ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7244
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:15 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:47 pm
Okay. This argument of yours that if were to assume essentialism is incorrect, then the category of female would not exist at all.
The "category" might still be around, but it wouldn't refer to anything real.

And in the real world, you can't get an unreal thing. You can delude yourself about it maybe; but you can't ever actually have it, because there's no objective thing to have.
That second thing assumes that only essentialism can make categories valid
"Valid" is a logic term, meaning "correct in form." It's not applicable here. What a category with no objective referent means is that the term it employs refers to nothing.

For trans-wanters, there's no "becoming a woman," because "woman" isn't a real thing.

There is no "violence against women" because the term "woman" lacks an objective referent different from "human."

There was, and is, no "Women's Liberation" movement, because there's no objective reality to who's a "woman" and who is not.

And there's no "women's reproductive rights," because reproduction is something all humans do, and "woman" doesn't pick out any special group of them.

Those are some of the implications, if "woman" is not an objective reality.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

Post by FlashDangerpants » Thu Feb 13, 2020 9:41 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:15 am
That second thing assumes that only essentialism can make categories valid
"Valid" is a logic term, meaning "correct in form." It's not applicable here. What a category with no objective referent means is that the term it employs refers to nothing.
If categorisation is a tool employed by people to discuss reated groups of objects, then the category is working just fine whenever those people are able to use it effectively to communicate their concepts. There is no requirement in usage for eternal truth to such categories. It is an essentialist assumption on your part that demands this unnecessary addition. Therefore your argument is viciously circular.

Skepdick
Posts: 2658
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

Post by Skepdick » Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:52 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:15 am
"Valid" is a logic term, meaning "correct in form." It's not applicable here. What a category with no objective referent means is that the term it employs refers to nothing.
You are confusing Logic and Mathematics. This is an ontological confusion - the worst kind.

Logic is Logic.
Mathematics is Mathematics.
Logic is not mathematics.

Look! I just created two categories and populated them!

Categories (as Mathematical objects) exist axiomatically (by definition). The empty set exists: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/empty+set

The empty set in Mathematics corresponds to Falsehood in Logic: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/falsehood

A term without a referent is a meaningless term.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7244
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:04 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:52 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:15 am
"Valid" is a logic term, meaning "correct in form." It's not applicable here. What a category with no objective referent means is that the term it employs refers to nothing.
You are confusing Logic and Mathematics.
NI.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7244
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:27 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 9:41 am
If categorisation is a tool employed by people to discuss reated groups of objects, then the category is working just fine whenever those people are able to use it effectively to communicate their concepts.
I don't doubt your claim that "categorization is a tool." But is it merely an arbitrary tool, we might ask. Or when we do it, are we responding to some fact or set of facts about the objects we group?

Or another way we might ask this question is, if categorization is a tool, how come it works so very well in the real world? There are cases in which it is flawed, of course -- as when we accidentally categorize things that turn out not to be related -- but on the whole, we humans find it absolutely necessary to our engagement with reality that we categorize and classify all the time. Why is that necessary, if the deep truth is that things are not actually comparable?

Let's check our language use here, and see what it takes for granted: what do we mean by a "group" of objects? Do we mean a cluster of things pulled together at random, and treated as "related" though really not "related" at all? Or do we mean a reason-backed collection of objects which share some basic feature that makes us correct in grouping them? If it's the former, then the "category" doesn't specify anything at all -- the objects are actually not "related in any way; we're just pretending they are. If it's the latter, then the "category" does specify something, but surely then we know what that thing is.

All the terms you use above, "category," "group" "relationship" and "concept" especially, are already freighted with the implication that some similarity exists among the objects that justifies our placing them together in the same collective. They are not random, not irrational, and not criterionless -- unless you would prefer to say that we ourselves are behaving irrationally, and our grouping makes no sense and has no justification. And I don't believe that's quite what you'd want to say, is it?

So back comes essentialism. Some "essential" or common feature, makes "categorizing" or "grouping" things the way we do either a rational exercise (if it works well) or an irrational one (if it fails to work well). However various our categories, it's very clear that we can categorize things wrongly -- as when, for example, we might think that cyanide is a beverage -- with disastrous effects. Something in reality is subverting our incorrect categorization, in such cases. So good "categorization" depends on there being some real feature that makes the "group" actually similar in reality -- not merely conceptually imagined-as-similar in the human mind, but not really similar.

All this, you have bundled into the word "effective." An "ineffective" categorization fails to "work," precisely because it fails to reflect accurately the pre-existing, real-world facts about the objects in question. It fails to pick out accurately the essential similarity or difference between objects, and thereby miscategorizes them.

So Essentialism returns. (But if you don't like the word "essential" you'll need to find another one to account for the real-world feature that justifies our categorizations. You'll need some word for that quality, because it's obviously real.)

If a male wants to become a female, he needs the category "male" and the category "female" to do it; for his justification in asking is going to depend on there being a real and essential difference between the two. He's even going to have to specify that difference to himself, so he can decide HOW to go about transforming himself from the one to the other...or else, he will merely be taking shots in the dark, and will never know when he has "arrived" at his intended destination.

So every trans-wanter is an essentialist when he launches his claim to want to transition.

Skepdick
Posts: 2658
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

Post by Skepdick » Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:54 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:04 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:52 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:15 am
"Valid" is a logic term, meaning "correct in form." It's not applicable here. What a category with no objective referent means is that the term it employs refers to nothing.
You are confusing Logic and Mathematics.
NI.
You need to check your self-importance at the door.

I am using you for demonstration purposes. Your participation is not required.

Sometimes your only purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others. Like the Titanic.

Skepdick
Posts: 2658
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

Post by Skepdick » Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:27 pm
I don't doubt your claim that "categorization is a tool." But is it merely an arbitrary tool, we might ask. Or when we do it, are we responding to some fact or set of facts about the objects we group?
You have attempted to hide the ball from the rest of the players. You have moved the significance of the act of categorization into a new word.
"Grouping"

But it really doesn't matter which verb you are using to describe what is happening. Whether you are using the words "categorisation", "sorting", "grouping", "classifying" you are still describing an action/activity of putting things into two conceptual boxes.

And as Wittgenstein points out: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule.

This is the rule-following paradox. ALL rules that can be subverted by choice are imperatives. They are oughts.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7244
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:20 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:05 pm
You have attempted to hide the ball from the rest of the players. You have moved the significance of the act of categorization into a new word.
"Grouping"
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:41 am
If categorisation is a tool employed by people to discuss reated groups of objects, then the category is working just fine whenever those people are able to use it effectively to communicate their concepts.

Skepdick
Posts: 2658
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

Post by Skepdick » Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:37 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:20 pm
Skepdick wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:05 pm
You have attempted to hide the ball from the rest of the players. You have moved the significance of the act of categorization into a new word.
"Grouping"
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:41 am
If categorisation is a tool employed by people to discuss reated groups of objects, then the category is working just fine whenever those people are able to use it effectively to communicate their concepts.
Yes! You are both equivocating. You are BOTH hiding the ball.

Categorisation.
Classification.
Grouping.
Sorting.
Separation of concerns.
Isolating.

Same thing!

How can you tell if you are categorizing or classifying?
Grouping or sorting?
Separating or isolating?

Rule-following paradox!

No course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule.

And yet... Buridan's ass does not die of hunger or thirst.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8460
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:47 pm

Women NEED to have their big, hairy testicles waxed. Preventing them from having this done is a violation of women's rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivKl0itjdjQ

And women like this have the right to discuss menstruation with underage girls in women's toilets.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7244
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:21 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:47 pm
Women NEED to have their big, hairy testicles waxed. Preventing them from having this done is a violation of women's rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivKl0itjdjQ

And women like this have the right to discuss menstruation with underage girls in women's toilets.
I can understand why a (demented) man would want to be in the women's toilets. But I will never understand, given the condition of many of those things, why any woman would ever campaign to get into the urinal-sprayed, colon-scented environs of a men's loo -- to to let men, who invariably produce that sort of bacterial nightmare, into women's loos.

That makes no sense at all. Where's their sense of self-preservation? :shock:

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8460
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:50 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:21 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:47 pm
Women NEED to have their big, hairy testicles waxed. Preventing them from having this done is a violation of women's rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivKl0itjdjQ

And women like this have the right to discuss menstruation with underage girls in women's toilets.
I can understand why a (demented) man would want to be in the women's toilets. But I will never understand, given the condition of many of those things, why any woman would ever campaign to get into the urinal-sprayed, colon-scented environs of a men's loo -- to to let men, who invariably produce that sort of bacterial nightmare, into women's loos.

That makes no sense at all. Where's their sense of self-preservation? :shock:
I don't know either, but the fact is that they probably aren't going in there to prey on weak and vulnerable men.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8460
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:50 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:21 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:47 pm
Women NEED to have their big, hairy testicles waxed. Preventing them from having this done is a violation of women's rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivKl0itjdjQ

And women like this have the right to discuss menstruation with underage girls in women's toilets.
I can understand why a (demented) man would want to be in the women's toilets. But I will never understand, given the condition of many of those things, why any woman would ever campaign to get into the urinal-sprayed, colon-scented environs of a men's loo -- to to let men, who invariably produce that sort of bacterial nightmare, into women's loos.

That makes no sense at all. Where's their sense of self-preservation? :shock:
I don't know either, but the fact is that they probably aren't going in there to prey on weak and vulnerable men.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 7244
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:54 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:50 pm
I don't know either, but the fact is that they probably aren't going in there to prey on weak and vulnerable men.
That's for sure.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8460
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:12 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:54 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:50 pm
I don't know either, but the fact is that they probably aren't going in there to prey on weak and vulnerable men.
That's for sure.
That creature has been arrested and could get five years--IN A WOMEN'S PRISON. I'm sure that's what he's wanted all along.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests