Barfknuckle
No bio...
User ID: 3537
Barfknuckle
3d ago
For my part, given the topics involved and the kinds of people insisting it's Very Important, I'm pretty much willing to let my assumptions ride. I'm not turning off my pattern recognition ability because you think it's unfair.
I say: "my technical definition of woman is [someone who calls herself a woman]"
This isn't a technical definition somehow on par with the biological definition, both equally in need of context. It's completely meaningless noise. It conveys no information at all. If this is really all you have, then the critics are right and you have no actual definition.
When this is pointed out you gesture vaguely at a bunch of other attributes, but when put on the spot about whether these attributes then constitute your actual definition the answer is apparently no.
You've spent a week and umpteen words on the question and all you have to show for it are a "technical definition" that means absolutely nothing and a bunch of social attributes that you won't even put your foot down and claim as definitional.
You want a man who puts on a dress to be called a woman but don't actually want to define a woman as someone wearing a dress, so we get incoherence instead.
The symmetrical counterargument could easily be levied against someone defending the "a woman is someone with XX chromosomes" definition
No, it really couldn't. That's an actual non-circular definition that refers to attributes external to itself. You can successfully hang a bunch of non-definitional context on to it, if you want, because it has something there to hold it up. People who use it aren't left claiming that the context somehow is the definition, but oops not really, the way you are.
There's a reason the tide has turned on this issue.
Barfknuckle
5d ago
If that's the point @stolen_brawnze was trying to make then it's some pretty Reddit-tier cope. There's plenty of information on the significant and lasting damage done to the Bud Light brand. The line could have gone up during the boycott if InBev were doing good enough things in other areas, but that wouldn't change the extent of the punishment they received.
I wouldn't tell either of them they're full of crap, no. Again, I think self-identification can be the ultimate hard boundary while not being the only salient point. Being a woman is strongly correlated with certain features, even though the presence or absence of any one of these features isn't make-or-break.
If the presence or absence of even all other features put together cannot contradict self-identification, then those other attributes are not actually part of your definition. You literally and specifically define gender by self-identification and self-identification only.
There's no "cluster of attributes" that people may or may not "correlate" to, where the "presence or absence of any one" may or may not be salient. There's only one attribute, self-identification, that actually matters to you.
But that sounds bad and obviously circular, so we have to hear about all these other features even though the lack of them, even all of them, doesn't actually change anything. It's empty sophistry.
Frankly, I don't see why this is supposed to be some great defeater to my view
Because you guys are here to tell the rest of us that our definitions are somehow lacking or outdated, but when we ask for yours we're subjected to nonsense like @HaroldWilson trying to tell us words don't need to have meanings, or you listing all the other attributes that supposedly define a gender even though lacking all of them apparently doesn't actually matter.
But if a gender-critical colloquially tells me, "oh, by the way, the person you're going to meet for that business lunch is a woman", they obviously mean to communicate more than "stripped naked and put under a microscope, you can tell she's a biological female".
Yeah there's the definition of X, and then there are other attributes that aren't definitional to X but may or may not be true in a given case. What's the problem? A coherent view of X still has a definition that includes some examples, excludes others, and isn't self-referentially circular.
Barfknuckle
6d ago
Can you put this information into some sort of context?
Barfknuckle
6d ago
Pardon me for responding to this a second time in order to ping your notifications, but out of everything said in this exchange this seems very salient:
Now imagine two people identical in anatomy and behavior. Say that both have vaginas and XX chromosomes, but are super butch and engage in absolutely no stereotypical feminine behaviors. One self-identifies as a man, and the other as a woman.
Are you willing to tell either of them that they're full of crap?
If not, then the bottom line is that self-identification really is your only actual criteria, everything else is just the usual hand-waving, and you're back to telling me a blorb is a blorb.
I'm quite curious whether you're willing to tell either of them that they're full of crap. If you'll never contradict sincere self-identification under any circumstance then it really is the only thing that actually matters to you.
Barfknuckle
8d ago
I just want to make sure you know the lack of response to DTulpa was noted.
You could always go back up and respond to DTulpa. He was quite descriptive. Seriously, if you're going to pretend not to know these things and stand around going "Progressives against religion? Whaaat?" then it's hard to see the point.
Barfknuckle
9d ago
Last I checked, being discriminatory towards religion wasn't in the progressive handbook.
If you're going to pretend you're from another planet, you aren't worth talking to.
Barfknuckle
9d ago
This is itself a position. When I said 'scheme' I didn't mean a literal definition of woman, I mean a more expansive view of language as a series of context-dependent games. 'Female' and 'adult' themselves have context dependent clusters of meanings, and are not 0/1 binaries. Efforts to nail it down are always doomed.
No other ideology I'm aware of resorts to this sort of hogwash when challenged on basic terminology. It's the hallmark of an intellectually derelict movement.
If someone claims to be goth despite the fact that they look and dress like a Mormon, have a cheerful disposition, and listen to nothing but smooth jazz, I'm going to consider them full of crap. The definition might be fuzzy around the edges, but it isn't meaningless, and there is a point at which someone's self-identification becomes irrelevant.
Now imagine two people identical in anatomy and behavior. Say that both have vaginas and XX chromosomes, but are super butch and engage in absolutely no stereotypical feminine behaviors. One self-identifies as a man, and the other as a woman.
Are you willing to tell either of them that they're full of crap?
If not, then the bottom line is that self-identification really is your only actual criteria, everything else is just the usual hand-waving, and you're back to telling me a blorb is a blorb.
tldr: "Keith is goth" clearly means something, even though it doesn't actually tell you any specific thing about what Keith is like besides identifying as goth. (You might think it likely that he wears a lot of black clothing; but he might not! Similarly, if I say "Alice is a woman", it's reasonable to suspect that she has tits, but then again, maybe not.)
If I ask someone for a definition of the word goth, I expect them to produce something containing at least some actual attributes that I can compare with actual people in order to determine whether it applies. What I don't expect is for them to contort themselves in order to give a "definition" that contains absolutely no actual terms whatsoever, as you've done here.
The transgender movement clearly has some definition of the word "woman" that means something. People are comparing themselves to some set of attributes in order to determine that their identity is expressed by the word "woman" and not "man" or "blorb" or "fish" or anything else.
But apparently the nature of that actual practiced definition is some kind of secret that its advocates refuse to divulge even when loudly challenged on the matter for years on end. Kind of crazy, isn't it? I mean people might disagree vehemently with... say... Marxists or anarcho-capitalists, but at least those people don't start doing a desperate semantic tap dance the moment someone asks them what words like labor or property mean.
If you object "but then saying 'So-and-so is a woman' doesn't tell you anything else about that person besides this one bit of trivia about how they self-identify" I will yeschad.jpg you.
How do they know whether or not they "identify" as a "woman" if that particular word isn't associated with any actual characteristics? You've reduced it to a meaningless noise. If you tell me you're a blorb and when I ask you what that means, you tell me it's anyone who says they're a blorb, you haven't conveyed any information.
I guess the definition that transgender people are actually using, the set of characteristics they compare themselves to in order to determine if this particular word describes their "identity" or not, is... what, a secret nobody needs to know?
Typical nonsense answer on your part, and clearly not a "definition" actually being used by anyone on any side. The one trans people actually employ to make decisions remains unspoken for another day. What a surprise.
Barfknuckle
10d ago
Then why don't you provide such a scheme?
Seconding this challenge. The left has collectively choked to death on the "what is a woman" meme and failed to even articulate any sort of attempt at an answer. Every single time I've ever deployed it anywhere I've gotten a bunch of circular logic and hand-waving in response, and nothing of substance.
Barfknuckle
11d ago
There's a difference between this and "it becomes omniscient somehow" and other rationalist religious exclamations.
Barfknuckle
12d ago
If you abandon Simulacrum Level 1, you might win or lose, but to a proponent of the truth it will not matter more than it would matter to an atheist which religion won the memetic competition and established a theocracy.
In other words a whole lot, depending on how each religion feels about burning atheists at the stake.
Barfknuckle
19d ago
My theory is that pretty much any country under nearly any circumstances is going to perceive a rival military alliance expanding to its border as a threat to its security.
Barfknuckle
20d ago
Many of those same wrongthinkers also had very low IQ estimates for places like Malaysia (and, a couple of decades earlier, even China) that genuinely have seen huge economic development and increases in population prosperity since then, though.
Okay, but so what? Is some of that incorrectness going to rub off on South Africa and reverse its inevitable decline into shitholery? All this tells me is that it's possible to refute the wrongthinkers, but some groups just don't seem capable of doing so.
Barfknuckle
20d ago
And once the US "understands" this, then what? They decide actually thousands of Chinese troops on their border are just dandy? They stop moving any of their own forces around in reaction, and invite China to send over a million more just for fun?
there's no answer to this question that's going to stop the US from perceiving it as a threat, and that's the point.
If you think taking actions Russia would view as threatening is a good idea because they're warmongering bullies who need to be kept in check then fine, but own it. Stop acting like it's crazy that anyone would view having your happy funtime soldiers on their border as a security concern.
Barfknuckle
20d ago
My purpose isn't to steelman Russia's military policy, it's to push back at the ridiculous notion that no one has any reason to view your Defensive Friendship Legions marching along their border as threatening.
Barfknuckle
21d ago
I understand neither the preceding comment, nor this one apparently agreeing with it. Thirty years ago wrongthinkers all knew that South Africa was a generation or two away from becoming Just Another African Shithole, and they've been very visibly proven correct on that point.
Where's the need for rehabilitation? Where even is the substantial disagreement? Is anyone out there still hopeful for the future of the Rainbow Nation? I was under the impression that we had long since reached the point where the forces of goodness and tolerance mumble some excuses and look away.
Barfknuckle
21d ago
I'm not unable to understand anything. So you are telling me if NATO drops its defenses in eastern Europe, Russia will become less threatening? Is this what you mean?
I'm saying they would perceive less threat, which may or may not be a good thing depending upon the circumstances. If you think being perceived as threatening is important to keeping a bully in line then just say so, but spare me the feigned indignity that anyone could ever consider your troops on their border a security issue.
Barfknuckle
21d ago
In the hypothetical where the PRC are invited to the Canadian side of the border: what happened that lead to that point?
Who gives a damn? Unless the hypothetical is "the PRC and the US have become best friends and the troops are just there to blow kisses" there's no answer to this question that's going to stop the US from perceiving it as a threat, and that's the point.
Barfknuckle
21d ago
The last point is the most important to me. Russia and most of the pro-Trump side justify the invasion by saying that Russia feels threatened by NATO and has no other way to protect itself. I think this is bullshit, and the only reason Russia feels threatened by NATO is because it protects countries it wants to invade. If Russia and Trump are right, then Russia should become less aggressive if NATO is less threatening. If Europe and I are right, Russia should become more aggressive if NATO is less threatening.
If you're unable to understand why adding a border nation with a substantial army to a rival military alliance could be perceived as threatening or otherwise unacceptable by Russia, or any given country, then your model of the world is woefully inadequate. Imagine the PRC pulling Canada into its orbit and stationing Chinese troops on the border of North Dakota.
I get this constant vibe, not necessarily just around here but also when discussing this subject elsewhere, this sense of "Why would anyone consider us someone to defend against? We're the heckin' good guys!" and it just feels so out of touch.
Because it literally doesn't mean anything. When people ask for your definition of woman you're functionally just making animal noises and then acting surprised that people say you don't have one.
You genuinely don't have one. You've said as much. You've compared the word to proper nouns that convey no attributes. When someone says you can't define the word woman you should just tell them they're right and that you think that's okay. Maybe you don't want to come off as some kind of crazy gender abolitionist, but that's the bed you've made for yourself by refusing to assign any traits to them.
And when everyone rolls their eyes at your personal rendition of "words don't have to have meanings" and considers the meme lived up to, that's your problem too.
Even a substantial majority of Dem voters don't want them in the women's locker room, and since the election the leadership has started to catch on that this isn't a winning issue. The progressive lock on the internet that let them get this far in the first place was an aberration that has now ended.
More options
Context Copy link