ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

[Skepdick]

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."

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

Double standard...

Allows for vagueness to present the argument.
Demands specificity to counter it.

Ultimately though, you are making an argument for philosophical essentialism (even though you claim you aren't).

IF 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." what do you believe it to be?

Hint: chromosomes aren't it (because those are reductions)
Double hint: ALL categorical thinking is conceptual thinking, so you aren't even dealing with ontology/reductionism here - you are dealing with perception.

[Immanuel Can]

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."

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

Double standard...

Not at all. I answered the question fully and honestly.

If you have trouble even responding to the question I offered in return, maybe that tells you you've got a problem with the theory that males and females are exactly the same...maybe it just isn't true. And maybe you're afraid to say what you know about that, for fear of being un-PC. Or maybe you realize...as surely you do...that you are beaten, whichever way you answer. Because you won't want to say that females are nothing special, and you won't want to say that males can't become females on a whim.

So you avoid the simplest of questions, because it exposes the error that PC-ness demands you retain.

But we both know we can't play the PC game forever.

Ultimately though, you are making an argument for philosophical essentialism (even though you claim you aren't).

I did NOT claim I was not. I believe in philosophical essentialism, and were it necessary to the present question, would defend it. But it's not, so I offer to my interlocutors all the leeway they may want. I don't tell them what they must specify as the essential -- they can pick that for themselves -- I only ask them "IF 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....and "What do you believe it to be?"

Hint: chromosomes aren't it.

You may say so. I am free to disagree, and we go on.

So do you conclude that there is no essential difference between males and females? Or do you propose a difference other than chromosomes?

[Skepdick]

Not at all. I answered the question fully and honestly.

If you have trouble even responding to the question I offered in return, maybe that tells you you've got a problem with the theory that males and females are exactly the same...maybe it just isn't true. And maybe you're afraid to say what you know about that, for fear of being un-PC. Or maybe you realize...as surely you do...that you are beaten, whichever way you answer. Because you won't want to say that females are nothing special, and you won't want to say that males can't become females on a whim.

So you avoid the simplest of questions, because it exposes the error that PC-ness demands you retain.

But we both know we can't play the PC game forever.

Which is why i am not playing the PC-game. I am playing a game of Statistical classification
A game of "putting things in their correct boxes" - you know, like the games you used to play as a toddler?

Which is why the question is not whether "men" and "women" are "the same" (you've already baked in all of the necessary assumptions for you to pretend you are having a rational discourse)

The question is: how many genders are there?

Which puts the spot for:
1. Defining what gender is
2. Classifying people into the gender-boxes that you claim exist

But maybe you are just too afraid to say that you don't know how statistics work. It's OK...

I did NOT claim I was not. I believe in philosophical essentialism, and were it necessary to the present question, would defend it. But it's not, so I offer to my interlocutors all the leeway they may want. I don't tell them what they must specify as the essential -- they can pick that for themselves -- I only ask them "IF 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....and "What do you believe it to be?"

Except that your question is loaded. Categories aren't "reduced to" anything. Categories are synthesised/constructed from classification rules.

You may say so. I am free to disagree, and we go on.

Well, you are free to disagree, but between essentialism and reductionism you can't have it both ways.

So do you conclude that there is no essential difference between males and females? Or do you propose a difference other than chromosomes?

I am proposing that the difference between that which you have categorised as "males" and that which you have categorised as as "females" will produce EXACTLY the logical/statistical classification function required to detect the differences you see between the two categories you have assumed. This is Epistemic Methodism 101.

That is LITERALLY how binary classification works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification

And then we can talk about why your classifier produces Type I and Type II errors... Which is where the actual issue of "Are you sure there are only two categories?" actually emerges!

[Immanuel Can]

So do you conclude that there is no essential difference between males and females? Or do you propose a difference other than chromosomes?

I am proposing that the difference between that which you have categorised ...

Attention to the pronoun, chum.

I did not ask what you think I might think. I asked you what you say about the answer to that question.

You didn't answer. Answer now, if you can.

[Skepdick]

Attention to the pronoun, chum.

I did not ask what you think I might think. I asked you what you say about the answer to that question.

You didn't answer. Answer now, if you can.

Which question is it that you want me to answer?

The loaded one? Which leaves no room for challenging the baked in premises?

[Immanuel Can]

Attention to the pronoun, chum.

I did not ask what you think I might think. I asked you what you say about the answer to that question.

You didn't answer. Answer now, if you can.

Which question is it that you want me to answer?

The loaded one? Which leaves no room for answering whether the number of gender-categories is correct?

It wasn't "loaded." It asked you only about two such categories -- male versus female.

If you don't believe those categories are real, say so. If you do, then say what makes them different.

(As an aside, you'll have exactly the same kind of problem with any two categories you ever decide to accept, and you'll never be able to advocate for transgenderism if it refers to no categories at all, obviously. So you can't duck this one.)

[Skepdick]

It wasn't "loaded." It asked you only about two such categories -- male versus female.

If you don't believe those categories are real, say so. If you do, then say what makes them different.

You are demonstrating tremendous ignorance. Categories are properties of minds, not of reality.

You are demonstrating that you have no idea how categorisation works.

What makes any two things "different" is PRECISELY the algorithm (rule) which sorts the things into categories.
It's called a classification rule.

The classification rule defines the essence of the category - NOT the essence of the elements being categorised.

(As an aside, you'll have exactly the same kind of problem with any two categories you ever decide to accept, and you'll never be able to advocate for transgenderism if it refers to no categories at all, obviously. So you can't duck this one.)

Yes! You will have exactly the same kind of problem with ANY categorisation-scheme. That's the fundamental issue. All categories are errors, but it is what it is - human thinking is categorical and our mental categories manifest into rigid social structures. That's the lemons we've been dealt and so we must make lemonade with them.

What I am advocating for is a system which is less rigid. A system which recognises that categories suck and will need to be amended in future. A system which recognizes its own deficiencies and so it makes it trivial for incrementing or decrementing the number of categories as and when the future need arises. A system which regoznises categories as arbitrary.

Is what we call Extensibility in systems design/engineering.

[Immanuel Can]

Categories are properties of minds, not of reality.

If I understand you aright, that means that male and female do not refer to real differences, only to imaginary or constructed ones that exist only in the mind.

Or maybe you think male and female "minds" are actually different, in which case, you should go on to answer the second question, which is "Just how?"

But assuming that in the first place I've got you right, and if you're telling the truth, then no trans-wanter can possibly actually be asking for more than a delusion, a mere figment in his/her mind.

There is no basic human right for a person to be deluded, and no special human right to have any special "category" merely constructed for one.

Thus, trans-rights cannot be defended. At least, not by you, and not on the basis of your theory.

[Skepdick]

If I understand you aright, that means that male and female do not refer to real differences, only to imaginary or constructed ones that exist only in the mind.

No, you are understanding me very very wrong.

Detecting "difference" and "similarity" is what the brain does. It's how the brain classifies things when on auto-pilot.

There are differences (large and small) between any two things.
There are similarities (large and small) between any two things.

This is the cognitive foundation upon which ALL abstraction is built.

Abstraction is the elimination of the irrelevant and the amplification of the essential.

If we ignore all the differences between two things then they are "the same".
if we ignore all the similarities between two things then they are "different"

By tweaking the knobs on what you deem is "essential" and what you deem is "irrelevant"
you can categorize all 8 billion people on Earth in to 1 category; or you can categorize all 8 billion people on Earth into 8 billion categories.

The number of buckets into which to classify things is an arbitrary choice.
The criteria by which you place things into buckets is ALSO an arbitrary choice.

There is no basic human right for a person to be deluded, and no special human right to have any special "category" merely constructed for one.

Correct! Human rights don't exist! There isn't even a "right to life".

We made them up because we got tired of killing each other, and it kinds works. Sorta. Not always.

It's a hack. The system requires constant updating.

Thus, trans-rights cannot be defended. At least, not by you, and not on the basis of your theory.

Here's the thing... the basis on which I am defending human rights is trivial. Might makes right.

If you don't like it - violence is always an option. Obviously it's the least preferred option, but it is an option.

Or do you insist on having "rights" of some sort? I bet you can't defend your "right to life"!

On any basis or any theory.

[Immanuel Can]

Abstraction is the elimination of the irrelevant and the amplification of the essential.

"The essential," you say?
Your words, not mine.

If we ignore all the differences between two things then they are "the same".
if we ignore all the similarities between two things then they are "different"

You're still not really answering, and I'm pretty sure it's because you know you're beaten.

You want to play both sides of the track, but rationally, you can see you can't. If differences are not real, then they cannot be appealed for. If they are real, then appealing for them will be against reality.

Even in your own language above, you can't avoid taking a side. For example, you say "ignore" the differences or the similarities. Well, one can't "ignore" what isn't there. If you say you "ignore" differences, then you only pretend/imagine/construct your vision AS IF they were non-existent...you do not wipe them out of existence, thereby. But if they were never any differences there in the first place, then you don't "ignore" them, you deny their existence altogether...quite a different thing.

Are male and female different? Is there anything essential, valuable and irreducible to being a female, or is it just a variation on something else?

Go for it. Answer the question any way you want.

[Skepdick]

Abstraction is the elimination of the irrelevant and the amplification of the essential.

"The essential," you say?
Your words, not mine.

Yes. My words - "essence" and "relevance" are arbitrary choices!

You want to play both sides of the track, but rationally, you can see you can't.

How many sides again? HOW did you arrive at that number?

If differences are not real, then they cannot be appealed for. If they are real, then appealing for them will be against reality.

Nothing in classifying HUMANS (which is itself a subcategory of ANIMALS) into the categories of "male" and "female" has anything to do with realism.

It's a red herring. But I am sure you knew that - how else would you muddy the waters?

The differences you deem essential are real.
The differences you deem irrelevant are also real.
The similarities you deem essential are real.
The similarities you deem essential are also real.

And so your entire theatrical performance is still begging the question.

What are the essential differences and similarities, and what are the irrelevant differences and similarities between humans such that the category of "men" and "women" is produced?

Bet you can't define them.

[Skepdick]

Are male and female different?

They are different in some ways and similar in other ways.

Even within the category you call "male" - all the objects in that category are different in some ways and similar in other ways.
Even within the category you call "female" - all the objects in that category are different in some ways and similar in other ways.

Is there anything essential, valuable and irreducible to being a female, or is it just a variation on something else?

You are the one who is reducing 8 billion individuals into two categories.

You are the one who is doing the sorting - you have the sorting algorithm. The algorithm IS that which you call "essence".

Tell us WHY you are sorting 8 billion humans into THOSE two categories?

[Immanuel Can]

Nothing in classifying HUMANS (which is itself a subcategory of ANIMALS) into the categories of "male" and "female" has anything to do with realism.

In that case, there is "nothing" in "classifying" a trans-wanting person as "realistic" in his/her yearning to be in the other "category." There's no target for him/her to hit.

QED.

Your words.

[Skepdick]

In that case, there is "nothing" in "classifying" a trans-wanting person as "realistic" in his/her yearning to be in the other "category." There's no target for him/her to hit.

EXACTLY! There are no foundations for ANY of the arbitrary choices that we make. There is no target for any of us to hit. That's what the word "arbitrary" means.

So if there is no target, how did society hit the number 2? ARBITRARILY! That's how. This arbitrary choice has consequences.

Trans-person want to use the bathroom. ANY bathroom. There are only two bathrooms and they aren't welcome in either.

For the record, some countries are considering Unisex toilets as a solution. Turning the arbitrary-2 into an arbitrary-1 (because going the other way doesn't scale).

[Immanuel Can]

In that case, there is "nothing" in "classifying" a trans-wanting person as "realistic" in his/her yearning to be in the other "category." There's no target for him/her to hit.

EXACTLY! There are no foundations for ANY of the arbitrary choices that we make.

Why then are you advocating on behalf of people who, according to you, are asking "unrealistically" to be inauthentically and "arbitrarily" "categorized" or "classified" as male or female?