Yes, yours did that, which is what my argument about the age of consent demonstrates. — BenMcLean

Ok. No, it didn't. my post was pretty clear. Your argument, somewhat less so.

Foucault was a critical theorist which puts him in this same post-Marxist / neo-Marxist space where social idenities replace economic determinism as the drivers of oppression, which formed the academic and ideological grounding for the current anti-liberal "woke" worldivew.[/quote]

Foucault's main thrust explains how discourse operates as power. Whereas sex is falsifiable by observations of nature, 'gender' is purely a discursive construct which is unfalsifiable.

It relates to to the story of The King's Body (Discipline and Punish). The King's body has two components. A living human body and the social body of 'The King'. 'The King' is a permanent fixture that a series of living bodies occupy. The living body has no power. The power resides in 'The King' (there's more to it about power existing as contrast between 'The King' and 'The Condemned Man'), but the point is, power is exerted by one social body against another. It doesn't exist in living bodies per-se, but the Social Body that living bodies occupy. "The King" is the product of a socially sanctioned discourse. It is not observable in nature.

'Men' and 'women', according to gender theory, are Social Bodies which (a succession of) living bodies occupy. Male and female are living bodies (observed in nature). The power of the gendered discourse is solely reliant on a socially sanctioned discourse, similar to "The King".

The claim a male makes, "I am a woman," expresses the desire to fill "The Woman's" social body, but the discourse about 'women' has always exclusively pertained to females. Males cannot occupy "The Woman's Body". This worked because females are identifiable in nature. When males claim that position, it is an exertion of power against females such that females aren't the exclusive occupiers of their own 'Body'. They are 'kicked out' by males who relegate them to a discursively constructed "Cis Body". Thus the transgender discourse is inherently misogynous.

Females who lay claim to 'The Man's' body also exert discursive power, but we are not writing 'men' out of social discourse. Only 'women'. Hence, whereas we have 'pregnant people' (who replace 'women' or 'mothers'), we do not have 'people with a prostrate' - we still call them 'Men'.

That's an off the cuff Foucaultian analysis of the thing, and far from being woke, it exposes the power dynamics at play. Foucault is woke in the sense that gender ideologues understand discourse as power (Foucault is essential gender studies reading), and intentionally use discourse to undermine women. That's how 'Gender' became structurally and institutionally established throughout policy, law, health, education, industry and everything.

If we socially sanction the gendered narrative, females will be 'written out' of "The Woman's Body" and thus become utterly disempowered. For example, many women and girls have stood down in sports because males entered 'The Woman's Body', and indeed, the power of a female to say 'No' to a male has been greatly diminished since she was relegated to being "Cis".

Thus the transgender discourse in inherently misogynous. — Throng

It is also can be equally masandrist when trans men are involved. This is all too often forgotten in the conversation, but rans men exist too. There are trans men who think because they've transitioned, they're now gay and can hit on gay men. Which is incredibly homophobic. I don't think transitioning is innately misogynist or mysandrist, but much of the rhetoric around it is.

The tenor of your discussion may be heading more towards the idea of gender as having any credible import in laws. I have another one here that may be more along the lines of what you're thinking about. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16313/gender-elevated-over-sex-is-sexism/p1

I don't think transitioning is innately misogynist or mysandrist, but much of the rhetoric around it is. — Philosophim

Well, misogyny is a dynamic between powerful 'Men' in contrast with disempowered "Women". Males can exert that at any time because we can simply bash non-compliant females. That's why Afghan women live in black bags, and woe betide she who is seen! I don't knw if the males over there want to live as a "Woman". The "Woman" social body is not desirable over there because the living body is, and desire is so unbecoming of "A Man". It's "Her" fault that "Men" are craven, so "She" must not be seen.

Females in most of the world do not not live in bags, so she is desirable, and so is "She". Males want to occupy "Her" body and they are currently coercing consent. However, take Blair White for example, who doesn't attempt to TWAW her way in. She claims to be 'A Man' and respects women from a male's perspective. Thus, appearing feminine isn't inherently misogynistic, but the claim "I am a woman' is.

In this way, misogyny is inherent to males entering The Woman's Body (which was the context within which I made that remark), but not inherent to feminine men who remain within "The Body of The Man".

I think you may be describing some aspects from the transwomen side, but not all. And I still think only addressing trans women ignores the commonality between them and trans men.

More importantly for my purposes, I think there is a clear division between trans gender individuals and trans sexuals. I do believe that trans gender is inherently prejudicial, and ultimately sexist if it rises above the fact of the person. However trans sexual individuals simply desire the body of the other sex. While they can also be trans gender, I want to isolate specifically the trans sexuals who still understand they aren't going to magically change into the other sex, but have a deep psychological desire to do so anyway.

The trans gender issue takes up so much bandwidth, its rare I can think or discuss about this particular issue with another. Do you think there is something potentially different about trans sexual individuals? Even in societies where women are oppressed, there are trans sexuals. Its a very rare occurrence, but they exist across all cultures. Should the desire be entertained if the technology is available? Is the separation of trans sexuals and trans genders something viable to consider?

Words like woman and man aren’t fixed labels; their meanings come from how we use them in our lives, in law, in society, in everyday practice. Language isn’t a static system of definitions—it’s a web of practices, habits, and shared understandings. — Banno

Maybe, but you say it in such absolute terms, it casts some doubt on your own view. You make “language isn’t a static system” the static description of all that language ever is.

What if language would never have gotten off the ground if “language isn’t a static system of definitions”?

I know it’s all clear to you, but it seems to me, if I was you, and all I saw in language were blurry, shifting (not static) temporary practices, I wouldn’t be using dogmatic sounding terms like “language isn’t a static system.”

If language didn’t contain the static, ever, the notion of “shared understandings” is silly. How can two people share the same understanding if not even words can be fixed? What is left to fix as shared?

Uh-huh. And this fluid, ever shifting approach then applies directly to words like "child" and "adult" and "consent." We're no doubt supposed to understand these words, not as a static system of definitions, but as a web of practices, habits, etc, so that we can't point at a statute and say, "This person was underage" because words like "underage" can't be understood in such static, rigid terms. — BenMcLean

Exactly. Once you downplay and subvert the function of language to define itself and fix its terms, you destroy the ability of two communicants to coalesce on a shared understanding. Once you try to argue that “woman” need not mean the same thing to me and to you, today and tomorrow, then why bother trying to clarify anything? Whatever is clarified is not actually clear, and the words used to clarify it are not clarifying.

A man is a whole thing. Gender, biological sex, psychology and desires, etc. We have made the word “man” to distinguish this from that. Or are we all mumbling to ourselves, hoping some context might make it make sense to whomever hears us?

multiple legitimate uses — Banno

If language needs nothing static about it to function as communication, and foster “shared understanding”, how can you say “legitimate” and mean anything whatsoever by it? What, or who, legitimates? Legitimate here serves to make each use “static” so you’ve contradicted yourself.

Meaning is contextual: truth isn’t fixed by biology alone nor reducible to private claims. — Banno

That is all accurate. But it doesn’t mean that nothing static forms. It precisely means there is a particular (fixed) context for a particular meaning to cash out as “truth”. (Why do you bother with the word “truth” - you mean to say “function”. And you still don’t avoid what is fixed and static in order to say something that others wouldn’t also understand as truth.)

Statements like “transwomen are women” can be true in some contexts (social, legal, identity based), and false in others (strict biological categorisation) depending on which use of the term is salient. — Banno

But the only way to navigate through a conversation and make statements that “can be true in some contexts and false in others” is to fix things, and make our definitions concrete. The very statement you just made is meaningless to anyone and everyone until you fix something for us to measure it against. Why would I agree with anyone on earth about what they find salient when I am questioning the meaning of statements like “men are also not men, because the meaning of ‘men’ is not fixed?”

Language itself is the only salient thing now, because it seems to be slipping away, as we speak.

Attempts to privilege one use as “the only correct one” ignore the plurality of language functions and tacit prejudices about what counts as “rational” uses of terms. — Banno

I think this is the source of the flaws in the “language is use” model. The flaws are above (namely, language can simply be derived from itself and its functions; language contains nothing static; context is the locus of meaning to the detriment of the thing that is meant; words seem to function despite themselves.). So it’s not a flaw inside the model, but it’s the source of the flaws.

No one is attempting to privilege one use as the correct use. (You raised “correct” - you are the one raising “true in some contexts and false in others” - that is a conversation that would seek the “correct” - so someone must be trying to privilege the correct, but this is a digression.)

It’s not about correct use among many uses. The attempt is to find one single use of a word, at all. You miss this point, and skip right into the fray of “the plurality of language functions and tacit prejudices about what counts as “rational” uses of terms.” There is no plurality absent any individuals. The attempt is to individuate one clear term, to focus on the individual with its context. Fix an individual for all to share. The attempt is to count a single rational use. If you leap to the flux of context battering anecdotal instances without concern for fixing any words, context in flux devours all meaning. If language is not static, then “language” will one day not mean what “language” is spoken (like “woman” used to specifically exclude “with a penis” but no longer does.)

So the source of the flaws is a prejudice favoring flux and motion and its affects on any attempt to fix terms.

The flux is real and ubiquitous. But so are the things moved, the objects we similarly grasp and understand and fix.

Language as mere use, renders “meaning” fairly useless. Language is more than use, and that more, includes the fixed.

Being human wreaks of the absurd. But to say more than that, to say “the absurd” with clear meaning and understanding is to refute this absurdity existed in the first place. If we don’t want to recognize the fixed and the understood and the things about language that can never change, then it seems ridiculous to argue with anyone, about anything.

Basically “transwomen are women”, once true in any context, subverts any solid sense of “true” or “context” by dismantling any reliable use of the words “transwomen” or “woman”.

If language didn’t contain the static, ever, the notion of “shared understandings” is silly. How can two people share the same understanding if not even words can be fixed? — Fire Ologist

This is a bizarre take. We know language isn't fixed. Surely you know the language you're speaking now didn't exist 2000 years ago. And after it did come into existence, it was spoken very differently from how it's spoken now.

You can have a shared understanding without a perfectly static language, as long as it's static enough. It doesn't have to be entirely static, just relatively stable.

If all words had fixed meanings, there would be one true correct language and all other languages would just be wrong.

Interesting example: in Shakespearean times, the word "nice" meant foolish, it didn't mean kind. In his time, it was understood to mean foolish, and in our time it's understood to mean kind. So we clearly have a shifting non static language, and we also clearly have a contemporary common understanding.