As far as who gets to get naked in what public rooms, it’s probably best to keep all the penises segregated from the vaginas. — Fire Ologist

There's logistical problems with this. What about people with manufactured penises or vaginas? Who checks and how do they check? Would you subject a man-ish lesbian to a genital check before you let her use the women's toilets, because she kinda looks like Justin Bieber or Adam Sandler?

Really? We need to get into this.

For all of the relatively tough calls, let’s hope the people involved can show courtesy and maturity and charity and just work it out. No policy covers 100% of use cases. I don’t think we need to toss all of the penises and vaginas into one big bucket and resort things and redraft a simple policy because of newly manufactured genitalia on a few people. People are still pretty private in the bathroom. Transpeople should give others privacy and expect their own will be honored. Pick a lane in the spirit of “men’s room” or “ladies room” and be courteous.

This is the problem. We’ve skipped to making policy before defining membership in our groups.

The groups should likely be men, women, transmen and transwomen. We are talking about bodies. So nothing is equal here. As persons, as humans, all are equal; as bodies, like male or female child, things are unequal. Why did we think of separate men’s and women’s rooms in the first place? Whatever drove that, (privacy/security while vulnerable) seems to now beg for more types of bathrooms. I would disagree that because of genital surgery we now need to work up a new theory about how some penises now belong with the some vaginas, in spaces they never belonged before.

But at this point, we’ve recognized men, women, transmen and transwomen, as different and distinct from one another.

So you are coming around to the need to hold terms down with clear definitions in order to make policy, or just communicate clearly?

Or can you and me have totally different ideas of what a bathroom is and still communicate? Can we have any genitals, whether naturally occurring or manufactured, and identify as any gender we want when choosing a bathroom, or competing in “women’s sports” or expecting people to remember who is a she and who is a he?

This is a bizarre take — flannel jesus

Yep.

So instead of getting all confused about what a woman is and the gender being whatever society wants it to be. Why not use the term female for sports and exclusive places and do away with gender for everything else as it is now a meaningless term that covers tired sexist tropes.

Seduction of Grammar... this whole thread...

"Man" and "Woman" are merely a category of specific traits that not all "men" and "women" share.

"Man" and "Woman" are Platonic concepts... Man is not men and Woman is not women, it’s a generic representation of men and women. In Christianity/Platonism, the generic representation is more real than the many actual things it represents. And it’s “supposed to” represent all of them… even when it doesn’t… because it can’t actually do that.

But what this means to them is that, when it doesn’t, the actual thing is “should” make itself conform to the representation—whatever doesn’t do so is a “bad thing,” a sinner.

It's kinda retarded to think everyone fits a single category as the platonic representation...

How a person is, depends on the VALUES they accept and express. Which has nothing to do with anyone except the valuator.

I just like how people use language to subvert communication, and talk about it, and think they have said something, that doesn’t contradict themselves.

So you are saying there is no metaphysical issue here, it is a misunderstanding of what language does, and the question “are transwomen women” is more of a psychology issue, or legal status issue, and the philosophy part is easy peasy?

Is Philosophim’s question “can people use ‘transwomen’ interchangeably with ‘women’ in a sentence coherently?”
Or is the question “are transwomen women?”

I thought it was the latter. I thought these were two different questions.

(“Latter question” cannot point to my first question above, or you will be confused, and language no longer serves its intended purpose.)

Are the above two questions the same question, or does one relate individual words to language, and the other relate words and language to things in the world that are talked about?

Can’t a man, who transitions his body so that it presents as a woman, call himself a “man”, a “woman” and a “transwoman” functionally? Sure he can, depending on the context. And if we all retrain ourselves we might not be confused when s/he speaks.

Here is a question: if there is any difference in the world between the two things that “man” and a “woman” used to refer to, can a transwoman in the world be referred to as a “woman” or a “man” whichever he/she chooses without reshaping both the man AND the woman? Does it make sense for us to agree that “woman” now meaningfully refers to that person with a penis and a dress, since she told us that is what she refers to herself as - is that how linguistic communication or “grammar” as you call it, is supposed to work, and does that make sense when trying to move people around in groups, with sports/bathroom policy, in the world?

Or dare I ask “what is a woman anyway?”

The bathroom thing is a stupid issue but it demonstrates the metaphysical point. What distinction in the world (if any) produced the first male/female segregated bathrooms, and can we meaningfully squeeze transwoman into the ladies room without subverting or ignoring whatever that distinction was?

There was the feminist line “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Great line. It’s funny. Or if you are a man, you might be insulted.

But it’s only funny or insulting if you have a solid sense of what a fish is, what a bicycle is, and what a man is and a woman is. As things. In the world. As objects named “fish, bicycle, man or woman.” The words only have meaning because of the things they refer to. The line is only funny if you’ve met a few men, women and fish, and bicycles, and you are keen enough to spot some differences among them.

So is a transwoman a woman?

Are differences similarities?

Does a language that fosters miscommunication function as a language?

Do two different bathrooms meant for two different groups of people serve any purpose unique to each one?

Bizarre indeed.

Or maybe everyone is a Heraclitean, embracing the absurd paradox it is to be an human being, and “the way up and the way down are one.”

Heraclitus wasn’t much of a communicator or community builder either.

———

ADDED:

Seduction of Grammar... this whole thread... — DifferentiatingEgg

You forgot to use the word “is”.

By “Grammar” do you mean “bicycle”? Or does this thread need no being, despite your presence in it?

This is an online forum to communicate. Words are about all we have. Grammar is always at issue. But is it the only issue?

You forgot to use the word “is”. — Fire Ologist

Left out quite a few words "This whole thread is filled with people seduced by grammar." ...

Never said don't use grammar, just be aware of how using an irreducibly platonic tool forces a style of psychology upon the person, a style that is exceptionally seductive. Even Heraclitus fell to the seduction of grammar, and he was an opponent of BEING! That's to say all grammar forces "being" upon the experiences of "becoming" in order to discuss a "thing."

First and foremost humans are animals. Causa sui categories came from the metaphysics of language...

If someone doesn't fit another person's category and they say that someone is wrong... well. That's just the person projecting their platonic idealism. Projecting their unreality upon reality. Projecting their "True World."

I thought these were two different questions. — Fire Ologist

There's your problem.

experiences of becoming in order to discuss a "thing." — DifferentiatingEgg

Spot on. That is what is at stake. How do we identify a “thing”, (any thing, like a trans woman or a woman), and discuss it? Identity, and communication through language of identity. Spot on.

platonic tool forces a style psychology upon the person that is exceptionally seductive. — DifferentiatingEgg

Ok. But then the person who identifies as mom, sitting at her child’s public school play, in her dress with her beard, asks “where can I find a bathroom for me?” Don't forget, there are two bathrooms available with two different words on the doors intended to invoke distinctions among people for the sake of creating a sense of safety and privacy.

Do we need to read Plato and Wittgenstein first? She herself admits she can’t just pee on the floor, or anywhere she wants. Where do you tell her to go, and here is the real question, why do you think where you tell her to go makes any sense for her, and for everyone (since the signs don't magically change themselves)? The world around you fancy grammarians is making policy and defining terms. We all need more input. Is your final answer to this mom: "Man and woman are platonic concepts - I don't know - it doesn't matter to me."

A couple Platonic dialogues are implicated, but this isn’t just platonic theory - it’s policy. Can a person list “wife” on a benefits application if they are a transwoman, or is this fraud? That is really the exact same question as "are transwomen women." Or "what is a thing."

I am not denying context impacts definitions. I just asking questions in the largest possible context, and admitting the fact of definitions. This is all convention, I get it - so, what is the specific convention going to be?

And I’d argue this is Aristotle, not Plato. We are talking about immanent form (the intelligible aspect of a thing becoming a thing) not some battle of absolute ideal notions, pitting being against becoming. We are talking about particular people representing themselves through language to other people. There is a whole world of praxis in which these "platonic" ideals are being used. We are fixing definitions based on things in the world for the purpose of communicating meaning to others in the world through that language. The moving parts are not just the words. It’s a bitch.

Ignoring the issues as metaphysical folly says nothing. Maybe that is by design. Hope you never have to run anything or manage people.

But you seem to understand the question, as you highlighted "experiences of becoming in order to discuss a 'thing'." That is the nut of the issue.

So are you just not interested in the context of trans? Or are you seduced by fire, and you really think man and woman are concepts only? Maybe to avoid "thing" you've reified something else?

-------

Heraclitus was an opponent of BEING! — DifferentiatingEgg

That's what they teach us Socrates and Plato and Aristotle said. But Heraclitus wasn’t an opponent of being. We should all understand Heraclitus better. He recognized that the “ing” in being is the same “ing” as in becoming, and therefore, that being itself, is moving. He defined being as becoming. Our grammar broke apart Heraclitus' wisdom. We've mostly fabricated the importance of the grammatical distinction between being and becoming, when in experience, there is no such distinction, and "becoming" is the better term for all of it.

“There is an exchange: all things for Fire and Fire for all things, like goods for gold and gold for goods.” - Heraclitus Fragment 90.

Becoming things, is not just becoming - we need things too. You need to fix goods, to then exchange them for Fire. We need to carve out a man, to then notice he both steps and does not step into the same river. (See Fragment 49)

That doesn't therefore mean the goods, the things, are not in-themselves becoming and moving. That is another issue (one that makes defining things fraught with error). But we need not ignore the fact of things being things as we throw them back into the fire.

You guys staying so strong against the seduction of grammar, all sound like you only see Fire. Ok. But then how is there any distinct issue to clarify in the first place? If all is just Fire? Where are the woman versus men versus transwomen? And what are you doing when you see one thing distinct from another? What does the Fire consume? How come you even know what Philosophim is asking, or how Philosiphim formed his question?

You are saying there is no question. But the question still is, where am I supposed to pee without creating a shitstorm? The shitstorm is real, if protests and legislation are real. You seem to think we invent this metaphysical controversy by misunderstanding how seductive grammar is, and that the little girl who is shocked by the person in her bathroom invented her own shock because she reified “woman” beyond all practical application and expectation. Maybe it’s not the Platonic form and our discussion of forms so much as it is the beard and the deep voice. She needs a word for "beard" if she is to describe what happened to her in the bathroom. Or maybe she needs a word for "man" distinct from "woman" or "transwoman". Or is she just being a sexist little girl, or imagining beards, and her sense of shock can be trained out of her by an enlightened society (which would still require fixed things and definitions to do the training, just new things and words.)?

“How can anyone hide from that which never sets?” - Fragment 16 This cuts both ways - Fire, for all things.

"For though all things come into being in accordance with this Law, men seem as if they had never met with it (sleeping), when they meet with words (theories) and actions (processes)..." - Fragment 1.

“To those who are awake, there is one ordered universe common to all, whereas in sleep each man turns away [from this world] to one of his own.” - Fragment 89.

Sounds like a warning against private languages. As in "I identify as a X" as if we were good at identifying anything. Sounds like he recognizes language, law and becoming - not just becoming (in its sense that we've made it an opponent of being).

Ever since Plato, Heraclitus has been pigeon-holed as only speaking of fire and flux. He just wisely recognized that defining terms, seeing the law, was precarious and perilous, so his language confused people. “The path of writing is crooked and straight.” - Fragment 59 "Nature likes to hide." - Fragment 123

I would agree there is no platonic form of "woman" or "man" - but there are things that we call men, and things that we cannot call men. I'm not trying to reify any notion or idea - I'm trying to talk about particular things that come to be in our faces, or bathrooms.

---------

As we both grapple with this: "experiences of becoming in order to discuss a 'thing'." here is the only thing you need to explain: How is the person who says "Transwomen are women is true" not using language to subvert clear communication among all women, men, transwomen, transmen, kids, people? Do we really think we can take a convention so simple and basic as gender, and allow individuals to privately shuffle all of the moving parts without breaking down communication, confusing our laws, shocking children, angering moms and dads, disappointing athletes, sparking allegations of fraud, and in some cases, harming the individuals who were told they are trans?

The metaphysics here needs to be addressed better than "seduction of grammar". We need to use grammar to influence policy, and impact particular lives and situations. There are consequences to playing with words and meaning this way.

Is Philosophim’s question

“can people use ‘transwomen’ interchangeably with ‘women’ in a sentence coherently?”
Or is the question

“are transwomen women?”

I thought it was the latter. I thought these were two different questions. — Fire Ologist

There's your problem. — Banno

I'm interested. Can you explain that to me? My answer to the first question is "yes, by setting a context and defining our terms accordingly, we can create conditions where these two words create subtle distinctions but can be often be used interchangeably with coherence". My answer to the second question is "no, they are distinct things in the world."

So what is my problem?

This is for people who are really trying to dissect the phrase and think about it in non-political way. — Philosophim

OK, I can see how my argument won't seem constructive to you because it doesn't accept enough of your basic premises to help you refine it. But I think what you're really doing here is smuggling in the deeply, inherently political and pretending you can treat it as non-political, in order to establish norms which make trans political victory inevitable. And by "inevitable" I mean that one can't even say one diasgrees, not just because it's against the rules but because this aims to take away the words necessary to even express the idea. Meaning, "trans" language use is Orwell's Newspeak.

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. — Fire Ologist

I would usually not want to bring up Matt Walsh because he's not philosophically deep and the politics he normally espouses are neither original nor interesting. The Daily Wire people are not only shallow but still not critical enough of the dogmas of the old Conservative Inc faction for my taste.

But Walsh was right about this one thing. What you just said is the central thesis of his mockumentary, "What is a Woman?" If it was OK to cite Michael Moore's documentaries in the 2000s, then turnabout is fair play. Walsh directly hit the very heart of the issue dividing our civilization.

Can you explain that to me? — Fire Ologist

the history of our interactions in this forum would suggest not.

How do we identify a “thing” — Fire Ologist

Thinghood came through categorization via language and grammar which differentiates through definitions. Trans is an adjective that modifies a noun.

Ok. But then the person who identifies as mom, sitting at her child’s public school play, in her dress with her beard, asks “where can I find a bathroom for me?” — Fire Ologist

waves a gesturing hand towards the two bathrooms. "Overthere."

It's quite simple, you treat them by your mutual term, human. That you let platonic categories scew with your thinking just shows you dont really give a shit about the person but are more seduced into projecting your own platonic concepts upon them.

But Heraclitus wasn’t an opponent of being. — Fire Ologist

"Blah blah blah, No fux for flux." Since being is always moving it's becoming. Regardless of if you wanna be like "no he said BEING MOVES!" lol aight homie...

You didn't say a damn thing other than Heraclitus doesn't believe in a static being of permanence... which is Being... so more or less you said he does and doesn't believe in Being. Absurd.


Added:

Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. — Nietzsche. TLNMS

the history of our interactions in this forum would suggest not. — Banno

So your problem is you think those two questions are the same? Since you’ve identified my problem I don’t think this is too bold.

Blah blah blah, — DifferentiatingEgg

That was fun.

Nice exchange folks! It’s not like there is any philosophy to discuss here anyway.

And Egg, Heraclitus said “it rests from change”. Rest is static. I don’t think you understand Heraclitus (or much of what I said above.) But I assume you aren’t interested in talking with me either.

And “human” is a category, an ideal, just as much as “trans” is. That makes my whole point (again) - no one is avoiding reification as and definitions of things in the world and then communicating with other people. You can’t help it. Which is Heraclitus’ point.