A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Immanuel Can »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 2:32 pm I recognize some of the same problems you do, but for me it's not a "none of it can possibly make sense" problem, it's more a "you can't think this AND this" problem.
Same thing, essentially. It simply means that the two things, two sacred cows of the Left -- namely, the complete plasticity of gender and the insisting on some people "needing to" trans -- are impossible to explain rationally together. One can't "need" a thing that is unessentializable. One is asking for a "nothing."

So the basic ideology of transing is simply irrational. It's self-contradicting.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:59 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 2:32 pm I recognize some of the same problems you do, but for me it's not a "none of it can possibly make sense" problem, it's more a "you can't think this AND this" problem.
Same thing, essentially. It simply means that the two things, two sacred cows of the Left -- namely, the complete plasticity of gender and the insisting on some people "needing to" trans -- are impossible to explain rationally together. One can't "need" a thing that is unessentializable. One is asking for a "nothing."

So the basic ideology of transing is simply irrational. It's self-contradicting.
Philosophers are simply incoherent.

Please explain how anything anyone does or says about themselves contradicts themselves?

How does one "essentialize" a contradiction?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:04 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:59 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 2:32 pm I recognize some of the same problems you do, but for me it's not a "none of it can possibly make sense" problem, it's more a "you can't think this AND this" problem.
Same thing, essentially. It simply means that the two things, two sacred cows of the Left -- namely, the complete plasticity of gender and the insisting on some people "needing to" trans -- are impossible to explain rationally together. One can't "need" a thing that is unessentializable. One is asking for a "nothing."

So the basic ideology of transing is simply irrational. It's self-contradicting.
Philosophers are simply incoherent.
Actually, philosophers are the ones who point out the problems of incoherence.
Please explain how anything I do or say about myself contradicts myself.
Easy.

If you say, "I am a carrot," you're self-contradicting, because the definition of "carrot" is of a particular sort of vegetable, and vegetables cannot speak. "I," the speaking agent, and "carrot" are put in contradiction to each other through the predication of "being" or "am" in the sentence.

But that doesn't stop you from uttering the nonsense. It just means it stays nonsense.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:11 pm If you say, "I am a carrot," you're self-contradicting, because the definition of "carrot" is of a particular sort of vegetable, and vegetables cannot speak.
You don't seem to understand how language works. "I am a carrot" is not an assertion about myself. It's a definition of myself.

Do you understand that definitions and assertions are different speech acts? Doesn't look like it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:11 pm "I," the speaking agent, and "carrot" are put in contradiction to each other through the predication of "being" or "am" in the sentence. But that doesn't stop you from uttering the nonsense. It just means it stays nonsense.
Nope, I still don't understand what's contradictory about self-definition. Nor what makes self-definition "nonsense".

Here is a self-definition (N.B. not an assertion!): I am a blue sentence.

The sentence assigns new meaning to the term "blue" - sure, but why does that "essentialize" a contradiction?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:18 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:11 pm If you say, "I am a carrot," you're self-contradicting, because the definition of "carrot" is of a particular sort of vegetable, and vegetables cannot speak.
"I am a carrot" is not an assertion about myself. It's a definition of myself.
It can be either, depending on the intention of the speaker.

A man who says, "I am a woman" is certainly not making a definitional statement. He's not unaware of his own body's chromosomal nature, nor of the "assigned" gender he had at birth. He's wanting to claim that in spite of the definitional facts, he's got to be treated as a woman. He wants you to understand it as an assertion.
...why does that "essentialize" a contradiction?
This phrase, "essentialize a contradiction" is entirely your own. You'll have to explain it to yourself.

You should ask, "Can we rightly essentialize sex?" That would be the right question. And the answer, of course, whether from the trans lobby or me, will have to be "Yes."
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:18 pm
Women can have penises, prostates and Y chromosome. Female humans only exist in a purely subjective sense.
How surprising that someone who is clearly a misogynistic incel arsehole would so vigorously support this absurd garbage.

Good to know that you believe that dangerous xy chromosomed misogynists should be welcomed into women-only spaces.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:18 pmFemale humans only exist in a purely subjective sense.
If that's true, then nobody can "need" to "become" one. There's no objective and real thing for them to "need" or "become."
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:22 pm It can be either, depending on the intention of the speaker.
Exactly. And we are talking about self-identification. So it's a definition.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:22 pm A man who says, "I am a woman" is certainly not making a definitional statement.
"Certainly" how?

If interpreting their words as a definition makes it sensible.
And interpreting their words as an assertion makes it seem crazy.

Then you are certainly violating the principle of charity by interpreting their words as an assertion.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:22 pm He's not unaware of his own body's chromosomal nature, nor of the "assigned" gender he had at birth.
Why the inverted commas? You are advocating for the mode of being such t that a person has no say on the matter.

You are what other people say you are. And if you have such and such chromosomes. And this or that appendage then other people assign you as a man or woman.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:22 pm He's wanting to claim that in spite of the definitional facts, he's got to be treated as a woman. He wants you to understand it as an assertion.
Sorry, could you explain what a "definitional fact" is exactly? What makes some definitions more factual than another?

From the day we are born the machine tells you how to think, how to speak, how to define. How to define yourself.

No wonder they hate the system.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:22 pm This phrase, "essentialize a contradiction" is entirely your own. You'll have to explain it to yourself.
The phrase is my own, of course. The use of "essentialize" is entirely yours. It's your use applied to a contradiction.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:59 pm One can't "need" a thing that is unessentializable.
So things are essentializable and unessentializable.

Explain how something is essentializable.
Then explain how a contradiction is essentializable
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:22 pm You should ask, "Can we rightly essentialize sex?" That would be the right question. And the answer, of course, whether from the trans lobby or me, will have to be "Yes."
Lets not misdirect now shall we. I am asking you "Can we essentialize a contradiction?". Of course the question is rhetorical. You think the answer is "Yes".

Now all you have to do is justify it. Why does a self-definition essentialize a contradiction?

Could it be that philosophers are as "delusional" as trans people?
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Mar 30, 2023 8:49 am, edited 4 times in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Skepdick »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 10:40 pm
Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:18 pm
Women can have penises, prostates and Y chromosome. Female humans only exist in a purely subjective sense.
How surprising that someone who is clearly a misogynistic incel arsehole would so vigorously support this absurd garbage.

Good to know that you believe that dangerous xy chromosomed misogynists should be welcomed into women-only spaces.
That's so weird. You are saying things but you are pretending I am saying them.

Is the concept of "lying" common in your part of the world?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:47 am
Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:18 pmFemale humans only exist in a purely subjective sense.
If that's true, then nobody can "need" to "become" one. There's no objective and real thing for them to "need" or "become."
And yet here you are. Needing to become right 🤷‍♂️
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:11 am

Women can have penises, prostates and Y chromosome. Female humans only exist in a purely subjective sense.

That's so weird. You are saying things but you are pretending I am saying them.

Is the concept of "lying" common in your part of the world?
Just thought I would put all of your incoherent gibberish into a coherent nutshell. Is this not what you are saying?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Skepdick »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:18 am Just thought I would put all of your incoherent gibberish into a coherent nutshell. Is this not what you are saying?
Well, no evidently. I am not saying that.

You are saying it.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

I wonder what our charming resident communist will have to say about this, from the UK Communist party:

''The Communist Party rejects gender self-ID as the basis for sex- based entitlements in law to women’s single-sex rights, spaces and facilities.''

Wow, they must be 'extreme right wing neo-nazis' :lol:

Just goes to show that facts are facts. Science is science. The truth doesn't have a 'side'. Clearly someone in the UK Communist party actually has a brain.

I wonder if morons will stop referring to misogynistic, bat-shit insane wokie loons as 'the left' (I won't be holding my breath).
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by Skepdick »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 12:15 pm I wonder what our charming resident communist will have to say about this, from the UK Communist party:

''The Communist Party rejects gender self-ID as the basis for sex- based entitlements in law to women’s single-sex rights, spaces and facilities.''

Wow, they must be 'extreme right wing neo-nazis' :lol:

Just goes to show that facts are facts. Science is science. The truth doesn't have a 'side'. Clearly someone in the UK Communist party actually has a brain.

I wonder if morons will stop referring to misogynistic, bat-shit insane wokie loons as 'the left' (I won't be holding my breath).
As far as I can tell you are all communists/nazis. There's no difference - both ideologies wanted a centrally planned, well regimented and strongly normalising society.

I mean, I grew up in an actual Communist country and I remember exactly what it was like being told what to think, what to say, what to believe. Who to be.

You cunts are just stepping it up now: socially mandated identities. Equality baby - the fewer differences between people, the better!
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 12:31 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 12:15 pm I wonder what our charming resident communist will have to say about this, from the UK Communist party:

''The Communist Party rejects gender self-ID as the basis for sex- based entitlements in law to women’s single-sex rights, spaces and facilities.''

Wow, they must be 'extreme right wing neo-nazis' :lol:

Just goes to show that facts are facts. Science is science. The truth doesn't have a 'side'. Clearly someone in the UK Communist party actually has a brain.

I wonder if morons will stop referring to misogynistic, bat-shit insane wokie loons as 'the left' (I won't be holding my breath).
As far as I can tell you are all communists/nazis. There's no difference - both ideologies wanted a centrally planned, well regimented and strongly normalising society.

I mean, I grew up in an actual Communist country and I remember exactly what it was like being told what to think, what to say, what to believe. Who to be.

You cunts are just stepping it up now: socially mandated identities. Equality baby - the fewer differences between people, the better!
Except that it's not men who are being erased, arsehole. Nice copy-pasting btw :lol: It's not men's sports that are being hijacked. It's not men being made unsafe in men's spaces. Men aren't being referred to as 'prostate owners'.
Interesting that you say 'the fewer differences between humans the better'. Doesn't really go with the 'embrace diversity' force-fed ideology does it? So the aim is to to erase the concept of biological sex altogether by gaslighting populations and recruiting the most vulnerable and easily-manipulated people--children--into your bizarre cult. Your position is completely nonsensical. No one is saying men can't pretend they are women (and 'interestingly' men can ONLY do this by stereotyping women). They've always had a fetish for doing that. It has nothing to do with this.
The irony is strong here. YOU are complaining about being told what to think and do? That 70 year old woman who had her skull fractured didn't get much of a chance to say what she thinks and says.
And naturally you missed the point of course. I'm merely pointing out that labelling one side or the other as 'left' or 'right' is water-muddying bullshit. Idiots are calling the misogynistic gender-cultists 'communists'. Gender-cultists are calling everyone who disagrees with them 'neo-nazi fascists'.
There are no conversations being had whatsoever--just childish labelling like TERFs, specifically to demonise and dehumanise opposition. A few hundred years ago it would have beens 'witches' instead of TERFs. The sentiment is the same.
Post Reply