• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

Status
Not open for further replies.
caveman1917 said:
No there isn't. In the sense of belief being any proposition considered true, not necessarily a consciously chosen belief. For example "I am perceiving this particular sensory information" constitutes a belief
Click to expand...

So if you have a night-terror with an image of a flying saucer, you believe in aliens? :boggled: Come on!
 
This is tangentially relevant to the current discussion. Break out the popcorn.

The National Executive Council of the SNP, which hasn't been as thoroughly recovered from the woke element as had been hoped, appears to have decreed that the top spots on the d'Hondt AMS lists for each region in the May elections should be reserved for BAME and disabled candidates. There are eight regions. They have chosen four to have BAME candidates topping the list and four to have disabled candidates topping the list.

Now I can almost hear the chorus of but, but, but here, and there are a lot of buts. But the best bit of all and the reason for the popcorn is that being both BAME and disabled will be a matter of self-identification which cannot be challenged. The woke activists who have pushed for this out of self-interest have already got their self-ID diagnoses lined up. Apparently being diabetic counts, as does having Tourette's syndrome (this, apparently, to explain the string of abusive tweets vilifying women that that candidate is responsible for) and who knows what else. I'm dying to know who will be the first peely-wally Scot to self-ID as BAME.
 
LondonJohn said:
Define "proper" in the proper form.
Click to expand...

A definition of a term T is proper if it provides an effective procedure to change occurrences of T in propositions with the definition of T while leaving the meaning of the propositions invariant. Most commonly it will be of the form of simple substitution (for example "woman = adult human female") but any effective procedure will do.
 
Olmstead said:
"I don't care whether it is morally just or socially wise. This is a skeptics forum, I care whether it is sound reasoning. And there just isn't a proper definition of "disabled person" to make the claim "transabled persons are disabled" true, without that definition also entailing a bunch of other claims. It is what it is. If you want to make a moral or social argument, then the claim should be "transabled people should be treated as people who are disabled" or something like that."

I would post a proper response to your falacy, but I don't feel like doing more work than you, and the transgender vs. homosexual comparison always breaks my brain.
Click to expand...

Yes, the contortions of logic gone through to try to make homosexuality analogous to transgender fascinate me. Motivated reasoning and the cognitive distortions it produces is an area of academic interest.
 
caveman1917 said:
A definition of a term T is proper if it provides an effective procedure to change occurrences of T in propositions with the definition of T while leaving the meaning of the propositions invariant. Most commonly it will be of the form of simple substitution (for example "woman = adult human female") but any effective procedure will do.
Click to expand...



Define "effective" in the proper form.

(ad nauseam...)
 
Collin237 said:
So if you have a night-terror with an image of a flying saucer, you believe in aliens? :boggled: Come on!
Click to expand...

No, having a night-terror with an image of a flying saucer is equivalent to considering the proposition "I am seeing the image of a flying saucer" to be true. It's the advantage of using "belief" since being defined as a set of propositions considered true it is amenable to logical analysis, and there is a direct equivalence from everything else to the set of beliefs - for example the emotion of being angry can be considered equivalent to considering the proposition "I am angry" to be true.
 
Elaedith said:
Yes, the contortions of logic gone through to try to make homosexuality analogous to transgender fascinate me. Motivated reasoning and the cognitive distortions it produces is an area of academic interest.
Click to expand...



Not analogous in absolute terms. Analogous insomuch as applies to the facets which pertain to the comparison: that 1) both transidentity and homosexuality are valid lived conditions (as opposed to mental health defects etc); and 2) the incorrect (and offensive) post warranting the comparison was explicitly to do with the notion that it was more-or-less impossible to state that "transwomen are women" - rather, that the "correct" statement would be something like "transwomen should be treated as women".

So....

It's a valid comparison to replace "transwoman" with "gay male", since both of these are valid lived conditions. It's therefore equally (and correctly) as possible to state that "transwomen are women" as it is to state that "gay males are exclusively sexually attracted to males".

One would - quite rightly - get vilified for trying to claim that it is functionally impossible to state that "gay men are exclusively sexually attracted to males", and that instead the most anyone should state is that "gay males should be treated as males who are sexually attracted to males"
 
caveman1917 said:
I thought you were all about self-education (ie not being given definitions etc) and stuff? When it's simply available on Wikipedia it stops being my task. You know what else you can find on Wikipedia? A definition for "woman" saying "adult human female" - you know, the 3a from my earlier post.
Click to expand...



It's nobody's "task" to provide definitions on demand. That's.... kind of.... my whole point here.


(And I genuinely thought that everyone in this thread with a) a sufficient level of background understanding of the topic, and b) the intention to engage in sincere debate, would know and understand the difference between the general colloquial definitions of "man" and "woman", and the specific - and different - definitions of "man" and "woman" in the context of gender dysphoria and transgender identity. Maybe I was overestimating.)
 
LondonJohn said:
Not analogous in absolute terms. Analogous insomuch as applies to the facets which pertain to the comparison: that 1) both transidentity and homosexuality are valid lived conditions (as opposed to mental health defects etc); and 2) the incorrect (and offensive) post warranting the comparison was explicitly to do with the notion that it was more-or-less impossible to state that "transwomen are women" - rather, that the "correct" statement would be something like "transwomen should be treated as women".

So....

It's a valid comparison to replace "transwoman" with "gay male", since both of these are valid lived conditions. It's therefore equally (and correctly) as possible to state that "transwomen are women" as it is to state that "gay males are exclusively sexually attracted to males".

One would - quite rightly - get vilified for trying to claim that it is functionally impossible to state that "gay men are exclusively sexually attracted to males", and that instead the most anyone should state is that "gay males should be treated as males who are sexually attracted to males"
Click to expand...

Nope. It doesn't matter how "valid" they are or how many other similarities they have. You need to show why they are analogous in the specific example in which you substituted them and why other substitutions don't apply. If you can't do it, then that specific analogy is faulty, and you should stop using it.
 
LondonJohn said:
It's nobody's "task" to provide definitions on demand. That's.... kind of.... my whole point here.
Click to expand...

Of course it is, it is up to the claimant to support their claim. What do you think skepticism is, exactly?

(And I genuinely thought that everyone in this thread with a) a sufficient level of background understanding of the topic, and b) the intention to engage in sincere debate, would know and understand the difference between the general colloquial definitions of "man" and "woman", and the specific - and different - definitions of "man" and "woman" in the context of gender dysphoria and transgender identity. Maybe I was overestimating.)
Click to expand...

You haven't given any such proper definitions, you've explicitly refused to do so. You're definitely overestimating things though, I'll give you that.
 
Ron Obvious said:
Does "valid lived condition" actually mean anything? It seems awfully woolly, and more or less equivalent to "person really believes it".
Click to expand...

Well no, because the transabled apparently aren't "valid." I always find it interesting when people are obsessed with separating people into groups they think of as "valid" and groups they think of as "invalid" - of course never explaining why they consider one group "valid" and the other not.
 
Collin237 said:
Defining 'woman' as either having a female anatomy, or having an illusion of female anatomy reasonably consistent with the diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
Click to expand...

Collin237 said:
If it's a choice between "illusion" or "belief", then "belief" is the word I'll stop using. But IIRC I didn't say "belief". I said "perception", which is on the "illusion" side.
Click to expand...


So, "belief" is the word you will stop using, but "illusion" is the word you actually used, even though you subsequently said "perception" is the word you used.

This is getting confusing.


And, here's the important part, regardless of which of the three words you used, you are still wrong.

Transgender women have neither a belief, nor an illusion, nor a perception, that they have female anatomy.

ETA: (That means "edited to add".) In a previous post, the first on your part about definitions, you did indeed use "perception".

Collin237 said:
A person is a woman if her permanent internal perception of her body indicates that she has a female body. It's that simple.

Nobody is going to explain, on a blog, what it's like to be unaware of what their own genitalia is shaped like. That's too personal to put into words. So they find ways to avoid the question.
Click to expand...

But it's still wrong.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
So, "belief" is the word you will stop using, but "illusion" is the word you actually used, even though you subsequently said "perception" is the word you used.

This is getting confusing.


And, here's the important part, regardless of which of the three words you used, you are still wrong.

Transgender women have neither a belief, nor an illusion, nor a perception, that they have female anatomy.
Click to expand...

Didn't Boudicca claim to be biologically female?
 
LondonJohn said:
It's nobody's "task" to provide definitions on demand.
Click to expand...

If you want to use a different definition than other people, and moreover insist other people adopt your definition as well, you actually do have an obligation to provide it.
 
Collin237 said:
That's only because by now it's become somewhat of a hashtag. It's the same with saying "all lives matter". Of course all lives matter, but the phrase has acquired a bad significance.

It seems that the phrase "trans women are men" mainly comes from feminists. As far as Skepticism goes, that's far from the worst thing feminists say. The most serious issue is the statements feminists make about "patriarchy". They seem to actually believe it's some kind of demon, which makes it very difficult to support women's rights in a secular society. They believe trans women are agents of this demon:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opini...owling-trans-rights-row-susan-dalgety-2910085



It's not worthwhile to argue whether trans women are deluded in some pedantic sense, when their feminist enemies are spouting such claims that are actually delusional. Which side are you on?
Click to expand...

Not understanding your point. "'Trans women are men' mostly comes from feminists." Why should that surprise anyone. "BLM" mostly came from Blacks, "All dogs deserve a good home" mostly comes from dog advocates.

What is odd is that there is push back on the first two but not the third. No cat advocate takes offence at someone trying to improve the lives of dogs but a certain subset of the population gets upset when anyone advocates for women or people of colour.

If women don't want non-women infringing in their hard won rights and privileges, those non-women can **** off and set up their own sports leagues and change areas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom