Well, I was using both the contexts of references to bodies in earlier discussion and the examples of both anorexia and phobias you raised. — TheWillowOfDarkness
The use of delusion I was referring to also differs from hallucination. It doesn't necessarily pose a phenomenalogical appearance. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Delusion usually implies some sort or misread phenomenological presence in the world. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Firstly, the truth of an identity isn't defined by a feeling. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Secondly, the point I was making about the individual was descriptive of a state of a person feelings, not a claim about if their feelings were right. It's point about who their feeling is about about, not whether it's accurate or not. — TheWillowOfDarkness
A persons feelings about their identity reference them, not other people. In any case a person's feelings about their own identity only reference them. The feeling in question is only about them. — TheWillowOfDarkness
They are feeling they are a woman , — TheWillowOfDarkness
Except, as has been pointed out, your argument is incompatible with trans claims. So it doesn't seem to be based on trans claims at all. — angslan
The only problem I can see is determining which definition to restrict the existing words to (this may or may not be a similar debate to whether gay marriage is 'marriage'). But at the moment we don't have two different words, and I don't see that being problematic either. — angslan
No. This is a continual confusion of sex and gender. I'm not advocating people use physiological or psychological features, I'm advocating that people address others according to their own wishes on the subject, regardless of whether they even consider a distinction between the two. — angslan
Because you have provided so much evidence that the term was only applied to outward secondary sex characteristics historically? At least if you are going to ask for evidence you would think that you would also provide some information on the historical use of the term. — angslan
Yes you can. Not all women feel the same. Not all women are the same. This is fundamentally, and trivially, true.
To use your example, if I say "she is an idiot", I am not calling all women idiots. — angslan
What is wrong with the definition of it that I provided in my last post. "it is proper courtesy for you to address me as a man because I feel like a man"? — Pseudonym
So how are people's wishes not a psychological feature? — Pseudonym
Why have you changed the word "woman" to the word "she" — Pseudonym
If "not all women feel the same" as you claim. Then how can someone 'feel like a woman'? — Pseudonym
1. Any statement which begins "I am a..." is a statement which claims membership of a set. — Pseudonym
things which could be thought to be connected by one essential common feature may in fact be connected by a series of overlapping similarities, where no one feature is common to all of the things.
2. Sets must exclude something in order to be meaningful. — Pseudonym
3. Words must have public meanings in order to be useful in discourse. — Pseudonym
4. From 1), the term "woman" in common language is the name of a set since it is used in a sentence of the form "I am a..." and all such sentences are declarations of set membership. — Pseudonym
5. From 2), the expression "I am a woman" must be making an exclusory claim about the membership criteria of the set {women} because all sets must have exclusory criteria in order to be meaningful and the claim "I am a woman" is logically identical to the claim "I am not a man" since the sets are mutually exclusive. — Pseudonym
6. From 3), the term "woman" being a word, must have a public definition in order to be of use in discourse, since without a public meaning it conveys no information. — Pseudonym
7. From 5) and 6) the statement "I am a woman" makes a public claim about the membership criteria of the set {men} and likewise the statement "I am a man" makes a public claim about the membership criteria of the set {women}. — Pseudonym
if someone with XY chromosomes and a penis claims that they feel like a woman, it is inherent in this claim that these chromosomes and outward sex characteristics are not necessarily correlated with how people feel about their gender. If they did, then the claim would be impossible to make in the first place. So any part of your argument that attributes this to the transgender claim is incorrect. — angslan
Oh, I see - if that is way you are perceiving it, then yes, this is the way I am suggesting to address people. — angslan
- saying, "This woman is an idiot" doesn't say something about all women.
Of course if you say, "Women are idiots" you are going to be talking about all women - but the same is true of you say, "All Bills are idiots" about Bills. — angslan
You think someone can only feel some way if there is a strict categorisation? — angslan
So I think you might follow where I disagree about this strict set membership concept that you set up early in point (1). — angslan
Firstly, the truth of an identity isn't defined by a feeling. Feelings just report or do not report a turth of identity. Someone doesn't belong to an identity because they feel something, they have an identity and have feelings which reflect it or not. — TheWillowOfDarkness
'm not 100% sure about this, but it might be determined by how you define sets. One alternative is the idea of a family resemblance, in which
things which could be thought to be connected by one essential common feature may in fact be connected by a series of overlapping similarities, where no one feature is common to all of the things. — angslan
This is contested depending upon which conceptual framework of gender you subscribe to - there are binary, non-binary, and spectrum-based concepts of gender and sex, — angslan
I mean, sure - but just as with a whole host of words, there is not one set definition is usage that all speakers agree upon at any one time. Language is constantly in evolution. There can be agreed upon meanings in certain circumstances that are strict (e.g. legal or academic definitions) but outside of that it is a bit fuzzy. I've seen a very elongated argument regarding whether a hotdog classifies as a sandwich or not, and a poll in which about half of respondents thought it was. — angslan
What the statement does not claim is that anyone else belong to that set. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Within this claim, therein nothing exclusionary because the womanhood they are referencing (if they have one/their feelings are accurate) is only their own. — TheWillowOfDarkness
In declaring themselves to be a women, they don't suppose any restriction or exclusion about who is a woman. — TheWillowOfDarkness
What does this even mean? How is what Nagel is saying not applicable to the present discussion? This is so typical of you. You disagree, but you don't offer any clear explanation of how or why you disagree.As for Nagel -- Eh, it's just a manner of speaking. There are more tools in the toolbox than hammers, and not everything is a nail. My world-view is not architectonic, but piece-meal and always changing. — Moliere
Does not your physical relationships and your physical differences determine your identity? Does not your relationship with your family make you a parent, grandparent, sibling, etc.? Does not your relationship to others make you a friend or co-worker? Does not your relationship with others make you married or single? Does not your differences from others species make you a human being? Does not your physical differences that enable you to participate in procreating your species make you a male/female (man/woman)? Does not your physical development determine whether you are and adult or a child?What ruler would you accept with respect to determining anyone's identity? — Moliere
The bigotry isn't a question of specific intention. It's in the very concepts Harry is using. In taking a position trans people are deluded, they's taken a position trans people are mistaken, trans identities aren't real and values they ought to be rejected in favour of "telling the truth."
It's simalir to if I were to say: "Anyone named Pseudonym was deluded in claiming to be a member of The Philosophy Forum. The person targeted is rejected, they are positioned as a danger to trust or respect, they are set-up as a target, etc. — TheWillowOfDarkness
What does this even mean? How is what Nagel is saying not applicable to the present discussion? — Harry Hindu
Does not your physical relationships and your physical differences determine your identity? Does not your relationship with your family make you a parent, grandparent, sibling, etc.? Does not your relationship to others make you a friend or co-worker? Does not your relationship with others make you married or single? Does not your differences from others species make you a human being? Does not your physical differences that enable you to participate in procreating your species make you a male/female (man/woman)? Does not your physical development determine whether you are and adult or a child? — Harry Hindu
Do you admit that others can influence someone into believing that they are someone that they are not? — Harry Hindu
↪Pattern-chaser
Because it's not simple and not settled. — Moliere
I don't assert any specific difference, only that these differences exist, yes? — Pattern-chaser
If they exist you should be able to assert what they are. How can something biological exist but defy definition? — Pseudonym
I don't think these things defy definition. But I don't know enough about the biology involved even to hazard a guess. The fault is mine. I believe that human bodies are adapted to their sexual/gender differences because I can't see that one, er, configuration could adequately deal with both. Am I wrong? :chin: — Pattern-chaser
If it is possible to be both a man and a woman, then it would be the case that claiming to be a woman would not (on its own) constitute a claim that such features as were being used to support such a claim could not also be the features of a man. But anyone who really genuinely believes that would have no cause to claim either and no cause to take offense if either term were used. — Pseudonym
Remember, taking offence (or any other strong emotional response) without rational cause is one of the psychological definitions of a delusion. — Pseudonym
The problem, for me, arises when one group tries to tell the other it's using the word 'wrong' and must change — Pseudonym
or when one group has an inconsistent definition that it is impossible to use. — Pseudonym
And while I think your explanation may fit for some people, I don't think it would fit for all the trans persons I've been in contact with. — Moliere
I tend to believe in taking people's word at face value, absent any other sort of basis of inference. — Moliere
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.