a semantic debate that has "bad faith debate" written all over it.

If you could find common ground with me on something else, then I might take you more seriously.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,436
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Politesse said:
There is not. This is a question of social terminology which is currently in dispute within our culture, as well as an issue in which the personal feelings of those involved are and must be considered. There is no such thing as an 'objective position" on it.
Would you say there is also not a fact of the matter as to whether you are a Presbyterian?
You mean without asking me? No, I wouldn't say there was any way to objectively tell a Presbyterian from a non-Presbyterian without asking them. Ultimately, you must be the judge of the social labels you do or do not accept, or at least, your testimony is one of the data points that should always be considered as part of the whole.

Is your position that there is no objective fact of the matter as to whether a statement like "Mrs. Philpott has a daughter in 1992" (and yes, that Mrs. Philpott, the mother of Elliot Page), in 1992 American English, is true?
May we switch this to a pure hypothetical, please? I'm not comfortable discussing a real human being like they are an inanimate test subject in a philosophy lab.

That isn't really the same statement. "A woman had a daughter in 1996" could be taken in a lot of ways, some of which could be objectively verified.

If the question, the real statement in dispute, is "This individual was a girl in 1996", that's not really something anyone could verify "objectively". By definition, it's an issue that a lot of people might disagree on, and while there are various objective facts involved, even if we had access to all of those facts. You could show me a birth certificate with a gender assignment (an objectively real document), and I would not accept that as proof that your position is objectively true. I could show you medical results from a test that year showing that he had elevated testosterone and male-linked cognitive patterns from birth onward (an objectively real test result), and you would not concede that the contrary position is objectively true. Because it is a matter of opinion, not fact, that a social category should extend only to this group of people, but not that group of people. Just because you believe something very, very strongly does not make it objectively true. Objective facts, by definition, are those which can be reasonably demonstrated and agreed upon regardless of anyone's personal bias.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
I do not care that you do that. It's the Woke attack on those who do not agree with trans claims that worries me - among other things, but not what you choose to call yourself.
I have no association whatsoever with "woke" philosophy. While I am helping to work toward a more just society on several fronts, including the exhausting work of trying to unify several incredibly complicated communities, "woke" philosophy is what got some of us into our current mess, to begin with. It's not that we don't want to fix things, but this "woke" shit isn't working. It ended up endangering people's lives. It is a very dangerous method of trying to engage these kinds of problems.

Either you wish to be respectful toward me, or you do not. I cannot force you to have respect toward me or to like me.

However, I will be damned if I will go around in circles with you trading semantic drivel.

I will call myself a woman, and so will my friends, my husband, my coworkers, and my closest allies in a variety of causes, some of which you have probably never heard of.

I barely care if you do or not. I barely know you. You have no standing with me. All I really know about you, so far, is that you have attempted to bait me into a semantic debate that has "bad faith debate" written all over it.

If you could find common ground with me on something else, then I might take you more seriously.
I see, so you insist on attacking me and not debating.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Politesse said:
You mean without asking me? No, I wouldn't say there was any way to objectively tell a Presbyterian from a non-Presbyterian without asking them. Ultimately, you must be the judge of the social labels you do or do not accept, or at least, your testimony is one of the data points that should always be considered as part of the whole.
Of course without asking you!

And you misunderstand the question. I am not asking whether, without asking you, I would have a way of telling whether you are a Presbyterian. I am asking you whether there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether you are a Presbyterian. And yes, your testimony when available is one of the pieces of evidence to take into consideration. But whether there is an objective fact of the matter (there is) does not depend on whether you give testimony. You are mixing epistemology and ontology. To give you an example: there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Julius Caesar ate eggs on 12-12-47 BCE, even if we have no way of telling which one it is.


Politesse said:
May we switch this to a pure hypothetical, please? I'm not comfortable discussing a real human being like they are an inanimate test subject in a philosophy lab.
First, I am not treating a human being like an inanimate test subject in a sense that would make it wrong. It would be wrong to do so if someone were not to consider the potential consequences for that person (e.g., experimenting on them), etc. I am not doing that. I have no obligation not to talk about Elliot Page.

Second, it is difficult to do without actual examples, as I need to fix the referent. But I will try. Here goes:

Suppose a human - say, Alex - identifies as a man. Alex is 25, has a vagina, uterus, ovaries, etc., no penis, balls, etc. Alex has a mind that is like that typical of human females in the following respects.

1. Alex has experienced having a vagina all her life. Alex experienced puberty, a period, etc. And has the mind that has formed as a result.
2. Alex still experiences having a vagina, a period, etc.
3. Alex has preferences involving her vagina.
4. Alex has no experiences whatsoever involving a penis. Or testicles. Etc.


Alex also has ave some typical male-like mental properties too. For example, let us say Alex is generally attracted to humans with vaginas, breasts, female secondary sexual traits, etc., not with penises, testicles, etc.

Then let me ask you.

a. In 1972 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
b. In 1992 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
c. In 2021 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?

Politesse said:
That isn't really the same statement. "A woman had a daughter in 1996" could be taken in a lot of ways, some of which could be objectively verified.
There was not a single statement, but some alternatives. Since you did not give a straight answer, I tried a slight variant. And it's not "A woman". I identified her accurately. I also identified accurately who the daughter/not a daughter was. Also, it is not about verifying anything. But regardless, I just switched to a purely hypothetical, at you wanted.

Politesse said:
If the question, the real statement in dispute, is "This individual was a girl in 1996", that's not really something anyone could verify "objectively".
The statement in dispute was whether this individual was a girl in the 1996-meaning of the word 'girl'. And it is not about whether anyone can verify it - that is a different matter.
But I just went with the pure hypothetical, so let us see how you respond.
 
Last edited:

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I do not care that you do that. It's the Woke attack on those who do not agree with trans claims that worries me - among other things, but not what you choose to call yourself.
I have no association whatsoever with "woke" philosophy. While I am helping to work toward a more just society on several fronts, including the exhausting work of trying to unify several incredibly complicated communities, "woke" philosophy is what got some of us into our current mess, to begin with. It's not that we don't want to fix things, but this "woke" shit isn't working. It ended up endangering people's lives. It is a very dangerous method of trying to engage these kinds of problems.

Either you wish to be respectful toward me, or you do not. I cannot force you to have respect toward me or to like me.

However, I will be damned if I will go around in circles with you trading semantic drivel.

I will call myself a woman, and so will my friends, my husband, my coworkers, and my closest allies in a variety of causes, some of which you have probably never heard of.

I barely care if you do or not. I barely know you. You have no standing with me. All I really know about you, so far, is that you have attempted to bait me into a semantic debate that has "bad faith debate" written all over it.

If you could find common ground with me on something else, then I might take you more seriously.
I see, so you insist on attacking me and not debating.
You are not entitled for me to want to debate with you. I will chime in whenever it suits me to do so, and I will do so on my own terms.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
I do not care that you do that. It's the Woke attack on those who do not agree with trans claims that worries me - among other things, but not what you choose to call yourself.
I have no association whatsoever with "woke" philosophy. While I am helping to work toward a more just society on several fronts, including the exhausting work of trying to unify several incredibly complicated communities, "woke" philosophy is what got some of us into our current mess, to begin with. It's not that we don't want to fix things, but this "woke" shit isn't working. It ended up endangering people's lives. It is a very dangerous method of trying to engage these kinds of problems.

Either you wish to be respectful toward me, or you do not. I cannot force you to have respect toward me or to like me.

However, I will be damned if I will go around in circles with you trading semantic drivel.

I will call myself a woman, and so will my friends, my husband, my coworkers, and my closest allies in a variety of causes, some of which you have probably never heard of.

I barely care if you do or not. I barely know you. You have no standing with me. All I really know about you, so far, is that you have attempted to bait me into a semantic debate that has "bad faith debate" written all over it.

If you could find common ground with me on something else, then I might take you more seriously.
I see, so you insist on attacking me and not debating.
You are not entitled for me to want to debate with you. I will chime in whenever it suits me to do so, and I will do so on my own terms.
Of course, and as you have shown, you attack me without any good reasons, while ignoring my arguments - while sometimes making dismissive false and unwarranted claims about them -, when it suits you to do so.
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
Politesse said:
You mean without asking me? No, I wouldn't say there was any way to objectively tell a Presbyterian from a non-Presbyterian without asking them. Ultimately, you must be the judge of the social labels you do or do not accept, or at least, your testimony is one of the data points that should always be considered as part of the whole.
Of course without asking you!

And you misunderstand the question. I am not asking whether, without asking you, I would have a way of telling whether you are a Presbyterian. I am asking you whether there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether you are a Presbyterian. And yes, your testimony when available is one of the pieces of evidence to take into consideration. But whether there is an objective fact of the matter (there is) does not depend on whether you give testimony. You are mixing epistemology and ontology. To give you an example: there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Julius Caesar ate eggs on 12-12-47 BCE, even if we have no way of telling which one it is.


Politesse said:
May we switch this to a pure hypothetical, please? I'm not comfortable discussing a real human being like they are an inanimate test subject in a philosophy lab.
First, I am not treating a human being like an inanimate test subject in a sense that would make it wrong. It would be wrong to do so if someone were not to consider the potential consequences for that person (e.g., experimenting on them), etc. I am not doing that. I have no obligation not to talk about Elliot Page.

Second, it is difficult to do without actual examples, as I need to fix the referent. But I will try. Here goes:

Suppose a human - say, Alex - identifies as a man. Alex is 25, has a vagina, uterus, ovaries, etc., no penis, balls, etc. Alex has a mind that is like that typical of human females in the following respects.

1. Alex has experienced having a vagina all her life. Alex experienced puberty, a period, etc. And has the mind that has formed as a result.
2. Alex still experiences having a vagina, a period, etc.
3. Alex has preferences involving her vagina.
4. Alex has no experiences whatsoever involving a penis. Or testicles. Etc.


Alex also has ave some typical male-like mental properties too. For example, let us say Alex is generally attracted to humans with vaginas, breasts, female secondary sexual traits, etc., not with penises, testicles, etc.

Then let me ask you.

a. In 1972 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
b. In 1992 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
c. In 2021 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?

Politesse said:
That isn't really the same statement. "A woman had a daughter in 1996" could be taken in a lot of ways, some of which could be objectively verified.
There was not a single statement, but some alternatives. Since you did not give a straight answer, I tried a slight variant. And it's not "A woman". I identified her accurately. I also identified accurately who the daughter/not a daughter was. Also, it is not about verifying anything. But regardless, I just switched to a purely hypothetical, at you wanted.

Politesse said:
If the question, the real statement in dispute, is "This individual was a girl in 1996", that's not really something anyone could verify "objectively".
The statement in dispute was whether this individual was a girl in the 1996-meaning of the word 'girl'. And it is not about whether anyone can verify it - that is a different matter.
But I just went with the pure hypothetical, so let us see how you respond.
Alex is precisely a transgender man.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Politesse said:
You mean without asking me? No, I wouldn't say there was any way to objectively tell a Presbyterian from a non-Presbyterian without asking them. Ultimately, you must be the judge of the social labels you do or do not accept, or at least, your testimony is one of the data points that should always be considered as part of the whole.
Of course without asking you!

And you misunderstand the question. I am not asking whether, without asking you, I would have a way of telling whether you are a Presbyterian. I am asking you whether there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether you are a Presbyterian. And yes, your testimony when available is one of the pieces of evidence to take into consideration. But whether there is an objective fact of the matter (there is) does not depend on whether you give testimony. You are mixing epistemology and ontology. To give you an example: there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Julius Caesar ate eggs on 12-12-47 BCE, even if we have no way of telling which one it is.


Politesse said:
May we switch this to a pure hypothetical, please? I'm not comfortable discussing a real human being like they are an inanimate test subject in a philosophy lab.
First, I am not treating a human being like an inanimate test subject in a sense that would make it wrong. It would be wrong to do so if someone were not to consider the potential consequences for that person (e.g., experimenting on them), etc. I am not doing that. I have no obligation not to talk about Elliot Page.

Second, it is difficult to do without actual examples, as I need to fix the referent. But I will try. Here goes:

Suppose a human - say, Alex - identifies as a man. Alex is 25, has a vagina, uterus, ovaries, etc., no penis, balls, etc. Alex has a mind that is like that typical of human females in the following respects.

1. Alex has experienced having a vagina all her life. Alex experienced puberty, a period, etc. And has the mind that has formed as a result.
2. Alex still experiences having a vagina, a period, etc.
3. Alex has preferences involving her vagina.
4. Alex has no experiences whatsoever involving a penis. Or testicles. Etc.


Alex also has ave some typical male-like mental properties too. For example, let us say Alex is generally attracted to humans with vaginas, breasts, female secondary sexual traits, etc., not with penises, testicles, etc.

Then let me ask you.

a. In 1972 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
b. In 1992 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
c. In 2021 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?

Politesse said:
That isn't really the same statement. "A woman had a daughter in 1996" could be taken in a lot of ways, some of which could be objectively verified.
There was not a single statement, but some alternatives. Since you did not give a straight answer, I tried a slight variant. And it's not "A woman". I identified her accurately. I also identified accurately who the daughter/not a daughter was. Also, it is not about verifying anything. But regardless, I just switched to a purely hypothetical, at you wanted.

Politesse said:
If the question, the real statement in dispute, is "This individual was a girl in 1996", that's not really something anyone could verify "objectively".
The statement in dispute was whether this individual was a girl in the 1996-meaning of the word 'girl'. And it is not about whether anyone can verify it - that is a different matter.
But I just went with the pure hypothetical, so let us see how you respond.
Alex is precisely a transgender man.
Do you mean only in 2021 English? Or do you mean also in 1972 and 1992?

Also, in your sentence, does "transgender" modify "man" (so, we are talking about a kind of man), or is "transgender man" a compound term, like "clouded leopard" (which is not a kind of leopard), "maned wolf" (not a wolf), "mountain lion" (not a lion), etc.?
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I do not care that you do that. It's the Woke attack on those who do not agree with trans claims that worries me - among other things, but not what you choose to call yourself.
I have no association whatsoever with "woke" philosophy. While I am helping to work toward a more just society on several fronts, including the exhausting work of trying to unify several incredibly complicated communities, "woke" philosophy is what got some of us into our current mess, to begin with. It's not that we don't want to fix things, but this "woke" shit isn't working. It ended up endangering people's lives. It is a very dangerous method of trying to engage these kinds of problems.

Either you wish to be respectful toward me, or you do not. I cannot force you to have respect toward me or to like me.

However, I will be damned if I will go around in circles with you trading semantic drivel.

I will call myself a woman, and so will my friends, my husband, my coworkers, and my closest allies in a variety of causes, some of which you have probably never heard of.

I barely care if you do or not. I barely know you. You have no standing with me. All I really know about you, so far, is that you have attempted to bait me into a semantic debate that has "bad faith debate" written all over it.

If you could find common ground with me on something else, then I might take you more seriously.
I see, so you insist on attacking me and not debating.
You are not entitled for me to want to debate with you. I will chime in whenever it suits me to do so, and I will do so on my own terms.
Of course, and as you have shown, you attack me without any good reasons, while ignoring my arguments - while sometimes making dismissive false and unwarranted claims about them -, when it suits you to do so.
You are looking for a robot that plays "the debate game" according to your jerry-rigged rules whenever you push the button to start it.

I am a funny and unpredictable person that might actually make your life interesting and expand your horizons!
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
Politesse said:
You mean without asking me? No, I wouldn't say there was any way to objectively tell a Presbyterian from a non-Presbyterian without asking them. Ultimately, you must be the judge of the social labels you do or do not accept, or at least, your testimony is one of the data points that should always be considered as part of the whole.
Of course without asking you!

And you misunderstand the question. I am not asking whether, without asking you, I would have a way of telling whether you are a Presbyterian. I am asking you whether there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether you are a Presbyterian. And yes, your testimony when available is one of the pieces of evidence to take into consideration. But whether there is an objective fact of the matter (there is) does not depend on whether you give testimony. You are mixing epistemology and ontology. To give you an example: there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Julius Caesar ate eggs on 12-12-47 BCE, even if we have no way of telling which one it is.


Politesse said:
May we switch this to a pure hypothetical, please? I'm not comfortable discussing a real human being like they are an inanimate test subject in a philosophy lab.
First, I am not treating a human being like an inanimate test subject in a sense that would make it wrong. It would be wrong to do so if someone were not to consider the potential consequences for that person (e.g., experimenting on them), etc. I am not doing that. I have no obligation not to talk about Elliot Page.

Second, it is difficult to do without actual examples, as I need to fix the referent. But I will try. Here goes:

Suppose a human - say, Alex - identifies as a man. Alex is 25, has a vagina, uterus, ovaries, etc., no penis, balls, etc. Alex has a mind that is like that typical of human females in the following respects.

1. Alex has experienced having a vagina all her life. Alex experienced puberty, a period, etc. And has the mind that has formed as a result.
2. Alex still experiences having a vagina, a period, etc.
3. Alex has preferences involving her vagina.
4. Alex has no experiences whatsoever involving a penis. Or testicles. Etc.


Alex also has ave some typical male-like mental properties too. For example, let us say Alex is generally attracted to humans with vaginas, breasts, female secondary sexual traits, etc., not with penises, testicles, etc.

Then let me ask you.

a. In 1972 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
b. In 1992 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
c. In 2021 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?

Politesse said:
That isn't really the same statement. "A woman had a daughter in 1996" could be taken in a lot of ways, some of which could be objectively verified.
There was not a single statement, but some alternatives. Since you did not give a straight answer, I tried a slight variant. And it's not "A woman". I identified her accurately. I also identified accurately who the daughter/not a daughter was. Also, it is not about verifying anything. But regardless, I just switched to a purely hypothetical, at you wanted.

Politesse said:
If the question, the real statement in dispute, is "This individual was a girl in 1996", that's not really something anyone could verify "objectively".
The statement in dispute was whether this individual was a girl in the 1996-meaning of the word 'girl'. And it is not about whether anyone can verify it - that is a different matter.
But I just went with the pure hypothetical, so let us see how you respond.
Alex is precisely a transgender man.
Do you mean only in 2021 English? Or do you mean also in 1972 and 1992?

Also, in your sentence, does "transgender" modify "man" (so, we are talking about a kind of man), or is "transgender man" a compound term, like "clouded leopard" (which is not a kind of leopard), "maned wolf" (not a wolf), "mountain lion" (not a lion), etc.?
To my understanding, transgender men almost invariably have XX chromosomes, and some but not all of them desire to possess a penis. Nevertheless, they prefer to be referred to as men, and they may generally be expected to present themselves as what is considered to be masculine in their culture. In progressive cultures, it is considered to be polite to refer to them as men and to use the masculine pronoun when you are talking about them.

The current position of the American Academy of Pediatrics is that transgender children are substantially more likely to survive until adulthood if their parents support them by affirming their stated gender. If their parents do not affirm them, then their attempted suicide rate is about 60% for all transgender children (higher for transgender boys), but if their parents do affirm them, then their attempted suicide rate falls to a still scary but substantially more tolerable rate of 4%. Furthermore, every additional person in their lives that chooses to affirm them seems to increase their odds of surviving until adulthood.

I am going to assume that you agree with the objective of helping children, transgender or not, survive until adulthood. I do not believe that this is an unreasonable thing to assume about you, although I will acknowledge that I might be mistaken in this assumption. Just let me know.

In that case, it is correct to call Alex, assuming that Alex is a child, a transgender boy, which implies the information that I have furnished above. I also assume that you agree with the objective of helping Alex survive until adulthood. In that case, it is also pragmatically correct for you to merely refer to Alex as a boy in almost all social contexts. When it were taken into account the pragmatic structure of this situation (pragmatics is a part of semiotic theory), the reason why you were calling Alex a boy could be deciphered by anybody that was also familiar with the fact that Alex was a transgender boy. Nobody that was familiar with the situation would assume that you believed that Alex had a penis or X/y chromosomes. They would just assume that you were a good person.

In my case, I am a 38 year old transgender woman, and I barely care a rodent's rectum about the opinion of somebody that I barely know. That is an attitude that I have learned with maturity.

A child, on the other hand, is immature by literal definition. It might be childish for them to attempt to kill themselves over misgendering, but...children are supposed to be childish. We also do not let them have sex with adults, even if they want to. They have different needs from those of adults.

Ergo, you need merely add the qualifier that Alex is a transgender boy. This would clarify your knowledge of the situation. Most people would know what you meant. Everybody that understood the situation would agree with the fact that you called Alex a boy.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
I do not care that you do that. It's the Woke attack on those who do not agree with trans claims that worries me - among other things, but not what you choose to call yourself.
I have no association whatsoever with "woke" philosophy. While I am helping to work toward a more just society on several fronts, including the exhausting work of trying to unify several incredibly complicated communities, "woke" philosophy is what got some of us into our current mess, to begin with. It's not that we don't want to fix things, but this "woke" shit isn't working. It ended up endangering people's lives. It is a very dangerous method of trying to engage these kinds of problems.

Either you wish to be respectful toward me, or you do not. I cannot force you to have respect toward me or to like me.

However, I will be damned if I will go around in circles with you trading semantic drivel.

I will call myself a woman, and so will my friends, my husband, my coworkers, and my closest allies in a variety of causes, some of which you have probably never heard of.

I barely care if you do or not. I barely know you. You have no standing with me. All I really know about you, so far, is that you have attempted to bait me into a semantic debate that has "bad faith debate" written all over it.

If you could find common ground with me on something else, then I might take you more seriously.
I see, so you insist on attacking me and not debating.
You are not entitled for me to want to debate with you. I will chime in whenever it suits me to do so, and I will do so on my own terms.
Of course, and as you have shown, you attack me without any good reasons, while ignoring my arguments - while sometimes making dismissive false and unwarranted claims about them -, when it suits you to do so.
You are looking for a robot that plays "the debate game" according to your jerry-rigged rules whenever you push the button to start it.

I am a funny and unpredictable person that might actually make your life interesting and expand your horizons!
I am looking for people who either will discuss/debate in a civil manner, or at least will refrain from content-free attacks against me (or worse, misconstrue my posts).
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I do not care that you do that. It's the Woke attack on those who do not agree with trans claims that worries me - among other things, but not what you choose to call yourself.
I have no association whatsoever with "woke" philosophy. While I am helping to work toward a more just society on several fronts, including the exhausting work of trying to unify several incredibly complicated communities, "woke" philosophy is what got some of us into our current mess, to begin with. It's not that we don't want to fix things, but this "woke" shit isn't working. It ended up endangering people's lives. It is a very dangerous method of trying to engage these kinds of problems.

Either you wish to be respectful toward me, or you do not. I cannot force you to have respect toward me or to like me.

However, I will be damned if I will go around in circles with you trading semantic drivel.

I will call myself a woman, and so will my friends, my husband, my coworkers, and my closest allies in a variety of causes, some of which you have probably never heard of.

I barely care if you do or not. I barely know you. You have no standing with me. All I really know about you, so far, is that you have attempted to bait me into a semantic debate that has "bad faith debate" written all over it.

If you could find common ground with me on something else, then I might take you more seriously.
I see, so you insist on attacking me and not debating.
You are not entitled for me to want to debate with you. I will chime in whenever it suits me to do so, and I will do so on my own terms.
Of course, and as you have shown, you attack me without any good reasons, while ignoring my arguments - while sometimes making dismissive false and unwarranted claims about them -, when it suits you to do so.
You are looking for a robot that plays "the debate game" according to your jerry-rigged rules whenever you push the button to start it.

I am a funny and unpredictable person that might actually make your life interesting and expand your horizons!
I am looking for people who either will discuss/debate in a civil manner, or at least will refrain from content-free attacks against me (or worse, misconstrue my posts).
Done.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
SigmatheZeta said:
To my understanding, transgender men almost invariably have XX chromosomes, and some but not all of them desire to possess a penis. Nevertheless, they prefer to be referred to as men, and they may generally be expected to present themselves as what is considered to be masculine in their culture. In progressive cultures, it is considered to be polite to refer to them as men and to use the masculine pronoun when you are talking about them.
That is not what I was asking. What I want to know is whether Politesse (and now you) think that they are men, women, neither, etc. (see the questions for details), in 1972, 1992, and 2021 American English.

SigmatheZeta said:
The current position of the American Academy of Pediatrics is that transgender children are substantially more likely to survive until adulthood if their parents support them by affirming their stated gender.
What does "affirming their stated gender" mean? Does it mean affirming that one agrees with claims like 'I am a girl', or 'I am a boy'?

If so, then those expressions have some meaning, in English, so here a question is: are they true?

And to address that question and make my case, I asked a few questions to Politesse - and to you now since you replied as well.

SigmatheZeta said:
I am going to assume that you agree with the objective of helping children, transgender or not, survive until adulthood. I do not believe that this is an unreasonable thing to assume about you, although I will acknowledge that I might be mistaken in this assumption. Just let me know.

Generally, I think that helping children survive into adulthood for the sake of them is a good thing, all other things equal. In some cases (e.g., parents) it is also a moral obligation (as always, all other things equal).


SigmatheZeta said:
In that case, it is correct to call Alex a transgender man, which implies the information that I have furnished above.
No, that does not follow:

First, I am not Alex's parent.

Second, Alex is not a child. Assuming Alex exists, Alex is an adult.

Third, Alex does not exist.

Fourth, imagine that there is good evidence that when children say they have immortal souls and will live forever, these children are substantially more likely to survive into adulthood if parents - new adoptive ones if all parents died - affirmed their claims. That would provide a good reason - as always, all other things equal (AOTE), etc. - for parents to lie to their children. It would not provide a good reason for those parents to believe that the claims are true, or to attack others who don't agree with their religion. Similarly, imagine that there is good evidence that children who lost one of their parents - or both - are substantially more likely to survive into adulthood if the surviving parent - or adoptive parents depending on the case - were to affirm their claims. Again that would give a good reason for those parents - AOTE - to lie to those children, not to believe the claims or to attack other adults for saying there is no afterlife, or things like that.
SigmatheZeta said:
I also assume that you agree with the objective of helping Alex survive until adulthood.
Given that Alex does not exist, no.
Assuming Alex existed in our universe, then given that Alex is an adult, no, as the objective would make no sense: Alex has already survided into adulthood. Remember, Alex is 25.

SigmatheZeta said:
In that case, it is also pragmatically correct for you to merely refer to Alex as a boy in almost all social contexts.
No, that does not follow (see above).

SigmatheZeta said:
Nobody that was familiar with the situation would assume that you believed that Alex had a penis or X/y chromosomes. They would just assume that you were a good person.
The question is not whether Alex has a penis or XY chromosomes, but rather the questions I asked, and which you keep not addressing.

SigmatheZeta said:
In my case, I am a 38 year old transgender woman, and I barely care a rodent's rectum about the opinion of somebody that I barely know. That is an attitude that I have learned with maturity.
In my case, I have zero interest in discussing your particular case, or that of anyone in the thread (no offense, but I really do not want to talk about you in particular, or about anyone in this thread in particular). I want do discuss transgender claims in general, using any examples at hand - except precisely those of forum members, due to the very obscure rule against "misgendering", which no one has clarified for me.


SigmatheZeta said:
A child, on the other hand, is immature by literal definition. It might be childish for them to attempt to kill themselves over misgendering, but...children are supposed to be childish.

And again, what is "misgendering"?

SigmatheZeta said:
We also do not let them have sex with adults, even if they want to. They have different needs from those of adults.
Fortunately, Alex is not a child. Alex is an adult that does not exist in reality. And I am not Alex's parent - well, I am Alex's creator I guess, but that's only a metaphorical parent.

SigmatheZeta said:
Ergo, you need merely add the qualifier that Alex is a transgender boy. This would clarify your knowledge of the situation. Most people would know what you meant.
If "transgender" modifies "boy", then Alex is not a transgender boy, since Alex is an adult. Remember, Alex is 25. I am asking whether you think:


a. In 1972 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
b. In 1992 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
c. In 2021 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?


If "transgender boy" is some compound term and not a kind of boy, then I have no idea what "transgender boy" means (unless perhaps it means some other sort of non-adult, in which case, Alex is still not that, as Alex is an adult).
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,147
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Another question for readers interested in a serious discussion. Suppose I say "the US already had women presidents, because D. Trump, G.W. Bush, B. Obama and J. Biden are all women."

Is there an objective fact of the matter as to whether my assertion is true?
Yes.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Another question for readers interested in a serious discussion. Suppose I say "the US already had women presidents, because D. Trump, G.W. Bush, B. Obama and J. Biden are all women."

Is there an objective fact of the matter as to whether my assertion is true?
Yes.


Thank you. So, the word "woman" ascribes some properties to an entity, in general, and this is independent of what the person in question thinks. My aim is to discuss what properties those are.

Suppose hypothetically that those people actually have some typical female-like mental properties, like - say - preferring to play with dolls over trucks, things like that. They also have penises, testicles, no vagina, uterus, or ovaries, and also typical male-like mental properties: they experience having a penis, they have a mind that formed experiencing that for decades, and no experience of having a vagina, etc. Would you say that under that hypothesis, my claim is true in 2021 American English? What about 1992, and 1972?

ETA: I seriously dislike the new forum software. :(
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,147
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Another question for readers interested in a serious discussion. Suppose I say "the US already had women presidents, because D. Trump, G.W. Bush, B. Obama and J. Biden are all women."

Is there an objective fact of the matter as to whether my assertion is true?
Yes.


Thank you. So, the word "woman" ascribes some properties to an entity, in general, and this is independent of what the person in question thinks. My aim is to discuss what properties those are.

Suppose hypothetically that those people actually have some typical female-like mental properties, like - say - preferring to play with dolls over trucks, things like that. They also have penises, testicles, no vagina, uterus, or ovaries, and also typical male-like mental properties: they experience having a penis, they have a mind that formed experiencing that for decades, and no experience of having a vagina, etc. Would you say that under that hypothesis, my claim is true in 2021 American English? What about 1992, and 1972?
No.
ETA: I seriously dislike the new forum software. :(
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,436
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Politesse said:
You mean without asking me? No, I wouldn't say there was any way to objectively tell a Presbyterian from a non-Presbyterian without asking them. Ultimately, you must be the judge of the social labels you do or do not accept, or at least, your testimony is one of the data points that should always be considered as part of the whole.
Of course without asking you!

And you misunderstand the question. I am not asking whether, without asking you, I would have a way of telling whether you are a Presbyterian. I am asking you whether there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether you are a Presbyterian. And yes, your testimony when available is one of the pieces of evidence to take into consideration. But whether there is an objective fact of the matter (there is) does not depend on whether you give testimony. You are mixing epistemology and ontology. To give you an example: there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Julius Caesar ate eggs on 12-12-47 BCE, even if we have no way of telling which one it is.


Politesse said:
May we switch this to a pure hypothetical, please? I'm not comfortable discussing a real human being like they are an inanimate test subject in a philosophy lab.
First, I am not treating a human being like an inanimate test subject in a sense that would make it wrong. It would be wrong to do so if someone were not to consider the potential consequences for that person (e.g., experimenting on them), etc. I am not doing that. I have no obligation not to talk about Elliot Page.

Second, it is difficult to do without actual examples, as I need to fix the referent. But I will try. Here goes:

Suppose a human - say, Alex - identifies as a man. Alex is 25, has a vagina, uterus, ovaries, etc., no penis, balls, etc. Alex has a mind that is like that typical of human females in the following respects.

1. Alex has experienced having a vagina all her life. Alex experienced puberty, a period, etc. And has the mind that has formed as a result.
2. Alex still experiences having a vagina, a period, etc.
3. Alex has preferences involving her vagina.
4. Alex has no experiences whatsoever involving a penis. Or testicles. Etc.


Alex also has ave some typical male-like mental properties too. For example, let us say Alex is generally attracted to humans with vaginas, breasts, female secondary sexual traits, etc., not with penises, testicles, etc.

Then let me ask you.

a. In 1972 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
b. In 1992 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
c. In 2021 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?

Politesse said:
That isn't really the same statement. "A woman had a daughter in 1996" could be taken in a lot of ways, some of which could be objectively verified.
There was not a single statement, but some alternatives. Since you did not give a straight answer, I tried a slight variant. And it's not "A woman". I identified her accurately. I also identified accurately who the daughter/not a daughter was. Also, it is not about verifying anything. But regardless, I just switched to a purely hypothetical, at you wanted.

Politesse said:
If the question, the real statement in dispute, is "This individual was a girl in 1996", that's not really something anyone could verify "objectively".
The statement in dispute was whether this individual was a girl in the 1996-meaning of the word 'girl'. And it is not about whether anyone can verify it - that is a different matter.
But I just went with the pure hypothetical, so let us see how you respond.
I am a scientist to the core, and generally prefer well-considered epistemology as the best path to an ontological conclusion, as opposed to groundless bluster and conjecture. This is unlikely to change. I don't believe there is some sacred inviolable Truth to human-produced categorizations like gender status or religious factions, no. Science can uncover facts, it can rule out non-facts. It can't tell you what a person should be, or what they should be allowed to call themselves. And only asshole humans do that kind of nonsense to each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom