Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Do you acknowledge that your are asking for a definition of woman?

We all are.

Your definition seems to be a cis woman and a trans woman. Which is a non answer

keano_afc

LLMMLL wrote: »

I do have a meaning. I don't have a definition.

The meaning of woman is....

If you please.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We all are.

Your definition seems to be a cis woman and a trans woman. Which is a non answer

Because definitions are inherently imprecise approximations of meaning. As I told you multiple times a few days back.

Do you understand what is meant bY the phrase "cis woman"? (Even though you don't approve of the term)

keano_afc

LLMMLL wrote: »

I do have a meaning.

The meaning of woman is...

Please and thanks.

keano_afc

LLMMLL wrote: »

I do have a meaning. I don't have a definition.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Do.you acknowledge that you are looking for a definition of woman.

Please and thanks

I am looking for the meaning that you said you have.

The meaning of woman is....

If you please.

Well this a thread that looks like it will be closed.

The constant use of a throwaway remark about a ten year old was beaten into the ground and now we are playing silly buggers with meaning and definitions.

Well played.

Don't answer anything but pretend to have a high ground

keano_afc

keano_afc wrote: »

I am looking for the meaning that you said you have.

The meaning of woman is....

If you please.

No mention of defnintion.

I am looking for the meaning, which you said you have.

The meaning of woman is....

Please and thank you.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well this a thread that looks like it will be closed.

The constant use of a throwaway remark about a ten year old was beaten into the ground and now we are playing silly buggers with meaning and definitions.

Well played.

Don't answer anything but pretend to have a high ground

But aren't you the one who constantly refers to and insists upon definitions. I'm happy to drop the definitions line of debate if you are.

nolivesmatter

LLMMLL, is there a reason you don't want to share your meaning of woman? I don't think there's a gotcha happening here...

LLMMLL

nolivesmatter wrote: »

LLMMLL, is there a reason you don't want to share your meaning of woman? I don't think there's a gotcha happening here...

I have multiple times.

The meaning of woman is trans women and cis women.

keano_afc

LLMMLL wrote: »

I have multiple times.

The meaning of woman is trans women and cis women.

Is that meant to be some sort of joke? The meaning of woman is woman?

So, this sentence is accurate according to the monkey operating the controls in your head:

"A transwoman is a woman. I know this is true, because the meaning of woman is transwomen and cis women."

Jaw dropping.

LLMMLL

keano_afc wrote: »

Is that meant to be some sort of joke? The meaning of woman is woman?

So, this sentence is accurate according to the monkey operating the controls in your head:

"A transwoman is a woman. I know this is true, because the meaning of woman is transwomen and cis women."

Jaw dropping.

Only because you don't understand what meaning is. You mix it up with definitions. They're two separate things.

Meaning is a mapping of a term to a concept.

A definition tries to approximate that mapping as accurately as possible using other terms.

keano_afc

LLMMLL wrote: »

Only because you don't understand what meaning is. You mix it up with definitions. They're two separate things.

Meaning is a mapping of a term to a concept.

A definition tries to approximate that mapping as accurately as possible using other terms.

Oh I absolutely know what meaning is, its what is meant by a word.

In this case, what is meant by the word "woman" is adult human female. There is no other meaning.

I wont be wasting any more time responding to you. You have to be a troll or someone on a wind up. There's no other explanation for the word salad you throw together and call a post.

LLMMLL

keano_afc wrote: »

Oh I absolutely know what meaning is, its what is meant by a word.

In this case, what is meant by the word "woman" is adult human female. There is no other meaning.

I wont be wasting any more time responding to you. You have to be a troll or someone on a wind up. There's no other explanation for the word salad you throw together and call a post.

You're right. It IS what is meant by a word. And it is commonly accepted in science, linguistics, and psychology that definitions are extremely imprecise approximations of meaning.

For example, formal semantics which is the field that studies meaning in natural languages does not use definitions. They're too imprecise.

Science needs the invented language of mathematics as natural language is too imprecise to define many of it's concepts.

You may think you're criticising me with your "word salad" remarks but all youre doing is criticising bog-standard science, linguistics, and psychology.

keano_afc

LLMMLL wrote: »

You're right. It IS what is meant by a word. And it is commonly accepted in science, linguistics, and psychology that definitions are extremely imprecise approximations of meaning.

For example, formal semantics which is the field that studies meaning in natural languages does not use definitions. They're too imprecise.

Science needs the invented language of mathematics as natural language is too imprecise to define many of it's concepts.

You may think you're criticising me with your "word salad" remarks but all youre doing is criticising bog-standard science, linguistics, and psychology.

Lol. When the literal meaning of the word definition is "the exact meaning of a word".

The meaning of house is an outhouse and a whore house.

Wait a minute, I think I'm getting it.

LLMMLL

keano_afc wrote: »

Lol. When the literal meaning of the word definition is "the exact meaning of a word".

.

Proof that definitions are inherently imprecise. Even the definition of definition is wrong.

keano_afc

LLMMLL wrote: »

Proof that definitions are inherently imprecise. Even the definition of definition is wrong.

Epic trolling. *tips cap.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Proof that definitions are inherently imprecise. Even the definition of definition is wrong.

And here is the definition of obscurantism:

the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

But aren't you the one who constantly refers to and insists upon definitions. I'm happy to drop the definitions line of debate if you are.

Consider it dropped my good fellow.

You've been given enough rope.

You've done the deed.

Thank you.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Consider it dropped my good fellow.

You've been given enough rope.

You've done the deed.

Thank you.

Lol do you actually take these "you do you chief" and "you've been given enough rope" posts make any difference?

All they do is show up a lck of capability to debate complex topics.

You're welcome.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Lol do you actually take these "you do you chief" and "you've been given enough rope" posts make any difference?

All they do is show up a lack of capability to debate complex topics.

You're welcome.

That's a bit rich from the poster who defines a woman as "cis woman" and "trans woman", and intentionally ignoring any objective basis.

That's the equivalent of someone asking what a female horse is - and someone coming back to answer "cis horse and trans horse".

It's equally as stupid.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Lol do you actually take these "you do you chief" and "you've been given enough rope" posts make any difference?

All they do is show up a lck of capability to debate complex topics.

You're welcome.

Ok. Pretend you've "won" the debate.

You refuse to answer other posters questions about your "meaning" of woman and how it's different to the "definition".

You constantly harp on and cling to the fact that I glibly mentioned a ten year old could tell the difference between a man and a woman. Going so far as to tell me "her opinion means nothing". Lol. I never said it did.

You genuinely do you. We have been bringing this around the houses with your posturing, deflection and lack of understanding of basic biology.

I can debate, and I can debate complex topics. But not with people who are wholly and undeniably unreasonable. It ceases to be a debate and becomes just talking to a brick wall.

Take this as a victory for yourself if you wish. I'm sure you will find a way to define your argument as a veritable feast of reason.

Let's leave it at that and let this important topic be discussed and we can agree to ignore each other from now on.

I don't want to be banned, as I'm sure you don't either, but we are at an impasse and shouldn't clog up the thread bickering against one another

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ok. Pretend you've "won" the debate.

You refuse to answer other posters questions about your "meaning" of woman and how it's different to the "definition".

You constantly harp on and cling to the fact that I glibly mentioned a ten year old could tell the difference between a man and a woman. Going so far as to tell me "her opinion means nothing". Lol. I never said it did.

You genuinely do you. We have been bringing this around the houses with your posturing, deflection and lack of understanding of basic biology.

I can debate, and I can debate complex topics. But not with people who are wholly and undeniably unreasonable. It ceases to be a debate and becomes just talking to a brick wall.

Take this as a victory for yourself if you wish. I'm sure you will find a way to define your argument as a veritable feast of reason.

Let's leave it at that and let this important topic be discussed and we can agree to ignore each other from now on.

I don't want to be banned, as I'm sure you don't either, but we are at an impasse and shouldn't clog up the thread bickering against one another

I don't see debates in terms of winning and losing. It's unfortunate that some people do.

I've answered in detail about definitions and meaning. You just don't seem to be able to understand the distinction.

And you brought up both children's perceptions of sex/gender.snd definitions and quite happily made multiple posts on both topics. So it's a little rich to portray me as "harping on". If I was "harping on" what were you doing. Because you certainly weren't taking a step back.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't see debates in terms of winning and losing. It's unfortunate that some people do.

I've answered in detail about definitions and meaning. You just don't seem to be able to understand the distinction.

And you brought up both children's perceptions of sex/gender.snd definitions and quite happily made multiple posts on both topics. So it's a little rich to portray me as "harping on". If I was "harping on" what were you doing. Because you certainly weren't taking a step back.

Let's leave it there.

I'm sure your interactions with other posters will be more fruitful.

All the best.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Let's leave it there.

I'm sure your interactions with other posters will be more fruitful.

All the best.

Yes let's leave it there. All the best to you too.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes let's leave it there. All the best to you too.

Let's assume you have two bodies, neither of whom are conscious.

One appears stereotypically male and the other stereotypically female. The former has been shown to have XY chromosomes, and latter has been shown to have XX chromosomes.

If I follow your argument correctly, you would have to argue that it is not possible to know who is a man and who is a woman.

Is that correct?

Gentlemanne

One always lies but the other only tells the truth

Shield

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't see debates in terms of winning and losing.

The reason why this has become a debate is because of a fundamental denial of basic biological principles on one 'side'.

Some gay friends of mine will never be able to conceive a child, but that doesn't stop them from trying. Even if one of them announced 'he' was transitioning to a 'she', they still would not be able to conceive a child.

We can start the discussion anew with a question and see where our opinions diverge: Why do you think two biological male humans can never conceive a child?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

You're right. It IS what is meant by a word. And it is commonly accepted in science, linguistics, and psychology that definitions are extremely imprecise approximations of meaning.

For example, formal semantics which is the field that studies meaning in natural languages does not use definitions. They're too imprecise.

This is absolutely not the case. While semanticians acknowledge that definitions are subject to evolution, and that "meaning" can be affected by culture, power dynamics, personal relationships and so on, that does not leave us with "nobody could possibly ever infer what these symbols and mouth sounds mean".

A semantician would also readily acknowledge that, while prefixes (cis- or trans-, for example) can modify the culturally understood definition of a collection of mouth sounds or symbols (words), a prefixed word cannot create a self-referential definition of itself. Even in a subject like linguistics, which is often subjective, this is recognised as an absurdity.

By all means, if your ideology or world view require you to deconstruct language to a level of absurdity in order to have internal cohesion, go ahead. But don't pretend that you're just here to enlighten everyone to some non-existent consensus across multiple academic fields about a lack of meaning or a complete uselessness in definition. After all, much of your basic training in any of those fields would be learning the definitions of terms that are unique to them, or that have different meaning in the context of study than they might in colloquial usage.

I assure you that linguists are not walking around bumping into walls, muttering to themselves about the sheer hopelessness of attempting to define words. Followed to its conclusion, this logic makes "cis women and trans women" as meaningless a collection of symbols as you claim "women" to be. Which might be a fun little exercise in postmodern deconstruction to do with your undergrad friends around the pub table, but it's not any sort of way to solve any problems. Not in any academic field and not in life.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is absolutely not the case. While semanticians acknowledge that definitions are subject to evolution, and that "meaning" can be affected by culture, power dynamics, personal relationships and so on, that does not leave us with "nobody could possibly ever infer what these symbols and mouth sounds mean".

Not what I said. I said definitions are handy but imprecise. If I meant that nobody could possibly infer what symbols meant then I would say that definitions would be useless. But that's not what I said.

I think you need to read my posts more carefully.

A semantician would also readily acknowledge that, while prefixes (cis- or trans-, for example) can modify the culturally understood definition of a collection of mouth sounds or symbols (words), a prefixed word cannot create a self-referential definition of itself. Even in a subject like linguistics, which is often subjective, this is recognised as an absurdity.

I also never claimed a prefixed word can create a self referential definition of itself.

What I said was that the MEANING of women can be given by trans women and cis women. Not the DEFINITION.

Again please read my posts a little more carefully.

By all means, if your ideology or world view require you to deconstruct language to a level of absurdity in order to have internal cohesion, go ahead. But don't pretend that you're just here to enlighten everyone to some non-existent consensus across multiple academic fields about a lack of meaning or a complete uselessness in definition. After all, much of your basic training in any of those fields would be learning the definitions of terms that are unique to them, or that have different meaning in the context of study than they might in colloquial usage.

I say "definitions are handy but imprecise".

You read from this "definitions are useless".

Do I really need to say anything more.

READ MY POSTS.

I assure you that linguists are not walking around bumping into walls, muttering to themselves about the sheer hopelessness of attempting to define words. Followed to its conclusion, this logic makes "cis women and trans women" as meaningless a collection of symbols as you claim "women" to be. Which might be a fun little exercise in postmodern deconstruction to do with your undergrad friends around the pub table, but it's not any sort of way to solve any problems. Not in any academic field and not in life.

Again. Never said that meaning didn't exist. Fully acknowledge that words have meaning. Which I have said all along (read my.posts).

And undergrad?... Try postdoctoral.