Cycling UK Forum

mercalia wrote:so a square circle is a circle ?

Well these things are complicated. See for instance the famous Indiana Pi Bill.

sjs wrote:

mercalia wrote:so a square circle is a circle ?

Well these things are complicated. See for instance the famous Indiana Pi Bill.

not complicated at all, a square circle is a circle and also a square by your reasoning, In fact its a load of non-sense ( literally)

adjective + noun doesnt always allow you to infer what we often do as with the black cat case. Trans people want to, and treat it as if it is obvious and therefore cannot be challenged. Not even a first year philosophy student mistake. They have a persuasive defn of eg "trans woman" that presents their claims as matters of language and therefore beyond dispute where as it is a matter of in their case belief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition

I can define "trans woman" as " a man who identifies as a woman"
thus a trans woman is man

mercalia wrote:I can define "trans woman" as " a man who identifies as a woman"

I think you'll find that's "a matter of language".

Jonathan

Jdsk wrote:

mercalia wrote:I can define "trans woman" as " a man who identifies as a woman"

I think you'll find that's "a matter of language".

Jonathan

of course! But I prefer my defn to the trans activists one so there but I suspect is the one real women will agree to.......

By the way a specator article on the matter of the govt not putting into law self identification

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-women-won-the-war-against-gender-self-id-?

mercalia wrote:But I prefer my defn to the trans activists one so there

mercalia wrote:... I suspect is the one real women will agree to.......

A courteous and generous and effective definition might be more concerned with the people being defined than with the definer's prejudices and fixity of ideation.

Jonathan

Jdsk wrote:

mercalia wrote:I can define "trans woman" as " a man who identifies as a woman"

I think you'll find that's "a matter of language".

Jonathan

Or as Father Jack would have pointed out, an ecumenical matter.

I can usually distinguish things that are small from things that are far away, but you've lost me there...

: - )

Jonathan

mercalia wrote:
I can define "trans woman" as " a man who identifies as a woman"
thus a trans woman is man

It's a good thing that you don't get to police what someone is, or how they identify.

Vorpal wrote:

mercalia wrote:
I can define "trans woman" as " a man who identifies as a woman"
thus a trans woman is man

It's a good thing that you don't get to police what someone is, or how they identify.

They can identify how ever they want and live how they want. But I can use a persuasive defn just as much as they ( the activists ) do. achieves nothing. I suppose the issue is whether how you self identify should erase, conceal or cover up your origins. Real women would say I think no, trans activists would say yes. If the activists get their own way then maybe the next step is to remove the distinction between men and women completely, all we have are just people? Your origins are not visible in any way. But where then self identification?

mercalia wrote:Real women would say I think no, trans activists would say yes.

A competent first year student of philosophy would question what you mean by "real women" and whether it's a useful term in discussion with other people.

As usual a traditionalist view turns out to be self-centred and backwards-looking rather than engaging with the current situation and its difficulties.

Jonathan

Jdsk wrote:

mercalia wrote:Real women would say I think no, trans activists would say yes.

A competent first year student of philosophy would question what you mean by "real women" and whether it's a useful term in discussion with other people.

As usual a traditionalist view turns out to be self-centred and backwards-looking rather than engaging with the current situation and its difficulties.

Jonathan

get a copy of J L Austins Sense and Sensibilia for a discussion of how we use the word "real". An ordinary language philosopher from the 1960s

http://www.reading.ac.uk/AcaDepts/ld/Philos/jmp/Theory%20of%20Knowledge/Austin.htm

from the article

The function of the word ‘real’, he says, “is not to contribute positively to the characterization of anything but to exclude possible ways of being not real - and these ways are both numerous for particular kinds of things, and liable to be quite different for things of different kinds” (Austin, p.70). Possible ways of not being real really are numerous. We can contrast real limbs with artificial limbs, real teeth with false teeth, real cream with synthetic cream, real diamonds with paste diamonds, real bullets with dummy bullets, real ducks with decoy ducks, real cars with toy cars, real horses with pictures of horses, etc., almost ad infinitum. Because there is no single contrast between the real and the non-real, Austin says,

there are no criteria to be laid down in general for distinguishing the real from the not real. How this is to be done must depend on what it is with respect to which the problem arises in particular cases. Furthermore, even for particular kinds of things, there may be many different ways in which the distinction may be made. (Austin, p.76).


and thus real women from trans women is quite legitimate, esp as a rebuttal to aggressive activists

I think you are too engrossed in your belligerence.

mercalia wrote:Because there is no single contrast between the real and the non-real, Austin says,

In this discussion it only seems to be you who is supporting a Platonic concept of "real".

Others are trying to navigate difficult problems in areas such as sporting eligibility and classification in official systems. That's going to take listening to others, negotiation, flexibility and a large helping of fairness. And acceptance that things change over time.

Jonathan

PS: Ordinary language philosophy hasn't turned out to be a very productive approach to anything.

Jdsk wrote:

mercalia wrote:Because there is no single contrast between the real and the non-real, Austin says,

In this discussion it only seems to be you who is supporting a Platonic concept of "real".

Others are trying to navigate difficult problems in areas such as sporting eligibility and classification in official systems. That's going to take listening to others, negotiation, flexibility and a large helping of fairness. And acceptance that things change over time.

Jonathan

PS: Ordinary language philosophy hasn't turned out to be a very productive approach to anything.

even in this very small case of elucidating the use of a common useage?

re sport whether trans women are women has no bearing on sport unless you so choose to let it. The issue is eg where should trans women be placed in competitions - with real men or real women - you can decide that without deciding that trans women are women which has broader implications - as far as I know they refer to eg genes or strength advantages deriving from origins.

as for listening to others it seems trans activists just dont do that. Their view or you are a transphobe it seems. Fairness is about equality before the law I assume, and they have that and nothing to do with what trans people really are, though I understand there are access to healthcare issues remaining. I mentioned way back a bbc report on how other cultures handle these matters eg India and a 3rd gender recognised in law and traditional native american indians having 6 I think. Its just the west that is obsessed with men or women. If only trans people recognised they are sui generis then that would be progress.

Yes. It's a diversion from finding solutions to genuine problems.

Jonathan

Afternoon, Just a thought, if I put a cup of coffee on a table then tell everyone that it is really a cup of tea, does it really become a cup of tea?
Or maybe it can't do, because being merely a small vessel containing a certain liquid because it can't self designate it must remain a cup of coffee?
But we must have been through that point before? Vending machine Drinks MM