"A woman is a woman, anything else is not a woman."

FormerRedditor writes:

All members of Group A are members of Group A. Therefore, anyone who is not a member of Group A is not a member of Group A. Logically, this is correct, but not particularly meaningful. Technically, if your definition of woman included trans women, this would still hold up.

The underlying subtext, though, is that trans women are not women. Written out explicitly, the argument would change to "A cis woman is a woman. Therefore, anything else is not a woman." This is not logically correct. If I was to say "A Chihuahua is a dog, therefore anything else is not a dog," I would be drawing an illogical conclusion from a true premise. Chihuahuas are a subset within the group of dogs, but do not compromise the entire group. I believe this would be denying the antecedent. You would need to separately establish that all women are cis women or that all dogs are Chihuahuas to make this logically valid. For the former, though, you'd have a hard time doing this without using the definist fallacy .

Jason Mathias writes:
[To FormerRedditor]

Great comment!

Yes, when I show them the definition of gender in the dictionary they reject the definition and assume that the definition was recently changed as a part of the conspiracy theory to push a "woke agenda". 

LogicG writes:

"Anything that is not a woman is not a woman" is a tautology, and "anything else" is equivalent to "anything that is not a woman" in this case?

Adelle writes:

Your question is politically charged, calling those who define women as the adult female of the human species "anti-trans". This is the correct definition. Males who identify as women can do so but their self-perceived identify is not a material reality. I can identify as being fabulous and smart. I shouldn't impose that self-perceived image onto others. So if they don't refer to me as fabulous and smart they are being anti-me.

 

Woman has a specific definition. All non-human animals have words to refer to the male and female of their species (mare-stallion for horses, for instance; women and men for humans). We wouldn't say that there are trans-mares that are natally stallions.

Jason Mathias writes:

[To Adelle]

"Your question is politically charged, calling those who define women as the adult female of the human species "anti-trans". This is the correct definition."

Well, there is a trans movement right now, and an anti trans movement that's against it. Thats what its called so I don't know what else to call it? You obviously disagree with the trans concept, so wouldn't that make you anti trans? 

"Males who identify as women can do so but their self-perceived identify is not a material reality."

Yes, they can do so and that is what gender is. "Gender is defined as in the dictionary being social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female." The brain is the largest sex organ in the body, so let's not leave out this sex organ and only cherry pick the genitals. It is a fact that some people are born with a female brain, and a male body. So, is this person a male or female? Well, their genitals are male, and their gender identity is female. So, what's wrong with that? The brain dresses the body according to its gender identity. And since the brain is physical, then it is in fact a material reality. 

"I can identify as being fabulous and smart. I shouldn't impose that self-perceived image onto others. So if they don't refer to me as fabulous and smart they are being anti-me."

Comparing fabulous and smart to a gender identity (an entire group of people who are born that way) is a false equivalence. Since its a false equivalence, the "anti-me" statement doesn't make much sense. And trans people are no more imposing their gender identities onto you no more so than straight people are by dressing as straight people and marrying the opposite sex. Yet, you don't say they are imposing anything onto you? 

"Woman has a specific definition. All non-human animals have words to refer to the male and female of their species (mare-stallion for horses, for instance; women and men for humans). We wouldn't say that there are trans-mares that are natally stallions."

This is another false equivalence. Animals don't have identities, they don't self identify as they are not self aware and lack language and culture such as dressing with certain clothes that symbolize. From what it appears, animals don't identify as male or female.

FormerRedditor writes:

[To Jason Mathias ]

To piggyback on this comment a bit:

In my top level comment, I had mentioned that people were committing the definist fallacy by adhering to a narrow definition of "woman", which is exactly what this person did. For instance, Merriam Webster has a definition of woman that roughly matches the one provided, but then goes on to provide this definition of Female: "having a gender identity that is the opposite of male"

I would consider the "anti-me" bit to be more of a weak analogy , as it is a hypothetical that doesn't have the scientific research or real world consequences that comments about trans people do. The main one being that, here in the US, the insistence that only anatomical females are women is the basis for a lot of anti-trans sentiment, which has materialized into laws and policies denying trans people access to a number of things including gender affirming medical care. Having access to this, and generally being treated in accordance with their gender identity, has been shown to improve their mental health, and to significantly reduce their rates of self harm and suicide attempts.

The example about the animals, in addition to being a false equivalence, is cherry picking . Off the top of my head, I can tell you that earth worms are among the animals that are naturally hermaphroditic, being both male and female. Some species of fish can change sex during the course of their lives. Bearded dragons can undergo a process called sex reversal in the egg, which causes genetic males to appear as males, but behave and reproduce like females. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of animals without a clearly defined biological sex that I'm missing.

Adelle writes:
[To Jason Mathias ]

1. Opposing a particular trans issue by default does not make you “anti-trans”.

There are real evidence-based concern, like safety, dignity, privacy, and fairness of women in light of self-ID laws that allow any male body to claim to be women and get into female-only spaces. Why not call them “pro-women” instead of anti-trans? There are a lot of trans-identified people who are aware of these concerns and would never eg., participate in elite female sports.

2. "The brain dresses the body according to its gender identity. And since the brain is physical, then it is in fact a material reality. " Sure, you can behave and dress as your personality imposes. It is personality, but not sex. Sex is just the design of the body: either designed to produce large (female) or small (male) gametes. It is very wrong and sexist to say that sex is an identity, because it is a material biological reality. They confuse gender and personality these days. "Gender identity" is the sexist stereotypes imposed on females and males to the point that they believe that wanting to wear make up makes you a female... 

 

3. They can be the gender they wish. It shouldn’t change their legal sex. You can identify as a butterfly for all I care. I never opposed the whimsical wishes of identity of anybody. The brain is not the largest sex organ of the body. I am a neuroscientist myself. You may perceived yourself to be fabulous. But the reality is that you are not. There is not such thing as being born in the wrong body. Or else tell an anorexic that. You are perhaps not born in the body that socially is assigned certain behaviours, like females having to be feminine. A effeminate boy may believe they are born in the wrong body because he is not allowed to perform femininity. Gender is a social construct. Why don’t we consider age also a social construct? I am 50 years old but “feel” that internally I am a 14 year old in terms of my childish behaviour. Does that mean I have to impose that perception onto others and even legally be allowed to be in a high school?

 

4. A male is perceived himself to be female A selfish person is perceived themselves to be selfless. I don’t see much difference in terms of a deceived self-perception. My daughter wouldn’t be comfortable if a fully grown up male undressed in front of her in female-only facilities only because a man tells her he is a woman.

5. Research Rachel Dolezal. Many have an internal sense of being a different race. She identifies as transblack. Who are you to deny that identity? She even got an affirmative action position for being Black, even though she is an affluent white woman.I am not talking about identities. You are straw-manning continuously.

 

6. I am stating the fact that animals have names for the female and male of their species. Like humans.

7. Most animals have two sexes, but that doesn't matter. Even hermaphrodites means TWO sexes in one organisms. And those who change sex change between two. Humans are not hermaphrodites. Even if they were, or even if humans had several sexes, you couldn't identify in the one you wanted to.

 

Jason Mathias writes:
[To Adelle]

"1. Opposing a particular trans issue by default does not make you “anti-trans”.

But you weren't opposing a "particular trans issue", you were opposing the entire thing and claiming "they shouldn't be able to impose trans on you." Which IS pretty anti trans. I am simply being on the side of freedom here, you are not. You are suggesting we control people's lives, why not just let them be them just as you have the freedom for you to be you. That's basically my position on this as I am against authoritarianism, bigotry, oppression, prejudice and bullying of any group of people especially those who were born that way and therefore can't help it. 

"There are real evidence-based concern, like safety, dignity, privacy, and fairness of women in light of self-ID laws that allow any male body to claim to be women and get into female-only spaces. Why not call them “pro-women” instead of anti-trans?"

Bc they aren't pro women. They are anti trans. If they were pro women then they would not vote to limit school funding of women's sports. Bc under funding is what is actually damaging to women's sports according to women. They would not vote to outlaw trans women in women's sports in an entire state that only has one known trans women playing on a team that she created for her friends. If they were pro women then they would not be against abortion, contraceptives and attack womens health facilities. I could go on. 

Also, it's debatable that a trans woman's body is still a male body, after all the hormone treatments and other biological alterations. We all start out as female in the womb, then some hormonal changes are made and some become male. According to your logic, that means we are all really female since once upon a time we were all female first. Change can occur and it doesn't matter what was before the change. 

"There are a lot of trans-identified people who are aware of these concerns and would never eg., participate in elite female sports."

This is obviously cherry picking bc the consensus of that group is the opposite. 

2. "The brain dresses the body according to its gender identity. And since the brain is physical, then it is in fact a material reality. " Sure, you can behave and dress as your personality imposes. It is personality, but not sex. 

It is not personality, a personality does not determine sexual attraction. Personalities develop, and can change. Sexual attraction never changes. 

Sex is just the design of the body: either designed to produce large (female) or small (male) gametes. It is very wrong and sexist to say that sex is an identity, because it is a material biological reality. 

No one is saying sex is an identity, we are saying gender is an identity. The two words have very different meanings. 

They confuse gender and personality these days. 

Gender is not personality, they also have two very different meanings. Again, sexual attraction can't change. But let's just entertain the idea, what if you were a female born in your male body and had the personality of a female. Wouldn't you want to dress like a female, and wouldn't you want the freedom to do so just like everyone else has? And personalities seem quite random, but women having women personalities and men having male personalities doesn't seem so random and mixed. So obviously something else is going on here that we can't call just a personality. 

"Gender identity" is the sexist stereotypes imposed on females and males to the point that they believe that wanting to wear make up makes you a female... 

Who's really trying to do the imposing here? Trans people are just trying to be free to be themselves by dressing themselves how they want and I would not call that imposing anything onto you. And it's the larger society at large that is trying to impose traditional values onto trans and lgbtq by keeping them in the closet and they impose that onto them by using the state and social harassment etc. This has been like this for 100's even 1000s of years of oppression we are talking about here. 

3. They can be the gender they wish. It shouldn’t change their legal sex. You can identify as a butterfly for all I care. I never opposed the whimsical wishes of identity of anybody. 

Again, you keep making false equivalences. Identifying as a butterfly is not the same as being born a certain gender and its not whimsical as thats appeal to ridicule. 

The brain is not the largest sex organ of the body. I am a neuroscientist myself. You may perceived yourself to be fabulous. But the reality is that you are not. There is not such thing as being born in the wrong body. Or else tell an anorexic that. 

That's an appeal to authority fallacy. The brain is the largest sex organ in the body and just bc you are appealing to being a neuroscientist doesn't make it false. Bc the consensus of neuroscientists is that it is the largest sex organ in the body. This is what it shows when one looks it up. Afterall, the genitalia don't work without the brain being aroused and turned on by attraction and that happens in the brain. Genitalia don't magically find their way to the opposite sex to reproduce, the brain seeks those interactions out. The brain is a sex organ and it is larger than the genitals.  

Gender is a social construct. Why don’t we consider age also a social construct? I am 50 years old but “feel” that internally I am a 14 year old in terms of my childish behaviour. Does that mean I have to impose that perception onto others and even legally be allowed to be in a high school?

Yes, gender is a social construct and therefore is not he same thing as sex. So is clothing, makeup, societal roles and all that other stuff too. Gender and age is also a false equivalence. Age isn't a social construct. You were not always 50, age is always changing with time and you aren't born that way. You weren't born 50 feeling like 14 for example. And plus, age is based on math. 

4. A male is perceived himself to be female A selfish person is perceived themselves to be selfless. I don’t see much difference in terms of a deceived self-perception. My daughter wouldn’t be comfortable if a fully grown up male undressed in front of her in female-only facilities only because a man tells her he is a woman.

I don't think it works that way. A trans woman is not the same things as some harry dude in disguise dressed up as a women so he can peep on your daughter. That's a strawman made up to scare ignorant people with. The only harassing i've seen in bathrooms is anti trans people harassing real women in the bathrooms bc they have short hair and were thought to be trans women. And wasn't Trump just found guilty of sexually harassing a women in a stall? So, straight men are probably the ones doing the harassing if you look at the statistics. 

7. Most animals have two sexes, but that doesn't matter. Even hermaphrodites means TWO sexes in one organisms. And those who change sex change between two. Humans are not hermaphrodites. Even if they were, or even if humans had several sexes, you couldn't identify in the one you wanted to.

We all started out as female in the womb, so in a way we are hermaphrodites. I think you have another misconception here. No one chooses to identify as something, it's not a choice. We are born that way and that's really the point here. Once you realize it's not a choice, then your arguments fall apart. 

Adelle writes:

1. Merriam Webster: “having a gender identity that is the opposite of male”. This is an ideological newly introduced definition. Woman is the female of the human species. What that does even mean to have a “gender identity”? It is cartesian dualism. You believe you are a different sex than you are? What is this gender identity, to believe your personality and behaviour match a rigid idea of what a female human is? A woman can behave and be whatever she wants to be. “Gender identity” is a rancid concept, really backwards, and those who embrace it really don’t even realise how retrograde it is. Like a little boy has a gender identity of a girl… what does that mean? I can assure you it means that the boy “behaves” like a girl, likes “girl” toys, etc. Their parents rather have a “trans girl” than an effeminate boy.

2. “here in the US, the insistence that only anatomical females are women is the basis for a lot of anti-trans sentiment, which has materialized into laws and policies denying trans people access to a number of things including gender affirming medical care.” “Affirming care” is a linguistic trick: it does not include psychotherapy to address why somebody may feel they are born in the wrong body (they call that “conversion therapy”. It refers to surgeries and life-long medicalisation of children above all. Blocking puberty with permanent damage to bone density. Puberty is not an optional thing. You must go through it to develop as a fully adult with a fully developed brain, which matures in this transition to adulthood into 25 years of age. This is child abuse. Trans people deserve therapies to understand the underlying causes of their distress, not surgery and big Pharma. We are pro trans people’s well being.

3. An anorexic patient could say the same: that they are denying her affirmative care: stomach reduction surgery, to be her true self: a very thin woman. If you don’t succumb to her wishes, she will commit suicide.

4. “worms are among the animals that are naturally hermaphroditic” So what? I don’t care about other species. Humans are mammals, not insect. Even insects have only two sexes, like 99,999% of animals of any kind. Even if some few species are hermaphroditic… that means that they can change between TWO sexes. Not more. You bring up bearded dragons as if it was relevant to Homo sapiens species. And then I am the one making wrong comparisons. Humans are not bearded dragons. We know very well that humans are not hermaphroditic or change sex. A woman is not a man who cut off his penis.

Jason Mathias writes:
[To Adelle]

1. Merriam Webster: “having a gender identity that is the opposite of male”. This is an ideological newly introduced definition.

All definitions change over time and adapt to society as it evolves and changes. All definitions are, are arbitrary things we just invent that we all agree on for the purpose of communicating. That's it. And so if this definition is ideological than so was the past definition. The question is which definition leads to the most freedom and equality and is healthiest for members of society?

Woman is the female of the human species. What that does even mean to have a “gender identity”? It is cartesian dualism.

That's just one definition, there are many in the dictionary. It means you identify with a particular gender bc you feel like you are that gender. Or, essentially you are the mind of that gender which is why it's an identity. Saying that gender is not physical as you did earlier is also cartesian dualism. 

You believe you are a different sex than you are? What is this gender identity, to believe your personality and behaviour match a rigid idea of what a female human is?

Notice how you use the word sex when it suits your argument, and then the word gender identity, and then the word belief and personality. No one believes they are a different sex, they know they are a different gender. You are using these words to twist around to fit your ideology about it. I bet you'd find that if you use the words properly as they are defined you will not have any issue understanding it. But I think you don't want to understand it bc as you say you think its a rancid concept and you want it gone which makes you anti trans. Bc anti is opposite or opposed to it. That's you, embrace the title. Also, its not a belief, you don't have the belief that you are a man, you know you are a man. Trans people also feel they know what their gender is. I think it's the traditional gender ideology that's most rigid. 

A woman can behave and be whatever she wants to be.

Except for a man apparently. 

“Gender identity” is a rancid concept, really backwards, and those who embrace it really don’t even realise how retrograde it is.

Actually it's the opposite of retrograde, its progressive. Traditionalism is retrograde as it acts to go back and preserve the pasts values. 

Like a little boy has a gender identity of a girl… what does that mean? I can assure you it means that the boy “behaves” like a girl, likes “girl” toys, etc. Their parents rather have a “trans girl” than an effeminate boy.

It means the boy knows he is a girl. If they want to dress up in girl clothes to match their gender identity then that would be a trans girl. A tom boy isn't a trans for example, as they still like the opposite sex. And so an effeminate boy would also like the opposite sex. So, they are different things. 

2. “here in the US, the insistence that only anatomical females are women is the basis for a lot of anti-trans sentiment, which has materialized into laws and policies denying trans people access to a number of things including gender affirming medical care.” “Affirming care” is a linguistic trick: it does not include psychotherapy to address why somebody may feel they are born in the wrong body (they call that “conversion therapy”. It refers to surgeries and life-long medicalisation of children above all. Blocking puberty with permanent damage to bone density. Puberty is not an optional thing. You must go through it to develop as a fully adult with a fully developed brain, which matures in this transition to adulthood into 25 years of age. This is child abuse. Trans people deserve therapies to understand the underlying causes of their distress, not surgery and big Pharma. We are pro trans people’s well being. 

It's not a linguistic trick it's a statistical fact. Arent conversion therapies done by churches? Many see this as child abuse as well, even trans people who go through the conversion therapy after they are grown up  look back at it and say it was child abuse. And some say its child abuse to deny trans kids the option of gender affirming care as it leads to suicide, depression, self harm and many other dysfunctions. And if you want to know the root cause of their distress it is that society as a whole that does not have a place for them, does not accept them and it's the anti trans traditional gender roles being forced upon them. Its their parents, family and peers rejecting them for who they are. It's these things that make them feel bad about who they are. So, if trans becomes normalized then their mental distress goes away. 

3. An anorexic patient could say the same: that they are denying her affirmative care: stomach reduction surgery, to be her true self: a very thin woman. If you don’t succumb to her wishes, she will commit suicide.

Again, this is a false equivalence. You are comparing a mental disorder that was developed later in life to a non mental disorder and how someone was born.

4. “worms are among the animals that are naturally hermaphroditic” So what? I don’t care about other species. Humans are mammals, not insect. Even insects have only two sexes, like 99,999% of animals of any kind. Even if some few species are hermaphroditic… that means that they can change between TWO sexes. Not more. You bring up bearded dragons as if it was relevant to Homo sapiens species. And then I am the one making wrong comparisons. Humans are not bearded dragons. We know very well that humans are not hermaphroditic or change sex. A woman is not a man who cut off his penis.

I believe it was you who originally brought this topic up, by saying its not natural or that other animals don't switch genders etc. Which means caring about other animals is important bc it suggests that its natural. If it occurs in nature, then its natural. Is what is artificial is your denial of what's natural just because you find it repulsive. Nature doesn't care about your opinions about it. 

Adelle writes:
[To Jason Mathias ]

Yes, the trans issue we oppose is that legally they are the sex they impose other to see them as. If a man with a beard comes to me and insists I call him she, he is infringing my right to perceive him as I find fit. To me he is a man. Full stop. He is an adult and should deal with it. Many people call me old, and I deal with it, I don’t impose them to not call me old. Growing up is part of being an adult. Since when man and women became insults? We use them to designate reality. I am sure you label people men and woman as you perceive them to be. It is a basic cognitive operation that children do automatically.

 

You are not responding to my claim. You are strawmannirg again. I am no conservative and this is not about abortion rights. In fact, I am a leftist disappointed with part of the left into this identity politics. I see women’s rights being undermined: we lost abortion rights, and now they are erasing the concept of women. They give prizes to men as the “woman” of the year, they make articles about such and such “women” CEO, which are male, recently the top 100 females in science included three males. We have men competing in women’s sports, damaging our sports to appease to male’s feelings. You don’t say anything about males in women’s prisons either. You are complicit. You support men’s rights, and you are anti-women.

 

So you think a male that ids as a woman should participate in female sports. So if Michael Phelps identified as a woman, it should be fine to have him destroy our sports.

 

2.  You confuse gender identity with sexual orientation, they are not the same thing and this makes me think that you are not ready for any type of argument. Gender identity is whether you are a man or woman. Sexual orientation is towards which sex you are attracted to.

 

Yes, gender is an identity, not sex, but they want their biological sex changed. Don’t you see the problem? They can have the gender identity they like, but that shouldn’t have anything to do with sex changing in your official documents. Otherwise you see the statistics of female rapists rise as we are seeing. It messes statistics. Or females having prostate cancer.

 

You said if I had “the personality of a female”, wouldn't you want to dress like a female, and wouldn't you want the freedom to do so just like everyone else has”. This is rancid as hell. “what if you were a female born in your male body“. That is nonsense. You believe that people can be born in wrong bodies. And you believe that “female” and “male” are personalities. Those are biological realities of an organism, not personalities. Whether I am a female or male, I have already the freedom to dress as I wish. You make no sense. Those rights people have already! Men are not prohibited to dress or behave as they like! You see the ignorance of your question? That is the problem: gender stereotypes, like the ones you describe: eg., if a little girl doesn’t conform with gender expectations, she will be doubted nowadays, and ask if she is really a boy, confusing the child.

 

(Trans) People can already dress as they wish, like anybody else! You are lying if you think they are not allowed to dress as they want.

Women and men can dress as they want. Those rights exist already. Nobody should be discriminated for behaving or dressing in a way that is not stereotypicall.

 

3.  Then identifying as a different age, or ethnicity, or identifying as a vegan, even if you are not, but what the heck, I identify as such because I like vegans, or Black people.

 

The brain the largest sex organ? :DDD That is a reductio ad absurdum, because by your logic the brain is the largest anything organ in the body: the largest breathing organ because without the brain your lungs don’t function, it is the largest digesting organ, because without the brain your stomach doesn’t work…  your brain if the largest heart organ, because the heart doesn’t work without the brain.

 

Age and sex are similar: they are set by biology. We agree that gender and sex are not the same thing, so then female sports should be for females (sex = female), not males. And sex cannot be changed. A male who cuts his penis is not less of a male. And definitely not a female.

4. “A trans woman is not the same things as some harry dude in disguise dressed up as a women”. How can you tell if you only have their sacred word? There are many males who identify as woman and do not change their appearance. You are deluded. This week in Spain a “trans woman” went to a supermarket and was called “gentleman” and reported the supermarket for “transphobia”. You should have seen this bloke: he was a bloke. He did only wore a skirt, but he had a beard. So there you have it. Many more examples you can find online.´

7. “We all started out as female in the womb, so in a way we are hermaphrodites”. In a way, huh? You are laughable. Hermaphrodite (/hərˈmæfrəˌdaɪt/) is a sexually reproducing organism that produces both male and female gametes. Learn the definition. Humans are not hermaphrodite. Don’t use cheap sophistry. You are insulting the reader’s intelligence.

Adelle writes:
[To Jason Mathias ]

Definitions are exclusionary by nature. An apple does not include oranges.

There are material reality’s we should be able to name and acknowledge.

Do you then suggest that woman meaning any female stereotype is a better definition to be able to communicate better and achieve equality?

Vacuing the content of woman as “anybody who identifies as one” is an attempt against all logic. It is called circular reasoning.

 

What does it mean you “feel” like you re that gender? That you identify with all the stereotypes? Because being a woman is just being born female. How can one identify as “female” if one is not female? Can I say that I identify as Black because I feel  like I am a different ethnicity, like Rachel Doleful?

 

I merely see that men with a gender identity = woman, want their sex changed from male to female. This is nuts.

People confuse gender and sex all the time. They talk about gender identity but then they want their legal biological sex changed.

I have nothing against people having their woo-woo gender identity, like their religion, if they feel like it.

If you want to have a different category in the passport as “gender identity” go for it. But biological sex should not be changed upon gender identity or be conflated with it., because they are different things. That is our opposition.

 

Men and woman can have the personality they want, a man can wear makeup, skirts, whatever, be feminine, date other men. That does not make him less of a man or a woman.

That is the regressive thinking of nowadays. Men with those feels identify as women, as if women are reduced to a set of behaviours and cliches.

 

Believing that your brain is male or female is traditional and retrograde. Having boys mutilate their body parts because they feel feminine… it’s an atrocity, and time will judge us for this.

 

“It means the boy knows he is a girl”. You see? It’s all about stereotypes. If the boy wants to dress with dresses, let him be himself! You are saying that those desires are what make him a girl?

That is really sexist. A tomboy is precisely what many girls are, onto whom this gender identity of a boy is imposed onto. Let the girls be masculine if they want to without making them doubt about being born in the wrong body, that is child abuse.

 

Anorexic kids also want to commit suicide if you don’t allow them to get what they want: lose weight.

Body Disphoric children want their arms amputated or legs, otherwise they will commit suicide. We support them with psychotherapy, not by amputating their limbs.

Recently a woman wanted to be blind and a doctor burned her eyes so she could be her true self.

I guess you support that.

 

“You are comparing a mental disorder that was developed later in life to a non mental disorder and how someone was born.” You are assuming that gender dysphoria is not a mental distress. Gender dysphoria is a mental distress. It is obvious: you suffer because you do not feel you belong to your body.  I study gender dysphoria  and both populations anorexic and gender dysphoric exhibit same brain anomalies in an area of the brain for self-perception and self-image. Their idea of self is distorted. With therapy, this mental distress heals, and they recognise what their true self is: males or females. It is really funny that to be your “true” self you gotta spend millions on surgery and big Pharma drugs. Way to be authentic!

I bet poor people can’t afford to be “authentic”.

 

 

 

“I believe it was you who originally brought this topic up, by saying its not natural or that other animals don't switch genders etc” I mentioned it because we can compare ourselves with other mammals, not insects. In fact, most science is based on animal models to draw conclusions applicable to humans. In any case, your example was preposterous. At least if you want to make a fair comparison don’t compare us with reptiles or bacteria, compare us with other mammals. And mammals are not hermaphrodites. The remarkable thing is that you haven’t counter argued any of my points. You continue your ideological position.

 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

Yeah, they're arguing over definitions, not logical form. The real question is how to properly define 'woman'. Each side will simply offer a definition that covers their bases while excluding their opponents'.

Jason Mathias writes:
[To TrappedPrior (RotE)]

Does this mean a woman is not definable? Nature is very blurry, grey and wiggly. I'm pretty sure science can't even define what life is for this reason. 

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Jason Mathias ]

Well, like with most charged terms, the definition of 'woman' is going to be deeply contested. If you consider definition to be like casting a net, there's always the risk that the net we toss is not wide enough to catch everything we want.

Jason Mathias writes:

Very strange indeed. However, I think that we know what women are. I think that a large group of people are grossed out by the sight of trans people, and so due to that bias and desire for them to go away they use motivated reasoning to come up with their black and white definition of what a women is. Where as the other side I think have a bias towards including and accepting everyone, that everyone should be free to be who they are and that in turn can cause a bias that supports their definitions. 

Adelle writes:

Everybody is free to behave and be who they want to be, but you cannot be what you are not. I cannot be Black if I am white. A man cannot be a woman even if he desires so. It is just not possible. We can't be younger even if we want to be. These are impossible desires. We are not grossed out by transpeople, we just believe that people cannot change sex. Full stop. They can believe to be what they want, but they cannot impose onto us a reality that to us is fiction.

David Blomstrom writes:

Agreed. Humans are either male, female, or hermaphroditic. One cannot honestly claim to be man or woman if they're the latter.

Jason Mathias writes:

I had the same thought, which is why I suspected it to be logically sound. But I think A or in this case woman is a little more subjective than A. The ambiguity might be the issue. 

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jason Mathias ]

The definition of A in this context is not subjective. In all cases, you must define A.

Jason Mathias writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

Yes, I know. A is definitely not subjective, but woman is. That's all I was trying to say. 

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jason Mathias ]

Most of us understand a woman to be an adult female human.

Jason Mathias writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

Using black and white stage 1 thinking for purpose of ease yes. But, when looking at the more complex details and anomalies there are many exceptions and variables. 

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jason Mathias ]

"there are many exceptions and variables" TO WHAT?

Jason Mathias writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

To what a woman is. 

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Jason Mathias ]

Correct, now, if the definition of a woman is not agreed upon by the participants in the discussion, then you need to provide a definition all agree upon. Otherwise, you are stuck at the starting point.

Adelle writes:

Woman is an adult human female. That is the definition. 

"A woman is a woman, anything else is NOT a woman" is CIRCULAR REASONING.

You can't include the term you aim to define in the definition.

That is what the transmovement does: "a woman is somebody who identifies as a woman".

You say nothing about yourself.

There is no criteria.

A female is the sex category whose developmental pathway is designed for the production of large gametes.

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Adelle]

I understand you to say that A is A and anything else is not A is circular reasoning. The statement appears to be Aristotle’s Law of Identity. It states that everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular, and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is.

Restated: The Law of Identity states that which is, is what it is. A thing is itself. A is A. Not to possess an identity, not to possess a nature, not to be anything in particular means: not to be anything, which means: not to exist. To be, is to be something. 

But circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) occurs when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with. I don’t see circular reasoning here. Perhaps you can explain it to me. 

Kaiden writes:

[To Dr. Richard]

Adelle may be too busy, so here’s what I’ll offer because I see what she means. 

Firstly, you and Adelle are talking about different subject matters. You, Dr. Richard, are talking about things themselves. Whereas, Adelle is talking about words’ dictionary definitions. Adelle is saying, I think, that for the word “woman” to mean “a woman, and anything else is not a woman” sends you right back to asking what the word “woman” means. It as if you look up the definition of the word, yet must proceed to look it up. 

But right, there is no circular reasoning (the definition does not have a premise and conclusion.) I think Adelle wants to say that the fallacy committed is circular definition. 

Kaiden writes:

[To Adelle]

Yes, that is correct in cases I have so far seen. Inspired by your exchange with Jason, I looked for interviews with transgender proponents this past week and came to learn about Matt Walsh and his interviews and discussions with transgenders and professional educators. The first interview I watched with him was his exchange with Dr. Grzanka and it reflected basically your comment. According to his bio, “Patrick R. Grzanka is a professor in the Department of Psychology and Chair of the Interdisciplinary Program in Women, Gender, and Sexuality at the University of Tennessee's flagship campus in Knoxville.” Here is how the interview finished in the video I saw.

Matt: So, you want to answer questions about women’s studies and so, the first answer you should be able to provide is what exactly is a woman.

Dr. Grzanka: Well, it’s, for me, it’s actually a really simple answer and that’s a person who identifies as a woman.

Matt: But what are they identifying as?

Dr. Grzanka: As a woman.

Matt: But what is that? 

Dr. Grzanka, Chair of the Interdisciplinary Program in Women, Gender, and Sexuality at the University of Tennessee: As a woman.

[which doesn’t make even grammatical sense as an answer] 

Matt: Do you know what a circular definition is? 

Dr. Grzanka: I do. 

Matt: It’s sort of like what you’re doing right now, “a woman is: ‘a woman’.”

Dr. Grzanka: Well, ‘cause you’re seeking what we would call in my field of work an essentialist definition of gender. I think it sounds like you would like me to give you a set of biological or cultural characteristics that are associated with one gender or the other.

Matt : I’m not seeking any type of definition, I’m just seeking a definition. 

Dr. Grzanka: Yeah and I gave you one. 

[END]

Notice that even pertaining to any cultural characteristics the professor still did not provide an informative answer on what a woman is. Which, moreover, makes me wonder why gender is bothered to be regarded as cultural if you’re not even going to say in what way culture designates a woman in our culture in which people are saying that they are women, especially when the question is put plainly to you during a famous speaker’s video interview.

And all the other real transgenders and real educators and communicators in transgenderism that I’ve so far seen address Matt’s direct question give the same kind of uninformative answer. (Apparently he is famous for this line of questioning.)

It is fallacious, Adelle, yes. But the fallacy is circular definition, not circular reasoning. I will let Dr. Richard know on your behalf as to what fallacy you meant, if that’s fine (or perhaps you think I’m wrong), since you don’t seem to be responding to him but he looks like he could use an explanation of what went down in your exchange with him.

It’s interesting to point out that broadcasted transgenders and their supporters in the education system are rather circular in the way that the OP makes it seem that the anti-trans people are.