ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

[Skepdick]

This is precisely where I believe the debate needs to begin. Is gender mutable, or constant?

And this is where the debate rapidly concludes. There's nothing immutable in this universe.

Change is the only constant (bar a handful of actual constants in the mathematics of physics).

Until we reach some conclusion here, we can't say whether it's possible to change gender at all

In that once sentence you have already presupposed gender's essence and immutability.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdpc2r4cBxQ

[Skepdick]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdpc2r4cBxQ

According to women trans women aren't women.
According to men trans women aren't men.

That's how you end up without a bathroom.

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

[Immanuel Can]

There is quite obviously nobody at all who argues that "there is no basic or given essence of gender, but there is a target essence of gender". And there is also no honest man who would pretend there was.

I agree.

No "honest," or at least rational person would pretend the one existed whereas the other didn't. Yet this is exactly what all "transgenderism" ideology depends on -- the belief that basic or given gender is unreal, but target gender is real.

And you're right: that's totally irrational.

[Skepdick]

There is quite obviously nobody at all who argues that "there is no basic or given essence of gender, but there is a target essence of gender". And there is also no honest man who would pretend there was.

In as much as Mannie keeps his escape routes open, you've done exactly the same by qualifying your claim with "no honest man...". So then... only an honest woman (that's my gender for this argument and I am sticking to it) can argue against your position, and I am just the girl for the job!

The fact is, every logical or metaphysical position is defensible. Even the absurd ones! Because internal/self-consistency and even logical completeness doesn't go far enough in addressing the concerns or ontological correspondence. There is no way to ground our language.

Even if you and I are both engineered (by the God almighty - the omnipotent) such that we are atomic and quantum replicas of one another - even if our essences/ontologies are "identical" (for some idealised, Platonic notion of identity). Even if people couldn't tell if you are me, or I am you - there will still be the matter of there being two of us.

We are essentially identical twins. Autonomous and everything. You are not me and I am not you.

And on a whim you gender (however you conceptualise the ontology for that word) yourself as "male".
And I gender (however I conceptualise the ontology for that word) myself as "female".

Same essence/ontology - different words. Whose language is "right"?

The entire notion of essence is a dead end because of free will. Target essence is essence-engineering.

We don't like the puny, dementia-prone brain God gave us, so we'll augment it ourselves. We are still "essentially and ontologically" the same - you still gender yourself as "male" but I am now a "cyborg".

You don't get to pretend you recognise and accept alternative choices, yet special-plead against alternative choices in language and conceptual designs people make while navigating essentially identical ontologies.

That's why no discussion in ethics can go further than Do what you will, harm nobody.. Which is basically the same as the Golden rule.

All that I am offering in "novelty" is in the way of epistemic inversion. Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.The Silver, not the Gold rule.

Humans are loss averse. A negative statement is more effective than an equivalent positive one.

[FlashDangerpants]

There is quite obviously nobody at all who argues that "there is no basic or given essence of gender, but there is a target essence of gender". And there is also no honest man who would pretend there was.

I agree.

No "honest," or at least rational person would pretend the one existed whereas the other didn't. Yet this is exactly what all "transgenderism" ideology depends on -- the belief that basic or given gender is unreal, but target gender is real.

And you're right: that's totally irrational.

That's another of your unconvincing representations of another person's argument. I don't trust it.

Could you please explain what "essence" means in your arguments. You kept it tactically unclear before and it was impossible to tell if Policemen, Elephants or Butt Plugs can exist without an immutable essence of their own.

[Skepdick]

Could you please explain what "essence" means in your arguments. You kept it tactically unclear before and it was impossible to tell if Policemen, Elephants or Butt Plugs can exist without an immutable essence of their own.

Immutability is the central point of division between Mathematicians (who insist on immutability - pure functions) and Computer scientists/Physicists.

Nothing is immutable in the physical universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Immutability is a concept with no ontological referents.

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

[FlashDangerpants]

Could you please explain what "essence" means in your arguments. You kept it tactically unclear before and it was impossible to tell if Policemen, Elephants or Butt Plugs can exist without an immutable essence of their own.

Immutability is the central point of division between Mathematicians (who insist on immutability - pure functions) and Computer scientists/Physicists.

Nothing is immutable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Immutability reduces to dogma.

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

Perhaps so. But in this matter I don't really mind. He can have a view that gender is special class which unlike all other classes has an essence, if he can provide an argument to support that. Or he can argue that all classes have essences and nothing can belong to any class without having that class essence. And he can argue that essence is immutable or that it is transferrable ... or if he's willing to make the sacrifices that come with it... only changeable by God in some circumstance where it turns out God can do the logically impossible.

It's all fine by me, as long as any resulting claim has to actually be consistent with whatever that is. Then his argument can stand or fail on its logical merits rather than his ability to just keep endlessly dirtying the debate until everyone runs out of patience.

[Skepdick]

And he can argue that essence is immutable or that it is transferrable ... or if he's willing to make the sacrifices that come with it... only changeable by God in some circumstance where it turns out God can do the logically impossible.

It's all fine by me, as long as any resulting claim has to actually be consistent with whatever that is.

No... pause. I will try to be as concise as possible here.

The definition of "consistency" is classical logic is "absence of contradictions". What is a contradiction?
The PRESCRIPTION that P ∧ ¬P ⇒ False

If you allow for mutability, logically you can PROVE a contradiction.
You can get P ∧ ¬P ⇒ True

Like this:

https://repl.it/repls/MellowObviousWeb

Code: Select all

##################
# Immutable object
##################
immutable = true
# Law of non-contradiction returns FALSE (consistency)
puts (immutable and (not immutable)) 

##################
# Mutable object
##################
$state = false
def mutable
  $state = (not $state)
end
# Law of non-contradiction returns TRUE (inconsistency)
puts (mutable and (not mutable))  

Mutability is the ROOT CAUSE of contradictions/inconsistency in logic. If you allow for it, you can't demand logical consistency. They are incompatible asks.

You can demand some other notion of "consistency", but then you kinda have to show us your yardstick.

By asking for "mutability" and "logical consistency" (in the classical sense) you have set up Mannie for failure. It's an unachievable feat.

It's why Logic is bullshit. The universe is mutable. Logic isn't.

At least declarative logic isn't.

Using imperative logics you can define such notions as "target essence", but in imperative logic literally anything goes.

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

[Bakhita]

This is precisely where I believe the debate needs to begin. Is gender mutable, or constant?

And this is where the debate rapidly concludes. There's nothing immutable in this universe.

Change is the only constant (bar a handful of actual constants in the mathematics of physics).

This claim works for states of affairs, but not what it is that we're discussing. We're always entering into new states of affairs, but the thing about them is that everything else remains constant.

The relations between things are subject to change, but the things themselves are not, as they're wholly independent.

Until we reach some conclusion here, we can't say whether it's possible to change gender at all

In that once sentence you have already presupposed gender's essence and immutability.

It feels "necessary" to do so here, considering that this is the root of the issue. If a person becomes a woman, or becomes the other gender, and it (gender) is not strictly tied to one's biology, then your accusation against the essentialists will very likely stand. If gender is unchanging, however, dependent on one's biology or some unchangeable essence, then it is their argument which stands.

So when I "make the assumption" here, I am merely pointing to the crux of the issue.

[Skepdick]

This claim works for states of affairs, but not what it is that we're discussing. We're always entering into new states of affairs, but the thing about them is that everything else remains constant.

Do you want to try that sentence in English?

What is this "everything else", that is NOT the "state of affairs"?

The relations between things are subject to change, but the things themselves are not, as they're wholly independent.

And you've wandered off into the woods of Noumena.

I don't know anything about Noumena - I have nothing to say about them.

All the phenomena we've ever observed are in flux. So says quantum physics.

It feels "necessary" to do so here, considering that this is the root of the issue. If a person becomes a woman, or becomes the other gender, and it (gender) is not strictly tied to one's biology, then your accusation against the essentialists will very likely stand. If gender is unchanging, however, dependent on one's biology or some unchangeable essence, then it is their argument which stands.

So when I "make the assumption" here, I am merely pointing to the crux of the issue.

Empirically - essentialism is dead.

[Bakhita]

The conversation we should be having is about harm! Fuck essence.

Philosophy hasn't stumbled upon the answer in 2000 years, and it's unlikely to stumble upon an answer in 2 million more.

Philosophers haven't agreed upon an answer in 2000 years. That's quite different from saying that the answer hasn't been found.

If you feel that inserting profanity somehow enhances what you're saying, then I have to say that it merely comes across as impolite- much like the Henry/Harry debacle. (Speaking of which, we're playing the same game regarding names and personal identity, so how it's worth anyone's time to bring a new game into the debate, whose rules we agree upon, just to temporarily suspend those rules to "make a point" about a game whose rules we haven't agreed upon- is beyond me. It seems self refuting.) If we want to discuss harm, maybe we ought to begin with how we present our propositions? If we won't be courteous in a debate concerning gender identity, how can we expect our partner to be courteous in regards to someone experiencing transgenderism? But since we might disagree on what's harmful, let's move into what I discussed concerning harm.

You fail to see a pretty major point in what I was telling you. The two sides disagree on what harm might be because they disagree on whether the feelings these individuals have are rational. The existentialist says, yes, their feelings are rational, because gender is subject to change, and to not recognize a person as they are trying to be recognized is harmful. The essentialist says, no, they're not rational, because gender has a certain relation to biology, and to offer a person recognition as something which their essence doesn't allow for is harmful.

If you'd like to continue speaking about this, a promotion of existentialism isn't what I'm looking for at this stage. I'm convinced that, before we even begin to accuse others of doing harm (though I'm liable to agree with you that many who have commented have done just that), we need to come to an agreement on what it means to do harm, whether either position offers a harmless approach- and, if not, which position can justify the harm that it does as being medicinal, harm being a side effect but not being directly willed. In order to do this, I think that we need to discuss whether essence is something we are, or something we become, whether gender can be referred to as essence, and only from there can we really start philosophy.

[Skepdick]

Philosophers haven't agreed upon an answer in 2000 years. That's quite different from saying that the answer hasn't been found.

And it's also quite different from saying that there is an answer, and that it can and will be found via Philosophical methods.

All that we have to go on is 2000 years of failure - even by the lowest of standards that's a poor track record.
Worse than that, what we have is 2000 years of evidence of DOING the same thing.

Philosophy can't even agree on a strategy for getting answers!

And if there's a definition of insanity I love best, it's the one of DOING the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result.

If you feel that inserting profanity somehow enhances what you're saying, then I have to say that it merely comes across as impolite- much like the Henry/Harry debacle.

That is precisely my intent. I am mimicking/mocking Harry as way of demonstrating that calling somebody by a name they don't want to be called is "impolite".

If it's OK for him to do it to others, surely it's OK for me to do it to him? It seems like tacit permission.

(Speaking of which, we're playing the same game regarding names and personal identity, so how it's worth anyone's time to bring a new game into the debate, whose rules we agree upon

That's a great suggestion. HOW would we go bout agreeing on the rules? What makes for "good" rules? What makes for "bad" rules?

How do we agree on the mechanism by which we choose the rules of the game?
Maybe we need to define "good" and "bad" first? Oh wait! That's another one of those problems Philosophy has failed at for 2000 years.

, just to temporarily suspend those rules to "make a point" about a game whose rules we haven't agreed upon- is beyond me. It seems self refuting.

I didn't suspend "the rules" - I am flat out pointing out there aren't any. The "rules" of debate/Philosophy are "the rules" of logic.

Logic doesn't have any rules beyond the ones prescribed by humans. If you throw the rules of logic in the trashcan, you have absolutely no basis for "refutation".

Logic is your religion - not mine.

If we want to discuss harm, maybe we ought to begin with how we present our propositions? If we won't be courteous in a debate concerning gender identity, how can we expect our partner to be courteous in regards to someone experiencing transgenderism? But since we might disagree on what's harmful, let's move into what I discussed concerning harm.

So, that's the usual tactic of guilt/shaming that people use. Appeal to courtesy/civility. It's the first imposition of power.

"You are being rude to me! (awwww! my feeelings). Calm down Suzan-Steve, just because you aren't allowed to use a public toilet and you have to endure constant hazing and bullying by society it doesn't mean you have to be so edgy."

You fail to see a pretty major point in what I was telling you. The two sides disagree on what harm might be

You are still trying to frame the discussion around linguistics/language and definitions. Like every dumb philosopher.

Being unable to use a public toilet SHOULD NOT FUCKING HAPPEN. TO ANY HUMAN BEING.

Irrespective of how you define "harm".

Being unable to use public toilets is harmful. It's degrading to a person's dignity. It's a common decency that every human being in a civilised society has come to enjoy and it's what society has come to represent.

So define harm in whatever you like - so long as it arrives at the above conclusion. Literally - I am preaching for affirming the consequent. To hell with all the rules/protocol!

because they disagree on whether the feelings these individuals have are rational. The existentialist says, yes, their feelings are rational, because gender is subject to change, and to not recognize a person as they are trying to be recognized is harmful. The essentialist says, no, they're not rational, because gender has a certain relation to biology, and to offer a person recognition as something which their essence doesn't allow for is harmful.

And I say Suzan-Steven should be able to use a fucking public toilet irrespective of their feelings or their rationality; or who says what about the essence of gender.

If you'd like to continue speaking about this, a promotion of existentialism isn't what I'm looking for at this stage. I'm convinced that, before we even begin to accuse others of doing harm (though I'm liable to agree with you that many who have commented have done just that), we need to come to an agreement on what it means to do harm, whether either position offers a harmless approach- and, if not, which position can justify the harm that it does as being medicinal, harm being a side effect but not being directly willed. In order to do this, I think that we need to discuss whether essence is something we are, or something we become, whether gender can be referred to as essence, and only from there can we really start philosophy.

Your definitional problem is so far off the mark it's ridiculous. Suzan-Steve doesn't care how you define "gender" or "harm" - Suzan-Steve just wants access to a public toilet without being bullied.

Either have a plan to address Suzan-Steve's bodily needs or you don't.

You are welcome to continue scratching your Philosophical testicles without me.

[Skepdick]

I'm declinin' to participate in Joe's delusion.

Yep. Because you know what's best for you, but Joe doesn't.

So it takes a pejorative to justify a double standard.

If you knew what my principles were you'd know they're all about people, but you don't, so...

I don't need to know what your principles are to know what they aren't.

"Consistent" is what your principles aren't.

[Immanuel Can]

Could you please explain what "essence" means in your arguments.

It's very simple, actually.

For purposes of this particular argument it does not need to refer to anything so ambitious as, say, philosophical essentialism. All it needs to convey is that there is something specific to "being male" that is not reducible to "being a kind of female," and something about "being female" that cannot be reduced to a subcategory of "being a kind of male."

I'm happy to leave the "something" that people want to specify to their better judgments. But I'll tell you what my own view is, so you don't accuse me of being evasive. I think there are essential differences on several levels. For me, it starts at the genetic level...barring genetic abnormalities, a male is XY and a female is XX. That's basic. Then there's broader physiology, reproductive roles, and more contentiously, brain differences...but I don't care what people pick, be it physiological, psychological, sociological, moral or spiritual. I'll hear all arguments. Pick whatever you regard as "essential" to the difference, and let's talk about it.

But here's my question in return, just so we can establish your position as well. Is there anything specific to "being female" that is not simply reducible to being male? Or is femaleness nothing but a variant of maleness?

And if there is an anything specific, then what do you believe it to be?