Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

[SigmatheZeta]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

I

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

To be fair, that the semanticist put that cauldron of boiling hot oil there in the first place.

 

[Politesse]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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?

Gender is a fundamentally social concept.

Whatever that means, words like "daughter", "girl", "woman", etc., have meaning. And they had meaning 30 years ago.

No doubt Mrs. Philpott considered her statements true, at the time.

Sure, but not what I am asking.

Eliot himself may or may not consider that fair or accurate.

Not what I am asking, either.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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?