Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

And yet, we don't know what these competing definitions are, because when asked for them, they are not given. Will you know give us a 'competing' definition?

I'd be happy to as soon as you give me an exclusive definiton of table. Surely if a complex group of individuals can be defined a top physicist can define a simple object?

joeguevara

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's not a scientific approach to definiton of a word. It's a scientific approach to narrowing down a group of individuals to fit a preconceived idea.

For example I've pointed out the issues with defining adult and why adult human female is not a scientific definition.

Would it be scientific to claim that adult refers to anyone for whom more than 18 years have passed since they were born.

You would have an exclusive category of adults and an exclusive category of non adults.

Do you think this process would be a satisfying scientific endeavour?

Isn’t the scientific definition of an adult when they reach sexual maturity. Giving an arbitrary number is a legal definition which has no basis in scientific definitions. I would have also thought that you can’t attribute a scientific Definiton to woman but can female.

LLMMLL

I'm having a fantastic flashback to our lecturer trying to get us to define a hammer and the absolute fury of a bunch of first year physicists screaming "a hammer is a hammer, A HAMMER IS A HAMMER" as he picked apart their definitions. Bright young minds.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's not a scientific approach to definiton of a word. It's a scientific approach to narrowing down a group of individuals to fit a preconceived idea.

For example I've pointed out the issues with defining adult and why adult human female is not a scientific definition.

Would it be scientific to claim that adult refers to anyone for whom more than 18 years have passed since they were born.

You would have an exclusive category of adults and an exclusive category of non adults.

Do you think this process would be a satisfying scientific endeavour?

I didn't say it was a 'scientific definition'. I said it is a word with a scientific underpinning, that underpinning being the word female. This excludes all males. A trans-women is a male. And no matter how much you don't want that to be true it is. An adult is a person who is fully grown. It is also a legal term, yes. Now we both know that you are going to try to use this fact to undermine my whole point, but you can't, because the word female has a definitive scientific definition.

But you will anyway, because as I said earlier you are a deconstructinist, or a nihilist if you will. It is plainly obvious to anyone reading the thread.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm having a fantastic flashback to our lecturer trying to get us to define a hammer and the absolute fury of a bunch of first year physicists screaming "a hammer is a hammer, A HAMMER IS A HAMMER" as he picked apart their definitions. Bright young minds.

Well clearly you learned nothing yourself. When asked what a women was in a previous thread, you replied a 'trans-woman is a woman', a 'trans-women is a woman'. Bright young minds indeed. I don't think yiu are the intellectual superior that you believe you are. But when you believe one crazy thing, sure what's another?!

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I didn't say it was a 'scientific definition'. I said it is a word with a scientific underpinning, that underpinning being the word female. This excludes all males. A trans-women is a male. And no matter how much you don't want that to be true it is. An adult is a person who is fully grown. It is also a legal term, yes. Now we both know that you are going to try to use this fact to undermine my whole point, but you can't, because the word female has a definitive scientific definition.

But you will anyway, because as I said earlier you are a deconstructinist, or a nihilist if you will. It is plainly obvious to anyone reading the thread.

Nope but you can pretend female is exclusively a scientific term.

Of course you have to ignore that for the vast majority of people it is just the adjectival form of woman.

That female is a woman engineer - sounds odd

That woman is a female engineer - sounds grand

How does the notion of a scientific definition explain the above?

2u2me

LLMMLL wrote: »

No it was pretty obvious. They wanted knowledge that would.lead to a job. Not knowledge that would lead to greater understanding.

The only thing known to remove our bias and to improve our understanding is the scientific method and the database that it has amassed.

Nothing else comes close to that. Throwing in philosophy is akin to doing an astronomy course with a side of astrology.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

seamus wrote: »

Whatever your own personal issues with trans gender people, Linehan is definitely the wrong horse to back. Because of his actions, his wife has left him, his entire family have abandoned him, and his best friends and co-writers staged an elaborate intervention to try and pull him away from his obsessiveness.

Remember "Fr. Ted - The Musical"? Yeah, Arthur Mathews and Neil Hannon agreed to do that with Linehan in the hopes that he might be able to focus his mind and get him back to normality. That's why we've heard nothing about it since it was "nearly finished" two years ago; because Linehan doubled-down on his crazy and alienated his friends.

I just want to highlight again that there is ZERO evidence for any of what you have stated here, Seamus. Like, not even a little bit. I’ve been around boards.ie long enough to know that you won’t ever back down from something you’ve said but you have not a jot of evidence for any of this. Doesn’t stop you from stating it with such confidence though!

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Well clearly you learned nothing yourself. When asked what a women was in a previous thread, you replied a 'trans-woman is a woman', a 'trans-women is a woman'. Bright young minds indeed. I don't think yiu are the intellectual superior that you believe you are. But when you believe one crazy thing, sure what's another?!

Unfortunateky missed the point again.

The difference between me and the others was I realised the futility of exclusive definitions whereas they could not accept that they could not define hammer.

I never claimed to be able to give an exclusive definiton of woman. In fact I've said the opposite.

So me saying that a trans woman is a woman is stating a fact not an exclusive definition.

The students shouting A HAMMER IS A HAMMER were desperately trying to give an exclusive definition after their more subtle first attempts were picked apart.

If they had said "I can't define it, hammers are just hammers" it'd be the smartest thing they said all day.

LLMMLL

2u2me wrote: »

The only thing known to remove our bias and to improve our understanding is the scientific method and the database that it has amassed.

Nothing else comes close to that. Throwing in philosophy is akin to doing an astronomy course with a side of astrology.

That's completely untrue. Even a simple Socratic questioning session can be effective at showing and removing bias.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'd be happy to as soon as you give me an exclusive definiton of table. Surely if a complex group of individuals can be defined a top physicist can define a simple object?

And this here is why your class mates so hated philosophy. When asked a question repeatedly across multiple threads, by multiple posters, that is, to define a women and/or female, in true Philosophical style they have this type of nonsense thrown back at them 'define to me a chair'. Why would anyone want to study a subject were that crap is routine.

This is why philosophy is widely derided. Its complete nonsense. Now we both know you are totally disingenuous and have no intention whatsoever of giving me the definitions I have asked for regardless of how exclusive my definition of a table is or isn't, I guess that's just the kind of person you are, but I'll humour you all the same.

Table:

'a piece of furniture, distinct from a chair or stool, couch or other furniture typically used for seating, with a flat top and one or more legs, providing a level surface for eating, writing, or working at'.

So you'll now tell me why this isn't an 'exclusive' definition and as such not a definition at all. And you'll them proclaim that you aren't, in fact, a nihilist. So, let's play.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Unfortunateky missed the point again.

The difference between me and the others was I realised the futility of exclusive definitions whereas they could not accept that they could not define hammer.

I never claimed to be able to give an exclusive definiton of woman. In fact I've said the opposite.

So me saying that a trans woman is a woman is stating a fact not an exclusive definition.

The students shouting A HAMMER IS A HAMMER were desperately trying to give an exclusive definition after their more subtle first attempts were picked apart.

If they had said "I can't define it, hammers are just hammers" it'd be the smartest thing they said all day.

Haha oh my. You really do jump through some mental hurdles don't you. You also clearly have a high opinion of yourself, not deserved 4I'll add. Going by your postings, removing philosophy from 'the best course in the country' was the best decision those administrators could've made. Not only are the students better off for it, but clearly the country as a whole is aswell.

joeguevara

Does philosophy not ensure or at least request ethics in science. Without it there could be disturbing outcome

2u2me

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I just want to highlight again that there is ZERO evidence for any of what you have stated here, Seamus. Like, not even a little bit. I’ve been around boards.ie long enough to know that you won’t ever back down from something you’ve said but you have not a jot of evidence for any of this. Doesn’t stop you from stating it with such confidence though!

Its telling when posters prefer to concentrate on the character of the person rather than the argument being made.

Even if it were all true it doesn't matter. Everyone has a cause and the ones that fight one that's not just about themselves are extra note-worthy IMO.

But they prefer to label him a troll so they don't have to deal with GL's arguments.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

And this here is why your class mates so hated philosophy. When asked a question repeatedly across multiple threads, by multiple posters, that is, to define a women and/or female, in true Philosophical they have this nonese thrown back at them 'define to me a chair'. Why would anyone want to study a subject were that crap is routine.

This is why philosophy is widely derided. Its complete nonsense. Now we both know you are totally disingenuous and have no intention whatsoever of giving me the definitions I have asked for regardless of how exclusive my definition of a table is or isn't, I guess that's just the kind of person you are, but I'll humour you all the same.

Table:

'a piece of furniture, distinct from a chair or stool, couch or other furniture typically used for seating, with a flat top and one or more legs, providing a level surface for eating, writing, or working at'.

So you'll now tell me why this isn't an 'exclusive' definition and as such not a definition at all. And you'll them proclaim that you aren't, in fact, a nihilist. So, let's play.

That is a definition of a table. So your claim that im a nihilist is nonsense.

However it is not an exclusive definition of a table. For example you define it by referencing other pieces of furniture such as a chair that it is distinct from.

It's a safe bet that to define a chair you would now have to claim it's distinct from a table.

Circular definition.

I have no issue with definitions. But you have failed to provide an exclusive definition (because it's impossible).

So your demands for an exclusive definition of woman are unreasonable.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nope but you can pretend female is exclusively a scientific term.

Of course you have to ignore that for the vast majority of people it is just the adjectival form of woman.

That female is a woman engineer - sounds odd

That woman is a female engineer - sounds grand

How does the notion of a scientific definition explain the above?

How does any of that explain how a trans-woman is a biological female? Oh that's right, it doesn't.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

How does any of that explain how a trans-woman is a biological female? Oh that's right, it doesn't.

It shows that pretty much nobody uses the word female in the way you define apart from scientists working on specific Areas.

The rest of the world uses the word female In a completely different way and will continue to do so.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

That is a definition of a table. So your claim that im a nihilist is nonsense.

However it is not an exclusive definition of a table. For example you define it by referencing other pieces of furniture such as a chair that it is distinct from.

It's a safe bet that to define a chair you would now have to claim it's distinct from a table.

Circular definition.

I have no issue with definitions. But you have failed to provide an exclusive definition (because it's impossible).

So your demands for an exclusive definition of woman are unreasonable.

And as predicted, you state its not an exclusive definition. You then also claim you aren't a nihilist. On a side note, that's the thing I like about science. It's good at predicting things.

Yes a chair is distinct from a table. The same way a male is distinct from a female. We can play your silly game of linguistic bull****, and you can think that it's oh so clever. But it isn't.

The definitions of male and female are distinct from one another. A man and a woman are distinct from one another. A male cannot become a female, and as such a trans women is not a women.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

And as predicted, you state its not an exclusive definition. You then also claim you aren't a nihilist. On a side note, that's the thing I like about science. It's good at predicting things.

Yes a chair is distinct from a table. The same way a male is distinct from a female. We can play your silly game of linguistic bull****, and you can think that it's oh do clever. But it isn't.

The definitions of male and female are distinct from one another. A man and a woman are distinct from one another. A male cannot become a female, and as such a trans women is not a women.

Definitions are inherently linguistic not scientific.

Vast majority of people use female synonymously with woman. Trans women were always women. So.you are correct. Males do not become female. Trans females were always female.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

It shows that pretty much nobody uses the word female in the way you define apart from scientists working on specific Areas.

The rest of the world uses the word female In a completely different way and will continue to do so.

No, they literally don't.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

It shows that pretty much nobody uses the word female in the way you define apart from scientists working on specific Areas.

The rest of the world uses the word female In a completely different way and will continue to do so.

No, they literally don't.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No, they literally don't.

Still haven't heard how you explain the linguistic use of the word female as an adjectival form of woman which references your belief that female is the scientific version of woman. Very interested to learn more.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Definitions are inherently linguistic not scientific.

Vast majority of people use female synonymously with woman. Trans women were always women. So.you are correct. Males do not become female. Trans females were always female.

Yes, because a women is an adult human female. So the terms get used synonymously.

No they weren't. They were born male. And as you've correctly stated 'males do not become females'.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

Still haven't heard how you explain the linguistic use of the word female as an adjectival form of woman which references your belief that female is the scientific version of woman. Very interested to learn more.

Still haven't heard your 'competing' definitions.

joeguevara

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

And as predicted, you state its not an exclusive definition. You then also claim you aren't a nihilist. On a side note, that's the thing I like about science. It's good at predicting things.

Yes a chair is distinct from a table. The same way a male is distinct from a female. We can play your silly game of linguistic bull****, and you can think that it's oh so clever. But it isn't.

The definitions of male and female are distinct from one another. A man and a woman are distinct from one another. A male cannot become a female, and as such a trans women is not a women.

Well, isn’t it true that up until 5 weeks of embryo there is no sex and then hormones develop which can go either way. Wasn’t it also incorrectly thouht that female was default and some reaction had to happen for male. Isn’t it not considered that now,

This is the crazy one, male fish for x years then becom Esmfrmale https://ourblueplanet.bbcearth.com/blog/?article=incredible-sex-changing-fish-from-blue-planets

https://youtu.be/8S79UN856EE

So biological sex changing is possible

Quantum Erasure

Fascinating, but irrelevant

What does transgender mean anyway?

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Still haven't heard your 'competing' definitions.

I never said i would provide an exclusive definiton. As I've said I don't believe one exists. Competing conceptualizations might be more accurate. One includes trans women the other doesn't.

joeguevara

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Fascinating, but irrelevant

What does transgender mean anyway?

ctive
adjective: transgender; adjective: transgendered
denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex.

How is it irrelevant when it’s evidence of something in the animal kingdom changing biological sex when it was said it’s impossible.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

I never said i would provide an exclusive definiton. As I've said I don't believe one exists. Competing conceptualizations might be more accurate. One includes trans women the other doesn't.

You haven't provided any definition whatsoever. Exclusive or not. 'conceptuslisations'. Totally meaningless.

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

You haven't provided any definition whatsoever. Exclusive or not. 'conceptuslisations'. Totally meaningless.

Not meaningless at all. My conceptualization of women includes transwomen and cis women. But an exclusive definiton is impossible.