Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
But no level of disinterest that removes the title of fan. Apathetic fans get to still be fans.
Click to expand...

No, that's in the name: fanatic.

If you claim to be a fan of a particular sports team, but never watch their games, buy their merch or even talk about them in any positive manner, people will conclude that you are, in fact, not a fan. The evidence contradicts the claim.

This isn't rocket science. In fact, you can take it as a principle, which now means you must apply it to its logical extreme.
 
Belz... said:
No, that's in the name: fanatic.

If you claim to be a fan of a particular sports team, but never watch their games, buy their merch or even talk about them in any positive manner, people will conclude that you are, in fact, not a fan. The evidence contradicts the claim.

This isn't rocket science. In fact, you can take it as a principle, which now means you must apply it to its logical extreme.
Click to expand...

People will conclude they are fans of the team after that declaration. Some people will then hate those teams for their ability to attract these fans.
 
Belz... said:
No, that's in the name: fanatic.
Click to expand...
Natural languages don't work that way.

If you claim to be a fan of a particular sports team, but never watch their games, buy their merch or even talk about them in any positive manner, people will conclude that you are, in fact, not a fan. The evidence contradicts the claim.
Click to expand...
It's entirely subjective. A 49ers fanatic wouldn't consider me much of a fan, since I don't watch football, don't even know the current lineup, don't own any Niners merch, etc.

But you ask me who my team is, I'll tell you it's the Niners. It's the home team where I grew up, and the team my family has always supported (the ones that do care about football). I'm the very definition of an apathetic Niners fan, but fan I am. It's not the fanatic's place to judge my fandom. I and I alone have the standing to do that.

On this particular point, and on the topic of subjective self-identification generally, Bob is right. There are in fact things in this universe that are true purely on the principle of "because I want it that way."

This isn't rocket science. In fact, you can take it as a principle, which now means you must apply it to its logical extreme.
Click to expand...
Code: 
Shall we play a game?

1. Tic-tac-toe

2. Global Thermonuclear War

3. Epistemology with BTC
 
What if you met me outside a stadium, my face is painted green and white, I am wearing a helmet, carrying a plastic sword, and wearing a skirt, I claim to be a Wolverines fan.

Are you to offer me a brat and discuss the upcoming game?
 
bobdroege7 said:
What if you met me outside a stadium, my face is painted green and white, I am wearing a helmet, carrying a plastic sword, and wearing a skirt, I claim to be a Wolverines fan.

Are you to offer me a brat and discuss the upcoming game?
Click to expand...


First I ask your preferred pronouns. It's 'complimentary waxing day' at the stadium, after all.
 
bobdroege7 said:
What if you met me outside a stadium, my face is painted green and white, I am wearing a helmet, carrying a plastic sword, and wearing a skirt, I claim to be a Wolverines fan.

Are you to offer me a brat and discuss the upcoming game?
Click to expand...

Depends. How do you look in a skirt?
 
Rolfe said:
Or exogenous testosterone come to that. Except then you run into the problem of HAC. And of puberty-blocked males who nevertheless still have an advantage over females because of their male body structure.
Click to expand...

Problems which can be solved by using precise scientific language to address each in turn, no one of which requires solving the problem of whether "man" and "woman" are best conceived as social roles or biological categories or some complex admixture of both.
 
d4m10n said:
Problems which can be solved by using precise scientific language to address each in turn, no one of which requires solving the problem of whether "man" and "woman" are best conceived as social roles or biological categories or some complex admixture of both.
Click to expand...


Indeed, but your attempt at "precise scientific language" didn't solve the problem at all, which demonstrates the pitfalls of this approach.

Surrendering the normal, long-standing and almost universally-understood meanings of words to pander to the terminally woke is never a good idea and never without consequences.
 
I like that term "terminally woke"

Rachel is wrong to pursue woman's sport, as was Renee Richards back in the day.

It is not a basic human right to compete in sport.
 
At the moment, I don't know of any. In the future, potentially Jazz Jennings, Jackie Green, any one of the many boys who are being puberty-blocked at the moment.

I can also point out that it would exclude actual female athletes with HAC or indeed PCOS. This may have been intentional, I don't know. It's also difficult to define because all women have some endogenous testosterone so where do you draw the line? How much virilisation is too much?
 
Meadmaker said:
My mistake. I thought I read he was teaching. Maybe I just assumed. What else does a PhD in philosophy do?

ETA:
Click to expand...


Sorry, I was forgetting that over the pond even junior lecturers seem to be called "professor". In my world it's a very senior academic post that many people never achieve in their entire careers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom