Law of noncontradiction and is a woman a woman?

Dan Philosophy said:
Oh god. It had to be a video. Why did it have to be a video. I don't suppose I'm lucky enough for there to be a transcript?
Click to expand...

You don't want to look it up and you don't want to watch a video.
I dunno what to tell ya. Nor do I care about this topic enough to continue.
G'day.
 
Wyote said:
You don't want to look it up and you don't want to watch a video.
I dunno what to tell ya. Nor do I care about this topic enough to continue.
G'day.
Click to expand...

Have fun. I will watch the video. As penance for my sins. Wish I knew what those sins were, but maybe I can bank my penance for sins to be committed later?
 
@Dan Philosophy

Regarding attraction—let’s be very clear in the “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” sense, and assign experience and responsibility where it belongs—the subject.

X is attracted to Y.

Everything else is a muddling of what actually occurs, and a slippery slope in terms of owning it.

X finds Y attractive? No. That assigns the quality to the object, and is a denial of responsibility and ownership.

Y attracts X. No, same misassignment, same muddling.

I think pedantic clarity in this language is important, because the free exercise of one’s agency and autonomy must necessarily include one’s responsibility to, and ownership of, those things.

For reason of value judgment, as well as an aim toward rational thought.

Cheers,
Ian
 
Wyote said:
You don't want to look it up and you don't want to watch a video.
I dunno what to tell ya. Nor do I care about this topic enough to continue.
G'day.
Click to expand...

FYI, I did watch the video. It was surprisingly short, only 5 minutes, and I wasn't expecting the ASL. I did learn a few things, but nothing immediately relevant to this conversation. I do agree with the presenter with the thing about "since when did English make sense"? Still not convinced that the Bisexual Cabal would accept my membership application, and I'm still not in a hurry to submit one!
 
Dan Philosophy said:
FYI, I did watch the video. It was surprisingly short, only 5 minutes, and I wasn't expecting the ASL. I did learn a few things, but nothing immediately relevant to this conversation. I do agree with the presenter with the thing about "since when did English make sense"? Still not convinced that the Bisexual Cabal would accept my membership application, and I'm still not in a hurry to submit one!
Click to expand...

The only relevant part was the definition of bisexual, which I guess you didn't absorb.
My only point in this entire interaction is that your understanding of the definition of bisexual is incorrect.
Not my responsibility to sort that out. Best of luck to you.
 
Wyote said:
The only relevant part was the definition of bisexual, which I guess you didn't absorb.
My only point in this entire interaction is that your understanding of the definition of bisexual is incorrect.
Not my responsibility to sort that out. Best of luck to you.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I'll make a second pass. "Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature; that we have "two" sides of that we must be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don't assume that there are only two genders. Do not mistake our fluidity for confusion, irresponsibility, or an inability to commit. Do not equate promiscuity, infidelity, or unsafe sexual behavior with bisexuality. Those are human traits that cross all sexual orientations. Nothing should be assumed about anyone's sexuality, including your own." That's a quote from the Bisexual Manifesto, from there the presenter says a bit more about pansexuality.

That's less of a definition than a manifesto, and I don't think I make any of those mistakes.

Further on, the presenter does say that bisexuality does not mean attraction to men and women. Heh. So direct contradiction of what I said there. And it's compatible with how that one website defined bisexuality: "attracted to at least two genders."

Unfortunately, if I went to my friend who identifies as bisexual, who is mostly attracted to women and is only demisexual with men, and I told her that I'm a bisexual too because I'm attracted to both cis women and at least some trans men, I'm fairly sure she wouldn't be happy with me. So not exactly in a hurry to submit my membership application to the Bisexual Cabal, even if that does mean I'm making assumptions about my own sexuality.

Hmm. He then goes onto say "that's not what bisexual ever meant." Hmm. At the beginning of the video, he says that the term 'bisexual' used as a word meaning that a person was not monosexual is attributed by most sources as being visibly coined in 1892. From there, he jumps to the mid 1970s, when bisexuality was classified as a mental disorder. Did they really think there were more than two genders clear back in the 19th Century?

Well, etymology only takes you so far. Out in pop culture, 'bisexuality' is used to mean people who are attracted to both men and women. Some authoritative sources say that being attracted to both men and women is not a necessary condition for being bisexual, that it just means being attracted to at least two genders. If we accept that trans men are men, as I think we should, then I am bisexual by either definition. But that claim is going to get a lot of pushback from popular culture.

So, what do you think, one person to another? I am attracted to cis women, and I am attracted to at least some trans men. In your honest opinion, is that sufficient to make me bisexual? I know it's not your responsibility to sort it out for me, but what is your honest opinion, if you would be so kind as to tell me?
 
Dan Philosophy said:
what is your honest opinion, if you would be so kind as to tell me?
Click to expand...

Your attitude toward this topic is condescending and not conducive to genuine interest or learning and I don't care about the topic enough to engage with it at the level you seem to be desiring.
You still don't understand the history of the word bisexual despite it being presented to you clearly, so even if I were inspired it would fall on deaf ears.
 
skippy64 said:
P.S. About your last post, it was very long. Try to explain it more simply. I’ll leave you with this quote from Einstein—If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Click to expand...

Bane of my existence -- I can explain a lot of things, but I can't fit it on a bumper sticker. People who don't care about The Truth have the advantage there. The Truth is rarely pure and never simple.

And, as a general rule, I will do my best to explain things as simply as I need to to get my audience to understand what I'm saying. The problem is that simple is not the same as short. Big words do occasionally help speed things up, since they mean very precise things. You can say the same thing using simpler words, but it's going to take more words to say the same thing. For some things, you can have it simple, or you can have it short, but it can often be a bit difficult to say true things that are both simple and short.

For what it's worth, you were not the intended audience for the post where I quoted Sidis and Sometimes Yeah, nor the post where I begin talking about "the standard taxonomy of sexualities." That's more like an advanced topic on, heh, "trans gender studies" for people who are already at least somewhat Woke.

And as you can see, Wyote is taking me to school on that one. Sigh. Unfortunately, not all the way to graduation... Damn. Damn it, coyote, I was being sincere. I know enough about the history of bisexuality to know that people who identify as bisexual have a long history of shared suffering, and I think a lot of them would have a sincere beef if they thought I was making an illegitimate claim to a piece of that history on such grounds. Yet I'm also am doing my solid best to believe that trans men are men.

The conversation between you and me, skippy, is more on the introductory level.

The post where I start by quoting Enso is where I lay out the main body of my theory of gender. You began this thread by asking how progressives define 'woman.' In that post, I provide a definition of woman. I identify as a social liberal, but I do fall into the 'progressive' category as well. Is there anything in that post that you need me to clarify? I'm not asking if you accept my definition of woman, I'm asking if you understand it.

If you do understand it, then I don't think my job is to convince you that my theory is right, so much as it is to convince you that your theory might possibly be wrong. Unfortunately, your theory is so tightly welded to your religious beliefs that in order to shake up your beliefs about gender, I'm going to have to first shake up your religious beliefs.

Here is my motivation for doing that. That D&D game night I mentioned earlier? I'm the only person in that gaming group who is heterosexual. One of the other players has a second gaming group, and last I checked, every single member of it is has at least one of the letters of LGBTIA+ going for them, and at least two are somewhere out there on the gender spectrum.

It's not just that I think you have false beliefs. It's that there's a direct causal connection between your false beliefs and harm done to my friends. If I have to challenge your religious beliefs in order to help protect my friends, then I will do so.

Is that simple enough for you?

For another example for why this matters, take another look at Case 1. Young woman, or at least a person who appears to be a woman by any external exam. Has been socialized all of her life as a woman, has believed all her life that she is a woman. She is married to a man, and she is trying to have children. She's not having much luck, so she goes to a fertility clinic to see what gives. The doc tells her that she has XY chromosomes, which is why she's infertile.

Does the fact that she has XY chromosomes mean that she's not a woman? Or do you agree with me that she is a woman?

Because if this person is not a woman, then your Holiness Code is going to say that she is living in sin by living with her husband. She should probably get a religious annulment for her marriage and a civil divorce. She's probably not attracted to women, so your Holiness Code would require her to remain celibate for the rest of her life, and to ask for forgiveness for her having the audacity to marry her husband in the first place.

So would you say she is a woman, or is she not?

skippy64 said:
Finally, I’d like to mention this booklet I read and how you or anyone here can read it. It’s where I came across this term about the law of noncontradiction.

https://www.ligonier.org/store/how-should-i-think-epub
Click to expand...

Um, I literally have St. Augustine's City of God on my shopping list for the next time I go shopping for books. I'm holding off on buying more books until I get done with Cicero's On the Law. Augustine squeaked out ahead of Francis Hutcheson's A System of Moral Philosophy in Three Books, which is already bought and on my to-read shelf. Further down on my to-read list is the Catholic Catechism, and way way way down below that is C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity.

Um, do you have any reason to think I should read "How I Should Think" before I plow through those?

As an INTP, my thirst for knowledge is infinite. Unfortunately, my ability to cram it into my head is not. Which is why I was a bit salty when Wyote suggested I watch that video. The bits of info per minute of watching a YouTube video is a bit low for me, compared to reading a book. Fortunately, in this case, it was surprisingly short and informative. Don't think you're ready for it though.

Anyway, let's skip past the gender stuff for now, and go on to religion.

Let's start with faith. I know how St. Paul talks about faith in the Bible. I also know that Sam Harris has used that "belief in things unseen" 'definition' as an excuse to say that faith just is irrational belief. He even goes so far as saying that extremists are better than religious moderates because religious moderates are insufficiently authentically crazy for Harris' liking.

I'm not a fan of Sam Harris or the rest of the New Atheists. They're trying too hard to turn atheism into a religion.

My own account of faith is that "faith is the surrender to the possibility of hope" -- a line I stole from a sci-fi show. I take that to mean that if there is a proposition, and for you, every alternative to that proposition being true is a source of despair, then you are justified in taking that proposition on faith. All you have to do is show that, for you, every single alternative to that proposition being true is a source of despair for you.

This is harder than it sounds.

I also think that questions of faith need to be decided before you turn to questions of reason, because how you answer questions of faith will determine which reasons you are prepared to accept.

I am not asking you to accept this account of faith. But I have found that it provides a useful way of interrogating religious beliefs.

So, a hypothetical. Let's say that I gave you convincing proof that at least one sentence in the Bible was false. Nothing important, nothing that the broader message of Christianity relies on. Nothing more than convincing evidence that the Bible is not infallible.

How would that make you feel, and why?
 
Dan Philosophy said:
The problem is that simple is not the same as short. Big words do occasionally help speed things up, since they mean very precise things. You can say the same thing using simpler words, but it's going to take more words to say the same thing. For some things, you can have it simple, or you can have it short, but it can often be a bit difficult to say true things that are both simple and short.
Click to expand...
Hi Dan and welcome to the forum.

I'm very much with @skippy64 on this - you need to present your ideas in a more digestible form, and one which is structured to fit your audience. It's no good having the truth and yet not being able to communicate it as you wish. This forum has an INFJ flavour, as it's name implies, and that means that the way you express something here is just as important as what it contains - even more so if you start by putting things into a form that tends to put people off.

Mostly the issues behind this thread seem to me to be rooted not in logic, but in disagreements within society about values - in the main it's about the a priori stuff that's the issue, and analytical logic by definition does not produce these but can only build on them. Of course inductive logic can help to verify premises and this is the heart of the scientific method, but inductive logic only determines the present likelihood of something being true and it can never verify it 100%. What values we choose is as much a feeling judgement issue as a thinking one, and to get people to change their values you need to put your case in the language of feeling rationale as well as thinking. That means being sensitive to the needs of your audience, I'm afraid.
 
Dan Philosophy said:
I believe both of these posts touch on that problematic use-case I mentioned above. To review, I provided a definition of 'woman' based on a gender concept I called 'agent gender' - how your gender feels from the inside. I also said that one plausible way to translate "trans women are women" is that people who say that mean to say that social gender (how society as a whole treats you, pronouns, bathrooms, clothing, sports teams, etc.) should be brought into alignment with people's agent genders.

One problem with this approach is that there is a third gender concept that may become relevant in some contexts: what I call 'object gender,' the gender the rest of society perceives you as being. And the gender society treats you as being and the gender society perceives you as being might not always align.

Specifically, I'm talking about the gender that monosexuals - people who identify as being attracted to one gender and only one gender - perceive you as being, in terms of sexual attraction or the lack thereof. It's is relatively easy for us as a society to bring your social gender into alignment with your agent gender, since we are able to decide how we treat you. But since we do not choose our sexualities anymore than we choose our genders, we cannot bring a person's object gender into alignment with their agent gender through an act of will. The good news is that a person's object gender can be brought at least partially into alignment with their agent gender via medical intervention on that person's body, as a side effect of intervening on that person's body in order to relieve their gender dysmorphia. The bad news (or additional bad news) is that this fact is not an unmixed blessing.

Let me back up a bit. Being an INTP, I have considered this issue. I bounced my ideas off a IRL INFJ friend of mine. He advised me that it would probably be best if I kept my thoughts to myself, and not bring them up in public. But since two people in this INFJ forum have already touched on the topic, and I believe my thoughts on the matter are more... developed than theirs so far, I believe it would probably be a good idea for me to set them straight as best as I can before all three of us get Cancelled.

As far as I can tell, getting Cancelled means guaranteed op-eds in The New York Times and free publicity for an apology tour, so it actually sounds like a good gig if you're into that sort of thing. But since all three of us are introverts, we probably wouldn't enjoy stepping into the spotlight, so it actually would be in our best interests to not get Cancelled. So, on with the show.

I do identify as a monosexual, specifically, as a cis gender heterosexual man who is attracted to women. To the best of my knowledge, I have never been attracted to any trans woman. But I have been attracted to at least two trans men. Nothing serious, just on the level of causally checking out a co-worker with no serious interest in actually dating them. My attraction to these trans men does seem to be sensitive to how far they have progressed in the transition process, specifically, non-surgical Hormone Replacement Therapy. I would like to think that the change in pheromones was responsible for the change in my level of attraction, since that seems less shallow than me saying that it was the change in visual cues that were responsible. But I am willing to grant that the change in visual cues was at least partially responsible for the change in my level of attraction, even though it embarrasses me to admit this.

Sidis, you say that "a biological woman has a different aesthetic to me than a trans woman." So I'm guessing that your empirical observations on this topic match with my own. You also said that you didn't want to intellectualize on this topic, but I hope you don't mind if I do, since intellectualizing everything is my nature as an INTP. I hope the conclusions I reach will satisfy you.

Sometimes Yeah, you say that your "'gender constructs' are almost entirely physically and not mentally/psychologically derived." I interpret this to mean that you largely base your gender constructs on what I'm calling object gender. I can see why you do this, but I hope I can convince you that agent and social genders are of greater importance in most contexts. My argument: Social gender is going to be important in most contexts, like the workplace or when meeting with causal acquaintances. I hope I have argued convincingly why social gender should track agent gender (suicide and depression rates increase in response to misgendering). A person's object gender should only matter, only be overtly recognized and made salient, if 1) you are attracted to a person and you are willing to act on that attraction, or 2) you are not attracted to a person, and circumstances force you to admit that lack of attraction as politely as you can.

For your sake, I hope those two conditions apply only rarely, in proportion to the entire human race and your interactions with mere causal acquaintances. In absolute terms, I hope they happen as often as you wish. I do hope that they don't happen every time you come into contact with a member of the human race, not because I want to slut-shame you, but because romance and sex are friggin' exhausting, and it would probably be best if you kept that sort of thing down to the low double digits over the course of a month, out of the hundreds or thousands of people you meet over the course of that month.

But in that context, object gender does matter, and it might fail to align with agent and social gender. And this lack of alignment may have implications for somebody's overall gender. If us people who identify as monosexuals who are attracted to women are also attracted to trans men, that leaves us with two options. 1) We are not actually monosexuals, or 2) Trans men are not "real" men. I will argue for the first option.

But I'm hungry now, it's 1 in the afternoon and I still haven't eaten lunch, so I'm going to post this and go get something to eat.
Click to expand...
Your notion of "agent gender" may be significant to some people, but not to me. To illustrate: when I take my tax details to an accountant, their subjective sense of gender is of no interest to me. If they somehow insert their gender into the topic of my taxes, I will cease doing business with them immediately, because there is no place for gender in my finances.

When I say that my gender constructs only have reference to the physical, I mean gender only matters to me in terms of reproduction, sex, and child rearing. Outside that, I find no place for gender in platonic interactions.
 
Dan Philosophy said:
It's not just that I think you have false beliefs. It's that there's a direct causal connection between your false beliefs and harm done to my friends. If I have to challenge your religious beliefs in order to help protect my friends, then I will do so.
Click to expand...
God is Holy and Just

In watching part of a crime show, Murder Made Me Famous, vengeance is really the motive here, but in a way, against the system of justice. Vengeance is a vice. In short, a man served in prison for 18 years for a crime he didn’t commit, but upon release he committed an actual crime that he now serves for life.

It is more principled to let go of or forgive a personal offense and don’t let it get under your skin, and that’s not always an easy thing to do. If we can avoid any such altercation over mere words, the better.

I was watching tv in the break room while on my lunch (I wonder why the food store invests its money in DirecTv service) and there was a story on Reelz about a guy who served a crime he didn’t commit and he had purchased a small tv to watch in his cell. He became hardened by the experience, and his cellmate recalled that it was like the tv was doing the time for him. The show even mentioned a Netflix series called, Making a Murderer. Some criticism to the series was due to the fact that details were missing. After the man served his time (or tv) he later did commit a brutal crime and was sentenced to life in prison. What was the criticism? The Netflix series being criticized by the Reelz show put forward that it made light of his actual crime that he was guilty of, leaving out the reasonable evidence.

It’s not right for us to retaliate, but it is God’s right to take vengeance in the way He sees fit. We can’t always help it if people get offended by what we say because someone always finds a reason to be offended. However, the one we don’t want to offend is God. He made clear in His Word what offends Him, namely sin. In Hebrews 9:27 it reads, “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment”. [This following is written by Ray Comfort] In one ten-year period in the United States, 100,000 murderers were never brought to justice…It makes sense that if He is good and just, He should be angry with those who have taken the lives of others, and He should punish murderers, rapists, etc. This is the teaching of the Bible—that God will “by no means clear the guilty.” He “will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil.” “God is angry with the wicked every day.” (Ex 34:7; Ecc 12:14; Ps 7:11)
 
Sorry for the confusion I said vengeance is a vice, but only in particular way. You could also say it is a special virtue if it is carried out through a justice system, or if you are defending yourself or loved ones from acts of violence.
 
@Dan Philosophy Maybe this makes more sense—I have edited my reply to you with this intro and conclusion. If you have a lot to write that’s fine. As you can probably tell I’m trying to work on clarifying my writing as well.

If we can avoid fighting over mere words, the better. It is only appropriate to fight back out of self-defense or to handle things legally through the court of law. In watching part of a crime show, I learned about a murder motivated by a false sense of vengeance against the system of justice. In short, a man served in prison for 18 years for a crime he didn’t commit, but upon release he committed an actual crime that he now serves for life.

It’s not right for us to take matters in our own hands. For the Christian the aim is to be at peace to the best of our ability, but we can’t always help it if people get offended by what we say because someone always finds a reason to be offended. However, the one we don’t want to offend is God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top