It's not a convincing example because you apparently don't understand how the fallacy of begging the question works. Denial of analytical truths leads to logical contradictions, which is basically what you're doing. By analogy, you're insisting on the existence of "unmarried bachelors" when insisting on "donuts without holes". Both are obviously incoherent.

It's not begging the question :

If all donuts have holes
And this shape doesn't have a hole
Then it cannot be a donut

If all donuts have holes
And this shape has a hole
Then it could be a donut

We'll note the premise does not assume the truth of the conclusion so no begging of questions here. We'll also note that "a 2-dimensional representation of a donut" is not a "donut" for rather obvious reasons.

Correction. I don't believe it was impossible, I know it's impossible much like a "married bachelor" is impossible.

I would consider objects to exist "on their own" otherwise they wouldn't exist. Aside from idealism I'm not well-versed in alternatives. So interested in reading up on it and in the meantime interested in why you take issue with "on their own".

Hi, could either of you expound? Or provide a link to an appropriate SEP article? I don't think I'm familiar with this yet.

Who argued that? Probably a misrepresentation. She did sign this letter in 1948. https://archive.org/details/AlbertEinsteinLetterToTheNewYorkTimes.December41948

I'm saying girls with gender dysphoria are physically different enough from other girls that it's measurable. So the idea it's a delusion seems misplaced. Your study shows that if you change procedure and stimuli, differences between boys and girls disappear. That is in no way contradictory with the study I cited. Girls with gender dysphoria already perform the same as boys without adjusting procedure and stimuli.

In the past you couldn't be transgender in the modern sense because you could not have your breasts removed or penis inverted or go on hormones, all you could do is cross dress and perform roles attributed to the opposite sex.

This is conflating gender non conformity with transsexuality. A woman is not someone who wears dresses or works as a nurse, she has ovaries, a womb, periods, menopause etc none of these things are available to the opposite sex. — Andrew4Handel

You're confusing transgender with transsexuality. They are not the same thing. You can be transgender without changes in sex.

Your replies are useless. If you don't have anything substantive to add to support your opinion, please go elsewhere.

Except of course that's not a donut. It's a picture of a representation of one in two-dimensional space, while we know a donut is a three-dimensional object with a hole. I can draw you a two-dimensional graph with a line representing the acceleration of a donut falling to the ground. The line itself is static. What happened to the acceleration of the donut? Did it disappear thanks to my drawing?

Why is it a lie? There's "sex" what your body looks like, and "gender" what you feel and how you think about yourself and therefore "identify" as.

What part is a lie?

This is clarifying too.

Someone believing they are born in the wrong body is having their suffering caused by a delusion and it is possible to make someone think they were born in the wrong body by lying and endorsing this ideology rather than telling them no it is not possible. — Andrew4Handel

Here's some research you should read,

https://pure.knaw.nl/ws/files/2203335/Burke2016JPsychiatNeurosci.pdf

Let me know when you've figured out how these physical changes come about as a result of an underlying delusion.

I also note that the Swedish study you referenced showed female likelihood of sexual violence if proper psychological care was provided to trans women. So the converse argument is possible too, that given the fact certain groups of trans women have female levels of violence those are really women then. Or maybe it's just not a very good indicator.

I am skeptical of holes being a typographic feature, however, given the ability to represent a donut on a plane without a hole in a topologically identical manner. — Moliere

Do you have a picture of a donut without a hole for me?

Well, because we can see the hole, and the hole has properties such as depth, width, and location -- and those properties differ from the properties of the ground, since the ground spreads out, and is certainly not shaped like a hole anywhere else. Would we call Africa a hole just because this one hole exists? — Moliere

Is Africa yellow just because the sand in the Sahara is? I really have trouble finding what your argument is so far. The immediate matter surrounding a hole is clearly not a hole.

I think the question is, do properties exist? If so, then holes exist. I'm not committed one way or another because it depends on language use and definitions. Holes are a specific topographic feature such that an area without solid matter is surrounded by solid matter. If defined that way, the question arises do circles and squares exist? It's not particular to holes unless you insist holes ought to be defined by the absence of something. I don't like such a definition though, because I can't take a hole out of the context of the matter defining it because if I remove that matter I'm left with nothing. And this is the same with a square, if you take away the matter, I'm not left with a square but if I remove the square, I still have (amorphous) matter.

Well, color we could say is electromagnetic waves. — Moliere

Well, obviously different properties will be measured differently. Maybe I should've been clearer: why should we not treat the shape of an object as a property as we do for colour and texture?

And why is this any different than any property like texture or colour? It just describes the form or outer boundaries of an object.

you are drunkey? Nah, language is fine as it is.

No, rings have holes but they aren't holes. A hole isn't a thing but a property resulting from the shape of matter.

So do holes exist? As much as "being drunk" does.

That's not a hole but an indentation. A hole wouldn't be able to hold water.

From my side it's not so much restraint but a worry I'm letting personal feelings cloud my judgment. I prefer to err on the side of caution as a result.

I do think there's a "type" recently that gets banned sooner or later. It's posters who think everybody else are (is?) stupid and believe they're capable of judging discussions from an elevated, enlightened position. Invariably that's a precursor to a lack of self reflection and that translates to unexamined positions and bad argumentation.

The way of Man - Martin Buber (ended up being a self-help book for me trying to be a better person)
Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien (my first English book, so it taught me to read English and sparked my love for fantasy and sci-fi)
The Law - I try not to break it, I work with laws when monitoring compliance, for product development and writing contracts
The Republic - Plato (my first philosophical text, created a friendship with my professor and got me interested in philosophy)

I don't get why people are so concerned with "democracy" in this context and need to accuse people of harbouring tyrannical aspirations.

You're in a club owned by jamalrob and we're the bouncers.

Apologies. Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes I still miss things with English not being my native language.

sure, Nazis avant la lettre.

Probably not. I think the exercise of empathising with criminals ought to be employed at the stage of sentencing not when adjucating if a crime happened or not. So his invitation to emphatise with the Israeli narrative is as misplaced as it would be here.

The problem isn't just China. It's all those poor countries who at a terrible toll on their people and natural environment produce things that Westerners buy cheaply and treat poorly. — baker

Agreed. However, it's difficult to avoid Chinese products which is why I focus on it here. Brazilian is easy to avoid and Iran is already boycotted where I live by the government.

The upcoming Polestar 3 will be manufactured in the USA. The earlier two versions are Chinese productions. Should you consider an electric car...

Swedes aren't dumb and slow on average. Sometimes insufferable though. I used to have meetings with the Swedish riksgalden and they issued debt at the time not because they needed the money but to maintain "access to the market". The Swedish director loved rubbing that in and preferred to give an update right after Italy or Greece.

My reason was in my post. You're making a lot of stuff up that has nothing to do with that reason. But keep it up, you'll be the next person I'm going to ignore.

I wasn't telling you, I was telling Banno. Run along.

Foghorn can't read for shit. When Hanover says "none of us are interested in fishing out your genius", he quotes "none of us are interested" and changes what Hanover meant. He does this rather regularly which is why I've started ignoring him. You should do the same.

"but but but Hamas!"

uhmm... The re-education camps are intended to destroy a culture. You don't need to kill to effectively cause genocide.

Doesn't necessarily make you oppressed, now does it?

We both agree that the Germans were oppressed, i.e. were victims, which to my understanding means that they are cannot be blamed for just trying to get even according to a certain logic. — BitconnectCarlos

Go back to my previous post and read it more slowly is it's too difficult to grasp what the difference is you can ask me questions so I can explain it. But no, we're not in agreement Germans we're oppressed.

It's getting more traction because it's more in the news nowadays and I think if we could make it easier for others they will more easily be persuaded to follow suit. So maybe not that practical, but every little bit helps. Meanwhile, the less of my money goes into building "re-education centres" the better.