↪Banno I was like... damn, I know over 100% of the trans population? — DifferentiatingEgg

Hey — good to hear we have so many mutual friends! :rofl:


Edit: But there is a serious point here. If the folk here objecting to trans folk do not know any, then that explains why they are treating real humans in abstract terms.

Perhaps nothing helped acceptance of the queer community as much as the "revelation" that gay, lesbian, and queer folk are all around you, and pretty much like you and I.

In discerning the question of are such, such and such. The hetero angle of "would I 'bang' it when drunk or not" is sufficient to determine the answer to the post.

Edit: But there is a serious point here. If the folk here objecting to trans folk do not know any, then that explains why they are treating real humans in abstract terms. — Banno

I think this thought process assumes a virtue that has not been earned. Personally knowing a person or group of people does not mean you have any more ore less virtue towards them. We talk about people in abstract terms all the time. Its a philosophy board. The implication that you personally knowing a trans person makes you more moral is as true as stating that the murderer of their own child killed that child out of love.

This particular thread has stuck to language and definitions without unearned appeals to morality. It should stay that way.

I think this thought process assumes a virtue that has not been earned. — Philosophim

You entirely misunderstood the argument. No surprise there.

I think this thought process assumes a virtue that has not been earned.
— Philosophim
You entirely misunderstood the argument. No surprise there. — Banno

Explain it then. How does a person knowing or not knowing a trans individual personally indicate in any rational way that this is why they are treating the discussion abstractly? Wouldn't it make more sense that people are treating the subject abstractly because its a philosophy board?

The implication is that treating the subject abstractly is somehow wrong, when in philosophy abstract thinking is the grounds of critical thinking and can aid in conceptual understanding where personal feelings can interfere. It seems to me that whether you know a trans individual or not, that the abstract analysis of this language topic would be the better intellectual approach to the topic.

Explain it then. — Philosophim

26 pages of your obsession with the contents of other people's underwear and the supposition that those contents dictate which toilette they must use, shows that there is not much point.

Explain it then.
— Philosophim
26 pages of your obsession with the contents of other people's underwear and the supposition that those contents dictate which toilette they must use, shows that there is not much point. — Banno

You know, after observing you for a while Banno, you're just a bit of a troll aren't you? You pretend to uphold forum standards and good philosophical standards, then flail hard when called out on it yourself.

Behave and stop distracting the thread with antics. Keep the discussion on topic and engaging with ideas instead of petty insults. If you want people to view you as someone respectable and wise, act like it.

You are under no obligation to respond. or even to read, to my posts.

keep the discussion on topic and engaging with ideas instead of petty insults. — Philosophim

:lol:


Here's my contribution:
Page four
Page three
Page two
Page one

I've argued that the claim “trans women are women” can be true. We are not obligated to use only a single fixed biological definition of "woman". Words such as man and woman are polysemous—they have multiple legitimate meanings that vary with context (social, legal, everyday use) and are not rigidly fixed by biology. Hence in contexts of gender identity and social role, “trans women are women” is true; rejecting it by privileging one narrow biological sense is to misunderstand how language works. The idea that there is a single true or default meaning of these terms independent of context is faulty, and insisting on such a view is arbitrary and ignores existing usages. The aim is to show the opposition’s original claim (that the slogan is categorically false) collapses once we acknowledge legitimate linguistic contexts in which the slogan is true.

You just doubled down on your erroneous understanding of language use, and your fascination with genitalia.

Behave and stop distracting the thread with antics. Keep the discussion on topic and engaging with ideas instead of petty insults — Philosophim

If ever a thread needed distraction with antics, this is the one. Twenty-six pages worth of excusing rudeness and bigotry with silly justifications based on faulty linguistics! Please! Distract me!

Please! Distract me! — Ecurb

Here you go:



The world is still a good place.

↪Philosophim You are under no obligation to respond. or even to read, to my posts. — Banno

Correct. But as the OP of this thread I do feel obligated to keep it on course, prevent petty insults and trolling between members on it. I'm appealing to you proving me wrong on you being a troll. The cat video is enough to prove otherwise.

Behave and stop distracting the thread with antics. Keep the discussion on topic and engaging with ideas instead of petty insults
— Philosophim

If ever a thread needed distraction with antics, this is the one. Twenty-six pages worth of excusing rudeness and bigotry with silly justifications based on faulty linguistics! Please! Distract me! — Ecurb

You're new Ecurb, and Banno is not being a good example of how we behave here. Stick to the topic if you wish. If you have an issue with the OP or ideas in here, feel free to present them. Trolling is not encouraged.

"Troll" for you is an effective, articulate debater with an opposing viewpoint.

Stick to the topic if you wish. — Philosophim

Just to confirm, this is more of a linguistic philosophical inquiry? If so, the specific subject matter chosen seems needlessly "messy" (prone to tangential discussion/distraction/etc.), per se.

"Is transatlantic the Atlantic? Is transpacific the Pacific?" Unless I'm missing something (which I wholly expect you to explain, and be the anti-Banno, as you would seem to put it), this set of questions seems to adequately cover any philosophical space or area the OP does, yes? :chin:

Just to confirm, this is more of a linguistic philosophical inquiry? If so, the specific subject matter chosen seems needlessly "messy" (prone to tangential discussion/distraction/etc.), per se. — Outlander

Feel free to point out what in the OP is messy and you feel needs clarity, improvement, or should be countered. A statement is not an argument.

"Is transatlantic the Atlantic? Is transpacific the Pacific?" — Outlander

How does this relate to the OP's points?

this set of questions seems to adequately cover any philosophical space or area the OP does, yes? :chin: — Outlander

I don't think so. The topic is about gender, trans gender, and language about what man and/or woman would best logically mean in English phrasing. Feel free to point out its relevance.

I'm appealing to you proving me wrong on you being a troll. The cat video is enough to prove otherwise. — Philosophim

Posting a video of cat silliness to distract a fellow debater after they requested distraction is trolling?

Posting a video of cat silliness to distract a fellow debater after they requested distraction is trolling? — praxis

Of course it is. If someone tells you to steal from someone else, and you do it, is that not theft? Do you have anything to say about the OP?

Feel free to point out what in the OP is messy and you feel needs clarity, improvement, or should be countered. — Philosophim

It's wholly adequate. Clear and concise. I just re-read it now. But allow me to explain why I made my most recent post.

The topic is about gender, trans gender, and language about what man and/or woman would best logically mean in English phrasing. — Philosophim

This specifically is what I believe can simplify (at least one point of) the OP.

Logical English phrasing.

Transatlantic as relating to the Atlantic. And Transpacific as relating to the Pacific. Sure, your topic is a bit more hairy (no pun intended) or complex than still bodies of water that are physically identical on the molecular level. But, at least this ONE facet of the OP (logical English phrasing) can be addressed using this much more simplified example that doesn't get people up in arms ideologically about timeless concepts such as human existence and what it means to be a (certain type) of human being.

Language doesn't engage in scientific analysis. It simply reflects what is understood about the things they refer to. So, stepping aside from the messy (and still under fierce debate) biological aspect, we are left with the social aspect. Which is literally just what the majority of people say or know or otherwise claim to know, irrespective of the accuracy or validity of any of it. From here, it's safe to simply jump to a pure "language for language sake" take on this discussion. From which the original "is transatlantic the Atlantic and is transpacific the Pacific or not?" framing spawned from.

Guys, stick to the OP, avoiding distractions and insults, but don't misunderstand this to mean you must be dispassionate and restrained.

Of course it is. If someone tells you to steal from someone else, and you do it, is that not theft? — Philosophim

Exurb didn’t request to be trolled or to troll others. The request was for distraction. My impression is that it was suggesting some distraction/levity might help to calm the mood. Calm minds tend to be more reasonable.

Do you have anything to say about the OP?

I'm not inclined to read it, now.

Yep. Consider these:

Trans

word-forming element meaning "across, beyond, through, on the other side of; go beyond," from Latin trans (prep.) "across, over, beyond," perhaps originally present participle of a verb *trare-, meaning "to cross," from PIE *tra-, variant of root *tere- (2) "cross over, pass through, overcome" [Watkins].

Besides its use in numerous English words taken from Latin words with this prefix, it is used to some extent as an English formative .... It is commonly used in its literal sense, but also as implying complete change, as in transfigure, transform, etc. [Century Dictionary]

In chemical use indicating "a compound in which two characteristic groups are situated on opposite sides of an axis of a molecule" [Flood].

Many trans- words in Middle English via Old French arrived originally as tres-, due to sound changes in French, but most English spellings were restored later; trespass and trestle being exceptions. — https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=trans

transgender(adj.)
also trans-gender, by 1974 in reference to persons whose sense of personal identity does not correspond with their anatomical sex, from trans- + gender (n.). Related: Transgendered.

cisgender(adj.)
also cis-gender, "not transgender," in general use by 2011, in the jargon of psychological journals from 1990s, from cis- "on this side of" + gender. — Etymonline

So it's indicative of a "crossing over, passing through, overcoming" of binary gender identities.

Transatlantic as relating to the Atlantic. And Transpacific as relating to the Pacific. Sure, your topic is a bit more hairy (no pun intended) or complex than still bodies of water that are physically identical on the molecular level. But, at least this ONE facet of the OP (logical English phrasing) can be addressed using this much more simplified example that doesn't get people up in arms ideologically about timeless concepts such as human existence and what it means to be a (certain type) of human being. — Outlander

Yes, good point. Nice contribution.

Do you have anything to say about the OP?

I'm not inclined to read it, now. — praxis

No worry, I'll be around when you're ready later.