...as I've aptly put it to Banno why this is hte case. — AmadeusD

Banno doesn't agree.

But if 'man' is not a sex, then this is meaningless. It would be 'unambiguous' if the phrase were "transfemales are women". I fear this has been entirely missed by both Banno and yourself. — AmadeusD

What twaddle.

The specific sense of "adult male of the human race" (distinguished from a woman or boy) is by late Old English (c. 1000). Before that it referred to either sex. The phrase man as “sexed male” is just one sense of a polysemous word. Privileging a modern biological sense as a universal truth is arbitrary; it’s just one of several legitimate senses.

But apparently now one sense can be considered the default without privileging it. :lol:

It is not about you, but them. — Questioner

What a radical idea! That can't be right...

A thread about trans people being about trans people...
:wink:

Loved your reply to @Outlander.

Loved your reply to Outlander. — Banno

Thank you! that means a lot

Transgender people — Questioner

Again, you refuse to define (and maintain a constant definition of) "transgender people". I already caught you in one backtrack you won't own up to.

You said "transgenders are born". Which due to the existence of ultrasounds that can detect even the smallest abnormalities of the brain, means "transgenderism" should be able to be "detected" early on in the womb, which no reputable science supports. Instead of admitting you were wrong, or meeting halfway and saying "I don't know, that's just what I'm parroting, perhaps I made a mistake" you arrogantly pretended like you weren't painted into a corner, trying to shift focus onto something else hoping people wouldn't notice, as if we're all stupid or something. That's offensive. All that little move did is expose the illogical nature of your argument and possibly more about your character (or agenda or purpose here).

The meaning of what I wrote is simply this: transgender persons are born that way. I never said anything about detection. That would be absurd. — Questioner

You said, and I quote:

a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born. — Questioner

Then, when I asked if you could tell the difference between a "male brain" and a "female brain", specifically around the time a human being is born, you said:

yes, it can be done with fMRI - scans of brain activity — Questioner

So which is it? Either you can "detect" whether or not a male body is allegedly paired with a "female" brain (and vice versa) or no such specific pairing occurs in the womb at all.

(Not to mention actual science that confirms the human brain isn't done developing at all until around the age of 25 or later!)

So yes, you in fact made an unfounded scientific claim not backed by reputable science. Your best bet if you want to keep going is to pull a casual "oh I didn't mean to" or maybe suggest that English isn't your first language or something. Because your wording was clear as day. You can't keep doubling down without a cop-out at this point, not without harming your own case. Which might be well-intended but nevertheless has failed to remain logically consistent. Think about it.

I'm in a good mood tonight, don't take it personally. I worry we're getting a bit off topic from the OP's stated premise. But this is not a place where you can remain logically inconsistent without being called out for it. You need to understand that.

Which due to the existence of ultrasounds that can detect even the smallest abnormalities of the brain, means "transgenderism" should be able to be "detected" early on in the womb, which no reputable science supports. — Outlander

You seem to be rebutting things i never said. Are you okay?

saying "I don't know, that's just what I'm parroting, perhaps I made a mistake" you arrogantly pretended like you weren't painted into a corner, trying to shift focus onto something else hoping people wouldn't notice, as if we're all stupid or something. — Outlander

Are you okay?

possibly more about your character (or agenda or purpose here). — Outlander

Are you okay?

Then, when I asked if you could tell the difference between a "male brain" and a "female brain", specifically around the time a human being is born, you said: — Outlander

No, you are misremembering. I did say male and female brains can be detected by fMRI, but I never connected that to "at birth."

maybe suggest that English isn't your first language or something — Outlander

You're embarrassing yourself.

remain logically inconsistent without being called out for it. — Outlander

My logic is fine, but thanks for your concern.

:clap:

When some folk can't rebut what was said, they respond by rebutting stuff they made up instead.

When some folk can't rebut what was said, they respond by rebutting stuff they made up instead. — Banno

It's interesting, isn't it? I love learning about people.

If we were allowed reactions, I would give you a "like" - do you know, will it be possible to react to posts on the new site?

Again, you refuse to define (and maintain a constant definition of) "transgender people". I already caught you in one backtrack you won't own up to. — Outlander

I wouldn't debate too hard with Questioner. I get the feeling English is a second language, and they're unwilling to clarify their posts if you ask. You both could be going back and forth for a long time without any progress either way.

I'm feeling like this topic has also hit what it needed to and there doesn't seem to be much else to explore. I'll probably post another topic later this week that's going to explore another aspect of this.

"what twaddle".

Hehe. Ok Banno. You are simply not engaging with anything put to you, as is your right. I'll resile.

Almost everything you've said here tells me the points have gone way above your head, to the point of it being an absolute quagmire to respond to these points.

Suffice to say my repsonses so far are apt to respond to this reply also. If you wish to leave it there, that's fine. Your rejection of that which I tell you is actual, and provide evidence for, is bizarre.

Here are two different claims:

1. Trans men are men
2. Under this Act, it is illegal to refuse entry to men — Michael

This makes it pretty clear you do not understand the phrases being used in the way I do (or plenty of other people). The debate is over. You are wrong. These phrases are ambiguous. You just wnat everything to think of them what you do. Which is natural.

The female brain does develop differently from the male brain. This is well established by science, and we see the differences in our own personal experiences. As I posted up-thread: — Questioner

It is not, as I provided ample evidence for. It is a myth which exists only in the minds of those who require it to support otherwise nonsensical points of view.

Please provide a source of this information. — Questioner

My claims is in the negative. The onus is not on me.

False. This is your opinion. My position is supported by science, yours is not. — Questioner

It literally is not, and I have provided ample evidence for such. Comments above apply.

This has become children yelling at their dad about how they are aeroplanes. I'm out.

But to carry Philosophim's point what is needed is that one ought not talk about apple devices being sweet.

What is salient is that we can talk about apple devices being sweet, and trans women being women. — Banno

It is salient if you are sticking strictly to normativity in the logical sense rather than the epistemological sense. You have just continued to corner yourself in the logical sense.

I've pointed out that even if most people would understand "woman in the woods" as referring to a female, doing so is not a necessary consequence of either logic or grammar. This is shown by the fact that "the woman in the woods" might be a trans. — Banno

And as we have said, epistemology nomrativity says otherwise. It is not defeasible, but it is more than reasonable to state that we ought to believe "woman in a forest" refers to a female. You understand this perfectly well I imagine; and have stated this elsewhere I think?

Accept that there are epistemic norms just as there are logical norms. Accept that in day-to-day speech we tend to see epistemic norms in use rather than niche cases. It should also be noted that given this has been a hot topic it makes sense to actually state transwoman when referring to a transwoman to avoid confusion (you know, standard understanding so everyone knows what the hell is going on).

If I met someone who was a transwoman tomorrow I would likely mention this to my wife by saying "I met someone today who said, blah blah blah ..." and would likely add in somewhere that they were a transwoman, just like I would add in any other unique distinction, such as 'guide dog,' 'one eye' or 'wearing a clown outfit'. There is a chance I would not mention any other points as the content of the discussion we had may have been the priority rather than just idle chitchat and saying what I did in the day and who I talked to.

The politics and personal take is likely raising your hackles and clouding your judgement.

But to carry Philosophim's point what is needed is that one ought not talk about apple devices being sweet. — Banno

Yes. One ought not (in a normative epistemic sense) talk about apple devices being sweet if we are referring to how they taste rather than stating you like the device. This is basic stuff.

If philosophim is stating that when we hear 'woman' we ought to assume 'female' he is epistemically correct. It is defeasible, but that is not the point. If 'woman' is being used in a technical setting then the use of the term requires careful delineation as speech can become confusing. In a technical setting it goes that when referring to a transwoman we should say transwoman to more easily distinguish between how 'woman' can be used. In such cases 'cis' and 'trans' would be ideal.

Anyway, back to work ... :)

You are simply not engaging with anything put to you, as is your right. — AmadeusD

That was not the whole of what I had to say. You might address the remainder.

If you are alone in a room, away from society, are you still you? Does a man live in his head, or in his testicles? The brain is the seat of our identity, and our self-image. — Questioner

You have a very pre determined way of looking at the self. What do you deem to be your identity and where did it come from?
Sitting in a room alone you still are a product of every interaction you have had with others and the world and the history of thought. You aren’t an empty vessel that has a woman’s or a man’s brain.