Sure. Joe can flounce around in a skirt all he likes. Makes me no nevermind.
Demanding I recognize his womanhood is another thing all together.
Well, if a guy has an supposed unalienable right to pretend, in his imaginary world, he's female...why don't you have an unalienable right to have the opposite opinion -- that in your world, that's simply not what a male is?
Yes- is this problematic? A person has a self definition, and they’re free to have it whether it’s the state of affairs or not. However, you cannot expect every individual to reject the state of affairs to satisfy this self definition. Calling them names, or trying to equate labels (such as names) to gender, do not make the self definition any more legitimate.
I don't disagree with you. Essence is, so to speak, the "essence" of the issue.
This is precisely where I believe the debate needs to begin. Is gender mutable, or constant? Until we reach some conclusion here, we can't say whether it's possible to change gender at all, let alone determine if it's wrong or merely rational to reject "preference pronouns".
It would be more effective for the simple reason that the communication channel between you and me would have more bandwidth - it would allow for more information to be moved from your mind to my mind.
Generally that may be true, but generally there's no principle which dictates how the general applies to the particular.
Mathematics is ambiguous as hell! That's why you have things like the BODMAS rule.
I didn't say they are black and white. I just presented two (out of many possible) scenarios on the harm/no-harm spectrum.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:04 pm Yes but this is not a black and white binary position but one that exists on a spectrum with lots of shades of grey
For example some of society may accept them while some may not so where would that go in your binary system
When dealing with any aspect of human nature it is always on a spectrum because we are too complicated and messy to just be binary
Yeah, you want to be cautious in accepting any reports on such matters from that guy, he is a somewhat unreliable source. He made a clumsy effort to railroad me into the position he describes there around page 5 of this thread --> viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27742&start=60Bakhita wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:04 pmThis is precisely where I believe the debate needs to begin. Is gender mutable, or constant? Until we reach some conclusion here, we can't say whether it's possible to change gender at all, let alone determine if it's wrong or merely rational to reject "preference pronouns".
It's disrespectful and demeaning. If a sufficient number of people behave in that manner towards fellow humans - it becomes problematic.
Given the fact that the world can be re-described in infinitely many ways, and each description being equally valid as the next - which description (out of infinite) exactly is "the state of affairs"?
It does not make their self-definition any less legitimate either. It's as legitimate a definition as any of the infinitely many other definitions.
What they identify as is immaterial. The point is that "gender" is a social construct, and so how do you decide which social sub-culture gets legitimacy in prescribing the meaning of our words?
In so long as you are going to pre-suppose (without mutual, prior agreement) that there is such a thing as a "state of affairs", I guess I am just going to defend an anti-realist position...
There is absolutely no basis for that decision - it's as arbitrary as any Philosopher getting to self-define themselves as Monists, Dualists, Eternalists, Perspectivists, Rationalits, Realists, Constructivists, Anti-realists, Methodists, Functionalist, and a million other "ists" etc. etc. etc.
I am not prescribing it. I am describing the sequence of events that take place and I am describing how and why that is harmful. And I am presenting a choice.Bakhita wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:00 pm You’re accusing the Others of rejecting a person’s self-identification, and you’re right to say so. However, this is merely descriptive of what’s happening. You can’t prescribe that the Others ought to accept this self-definition based only on the fact that they’re rejecting it.
No! What I am offering is that when all of society calls you a Harry, it's really difficult to be a Henry.
It's not JUST the pronouns. It's the systematic/structural issues that manifest because society is not built for people who don't fit in the pre-defined boxes.
There is no room in the world for such black-and-white thinking.
Your view is extremely reductionist. Zoom out - look at society as a whole.Bakhita wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:00 pm For example, the Essentialists would say that the most harm lies in allowing a person to adopt a gender other than their own, as in doing so they are rejecting a part of their essence, or who they are as a person. They might also call to mind certain mental health issues which can cause this decision, or which may develop as a result of their choice. Such Existentialists as yourself (I presume) are more concerned that a person may be offended at the refusal to call them as they wish.
It's not about recognition. It's about structures that are incompatible with the needs of people who have to live with them, it's about how structure influences human behaviour and hinders day-to-day living.Bakhita wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:00 pm Do you believe that this new gender which the person chooses to adopt is a part of who they are, and that it’s dangerous to refuse an individual the recognition from others that they need? Because this is also what the Essentialists are concerned with: failing (proper) recognition.
The conversation we should be having is about harm! Fuck essence.
It's not an obligation, it's a polite request.
I'm declinin' to participate in Joe's delusion.skep wrote:Your are choosing your principles over Josephine.
You value people less than you value principles, Harry. That's why your principles are bullshit.