Back to the infinite regress.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)
- Thread starter Elaedith
- Start date
- Status
Back to the infinite regress.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
How would you pitch this idea to a dictionary editor who has an aversion to using the term being defined in the primary definition itself? (I think such an aversion readily justifiable, but I assume you do not.)
The easiest way would be to pretend their aversion is to transgender people rather than to recursive definitions*.
That currently seems to be the most effective way to protect bad ideas from criticism.
*Of course, in order to understand recursion you must first understand recursion, as they say. I suspect 'circular' is more appropriate than recursive in this case.
Last edited:
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
(Emphasis added)
Logically and in a very real sense, your ire should be aimed specifically and solely at the governing bodies that allow free speech, not at the speaker.
ETA: Just in case it's not obvious, I don't actually believe the statement above. I think that people behaving in an anti-social manner are open to legitimate criticism, even if their behavior is within whatever set of rules are in force that might govern that behvior. If you believe, as I do, that Laurel Hubbard should not have participated at the Olympics as a woman, and that it was unfair for Laurel Hubbard to take the spot away from someone else who earned the spot taken by Hubbard, I think it's fair to criticise Hubbard, not just the rules committee.
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,221
Why do you need a "free pass" to insult someone? Hell, what does that even mean?
This forum has rules against insulting other members, but it has no rules about insulting nonmembers, and society at large has no rules about not insulting people. You don't need a reason to insult someone, you can do so for any reason, or even no reason. At least in the US, anyways.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
First, I have plenty of ire for administrators who have caved to the madness of extreme trans-inclusionary activism. Turns out I also have plenty of ire left over for trans-extremists who have exploited the activism to carry out antisocial and misogynistic acts. It's not like Hubbard was "just following orders" issued by someone else. She's as much a part of the problem as everyone else involved. Same with the activists who worked so hard to create this opportunity for her. My ire runs deep and wide enough to cover them all. Trans-inclusionary activism is objectively misogynist and anti-social.
Second, leaving aside the homosexuality canard, this entire debate is about who gets to decide what a genuine transman is. For a while you seemed pretty close to saying it's scientists who get to decide. Lately, you've been saying it's the individual themselves. But as we have seen, self-ID is leads to circular or empty definitions.
Third, I think the question of whether Hubbard is genuine is beside the point. Perhaps The Atheist believes she's violating some genuine code of conduct, I don't know. My perception of TA's choice of terms, and my view on the use of such terms in such a context, is that it's not about whether the terms reflect genuine identity. It's about whether the terms convey genuine reproach. Is Hubbard a genuine transwoman? I don't care; the term has no meaning I can see anyway. Does calling her "it" signal sufficiently strong reproach for her antisocial and misogynist choices? I think it does. TA has chosen to disrespect her, out of recognition for the lack of respect she shows to others. I think that's a fair choice and an appropriate use of the epithet. Regardless of whether TA actually believes she's genuine.
Fourth, the free pass is innate, my dude. You want to talk about whether to punish someone for using their free pass, and what degree of punishment to apply.
Nope. A woman is a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a woman.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I'm partial to: A woman is a person who everyone else identifies as a woman.
This puts womanhood squarely back in the realm of social constructs, which is one place we all agree it's been all along. In fact it's pretty much the only thing we all agree on.
This puts womanhood squarely back in the realm of social constructs, which is one place we all agree it's been all along. In fact it's pretty much the only thing we all agree on.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,221
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I'm pretty sure Hevneren was cracking wise. For my part, social conventions are full of circularity. And yet society muddles along. And if the trans-inclusionists insist on having a circular definition, I put mine forward as the vastly, self-evidently superior such definition.
But if we must: A woman is a person that everyone else identifies as female.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Thought about posting this in the cancel culture thread, but decided it fits just a bit better over here.
https://twitter.com/ProtransLobby/status/1446114184194789377
[imgw=640]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FBGhLtwVgAk0mGf?format=jpg&name=large[/imgw]
https://twitter.com/ProtransLobby/status/1446114184194789377
[imgw=640]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FBGhLtwVgAk0mGf?format=jpg&name=large[/imgw]
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Once again, Twitter serves me a monochrome rectangle in place of the actual content referenced in the tweet. This one is a pleasant shade of blue, but as usual gives me no hint as to what it's actually all about.
(Clicking on the rectangle just takes me to an error message.)
Another one of many attempts to get a gender-critical academic (Dr Kathleen Stock) fired. Some outfit called antiterfSussex put up posters calling her a transphobe who makes trans and nonbinary students 'unsafe', let off smoke bombs and threatened a campaign of harassment until the university fires her.
So far doesn't seem to be going too well for them.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
For those wondering who Kathleen Stock is and why they want her sacked, here is a representative paper: https://philpapers.org/rec/STONTS
View attachment Stock - Not the social kind.pdf
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,455
How do you feel about:
"A homosexual is someone who identifies as a homosexual"
or
"A Miami Dolphins fan is someone who identifies as a Miami Dolphins fan"?
Note, importantly, that in both cases, a person might engage in certain behaviours and other traits that may be associated with those groups.... without actually identifying as a member of that group or being defined as such.
So while one might superficially might be tempted to define "Dolphins fan" as "someone who wishes for the Dolphins to win their games", this is in fact not a suitable definition. For example, Jack might want the Dolphins to win all their games and win the Superbowl, but solely on account of his/her partner being (ie identifying as) a Dolphins fan - while Jack himself/herself would not identify as a Dolphins fan, and would not fall under the generally-understood definition of "Dolphins fan". Thus the only accurate definition for "Dolphins fan" is "someone who identifies as a Dolphins fan".
Last edited:
That might be sufficient, provided there is clarity and general consensus about those "certain behaviors and other traits that may be associated with" women. This approach obviously makes such traits definitionally critical.
Can you provide a list?
No one identifies as homosexual or heterosexual. People ARE homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual etc. Horrible definition.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
If I agree to answer your question, will you answer mine? If so, I agree in advance.
These are circular and ridiculous.
Suppose somebody says "I'm a homosexual because I identify as a homosexual. I'm not romantically or sexually attracted to people of the same sex as myself. I'm only ever attracted to people of the opposite sex. That doesn't matter, because I still feel like a homosexual inside. I can be attracted only to people of the opposite sex and still be homosexual. It's up to a person who is homosexual to decide what being a homosexual means. It's not up to anyone else to say that you need to be attracted to those of the same sex to be homosexual. A homosexual is anyone who feels like a homosexual"
It would be perfectly reasonable of anyone to conclude that the above person a)is not homosexual, b) is trying to render the term 'homosexual' to be completely meaningless, and c) is uttering incoherent nonsense.
There can be no requirement in these definitions to engage in 'certain behaviours and other traits that may be associated with these groups'
There cannot be any such thing as a 'generally-understood definition of Dolphins fan' that rules out anyone falling under it if 'Dolphins fan' is "someone who identifies as a Dolphins fan". These are incompatible.
The "fan" thing is stupid, because being a fan is always about some sort of allegiance, and as such, the only requirement for being a fan is pledging your allegiance (in the broadest terms possible). The statement "I identify as a fan of ..." qualifies as pledging your allegiance. For obvious reason, this doesn't work in the case of a "woman".
Edit: also, it's still a horrible definition.
Edit: also, it's still a horrible definition.
Last edited:
- Status