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

Girly Gal

What's the definition of Trans man?

LLMMLL

Girly Gal wrote: »

What's the definition of Trans man?

I’ll let the definitions lovers answer that one

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’ll let the definitions lovers answer that one

As usual, never provides anything more than shallow vagueness, bordering on theological language.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

If that was an actual principle then:

Women (A) cannot be females (B)

QED?

I don't believe in any definition of gender other than male refers to biological men and female refers to biological woman.

Whilst one can identify with maleness and femaleness, it does not affect the biology or the reality.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As usual, never provides anything more than shallow vagueness, bordering on theological language.

My communication of meaning was precise. Which is why you had to avoid answering my question about Hilary Clinton and Caitlin Jenner.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

My communication of meaning was precise. Which is why you had to avoid answering my question about Hilary Clinton and Caitlin Jenner.

Hillary Clinton looks like a woman, just about, and happens to be a woman.

Caitlin Jenner does not look like a woman, in my view, and happens to be a biological man.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hillary Clinton looks like a woman, just about, and happens to be a woman.

Caitlin Jenner does not look like a woman, in my view, and happens to be a biological man.

Didn’t answer my question. I did not ask whether you thought they were a man or a woman.

If I say to you that when I say woman I mean all the individuals you consider to be a woman but including trans women and not including trans men.

Can you not tell whether I consider Hilary Clinton to be a woman or not?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can you not tell whether I consider Hilary Clinton to be a woman or not?

I can only speak for myself. I have no idea what you think.

Shield

LLMMLL wrote: »

What does it matter if it would require extreme biological manipulation

The example that you brought up is so extreme that it would never get past an Ethics Board. All you need to do is read the citations to understand why your example can never, and will never exist.

LLMMLL wrote: »

...IVF...

Not for the first time, you have done a 'bait and switch' and brought in a strawman that has nothing to do with the example YOU produced. IVF works because males and females are needed. YOUR example, as referenced, can never work. You are introducing a point that I have no contention with, and attempting to suggesting that, in fact, I do. This is what a strawman argument looks like.

LLMMLL wrote: »

As for extreme examples it’s a perfectly valid way to debate

It most certainly is not. I have no idea where you learned that taking an argument to extremes makes the argument reasonable. This logical fallacy is called "appeal to extremes" for a reason.

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

Now you're redirecting the argument from it being two biological males, comparing it with one biological male and one biological female, and attempting to suggest there is no difference in outcomes as long as science intervenes. However, YOUR example has, to your own detriment, shown that two males can never conceive a child. Call reality silly all day long. Science doesn't agree.

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

Your extreme example does not hold up to even basic scrutiny, nor does mine. Yours was very easy to debunk, so was mine. Yours is horribly offensive, so is mine. That's the whole point. I was demonstrating how easy it is to turn this into a bad faith exchange instead of a civil discussion.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nobody has raised the issue of paedophilia

Correct! Just as nobody tried a 'gotcha' from a Wiki entry and failed terribly by not reading the citations first. Your 'gotcha' backfired unintentionally. My 'paedophilia' example was intentionally erroneous, yet it is invoked all the time by those who wish to demonise trans people... just as your example is invoked by science-deniers. They're BOTH bad faith arguments.

I cannot understate that enough: I deliberately used a logical fallacy to show what happens when logical fallacies are used on both sides in a debate: It. Goes. Nowhere.

I am also removing myself from this thread. I have better things to be doing with my time than debunking why two men can't conceive a child.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I can only speak for myself. I have no idea what you think.

You do realise other people can red these posts right? That they will immediately know I consider HC to be a woman and will then read your post claiming you can’t figure it out...

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

You do realise other people can red these posts right? That they will immediately know I consider HC to be a woman and will then read your post claiming you can’t figure it out...

Okay, so you believe Hillary Clinton to be a woman.

So what?

LLMMLL

Shield wrote: »

The example that you brought up is so extreme that it would never get past an Ethics Board. All you need to do is read the citations to understand why your example can never, and will never exist.

Ah so whether someone is male or female depends on the ruling of ethics boards now? I thought it was about scientific possibility. Now THATS a bait and switch.

Not for the first time, you have done a 'bait and switch' and brought in a strawman that has nothing to do with the example YOU produced. IVF works because males and females are needed. YOUR example, as referenced, can never work. You are introducing a point that I have no contention with, and attempting to suggesting that, in fact, I do. This is what a strawman argument looks like.

It’s not a straw man. It’s just your argument made no sense. You are now saying your example makes sense because you require males and females, not because it’s scientifically possible for them to create genetically related children. In which case why being it up as an example? If you already have a conception of male and female that the (faulty) example is dependent on then just explain that conception.

It’s like saying “cats are things that catch mice” then I say “well my dog caught a mouse the other day” and then you go ah but your dog isn’t a cat that caught mice it’s a dog that caught mice.

Fair enough then why not just say cats and dogs are different instead of bringing mice catching into it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It most certainly is not. I have no idea where you learned that taking an argument to extremes makes the argument reasonable. This logical fallacy is called "appeal to extremes" for a reason.

Lol seriously. Look up the "appeal to extremes". Otherwise known as reductio ad absurdum. A long-standing and we'll respected logical principle. And you are trying to say it's fallacious???

Now you're redirecting the argument from it being two biological males, comparing it with one biological male and one biological female, and attempting to suggest there is no difference in outcomes as long as science intervenes. However, YOUR example has, to your own detriment, shown that two males can never conceive a child. Call reality silly all day long. Science doesn't agree.

Yes two males cannot and many males and females also can not. So being able to conceive a child together is not evidence of whether a couple involves whatever mix of men women males females trans cis whatever.

Your extreme example does not hold up to even basic scrutiny, nor does mine. Yours was very easy to debunk, so was mine. Yours is horribly offensive, so is mine. That's the whole point. I was demonstrating how easy it is to turn this into a bad faith exchange instead of a civil discussion.

Yours was offensive. Mine was not.

Yours was designed to portray trans people as sexual deviants which is not the topic under discussion.

I used reductio as absurdum which is a well respected logical principle (which for some bizarre reason you seem to think is a fallacy contrary to about 2 millennia of logic) to address an argument you had ACTUALLY MADE.

Correct! Just as nobody tried a 'gotcha' from a Wiki entry and failed terribly by not reading the citations first. Your 'gotcha' backfired unintentionally. My 'paedophilia' example was intentionally erroneous, yet it is invoked all the time by those who wish to demonise trans people... just as your example is invoked by science-deniers. They're BOTH bad faith arguments.

I'm glad you admit you made a bad faith argument. However I did not. I am 100% certain that being able to have kinds together is not a criteria for determining whether a couple involves men or women etc. My argument was made in good faith and based on a sound logical principle.

Yours was equating trans people with paedophiles which you don't even believe.

I believe my argument. You don't believe yours. Who's acting in bad faith?

I cannot understate that enough: I deliberately used a logical fallacy to show what happens when logical fallacies are used on both sides in a debate: It. Goes. Nowhere.

Again my point was not a logical fallacy. No logician would agree with you. Hell Wikipedia wouldn't even agree with you.

Our arguments were not equivalent. If I had said "no trans people can be paedophiles" then you bringing up trans cases of paedophilia would be equivalent to my argument.

However for no other reason than to stigmatise trans people you raised the paedophilia issue out of nowhere.

It's incredibly disrespectful to both trans people and civil debate to compare the two arguments.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Okay, so you believe Hillary Clinton to be a woman.

So what?

If you can infer who I consider to be a woman from my communication of the meaning of woman then you understand what I mean by woman and didn't need a definition. All your posts about finding it confusing were false.

Gentlemanne

Girly Gal wrote: »

What's the definition of a man?

https://youtu.be/5tV33Ewf_hw

Ten of Swords

Closed for review