• Malcolm Parry
    304
    , Gender is based on how an individual interprets gender,Wolfy48

    What does that mean? How do you interpret your gender?
  • Wolfy48
    56
    "What does that mean? How do you interpret your gender?" --

    What I mean by that is that how you view gender is relative. There will be different stereotypes/ general images of gender based on where and how you were raised. What gender means to someone varies from person to person. So someone's gender is the gender they identify as and how they view that gender. It would be too hard to describe all of my thoughts on gender, but I was assigned male at birth, and I still consider myself male. I do like to crossdress though, and while I know to most people it's not a "gender", I consider myself a femboy. Basically I'm a guy who likes to be a little girly at times. This is what I mean by it's based on how you interpret it. I interpret gender in a way that allows for the "gender" of femboy, while others may not. And I identify with the gender of femboy, therefore giving me my Gender Identity.
  • Malcolm Parry
    304
    Basically I'm a guy who likes to be a little girly at timesWolfy48

    Which is perfectly fine. A man can be whatever he wants. It is the gender component that I see as problematic. The term that was used to explain societal differences between the sexed has been hijacked imho. A feminine man is still a man. It makes no difference to the world except in sport and women’s exclusive places. Which should be based on biology. Not what someone feels.
  • Malcolm Parry
    304
    And I identify with the gender of femboy, therefore giving me my Gender Identity.Wolfy48

    Is femboy a gender or just a description of a type of man?
  • Fire Ologist
    1.3k


    Doesn’t everyone stipulate the following according to the law of non-contradiction:

    Male is different than not-Male, or Female.
    Female is different than not-Female, or Male.

    Same with, Man is different than Woman.

    This is the only way we can think and speak about these things.

    If the above is confusing to us, we will get nowhere in a discussion about gender and the further complexities of being a person.

    If we can designate any particular thing or trait we want as “female” or “feminine” or “woman”, how on earth can we figure out what a trans thing is in distinction from those female things?

    If we want to think and talk about these things, we need to first understand and keep clear how Man can never be not-Man or Woman, at the same time in the same manner. Only then can we look at what a person with a penis, pants and a girlfriend is best referred to as, versus what a person with a penis, dress and surgery to add bigger breasts is called, and what is different about these two persons and what is the same about them.

    We don’t just get to pick how to use the word “male” or “woman”, like we don’t just get to pick whether we are born with a penis and a tendency to like dating girls or dating men or wearing dresses or pants, etc. That’s not how language works and not how nature works.

    I mean, we can reinvent uses of words and make new words to mean identify new distinctions, but then, some things are just impractical and defeat the purpose of speaking, and we shouldn’t lose sight of the things we meant all along the way. And we can reinvent ourselves and decide to chop off body parts and add others, but if we want to use terms to discuss what we are doing the chopped penises have to be “male/man” parts, and chopped mammaries have to be female.

    I can’t start my sentence here with “I” and expect you to understand I mean me, and then end this same sentence where “I” now refers to you, or, who the hell is talking to whom here, about whom???

    Gender is one of those practical things first. The differences between male and female and man and woman are simple, stark and obvious. The nuances and complexities of social constructions and culture may demand new words, but cannot defeat old meanings and uses, otherwise we are merely turning something simple, stark and obvious into something complex, ironically, all for the sake of disambiguating and clarification.

    Right? It’s like a stairway, we may step off the first step, but that step can’t disappear on us or nothing will be supporting the second step we now stand on.

    It is nonsense to discuss and figure out how male and female overlap, without discussing and figuring out how male and female cannot overlap first.
  • Wolfy48
    56
    "Is femboy a gender or just a description of a type of man?" --

    I suppose that depends on how you interpret gender ;D
  • Wolfy48
    56
    "feminine man is still a man. It makes no difference to the world except in sport and women’s exclusive places. Which should be based on biology. Not what someone feels." --

    And you can argue about genitals there for sure. You can totally separate sports based on sex assigned at birth or by genitals. But what is a "Women's exclusive place"? Like a women's restroom? There is an argument to be made there, but why does it matter which gender uses which bathroom? For a locker room, I can understand not wanting someone with the opposing genitalia, but I feel like those should be individual changing/showering places anyways, regardless of genitals.
  • Wolfy48
    56
    "We don’t just get to pick how to use the word “male” or “woman”, like we don’t just get to pick whether we are born with a penis and a tendency to like dating girls or dating men or wearing dresses or pants, etc. That’s not how language works and not how nature works." --

    You're right in that we don't control what sex we are born as, and there definitely is a division between male and female in terms of a scientific definition. But I'd argue that there is a difference between the sex you are born as and the gender you identify as. Even without chemical or surgical changes, there are psychological differences between someone who was born male and identifies male and someone who was born male and identifies female. When surgery and drugs get involved, it gets even more complex, as even the scientific definition starts to get blurry when it comes to biological changes. The problem is again, the scientific facts are there: There is a difference between those born with a penis and those born with a vagina. But science does not say how that relates to gender, as how the sex you were born as relates to current gender is a matter of opinion. If you say that gender is a fact of science, then you are talking about Sex Assigned At Birth, which many consider to NOT be the same as gender.
  • Fire Ologist
    1.3k
    But I'd argue that there is a difference between the sex you are born as and the gender you identify as.Wolfy48

    What I’m saying is, I wouldn’t be able to see the difference between the sex I was born as and the gender I identify as, if “male” and “female” and “man” and “woman” and “gender” had fluid, changeable referents and meanings.
  • Wolfy48
    56
    "I wouldn’t be able to see the difference between the sex I was born as and the gender I identify"
    --

    If you view gender as the same thing as Sex Assigned At Birth, then sure, the two are the same. There is nothing wrong with viewing it that way. But other people may not see it that way, and they have just as much of a right to see it their way as you do to see it yours.
  • substantivalism
    392
    You don't know shit about what I think because you don't actually read my posts. I already told you that I have talked about long-term solutions for society in other recent political threads on this forum and then provided an immediate solution, which you ignored, so stop trying to link my name to shit I haven't said or implied.Harry Hindu

    So let us dive back and look at all your comments. . .

    Why do we need a legal ruling when science resolved that question long ago? Does science now require legal rulings to prove or disprove a scientific theory?

    It wasn't to long before your expressed position that many on this forum threatened banning people for even questioning the idea. I felt I was walking on egg shells when I started this thread around the same time:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5097/is-gender-a-social-construct/p1
    Harry Hindu
    Here you seem to misunderstand that you can have a coarse biological classification scheme and yet still not use that for legal or public policy. It's a coarse concept and not a fine-grained concept so it doesn't really allow us to pin point precisely on the characteristics people actually find notable, attractive, socially successful, etc. It's not meant to is the point as its a general concept that doesn't capture that fine detail and if it did it only did so by casting the widest possible net to get a statistically significant ensemble.

    Second, in the previous forum series of posts you were talking about, or quibbling, over the inconsistency with defining gender as relegated to social construction and combining that with the language certain transgender people have used. There was also a heavy biological angle as regards talking biological markers and biological determinism.

    Most of your replies felt like a critique of any form of anti-realism. "If it's socially constructed then it can be undone, anything can go, and it makes following it pointless because there is no grounding. How can you say what you say because according to you I can invent whatever I want in a contrary fashion."

    It's because we are talking normative pragmatism. Realism and anti-realism are popular sticking points for discussions about moral worth, racial presence, gender roles, etc. However, as many other people on this forum had made clear and so has modern meta-philosophy there is sort of a pragmatic irrelevance in certain or most situations as regards these debates. Whatever a realist wants to espouse as a 'real' feature of the world or derivative of one the anti-realist could just as easily argue is merely a stubborn pattern we've latched onto. Bonus points if they present a method through which they can actually change it through a variety of means.

    However, its funnier because when you point out in numerous posts about how biologically laden our perceptions, conscious states, gender presumptions, or morality you just relabeled the discussion. Now it's not social construction versus biology rather its what is impossible to biologically change/influence (currently) and what can be changed.

    So when a person says gender is a social construct I guess I can just translate this into your lingo as its a series of biological traits that are more easily unlearned and changed. It doesn't really much change anything as regards the definition of sex nor does it actually impact the discussion because we've all already agreed there are features which are more easily changed and others which are not.

    It's like how people might define the difference between natural and manmade. The pure naturalists quibbles to the manmade proponent that, "Well, technically, everything is natural including the supplies and biology of the people doing the making. Checkmate!" Which is a horrible and redundant semantic shift which doesn't actually clarify whether these biological features which are more easily changed/more difficult to be changed/impossible to be changed should be given some legal, moral, or normative worth to influence policy among other aspects of our society. Including to what degree any of those features are meant to define what we call social roles and personal senses of identity along with the classification schemes for those.

    Third, the solutions you gave are not new nor do they actually address the mental health issues of the men in question who are prone to commit to and potentially could but haven't done any assaults'. The social rearing behind it and the public policies/programs there in to possibly cast a wider net which they have been falling through.

    Your political discussions recently were just you quibbling over the current two party-ism and limited government. Nothing specific about what they are supposed to do, what policies to be proactive and not purely reactive about this, as well as how to cast social programs to mitigate against homegrown rapists.

    (I'm sorry I keep editing new ideas keep coming in. Whoops.) In a previous post you noted something about DEI and the 'nonsense' of anti-discriminatory practices within the government or in society at large. Not realizing that laws have to be combined with social policies and outreach as well otherwise we are only dealing with one side of the problem. You've replaced it with nothing as if by enforcing and having a law against sexual assault makes it vanish which. . . it hasn't. The people who could have potentially assulted someone or are a mental ticking time bomb into doing so. . . still exist. They existed before the law was in place and they are still present after it went into practice.

    @Michael Am I wrong in presuming you can just recast the debate in terms of the above and nothing much would change?
  • Fire Ologist
    1.3k
    If you view gender as the same thing as Sex Assigned At Birth, then sure, the two are the same.Wolfy48

    No, I’m saying if I didn’t have a measuring stick that had nothing to do with how I identify things, I couldn’t take measure of what my assignment at birth meant or what sex meant or male or not-male, what is the same, what is different…

    It is nonsense to discuss and figure out how male and female overlap, without discussing and figuring out how male and female cannot overlap first.Fire Ologist
  • Wolfy48
    56
    "No, I’m saying if I didn’t have a measuring stick that had nothing to do with how I identify things, I couldn’t take measure of what my assignment at birth meant or what sex meant or male or not-male, what is the same, what is different…" --

    I think I understand what you mean, and I somewhat agree? I think that the idea of what "male" and "female" are dictated by your own experiences, including experiencing the differences between the two. Contrasting different genders is one way in which we form our understandings on gender.
  • AmadeusD
    3.3k
    The argument roughly goes that the trans woman appears as a man to attendees and is thus unsafe. Which isn't really an argument, but I'm not going to convince you of that.fdrake

    It is, though. This is a really well-known phenomenon, to the point that males are routinely excluded from crisis shelters (even children of the victim, if over the age of I think seven where I live). The reason is because the risk of causing further trauma, or at least curtailing rehabilitation, is far, far more weighty than the possibility a male is going to get a bit upset about being excluded from a female safe space. The point here is that the female part does the lifting. Violating this isn't something males have open to them, without force. It is for the in-group to decide. I don't think that's at all controversial (and in this case, it seems empirically reasonable).

    misleadingfdrake

    I would go ahead and ask all of your female network their views on IPV, and the roles of males in the wider picture. I think you'll get some pretty stark responses (I also note flipping between academic record, and personal anecdote/story-telling might be making this harder for us. I think we're both doing that).

    one or more acts of physical aggression

    Let me know what acts are considered under this head. I imagine the study, and not the claim, is misleading for this reason. A more telling study would be this one. Even taking your point (incl. references) as wholesale reliable, and accurate this further consideration makes it pale and unhelpful in context.

    Again, transwomen are four times more likely to commit a sex crime, and I'm happy to egregiously calibrate for benefit-of-the-doubt to two times more likely. Fully two times more likely to commit a sex crime than non-trans males. This is an insurmountable obstacle to those who would claim either parity in risk, or a claim that transwomen are somehow magically female in behavioural trends. I again, also mention, plenty of trans people recognize this/these issues. They are sick and tired of people talking for them by either prevaricating or lying about what's going on in their community. They want acceptance, and the complete inability for social groups. I am willing to take them at face value, given that the other side of the coin is invariably (in my personal experience) aggressive, unwilling to even listen, sometimes violent and massively misogynistic. I tend to take the less-hysterical of the two sides more seriously - particularly when some empirical considerations fall to that side and it is, on any account, possibly to see "being trans" as a mental illness (dysphoria - not a moral claim). I don't think there's anything wrong with that. My experiences support the data that I am aware of (and the view of females in my orbit besides three I can name - one of which is severely mentally ill). I simply don't have anything to go on which would lead me to conclusions such as yours.

    Furries are not able to compete in dog shows. No idea why self-ID is allowed to violate categories in humans, but not among dogs.

    Notice that this doesn't imply anything about whether trans women should be able to attend domestic abuse support groups...fdrake

    Because there is no controlling data in involved. Bit of a non sequitur. Nevertheless, I can see the point trying to be made. They are all female. Trans women are male. Males carry certain patterns of behaviour , unless we're going to either shirk evolution or pretend that 'soul's exist giving rise to the 'wrong body' nonsense. Being female inherently reduces the risk of harm. Intimate partner 'violence' may be relatively even - but intimate partner harm is immensely skewed in one direction. This is inarguable. There is no epidemic of wives killing their husbands.

    Males harm females. That is almost a truism of humans. Historically, currently and there is no obvious end to it. Trans women are male.

    I see no need to go further... (other than acknowledging the equally sound point made by the two comments after your reply that IPV by females is almost exclusively in response to abuse).

    An opportunity to make a very clear point though:

    But I'd argue that there is a difference between the sex you are born as and the gender you identify asWolfy48

    I agree. But gender doesn't dictate much of anything in day-to-day life. Sex does. It is just the muddling of terms to service a mental state that has lead to any of hte current controversy. Just don't do that.. feelings, particularly male feelings, aren't arguments. I am not particularly concerned with how upset a male gets for not being allowed into female spaces. I simply don't care. That is just something you'll need to suck up. I'm not allowed into women's changing rooms either. Difference is, I don't want to. This is now getting into personal 'gripe' area, but there seems a trend among TRAs that they need to be in womens bathrooms. If the issue is that you need to be affirmed, that's not something you can put on someone else. If the issue is you're worried about being unsafe in male spaces, go to neutral spaces. If you require women's spaces you have a hidden motive (well, no - but it certainly isn't safety if you require something more than a safer space).
  • AmadeusD
    3.3k
    I imagine your only argument here would be to say that poker or chess are not 'sports'? Or are you in favour of men only poker and women only poker?I like sushi

    My argument here is: They are delineated. There seems to be inherent differences in abilities between these two groups, in those areas. I don't think a female has ever made it to the final table of the World Series of Poker and there is a 21/1000 ratio of female to male grandmasters in Chess. I don't have a view on this issue because there is no risk to life or limb - but males competing in female poker tournaments are clearly at an advantage. I make no further on that.

    suggestion that the terms "biological male" and "biological female" each describe some unambiguous and mutually exclusive biological property that every human has shows a misunderstanding of both biology and languageMichael

    No. It is an actual fact. Intersex is misleading and describes a variation in phenotype only. I have very clearly been over this. It is simply not an argument in fabour of your position - it is erroneous.

    I guess you are too young to have experienced the rigidity of gender norms that used to prevail.unenlightened

    No, not at all. When I was young 'fairy' was still a social-life-ending epithet. You have not engaged my question, though. If you truly think there were swathes of people unable to tell you from a female because you had long hair, I'm not interested in conversing further. If you're willing to accept that a feigned confusion to support bigotry was the go, we're good.

    as if visual contact were dangerous.unenlightened

    It seems, contrary to your rather glib and silly parenthesis, that this is the case. Where people are found in more states of undress, more assaults occur (the home, particularly). But this isn't all that relevant so happy to say sure - and leave it.

    If we want everyone to know our sex, why hide the parts that distinguish it most clearly?unenlightened

    Humans are 93+% accurate at telling sex from face alone. This is a non-argument.

    A trans-woman child abuser is likely to be murdered in a men's medium security prisonfrank

    Fixed it. All good.

    I get the feeling there are more comments to add, so I apologise for what might be a triple post here.
  • AmadeusD
    3.3k
    Take true hermaphroditismMichael

    A misleading term which refers to something that isn't real. There are zero humans who are not male or female. Your quotes discuss aberrant phenotype only. That does not determine sex, it differentiates it. I am becoming less able to continually repeat these things as I gave sources for these claims earlier.

    this suggests that the condition is the result of constitutive activation of a gene normally triggered by SRY.

    This makes it extremely clear what we're talking about. Males, or females. Again, these aren't my ideas - these are what the sources given tell us.

    Perceived risk isn't real risk.fdrake

    Cool. Then given the risk of 'a man' assaulting a woman is something like 5/100 - no more gendered spaces. Yay! Murders can have guns. Drug users can have access to their drugs without oversight. Yay!
    Obviously this is facetious, but its a true illustration of the disrespect of this retort to female anxiety about males.

    and I showed you a meta analysis which refutes the claim.fdrake

    You did not, as gone over in previous comment/s. Children probably engage in personal violence with family members more than any other group but..... What would we say here??? There is no fucking risk.
  • AmadeusD
    3.3k
    The law and public policy demand no vagueness. Start writing and start defending.substantivalism

    No. Most laws are vague and require several years (sometimes decades) of case law to figure out what's really going on. Sometimes judges admonish the legislature for this reason. Many laws Icannot be adequately particularised. So, i wont engage that particular charge.

    That way nature can take its proper course.substantivalism

    I can't tell if you're being facetious here. You have taken something I said and suggested something I didn't comes along with it. If that's your view, I disagree with it.

    It's in being proactive and preventative that the true difficulty lies. That is where true societal growth can be had.substantivalism

    No. This is the entire premise of the side of this issue I am on. Preventative measures to avoid the inevitable abuse females will face when more males are in their intimate spaces (empirically wrong or right, I'm just saying that's the line of thinking).
  • Malcolm Parry
    304
    I suppose that depends on how you interpret gender ;DWolfy48

    This is the nub of the issue. The term seems to have been hijacked.
  • Michael
    16.2k


    See 46,XX/46,XY.

    46,XX/46,XY is either a chimeric or mosaic genetic condition characterized by the presence of some cells that express a 46,XX karyotype and some cells that express a 46,XY karyotype in a single human being. Individuals with these conditions are classified as intersex.

    Some of their cells have an SRY gene, some don't. Are they male or female according to your distinction? Is the existence of a single SRY gene sufficient to qualify them as male, even if the majority of their cells have an XX karyotype and they are phenotypically female? Do they become female if we then cut out this single SRY cell? Or are they only male if the majority of their cells have an XY karyotype/have an SRY gene?

    And let's consider some hypothetical 46,XX/46,XY person with an equal number of XX cells and XY cells, ambiguous genitalia, and either bilateral oviotestis or streak gonads. Are they male or female?
  • Outlander
    2.4k
    And let's consider some hypothetical 46,XX/46,XY person with an equal number of XX cells and XY cells, ambiguous genitalia, and either bilateral oviotestis or streak gonads. Are they male or female?Michael

    I suppose the rational counterargument would be: ridiculously rare genetic abnormalities aside, how does that change a thing? I'm sympathetic to any person who exists and agree people who commit violence for any reason don't qualify as human and therefore aren't subject to human rights (ie. therefore, effectively, I am against people who commit violence against LGBT persons), which as a strict matter of fact happens to make me an ally of yours. That aside. What of the argument made before, that, just because, in rare occasions, humans may be born with less or more than 2 arms, therefore, because of that, humans should be medically and scientifically defined as "organisms that have anywhere from 1 - 3 arms."

    Sure, the few hundred people out of billions and billions who meet that exceedingly strange criteria, may qualify as intersex and have a right to identify as the gender they choose, whereas anyone else is basically committing the highly offensive social offense of "stolen valor" and belittling the suffering and plight of said few individuals. No different than an able-bodied person parking in a handicap spot thus depriving the few who do suffer from such their rights, dignity, and above all quality of life. Can we agree on that?
  • Harry Hindu
    5.7k
    Here you seem to misunderstand that you can have a coarse biological classification scheme and yet still not use that for legal or public policy.substantivalism
    Wrong. You continue to purposely misunderstand what I have written. If legal or public policy is not based in reality, then what use is it? Do you make this same case for all scientific conclusions, like on the environment? Do you not use scientific data to support the idea that the environment is changing? Hypocrisy is your brain on politics.

    Most of your replies felt like a critique of any form of anti-realism. "If it's socially constructed then it can be undone, anything can go, and it makes following it pointless because there is no grounding. How can you say what you say because according to you I can invent whatever I want in a contrary fashion."substantivalism
    When did I ever imply such a thing. Notice you had to quote this yourself and did not quote me as saying this. Straw-man.

    My argument about social constructs has been in exposing the inconsistency between gender being a social construct and a personal feeling. It cannot be both because one is the antithesis of the other. It is their feeling that is at odds with the social construct. So, which is it? Is gender a feeling or a social construct?


    You appear to be equivocating.

    Here are two plausible interpretations of your claim:

    1. They believe they are biologically male when they are biologically female. That is the delusion.
    2. They believe they are non-biologically male when they are biologically female. That is the delusion.

    If you mean (1) then your claim is false because they do not believe that they are biologically male.

    If you mean (2) then your conclusion is a non sequitur.
    Michael
    Well, I have been asking what a transgender person means when they say they are a "man" or "woman". I am trying to clarify what they mean by asking questions about what they actually mean - something you have been averse to yet is required to solve your problem. I have already laid out the inconsistencies of their definitions of gender as a social construct, feelings, sexist tropes, etc., I have been waiting on you to clarify since you claim to understand them but you'd rather make arguments without any clear definitions of what it is you are actually talking about.

    It's not a logical fallacy to defer to what mathematicians say about mathematics, to what physicists say about physics, or to what psychiatrists say about psychiatry.

    Psychiatrists do not classify gender incongruence as a psychosis. Unless you have studied psychiatry you are not qualified to have an informed opinion.
    Michael
    It is if that is your only argument and the argument does not address all the other issues I showed with it that you did not reply to (more cherry-picking).

    It appears that you are not qualified to have an informed opinion on logic and proper reasoning. Appealing to authority IS a logical fallacy. You need to reconcile what you just said with this simple fact.




    It is nonsense to discuss and figure out how male and female overlap, without discussing and figuring out how male and female cannot overlap first.Fire Ologist
    Exactly. We need non-contradictory definitions for once - the lack of which is evidence that those that accept what trans-people are claiming simply don't understand what they are claiming. We also need to understand that being a man or woman also being a human and we need to distinguish between what are actual male and female traits and which are just part of the wide range of human behaviors and actually have nothing to do with one's sex. This is what it means to be sexist - to confuse human attributes with sexual attributes - as if wearing a dress (both men and women can wear dresses - there is nothing about them physically that would prevent both from wearing a dress) is what defines you as being a woman as opposed to having a vagina.
  • frank
    17.6k
    And let's consider some hypothetical 46,XX/46,XY person with an equal number of XX cells and XY cells, ambiguous genitalia, and either bilateral oviotestis or streak gonads. Are they male or female?Michael

    Neither. With the overwhelming majority of humans, there's no ambiguity.
  • Michael
    16.2k
    I suppose the rational counterargument would be: ridiculously rare genetic abnormalities aside, how does that change a thing?Outlander

    The claim that some are making is that every single human is either unambiguously male or unambiguously female, and that so-called “intersex” people don’t actually exist.

    This claim is simply false, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both biology and the English language.
  • Michael
    16.2k
    Appealing to authority IS a logical fallacy. You need to reconcile what you just said with this simple fact.Harry Hindu

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

    An argument from authority is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) who lacks relevant expertise is used as evidence to support an argument.

    The simple fact is that trained psychiatrists are far more qualified than you to determine what does or doesn’t count as a psychosis, and that it is reasonable for those who aren’t trained psychiatrists to defer to their decisions.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.7k
    Wikipedia? Seriously? Lazy. :roll:

    What is the appeal to authority fallacy?
    The appeal to authority fallacy is the logical fallacy of saying a claim is true simply because an authority figure made it. This authority figure could be anyone: an instructor, a politician, a well-known academic, an author, or even an individual with experience related to the claim’s subject.
    Grammarly

    Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.Logically Fallacious

    Argument from Authority
    You might be tempted to cite someone with more knowledge than you to support your opinion. For instance, "Dan's been in college for three years, and he says it's not what it's cracked up to be." You might use this as evidence that college isn't fun, but you would be committing an argument from authority. Instead of citing evidence for your opinion, you cite someone with more authority who shares that opinion.
    Vaia

    Appeal to Authority
    You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities. However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this particular subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth. Although spotting a fallacious appeal to authority often requires some background knowledge about the subject matter and the who is claimed to be the authority, in brief it can be said we are reasoning fallacious if we accept the words of a supposed authority when we should be suspicious of the authority’s words.
    Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    I argued the bold type - which you side-stepped.
  • Michael
    16.2k
    Also from your quote:

    Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities.

    I see no good reason to disbelieve the DSM and ICD in favour of your bare assertion that gender incongruence is a psychosis.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.7k
    I see no good reason to disbelieve the DSM and ICD in favour of your bare assertion that gender incongruence is a psychosis.Michael
    Cherry-picking. The part you quoted does not take into account the rest of what was said. You need to take the quote as a whole.

    All you need to do is show me the evidence, or study that shows how and why someone that identifies as the opposite sex does not qualify as a delusional disorder but other identities do, rather than some psychiatrist just says so. Is there a physical difference in the brain? How exactly did they determine the distinction?

    The following seems to support my argument.
    A review of the current literature demonstrates comorbidity between gender dysphoria and psychosis, including cases of gender dysphoria with schizophrenia and the occurrence of gender dysphoria symptoms during manic or psychotic episodes. The existing literature has yet to specifically examine gender dysphoria amongst individuals with schizoaffective disorder.National Library of Medicine


    My point is why are you believing one psychiatrist when the issue is still unresolved? Do you question all authorities, or cherry-pick which authorities you believe?
  • Michael
    16.2k
    rather than some psychiatrist just says soHarry Hindu

    It’s not just “some” psychiatrist. It’s the DSM and the ICD.
  • Wolfy48
    56
    Again, transwomen are four times more likely to commit a sex crime, and I'm happy to egregiously calibrate for benefit-of-the-doubt to two times more likely --
    So, I don't know where you found this info, all I could find were that trans people were 4 times more likely to be on the receiving end of rape and sexual crime. "Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime" from this source: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/

    If you wish to say such baseless and horrible things, please cite a source or actually read what you're quoting
  • Wolfy48
    56
    "Males harm females. That is almost a truism of humans. Historically, currently and there is no obvious end to it. Trans women are male." --

    I disagree here. It is true that those born male are more likely on average to commit violent crime, and are typically stronger than the average female. But saying that all males, or even most males, harm females is just blatantly sexist and wrong. They may be more likely, but that is still such a small part of the population and cannot be attributed to everyone born male.
1212223242546
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.