Bakhita wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:25 pm
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.
Bakhita wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:25 pm
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.
Bakhita wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:25 pm
(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.
Bakhita wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:25 pm
, 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.
Bakhita wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:25 pm
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."
Bakhita wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:25 pm
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!
Bakhita wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:25 pm
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.
Bakhita wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:25 pm
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.