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?