Transgender man gives birth

sylvan8798 said:
Not simple. This is a logical fallacy (someone help me, I've forgotten the term).

All persons who can give birth are female.
This person cannot give birth.
___________________________________
Therefore: this person is not female.

This is a fallacy, because the statement "All persons who can give birth are female" does not exclude persons who cannot give birth, but simply includes in the term a certain group which is potentially a subset of all those who are female.
Click to expand...

As it's about not giving birth, I think it must be a fallacy of the undistributed middle.
 
biologically xx is female and xy is male,
there are exceptions and they tend to have been recognised and labelled already.

If you wake up and feel like changing whether your a girl/boy which you identify with but you're not in the exception group, then I feel you are being lead by whats the cool and fashionable thing to do that makes you feel special.
 
p0lka said:
biologically xx is female and xy is male,
there are exceptions and they tend to have been recognised and labelled already.

If you wake up and feel like changing whether your a girl/boy which you identify with but you're not in the exception group, then I feel you are being lead by whats the cool and fashionable thing to do that makes you feel special.
Click to expand...

A horrible car accident happens. In a groundbreaking amazing surgical breakthrough, one person survives by having his brain transplanted into another body! The body is that of a woman, though.

Is he or she a man or a woman now?
 
TragicMonkey said:
A horrible car accident happens. In a groundbreaking amazing surgical breakthrough, one person survives by having his brain transplanted into another body! The body is that of a woman, though.
Click to expand...

I Will Fear No Evil, by Robert Heinlein.
 
TragicMonkey said:
A horrible car accident happens. In a groundbreaking amazing surgical breakthrough, one person survives by having his brain transplanted into another body! The body is that of a woman, though.

Is he or she a man or a woman now?
Click to expand...

I mentioned that already
p0lka said:
there are exceptions and they tend to have been recognised and labelled already.
Click to expand...
your example would come under the above in the sense that its biological thing, ie physical.
If you have none of the above then you're just following a trend that you find compelling and you're just trying to feel special.
 
sylvan8798 said:
Not simple. This is a logical fallacy (someone help me, I've forgotten the term).

All persons who can give birth are female.
This person cannot give birth.
___________________________________
Therefore: this person is not female.

This is a fallacy, because the statement "All persons who can give birth are female" does not exclude persons who cannot give birth, but simply includes in the term a certain group which is potentially a subset of all those who are female.
Click to expand...

Speaking of logical fallacies, you have managed to do a fantastic job of illustrating the fallacy of the straw man. That term is thrown around here with reckless abandon, but this is an actual case. PonderingTurtle has substituted a phony argument for a real one, and you have demonstrated the flaw with the phony one. That's exactly how the straw man fallacy is supposed to work. To demonstrate the fallacy with an argument about logical fallacies is quite cool.

There is one aspect of the straw man fallacy that I am not sure this fits, though. The straw man is supposed to be a deliberate construction. I'm not sure ponderingturtle understands the original argument adequately to deliberately construct the substitute. I'm not sure there's such a thing as an "accidental" straw man.
 
Argumemnon said:
You know, ponderingturtle and yourself are quite fond of telling me what I "seem" to be doing. How about you stop doing that and just go with what I post, m'kay?
Click to expand...

I think it's important for you as a human being to understand this.

Communication requires interpretation. If I merely took the literal value of your words, and made no attempt to interpret, then I'd have to conclude that you made no argument and simply ignore you.

Instead, I make the interpretation that you're actually trying to make an argument and try to discern what argument that is.

It's what human beings do every fricking day.

Now I have a few options when my attempt at interpretation leaves me looking at an argument that does not look rational. Most responses would be more or less variations on these handful.

1) I can use my magical mind reading powers to discern what you really meant but left no reasonable clues of. Not too likely as I am not a psychic.

2) I can broadly ask you what the heck you mean, but then I'm very likely to get another bit of language that requires interpretation, so we're back at square one.

3) I can assume my interpretation is correct and respond as though the argument is as flawed as it appears to be.

4) I can present my interpretation in a context using words like "seems" to give you an opportunity to clarify what you mean.

Now I'm sorry if the word "seems" or the fact that casual language requires interpretations has triggered your delicate sensibilities. But some of us are concerned with clarity and truth.
 
Wolrab said:
What a silly thread. Believing you are something does not make it true. A man is not biologically equipped to have a baby. Women have babies, duh.
Click to expand...

You don't understand the logic

Axiom
Proposition: A person who cannot have babies is not a woman> This is FALSE

ergo
Proposition: A person who can have babies is not a woman> This is therefore TRUE

Crazy troll logic.
 
Noztradamus said:
You don't understand the logic

Axiom
Proposition: A person who cannot have babies is not a woman> This is FALSE

ergo
Proposition: A person who can have babies is not a woman> This is therefore TRUE

Crazy troll logic.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand the logic, read the above back to yourself.

edit: I replied before i got to the 'crazy troll logic' so i take it back, sorry, i should read the whole post before i replied :(
 
Last edited:
Cavemonster said:
I think it's important for you as a human being to understand this.
Click to expand...

Stop there. If you can't post without condescension, don't bother. And don't pretend that your weasel words fool me.

However, this:

Now I'm sorry if the word "seems" or the fact that casual language requires interpretations has triggered your delicate sensibilities.
Click to expand...

...bears a response: if you think you're being clever by using the word "triggered", which was co-opted by people on the far-left who think you can have PTSD from tweets, and which is used by opponents of the SJWs to point out how delicate they are, as a mirror against said opponents, especially when the context is completely different to anyone with two functioning brain cells, then you're not half as clever as you think you are.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
Ugh. The question is whether a person is of the gender they claim to be by the simple fact of the claim itself. It is _not_ whether it's rude or preferable to go around on the street, pointing to random stragers while shouting their gender and, once one objects that you got it wrong, insist that they're insane and hope they kill themselves to get your gold star.
Click to expand...
:biggrin: Funniest post in the thread!

Cavemonster said:
Yes, but specifically it says that it refers to traits typically associated with sex.

It does not say that those traits are necessarily an expression of sex. You seem to be tossing out the words "typically" and "associated".
Click to expand...
So in your world, women are allowed to define their "gender" any way they want, just as long as that definition doesn't discriminate against confused men who might want to become women? "So why again is the horse behind the cart?" :eye-poppi

ponderingturtle said:
And of course if you can't have babies you are not a woman. Simple.
Click to expand...
You're like a walking logical fallacy. Good stuff! :thumbsup:

Cavemonster said:
...Communication requires interpretation. If I merely took the literal value of your words, and made no attempt to interpret, then I'd have to conclude that you made no argument and simply ignore you.

Instead, I make the interpretation that you're actually trying to make an argument and try to discern what argument that is...
Click to expand...
I've read that paragraph above 15 times and I'll be damned if I truly understand a ******* thing you're saying. If it's in any way profound then I'm a monkey's uncle. :monkey4:

Cavemonster said:
...Now I have a few options when my attempt at interpretation leaves me looking at an argument that does not look rational. Most responses would be more or less variations on these handful.

1) I can use my magical mind reading powers to discern what you really meant but left no reasonable clues of. Not too likely as I am not a psychic.

2) I can broadly ask you what the heck you mean, but then I'm very likely to get another bit of language that requires interpretation, so we're back at square one.

3) I can assume my interpretation is correct and respond as though the argument is as flawed as it appears to be.

4) I can present my interpretation in a context using words like "seems" to give you an opportunity to clarify what you mean.

Now I'm sorry if the word "seems" or the fact that casual language requires interpretations has triggered your delicate sensibilities. But some of us are concerned with clarity and truth.
Click to expand...
Really? Clarity and truth? "As flawed as it appears to be"? Really? This is the best you got? And all while acting like a complete ********? You're literally making things up and then accusing those things of being flawed/irrational. Pro Tip™: Quit while you're not too far behind. :eye-poppi
 
Since it has been explained that this is about the locker-room issue and not about calling people by their preferred pronoun, which locker-room would you prefer this person enter? How about this person? This person? How about this person? This person?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom