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

LLMMLL

Shield wrote: »

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?

We both know where we diverge. Clearly you think this is going to result in some kind of gotcha moment where you catch me out but I will engage.

So I will assume by biological male you mean someone with XY chromosomes that produces sperm.

BTW Ive just realised another flaw in the supposedly precise definition of "biological male" that shows it is not precise at all but I'll deal with that once I'm through showing that this is.not going to catch me out in a gotcha argument.

The reason two "biological males" can never conceive a child is that there is no egg involved. No egg= no conception.

Sidenote: see attached image for a real gotcha.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

Again - perfectly valid for undergrad chats, but not in any way useful for discussion of complex issues. Defining terms is important for discussion and debate, and you are stuck on avoidance and obfuscation of that very rudimentary step. It makes continued discussion impossible.

I was commenting on the level of the argument, by the way. Not on your personal level of education, which is neither my business nor of any interest to me.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again - perfectly valid for undergrad chats, but not in any way useful for discussion of complex issues. Defining terms is important for discussion and debate, and you are stuck on avoidance and obfuscation of that very rudimentary step. It makes continued discussion impossible.

I was commenting on the level of the argument, by the way. Not on your personal level of education, which is neither my business nor of any interest to me.

Again you have little understandojg of the argument being made.

Maybe you haven't been following the debate so far and are new to this thread which is why you have completely misinterpreted the debate.

The Dunne and others like him argue that the definition of a word completely gives the meaning. i.e. the definition limits the concept and the meaning of a word.

My position, and this really is the position of all the fields I have mentioned, is that we all have concepts in our mind to which words such as "man", "woman", "to dance", "chair" can be mapped.

From individual to individual these concepts may be the same, slightly different, or very different.

For example, if you showed 100 object to two people they might both agree that 99 of them are.chairs, but one person might think the last object is a "chair", while the other person might say it's a "stool".

For example, see this "Stool":

https://www.ezlivingfurniture.ie/grey-fabric-bar-stool-avoca.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwzMeFBhBwEiwAzwS8zJ0gK9kQa2v4g4HhqqT4_O3-QOZ-ASatFFy8LxzFp5jXKYR_NnNPCxoCu_cQAvD_BwE

Now considering by the dictionary definition, the difference between a stool and a chair is having a back and arms then the above is a chair and not a stool.

So if definitions are precise, and limit the concepts we have.in our mind then clearly ezlivingfurniture are insane people. How could they possibly think that's a stool. Those monsters.

Now obviously my conception of what women or men are differs from the Dunne and eskimohunt's. We both know what that difference is. I include trans people, they don't.

We have different conceptions of women and men in our.minds but use the same.words to describe them. It doesn't matter what the definitions are.

What the Dunne and eskimohunt want to say is that their definition overrides my concept. That my concept is somehow false because an individual definition is absolutely true.

You can criticise my understanding as undergrad level all you want and pretend I have said definitions are useless. That just shows a junior cert level of understanding of my argument (see we.can all play this game).

It is absolutely true that science, psychology and linguistics would not agree that concepts are completely given and limited by definitions (except for exclusively scientific concepts stated in a non-english formal language).

This does not mean that definitions are useless and that the above fields cannot use definitions. Again that's a junior cert level interpretation of my argument.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

-stuff-

Grand. Let's go with junior cert level debate, then. We'll define terms.

Here's my definition of "woman": Adult human female.

Can you give the definition of "woman" that you are working with? Succinctly, I mean—as though you were tasked with writing a dictionary definition.

Cheers.

M_Murphy57

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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?

You dont need a hypothetical involving unconscious people. Skeletal remains are discovered all the time and somehow their biological sex can be deduced - even on bog bodies hundreds of thousand years old.

Amazing.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Grand. Let's go with junior cert level debate, then. We'll define terms.

Here's my definition of "woman": Adult human female.

Can you give the definition of "woman" that you are working with? Succinctly, I mean—as though you were tasked with writing a dictionary definition.

Cheers.

Why would I act like I've been given a task to write a dictionary definition? This is a debate or discussion not an assignment.

I'm not giving a dictionary definition as that will not communicate what I mean by woman.

I'll.communicate what I mean by woman and you get back to and tell me if you GENUINELY cannot understand it.

When I say woman I mean all people who you think of as women, excluding trans men. In addition I include trans women.

Now do you GENUINELY have no idea what I mean when I say woman?

eskimohunt

eskimohunt wrote: »

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?

I'd just like to provide a heads up that LLMMLL has failed to attempt to answer the above question (actually, ignored it completely), but instead answered later questions about the theory of semantics by another poster.

We can draw quite a few conclusions from that alone.

So I will re-issue the challenge to LLMMLL to answer the above question. I await your reply.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd just like to provide a heads up that LLMMLL has failed to attempt to answer the above question (actually, ignored it completely), but instead answered later questions about the theory of semantics by another poster.

We can draw quite a few conclusions from that alone.

So I will re-issue the challenge to LLMMLL to answer the above question. I await your reply.

I didn't see that post. Am happy to answer as it's very easy to answer. But since we are playing the "demanding answers" game, how about we play it properly. You ignored the below question from me, even though I asked it multiple times:

LLMMLL wrote:

Speaking of sidelining. Are you ever going to tell me how children accurately use words without ever hearing the dictionary definition?

As you have stated words have no meaning without definitions.

So since we now demand answers to questions and criticise those who have failed to answer I am sure you will not ignore this request and will give a clear answer to the question I asked days ago multiple times.

In return I promise I will answer your question as I have the answer all ready to go.

But if you're gonna talk the talk you need to walk the walk.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

But if you're gonna talk the talk you need to walk the walk.

I don't know how to accurately answer your question.

There are many possible scientific answers to that question, and I cannot claim to be familiar with those theories. What I can say, definitively, is that even if a child were to come to the conclusion that a man who underwent surgery/dress to appear as a woman, seems to be a woman to the child - that wouldn't be good evidence for the conclusion that a man can transform into a woman, or that a biological man can somehow become a woman.

Now, can you answer my question please.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't know how to accurately answer your question.

There are many possible scientific answers to that question, and I cannot claim to be familiar with those theories. What I can say, definitively, is that even if a child were to come to the conclusion that a man who underwent surgery/dress to appear as a woman, seems to be a woman to the child - that wouldn't be good evidence for the conclusion that a man can transform into a woman, or that a biological man can somehow become a woman.

Now, can you answer my question please.

You just made up a separate question than the one is asked you to answer. Ok I'll answer your question in the same manner you answered mine:

There are many possible answers to that question. What I can say definitively is that Even if someone came to a conclusion about sex/gender of an unconscious person that wouldn't be good evidence for the sex/gender of a conscious person.

Now do you think I've properly engaged with your question.

Tell you what. Take another go at answering my question and I'll be more direct in answering you're.

I'll make it easy for you by rewording it:

Do you acknowledge that children accurately use words like "mother" "chair" "book" "sad" "ran" etc. Without ever being given a dictionary definition?

Answer it without sidestepping and I will do the same.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'll make it easy for you by rewording it:

Do you acknowledge that children accurately use words like "mother" "chair" "book" "sad" "ran" etc. Without ever being given a dictionary definition?

Answer it without sidestepping and I will do the same.

Sure. If I misinterpreted your question, I'm happy to clarify.

To answer the above, I'd say yes - for the most part, children can identify the function of something without needing to be told its dictionary definition; which I have no doubt, most children that have ever lived would align with.

That doesn't mean, of course, that children are always right. Children, like adults, can make mistakes. They are not inerrant, nor are adults.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sure. If I misinterpreted your question, I'm happy to clarify.

To answer the above, I'd say yes - for the most part, children can identify the function of something without needing to be told its dictionary definition; which I have no doubt, most children that have ever lived would align with.

Great thank you. So the meaning of a word does not reside in definitons or children would not be able to use these words.

Now for your question:

Someone who found two unconscious bodies and knew their chromosomes could very reasonably state that the XX individual was a woman and the XY individual was a man. Since trans people are less than 1% of the population they would have a greater than 99% chance of being right. However, in less than 1% of cases they would be wrong and the XX individual could be a man, or the XY individual could be a woman.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Great thank you. So the meaning of a word does not reside in definitons or children would not be able to use these words.

Now for your question:

Someone who found two unconscious bodies and knew their chromosomes could very reasonably state that the XX individual was a woman and the XY individual was a man. Since trans people are less than 1% of the population they would have a greater than 99% chance of being right. However, in less than 1% of cases they would be wrong and the XX individual could be a man, or the XY individual could be a woman.

First, I think you've drawn more conclusions from the whole "meaning" definition thing than I expect.

Second, why are you comfortable with assuming that XX and XY are female and male?

Seems bizarre, for someone who argues there's no association whatsoever.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

First, I think you've drawn more conclusions from the whole "meaning" definition thing than I expect.

Second, why are you comfortable with assuming that XX and XY are female and male?

Seems bizarre, for someone who argues there's no association whatsoever.

I never argued there was no association whatsoever.

It's very clear that around 99% of people with XX chromosomes are women and XY are men.

Don't think I've ever encountered anyone who has ever argued otherwise.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I never argued there was no association whatsoever.

It's very clear that around 99% of people with XX chromosomes are women and XY are men.

Don't think I've ever encountered anyone who has ever argued otherwise.

So you are presented with genetic evidence, in your words "99%" (though it's higher), of the association between men/women and their genetics and chromosomal composition.

So, what the hell are you arguing in favour of?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you are presented with genetic evidence, in your words "99%" (though it's higher), of the association between men/women and their genetics and chromosomal composition.

So, what the hell are you arguing in favour of?

That 1% of people with XX chromosomes are men and with XY chromosomes are women.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

That 1% of people with XX chromosomes are men and with XY chromosomes are women.

But that's logically impossible.

You are arguing in favour of the equivalent that bachelors are married men.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But that's logically impossible.

You are arguing in favour of the equivalent that bachelors are married men.

Do you actually understand logic? Logical truth is established by finding the extension (I assume you know what this.means as you seem to understand logic) of the term bachelor and showing it is not a subset of the extension of the term "married men".

If you're applying formal logic to natural language then the extension of the term "woman" is all the individuals who are women. Logic cannot be used to determine this set as that would be using your object language to determine terms within your object language which is inherently circular (and I know how much you hate circularity).

clearly for you the extension of "women" doesn't include trans women but for me it does.

So for you the statement "an idivifual with XX chromosomes is a man" is a false statement (but not a logical error) and for me it is a true statement (and also.not a logical error).

Either way it's not a logical error.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Do you actually understand logic? Logical truth is established by finding the extension (I assume you know what this.means as you seem to understand logic) of the term bachelor and showing it is not a subset of the extension of the term "married men".

If you're applying formal logic to natural language then the extension of the term "woman" is all the individuals who are women. Logic cannot be used to determine this set as that would be using your object language to determine terms within your object language which is inherently circular (and I know how much you hate circularity).

clearly for you the extension of "women" doesn't include trans women but for me it does.

So for you the statement "an idivifual with XX chromosomes is a man" is a false statement (but not a logical error) and for me it is a true statement (and also.not a logical error).

Either way it's not a logical error.

It's illogical to say that biological men are women.

You can dress it up as much as you like, but that's the cold hard truth.

Mic 1972

LLMMLL wrote: »

"an individual with XX chromosomes is a man" is a false statement

an individual with XY chromosomes is a man
an individual with XX chromosomes is a woman


You can debate science only with better science, not with ideologies or beliefs

Shield

LLMMLL wrote: »

We both know where we diverge

I don't. That's why I have suggested we start a dialogue anew.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Clearly you think...

This dialogue will never progress as long as you believe you can read minds.

LLMMLL wrote: »

So I will assume by biological male you mean someone with XY chromosomes that produces sperm.

Correct. I'm referring to your normal, everyday biological male.

LLMMLL wrote: »

...not going to catch me out in a gotcha argument.

You're imagining in your head that this is an attempt at a 'gotcha' argument. As long as you hold these defensive views, we're never going to have a civil dialogue.

LLMMLL wrote: »

The reason two "biological males" can never conceive a child is that there is no egg involved. No egg= no conception.

This is where we agree.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Sidenote: see attached image for a real gotcha.

Did you read the next line of the Wikipedia entry that you cited? It doesn't do you any favours...



The 'gotcha' example you produced is even worse when you look at the citations. For example, "the ethical issues... are extensive" (1), it is "far-fetched" (2), and would require an "extreme kind of biological manipulation" (3).

You have a decision to make. Engage in honest dialogue and stop the nonsense extreme examples. I can do the same. For every extreme example you produce, I will point to a pedophile who happens to be trans, and this will turn into nothing more than a point-scoring exercise which I will not participate in.

You say that people on this thread lack the "capability to discuss complex topics" so now is your chance to have that discussion without going to the extremes for an example and then fallaciously inferring that the extreme is the main.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Why would I act like I've been given a task to write a dictionary definition? This is a debate or discussion not an assignment.

I'm not giving a dictionary definition as that will not communicate what I mean by woman.

I'll.communicate what I mean by woman and you get back to and tell me if you GENUINELY cannot understand it.

When I say woman I mean all people who you think of as women, excluding trans men. In addition I include trans women.

Now do you GENUINELY have no idea what I mean when I say woman?

I didn't give you an assignment; I asked you to define a term so that we can continue on with a discussion knowing what we mean. I'm asking you to perform a very basic good-faith act in order that we can better understand each other, since that is essential if discussion is to follow any path that is not circular. You're acting like I'm asking you to perform some kind of black magic.

In answer to you question; I GENUINELY have no idea what you mean when you say "woman", because you have not given me your definition of "woman". "woman is all the people you think of as women" is a self-referential, circular definition that immediately falls apart. I could say "a fnarglebop is all people who you think of as fnarglebops" and it would make as much sense, because what is required to make meaning of the declaration is a definition of the subject.

If you cannot define "woman", or you refuse to, that's fine. It brings an end to the conversation, since it makes any continuation pointless, but it's fine. But then you should just say that you're unwilling to define terms instead of pretending it's everyone else's fault for not understanding your galaxy brain take on linguistics.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

If you cannot define "woman", or you refuse to, that's fine. It brings an end to the conversation, since it makes any continuation pointless, but it's fine. But then you should just say that you're unwilling to define terms instead of pretending it's everyone else's fault for not understanding your galaxy brain take on linguistics.

I pressed that poster earlier in this thread on precisely this definition question.

The only answer I received from that poster was that being a woman is something "that resides in the mind".

And as long as the poster has this kind of post-modernist, non-definitional obscurantist kind of an answer, it is literally impossible to engage on any meaningful, objective level.

But that poster knows perfectly well that any definition they give will be torn to shreds on here, and will no doubt expose some sort of vulnerability.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's illogical to say that biological men are women.

You can dress it up as much as you like, but that's the cold hard truth.

It’s not illogical. It’s just not what you believe. If you actually understood what logic was you would understand that it has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with meaning. You assign a different meaning to woman than I do.

LLMMLL

Shield wrote: »

I don't. That's why I have suggested we start a dialogue anew.

This dialogue will never progress as long as you believe you can read minds.

Correct. I'm referring to your normal, everyday biological male.

You're imagining in your head that this is an attempt at a 'gotcha' argument. As long as you hold these defensive views, we're never going to have a civil dialogue.

This is where we agree.


Did you read the next line of the Wikipedia entry that you cited? It doesn't do you any favours...



The 'gotcha' example you produced is even worse when you look at the citations. For example, "the ethical issues... are extensive" (1), it is "far-fetched" (2), and would require an "extreme kind of biological manipulation" (3).

You have a decision to make. Engage in honest dialogue and stop the nonsense extreme examples. I can do the same. For every extreme example you produce, I will point to a pedophile who happens to be trans, and this will turn into nothing more than a point-scoring exercise which I will not participate in.

You say that people on this thread lack the "capability to discuss complex topics" so now is your chance to have that discussion without going to the extremes for an example and then fallaciously inferring that the extreme is the main.

What does it matter if it would require extreme biological manipulation. Many cis men and women also require extreme biological manipulation (IVF) to bear children. Many use their own genetic material and a surrogate to carry the child. The child is still considered theirs.

So if being able to have kids that are genetically related to both parents is the criteria for being a man and a woman then either all those cis parents who use surrogates and or IVF are not a male/female couple.

Or more realistically whether you can have children together is not part of the criteria for being a man or woman, and your argument wasn’t very good.

As for extreme examples it’s a perfectly valid way to debate. If someone makes silly sweeping statements about a trans woman and a cis man not being able to have kids together without intervention of science, then showing that many cis couples require the intervention of science displays what a silly sweeping statement it is and requires the individual who made the statement to be more precise.

As for using examples of trans paedophiles that’s absolutely ridiculous. I am using an extreme example to test the limits of an argument you made. Nobody has raised the issue of paedophilia or trans people’s desires and so why would you even bring it up. If I said “it is impossible for a trans person to be a paedoohile then of course you could post a story of a trans paedophile to show that I’m incorrect. But nobody has ever said this.

The fact that you think using an extreme example to disprove a sweeping generalisation is the same thing as randomly posting stories about trans paedophiles shows an extreme lack of respect both for civil debate and trans people.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I didn't give you an assignment; I asked you to define a term so that we can continue on with a discussion knowing what we mean. I'm asking you to perform a very basic good-faith act in order that we can better understand each other, since that is essential if discussion is to follow any path that is not circular. You're acting like I'm asking you to perform some kind of black magic.

In answer to you question; I GENUINELY have no idea what you mean when you say "woman", because you have not given me your definition of "woman". "woman is all the people you think of as women" is a self-referential, circular definition that immediately falls apart. I could say "a fnarglebop is all people who you think of as fnarglebops" and it would make as much sense, because what is required to make meaning of the declaration is a definition of the subject.

If you cannot define "woman", or you refuse to, that's fine. It brings an end to the conversation, since it makes any continuation pointless, but it's fine. But then you should just say that you're unwilling to define terms instead of pretending it's everyone else's fault for not understanding your galaxy brain take on linguistics.

You completely ignored everything I said. I said I regard a women to be all the individuals you consider to be women except for trans men and including trans women.

So for example are you confused as to whether I would consider Hilary Clinton be a woman?

Are you confused as to whether I consider Caitlin Jenner to be a woman?

Because if you GENUINELY did not understood what I mean by women given my explanation then you would have no idea. But of course you know that I consider both women to be women and therefore understand what I mean when I saw women. Definition or no definition.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I pressed that poster earlier in this thread on precisely this definition question.

The only answer I received from that poster was that being a woman is something "that resides in the mind".

And as long as the poster has this kind of post-modernist, non-definitional obscurantist kind of an answer, it is literally impossible to engage on any meaningful, objective level.

But that poster knows perfectly well that any definition they give will be torn to shreds on here, and will no doubt expose some sort of vulnerability.

I’ve given the meaning of the word women. You understand the meaning I have given but are pretending not to.

Nothing I’ve said is post modernist it is basic psychology science and linguistics. You don’t seem to understand what post modernism is either.

Girly Gal

From a biological viewpoint a man cannot become a woman and a woman cannot become a man, however, some people can socially transition and live successful, normal lives as the opposite gender they were assigned at birth and are accepted in society. Very few people believe that people can actually change their biological sex, it's their gender presentation to society they change which generally involves hormones and surgery.

LLMMLL

Here are some questions for the people who claim I’m an absurd anti-science postmodernist. If you are so confident that meaning can only be given by definitions and definitions are perfectly precise then you should have no problem explaining the following:

1. Can children accurately use words without hearing definitions. If so, how is this possible if meaning can only be given by definitions?

2. The average adult knows about 30000 words. Has the average heard and memorised 30000 definitions? If not how do they know the meaning of these words?

3. Have you ever struggled to repeat the definition of a word you have a good understanding of? If so why? Surely you learned the meaning of the word from the definition and then to hold onto that meaning the definition is stored in your brain. And every time you hear the word you recall the definition without conscious thought.

So why would anyone struggle to repeat a definition of a word they understand?

Of course I doubt anyone will actually respond to this post.

I will not enter discussion with anyone who refuses to define terms. It is the most basic starting point in any sort of serious discussion, and obfuscation at that point is a guarantee of bad faith arguments down the road.

Be swell.