ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

[Immanuel Can]

If the objective facts about a person...

Been round the post with you. Not going again. Too boring.

[Skepdick]

Been round the post with you. Not going again. Too boring.

The hardest questions are "too boring" for you?

What would be more fun for you? Playing reality on an easier setting?

[Immanuel Can]

Been round the post with you. Not going again. Too boring.

The hard questions are "too boring"?

No. The insubstantial cavilling is.

[Skepdick]

No. The insubstantial cavilling is.

If the objective facts about a person do not satisfy the objective standards for maleness, is that person a woman?

It'll take you less key-strokes answering it, than it will take you justifying dodging it. It doesn't get ANY easier than that.

Yes or No.

[Immanuel Can]

It'll take you less key-strokes answering it, than it will take you justifying dodging it.

Henceforth, the following acronym: "DTNI." It stands for "done that, not interested."

DTNI

[Skepdick]

Henceforth, the following acronym: "DTNI." It stands for "done that, not interested."

DTNI

Hence forth the acronym "Yes" stands for "Yes" and "No" stands for "No".

Either of those are shorter responses than "DTNI".

If the objective facts about a person do not satisfy the objective standards for maleness, is that person a woman?

You know what? I am even going to lead the way. I will commit myself.

If the objective facts about a person do not satisfy the objective standards for maleness, then that person is not a man, but it does not imply that the person meets the objective standards for a woman.

There! More than two genders.

Your turn.

[Immanuel Can]

Your turn.

NI

[Skepdick]

If the objective facts about a person do not satisfy the objective standards for maleness, is that person a woman?

NI

Your finger slipped there... The "I" and "O" keys are right next to each other.

Perfect! It's settled.

Mannie agrees that there are more than two genders.

Now go throw a toddler tantrum for being knocked off the fence.

[FlashDangerpants]

Well, DNA or brain structure, sexual physiology, or experiential history are not "contingent" because those are all things the man has before he wants to become a woman. So the "contingent" bit is just not so.

I have explained my use of the word contingent, and which aspects of the question in hand it applies to.

Please explain why you have discarded that explanation from the quotes and are treating it as if I referenced something else entirely?

You'd better re-explain, then. You seemed to be arguing that the standards by which we judge maleness and femaleness are contingent on society's opinions. They're not, obviously. They refer to objective facts. The debate's over what those facts imply, but not over the facts themselves.

You can argue that a given society's decision about male/female is "contingent" on which objective facts they pay attention to. But that will only show that that particular society's decision is contingent...it won't show whether what they're trying to establish, the truth about maleness or femaleness, is itself "contingent."

So you did read my account of the situation, but you determined that it was irrelevant because of "obvious" and that's why you referenced something completely different to say "not contingent". But you aren't trying to railroad me at all.

But that 'obvious' is based on an assumption is it not? Specifically that there must be a global Truth regarding the proper contents of any given category, and thus categories are not defined as I have written through use or usefulness, but by .... well apparently it's not essence because you don't need that for this argument. It's just something essential to the category. But not an essence.

Or is gender a special category which has such a truth, unlike other categories such as planets which are more fluid? You've had many invitations to explain your position on this, it's probably time to stop pretending that they are immaterial.

[Immanuel Can]

So you did read my account of the situation...

You didn't answer my question.

Please do now.

[Skepdick]

But that 'obvious' is based on an assumption is it not? Specifically that there must be a global Truth regarding the proper contents of any given category, and thus categories are not defined as I have written through use or usefulness, but by .... well apparently it's not essence because you don't need that for this argument. It's just something essential to the category. But not an essence.

That thing which you are describing - the "essence" of the category is a Mathematical object.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_(category_theory)

Or if you are a non-determinist - this is the statistical equivalent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule

[henry quirk]

If you insist that there are only two categories then the point at which a man transitions categories is PRECISELY the point at which a man stops being a man.

And that's the crux: can a man transition categories?

He can't.

Remember: recognition of qualities and characteristics comes first, categorization of those qualities and characteristics comes second. The man, a natural complex of certain qualities and characteristics, cannot simply swap out what is intrinsic to him, what makes him him, for another set of qualities and characteristics. The best he can do is effect cosmetic change, which isn't a category shift, but only a mask.

[Skepdick]

And that's the crux: can a man transition categories?

He can't.

No, that's not the crux of it.

The crux is: can a man stop being a man?

And you can't answer that question until you commit yourself to some objective standards for manhood. Essence.

Once you commit yourself, the crux shifts to this question:

If the objective facts about a person do not satisfy the objective standards for manhood, is that person a woman?

I am going to go drink some wine now, because I fully expect you to dodge the challenge.

[henry quirk]

can a man stop being a man?

Nope.

If the objective facts about a person do not satisfy the objective standards for manhood, is that person a woman?

Since the man cannot divorce himself from the intrinsic qualities and characteristics that make him him, he cannot be a woman (cannot possess the intrinsic qualities and characteristics we label female).

And: if a person doesn't possess the intrinsic *qualities and characteristics of a man, then she must possess the intrinsic qualities and characteristics of, be, woman, cuz, with humans, naturally and normally, there are only two genders/sexes.

Gotta be one or the other.

There ain't no middle ground or other ground.










*And, as I say, I ain't workin' hard here: I won't be postin' a comprehensive list of those intrinsic qualities and characteristics (but you can start with XY).

[Skepdick]

Since the man cannot divorce himself from the intrinsic qualities and characteristics that make him him, then he cannot be a woman.

So you default to essentialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism