↪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.

I've read the OP and conclude that the debate is sexistential.

I'll leave y'all to it.

@Philosophim Just a reminder that you forgot to respond to my post:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1027962

If you'd rather not navigate back to an old page, I can lay it out for you afresh if you like.

Philosophim Just a reminder that you forgot to respond to my post: — Jamal

I did not forget to reply to your old post, if you recall the previous post I noted I was done chatting with you because of your inappropriate approach to the discussion which you've since apologized for. I simply did what I told you I would, which was stop responding to your posts. Its been some time so we can try again. I accept your apology, and I will extend it back if I you feel I was overbearing or inappropriate in my responses.

To avoid unnecessary back and forth and a nice reset, I'm not going to address things that are not pertinent to the OP. So we won't be retreading previous points of discussion, only your current point about the OP. To your point here:

But if you want, we can draw a line under all that, because there is too much baggage in it and the result will be more petty bickering and grandstanding. — Jamal

So lets start with your main issues:

Instead, I can just ask you: do you agree that the OP assumes a definition which is the centrally contested definition in the debate over whether trans men are men etc? — Jamal

What is the definition that I am assuming? Why do you think I'm assuming it based on what's in the OP? I note by default that man and woman are used by most speakers to indicate adult human male and adult human female. This is not an assumption, this is a claim. If you have an issue with this, feel free to argue why the claim is incorrect.

Lets go slow and start with that.

With that in mind, what is a trans x? First we need to define man and woman.

Man - adult human male by sex
Woman- adult human female by sex — Philosophim

This is the contested definition. To begin here is to begin too late, ignoring the substance of the philosophical debate, making your conclusion inevitable and therefore lacking any weight. The conclusion that trans women are not women follows only because the argument defines "woman" in a way that already excludes them. Thus, despite the internal validity of your argument, in the real context of the trans debate you are begging the question, because the real point you need to make to carry your view is precisely that a woman is an adult human female by sex, a man an adult human male by sex.

So the substantive content of the OP is where you defend the definition:

But sometimes people want to claim that man and woman are 'roles'. What's a role? A gendered label. Most of the world does not view man and woman by gender, but by sex, so the default goes to sex. — Philosophim

This is an empirical claim asserted without evidence, and presumes that it determines how these terms ought to be used. If you're going to derive an ought from an is you will need to put in more work than this. As it stands it's an appeal to popularity. And as I have said, it ignores the relevant discussions that have been going on in philosophy for years, about social kinds and role-based categories, cluster concepts and so on (I pointed you in the direction of the SEP for more detail).

And note that a role is not just a label. It is an actual social position. Minimizing it functions to maintain the very normative hierarchy which is contested in the trans debate. I.e., ...

Sex: fundamental, real, objective
Gender: derivative, optional, subjective

If you are to make any headway, you need to argue that this hierarchy is legitimate. If man and woman operate socially as roles (which they obviously do in many contexts, e.g., bathrooms, marriage, dress codes, comportment expectations), then sex is not the default, but one factor among others.

To call it the "default" is to take sides in a debate--against the recognition of people who want recognition--without adding anything new.

I think he means 'default' in practical or historical terms (is there a serious disagreement there, rather than just an observation its anecdotal?). Then the argument is about satisfying a justification for maintaining that default position. I think he's made a good argument, but yeah I don't quite think the point was to try to strong-arm that definition into anyone's responses but to lay out what he sees as the "lay of the land" prior to argument.

For example, I think this response:

This is an empirical claim asserted without evidence, and presumes that it determines how these terms ought to be used. — Jamal

I think, misses two things:
1. That wasn't the initial intent behind that claim (although, I think its a strong claim anway - it seems common sense that most people assume sex behind use of those words. It takes some effort to do otherwise because the concept of gender is so much more nuanced and people are mentally lazy most of the time);
2. The argument was made clearly for the ought post-claim. It's clarity, directness and ability to be weilded for policy purposes means that "man" and "woman" should be distinct from the more nuanced, and possibly undefinable concepts of gender in each case - which can be captured by "transman" or "transwoman" without ambiguity - the "trans" gives you the data you need to categorize accurately without passing any moral judgement.

This is the contested definition. To begin here is to begin too late, ignoring the substance of the philosophical debate, making your conclusion inevitable and therefore lacking any weight. — Jamal

Incorrect. If you want to have this debate and contest that definition, that's your call. First, you have to address what the OP is doing, not what you think it should be doing. I've defined men and women as used by default. Again, contest if you wish. It is not my failing for asserting a definition in an argument that you wish to contest.

The conclusion that trans women are not women follows only because the argument defines "woman" in a way that already excludes them. — Jamal

Premises which necessarily lead to a conclusion is a deductive argument. Which means that if the premises are true, the conclusion is true. So then we have both acknowledged that the argument I've made is deductive and valid. You want to debate the premises. Which is fine. But I have not lacked in the argument or used poor logic.

Thus, despite the internal validity of your argument, in the real context of the trans debate you are begging the question, because the real point you need to make to carry your view is precisely that a woman is an adult human female by sex, a man an adult human male by sex. — Jamal

No, I am not begging the question. The assertion of a definition, and a reason why it is that definition is not a conclusion within the premises. The conclusion also requires other premises in the argument. If I noted "The bible is true because God says so, and the bible is true because its Gods word", that is begging the question. The premise is the conclusion, and the premise is true because it says it is true. But I do not. If the other premises changed, then the conclusion would not be necessarily reached despite my asserted definition of man and woman.

But sometimes people want to claim that man and woman are 'roles'. What's a role? A gendered label. Most of the world does not view man and woman by gender, but by sex, so the default goes to sex.
— Philosophim

This is an empirical claim asserted without evidence, and presumes that it determines how these terms ought to be used. — Jamal

If you want more evidence on this claim, that's fine. But it is not how men and women ought to be used that is being debated, it is an assertion that this is how they are used by the majority of people. This is very different than me stating, "Because the majority of people use this word as Y, they should use that word as Y". For example, you could state, "Though the majority of people use man to mean 'adult human male', they should not. I'm simply noting a fact that this is the way the word is used by most people. So the OP is not claiming how men and women ought to be defined, its asserting how they are by default.

As it stands it's an appeal to popularity. — Jamal

How so? The majority of people use the term 'majority' to refer to 'the greater number of' right? That's a definition, not an appeal to popularity. I'm claiming a majority of people use the term women and man to refer to adult human females and males respectively by definition. Are you claiming that men and woman cannot be defined as I've noted so far? I don't think you are, so your only viable critique at this point is to claim 'the majority of people don't define men and women that way'.

And as I have said, it ignores the relevant discussions that have been going on in philosophy for years, about social kinds and role-based categories, cluster concepts and so on (I pointed you in the direction of the SEP for more detail). — Jamal

Have people in philosophy been debating that most people use the terms men and women to refer to adult human males and females? How does that apply here? Further, just because someone is debating something, doesn't mean what they are debating is important or worthwhile to address. People debate flat Earth theory, do I need to reference every single argument for flat Earth to note the Earth is not flat? Of course not.

If you have a particular argument against the OP, it is your job to point it out and explain why it counters the premises or conclusion of the OP. If there is a particular debate that you feel is worth pulling in to address the claims of the OP, feel free. But a general reference to unspecified arguments without any demonstrable link to the OP is something I can rationally ignore.

And note that a role is not just a label. It is an actual social position. Minimizing it functions to maintain the very normative hierarchy which is contested in the trans debate. I.e., ... — Jamal

Except that I'm not debating what a man and woman are if used to refer to a role. That's an entirely separate topic. I'm simply noting that most people use man and woman as adult human male and adult human female, thus that is the definition that people in general use when seeing the phrase.

Sex: fundamental, real, objective
Gender: derivative, optional, subjective

If you are to make any headway, you need to argue that this hierarchy is legitimate. — Jamal

No, it is your job to challenge my assertions. Why are they not legitimate? My job is not to predict why other people are going to have problems with my assertions. That's where you come into the discussion.

If man and woman operate socially as roles (which they obviously do in many contexts, e.g., bathrooms, marriage, dress codes, comportment expectations), then sex is not the default, but one factor among others. — Jamal

This is a counter assertion, which is good. But this is actually begging the question. If there is not only the objective reality of "Adult human male", but also "the role of an adult human male", there is a missing rational link to "Sex is not the default (majority) meaning for male and female". You see I'm not arguing that man and woman can't refer to the roles of an adult human male and female, I'm just noting that by default, the term men and women refer to sex, not gender roles.

To call it the "default" is to take sides in a debate--against the recognition of people who want recognition--without adding anything new. — Jamal

Not at all. Its an assertion of the majority use of the word. Also the desire of an individual is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You're debating something that isn't even in the picture yet. First you need to challenge me that people do not use man and woman by default to refer to adult human male and female. I will gladly add more information to defend it, but I want to hear your counter evidence first. My claim is not outside of the general norm or the traditional use of the terms. Just like someone challenged me that the world was flat, I would be more interested to see why they think its flat first before I presented in detail why its round.

Also, your points are much appreciated. I feel spoken with instead of at, and I hope I'm returning the same attitude. Thank you Jamal.