I am an elderly man. I cannot understand transgender ideology ...

9toenails · 2020-12-28T09:11:12+00:00

... I think this is because it is incomprehensible. It is not possible to understand something that does not make sense. Given what 'transwoman' means, 'transwomen are women' is analytically false (^sc.^ logically contradictory) if 'women' means 'women', and plainly nonsensical if 'women' is taken to mean something other than 'women'. Confused about what 'women' means? Well, think of your mother; she was certainly a woman. The mother of my children, she is a woman, as is the mother of any human child; likewise my grown-up daughters. All of them, women. Knowledge of the meaning of such a common word as 'women' is not, as they say, rocket science, at least for a native English speaker. Do transgender ideologues themselves understand their own claims? No, they do not, at least if they sincerely try to assert 'transwomen are women'. 'Transwomen are women' just cannot be true. At best it can be analytically false; more likely it makes no sense. I know many such ideologues are very young. Still, though, it strains credulity to think they have no inkling of their own lack of understanding. Why, then, do they keep up their nonsense rather than trying to learn? It would seem we are forced to consider more-or-less nefarious motives. Such as ... ? Can anyone help me out here?

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 31/12/2020 21:39

The trouble is, I love the language, and I love playing with the language, and it makes me really quite cross when people deliberately abuse it.

Defaultname · 31/12/2020 21:11

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

One might reasonably assert that "all women are men" if one held to the tradition calling the human race "men" (or "mankind"); but I can't see that "all men are women" would be valid, and I cannot see that replacing "all" in that proposition with "some" would increase the validity.

Both male and female bovines are cattle (or kine or neats); male ones are called "bulls", or if they are castrated called "bullocks" or "oxen" or "steers", and female ones are called cows or heifers. "A bull is a cow" is a nonsense, as much as "a cow is a bull".

(I have no idea what sort of bovine is a dogie, though I suspect it's another word for steers.)

If you change the meanings of words, as Humpty Dumpty did, you can say anything you want and it can be made to seem sensible with enough word-wrangling. Colourless green ideas sleep furiously, after all: that is grammatically correct, but semantically nonsensical.

A maverick is an animal, usually a form of cattle, that does not carry a brand.[ It is a word also used to describe a person who acts free from constrains or from organizational guidelines. ....Other analogous U.S. terms include slick, hairy dick. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrangler_(profession)

It follows (and I never thought I'd say this) that a hairy dick can be male or female

Blibbyblobby · 31/12/2020 21:09

@HecatesCats

TWAW thing is a rabbit hole that's sucking attention away from what matters.

Isn't that deliberate?

Yes.

HecatesCats · 31/12/2020 19:44

TWAW thing is a rabbit hole that's sucking attention away from what matters.

Isn't that deliberate?

BernardBlackMissesLangCleg · 31/12/2020 19:37

Arguing about definitions is a mugs game when we are really just interested in meaning

true. And EVERYONE KNOWS what 'woman' and 'man' mean. they really do, even the ones who pretend they don't

If I'm wondering what sex a person is, I just ask myself what I'd do if they approached me and said they'd started bleeding from their genitals

hand them a tampon - woman
call an ambulance - man

everyone knows what a woman is

Blibbyblobby · 31/12/2020 18:34

What is wrong with 'transwomen are women' is not that its advocates are over-endowed with theory partially digested; it is that they are silly. The best way of dealing with silly arguments in or out of the philosophy class is to point out their silliness. Taking a theoretical stance rarely helps with this. Common sense is needed.

I'm as gender-critical as the next adult human female but I really take exception to this approach. Women, the AHF type, have suffered greatly in history from the codification of incorrect and limiting beliefs about us as "Common Sense" and women who challenge them as "Silly". A hundred and fifty years ago the idea that women are the intellectual equals of men and should have the same rights would have flown entirely against common sense and be considered the silliest of ideas. The same could have be said at various times about the working classes, the Irish, gay people, people who are not white, Catholics and most of the French. Common Sense exists, but in practice it is very often a fig leaf for the beliefs of the dominant class so I am suspicious of any argument that appeals to it.

Oh, and I reiterate my point about definition. Arguing about definitions is a mugs game when we are really just interested in meaning (and hence use).

That I entirely agree with. I actually think the whole TWAW thing is a rabbit hole that's sucking attention away from what matters. I don't need to get sucked into a debate about what the word Woman means, I can use the changed language to say Transwomen are Women with Male privilege, and therefore don't need the protections and laws that counteract Male privilege. There will always be a way to say this, because the reality of sexed bodies and sex-based socialisation is always there.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 31/12/2020 15:11

One might reasonably assert that "all women are men" if one held to the tradition calling the human race "men" (or "mankind"); but I can't see that "all men are women" would be valid, and I cannot see that replacing "all" in that proposition with "some" would increase the validity.

Both male and female bovines are cattle (or kine or neats); male ones are called "bulls", or if they are castrated called "bullocks" or "oxen" or "steers", and female ones are called cows or heifers. "A bull is a cow" is a nonsense, as much as "a cow is a bull".

(I have no idea what sort of bovine is a dogie, though I suspect it's another word for steers.)

If you change the meanings of words, as Humpty Dumpty did, you can say anything you want and it can be made to seem sensible with enough word-wrangling. Colourless green ideas sleep furiously, after all: that is grammatically correct, but semantically nonsensical.

FWRLurker · 31/12/2020 14:41

There is some slipperyness to this, philosophical formal logic may not be the correct approach because the issue is definitional, not logical. I am not a philosopher but I believe this is a problem of epistemology (knowledge/truth) and metaphysics (nature of reality), as well as ethics/politics philosophy of course.

Trans activists would like to change the definition of the word “woman” to be the following concept: “anyone who claims to be one”. The justification for this is from what I can see purely based on a point of view deriving from certain branches of ethics which elevate personal definition/choice over all other ethical concerns. It’s also completely unmoored from any materialist metaphysics, or rather rejects these as of any importance to peoples lives. It’s probably best therefore to approach this conversation from an ethical POV. Though certainly I think that some philosophers have done a fantastic job of hammering this POV from a metaphysical perspective, it doesn’t matter much if the entire field of material metaphysics is a priori declared unethical.

TyroTerf · 31/12/2020 12:50

It's only logical if you have a non biologically based definition of woman.

We've been asking for one of those for quite some time, to no avail.

Male Xs are Xs - yes, fine, perfectly logical, except when the definition of X includes 'female' as both a necessary and sufficient condition.

'Male females are female' is nonsensical. It's like saying 'male cows are cows' - the word for male cattle is bull, not cow, and so there's an error in the first two words: if it is male, it is not a cow; if it is a cow, it is not male.

FelicityMingington · 31/12/2020 11:37

Hello @9toenails

Well this thread is an education! And sorry for not replying earlier to your detailed reply to my previous post (your post 28/12/2020 15:42).

So, similarly, as I said, ' Given what 'transwoman' means, 'transwomen are women' is analytically false (sc. logically contradictory) if 'women' means 'women', and plainly nonsensical if 'women' is taken to mean something other than 'women'.

Does this count as 'demolish[ing] by semantic logical syllogisms'? I cannot be sure (what do you mean by 'semantic logical syllogism'?); and 'demolishing' is maybe a bit strong for such a simple demonstration. I stand by what I said, though. I think it correct.

Do you understand? Or do you still think me mistaken? If so, where am I going wrong, in your opinion?

I cannot begin to argue with you on logic, although I think I understand it. However I stick to my view that you cannot disprove trans ideology by logic. It is not illogical. It (as I understand it) would define a transwoman as a man who has become a woman. Or possibly someone who always was a woman and was mistakenly labelled a man. In which case 'transwomen are women' is correct.

You can question the science (and the substance). But the logic of the statement seems flawless to me, and your argument seems to me to be abstract and purely formal.

MrsWooster · 31/12/2020 10:42

An amazing thread. I’m with Spud and Rufus in the bewilderment but am reading slowly with my finger under the words-faint, but pursuing.

I am also astounded that the usual posters who come and assert their gender ideologies on every thread on FWR are absent...

bornatXmastobequiet · 30/12/2020 14:07

A religious upbringing taught me that there’s no nonsense that can’t be rationalised by someone prepared to put effort and linguistic skill into it.
Consequently I have very low tolerance for this stuff.

CatsCantCatchChristmas2 · 30/12/2020 13:57

Great thread. Thanks for taking the time OP.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 30/12/2020 12:51

I am occasionally surprised by how much the argument of some random Trump supporter about some random thing reminds me of this.

TyroTerf · 30/12/2020 12:35

We all understand do we not? the words involved here: 'masculine', 'feminine', 'male', 'female', 'man', 'woman'.

D'you know, I'm not so sure about this.

You never really hear the pro-trans side talking about masculinity and femininity. They have masc (meaning dresses in man-clothes and believes is a man) and femme (dresses in girl-clothes and believes is a woman) but I doubt many of them could give a coherent definition of masculine and feminine.

Probably in large part because those words demonstrate the silliness.

Male and female are sexes, masculine and feminine are genders, and anyone can see that a feminine male is clearly not a woman. So they've abandoned the idea that masculine and feminine are genders, and replaced with male and female as genders.

Malahaha · 30/12/2020 11:51

sorry, posted too soon. First sentence should be in quotes from fifteentoes. ^^

Malahaha · 30/12/2020 11:51

There's an awful lot going on in the world like that at the moment. Maybe trans ideology is a natural part of the zeitgeist.
I recently read the following (longish) article, which helps explain ithe phenomenon. The comments are also very good.

newdiscourses.com/2020/12/university-woke-mission-field-dissident-womens-studies-phd-speaks-out/?fbclid=IwAR2uXSrWPNOwIeL0ERSSKnkIuYOsxZeCy4vrC6rjBcu5sh6Sit2GxmTxQ-E

Malahaha · 30/12/2020 11:48

Just popping in to say what a wonderful ending to the "I am a young feminist" thread! Absolutely perfect, and very MNish.

FifteenToes · 30/12/2020 10:52

@ nauticant -

An important thing to understand is that much of gender identity ideology is based on things that are not true and this lack of truth sets its adherents free. The ideology works like a religion and it requires faith, not facts. This means that supporters of the ideology will say anything, irrespective of its truth, to gain an advantage in an argument. Even if it contradicts something they said moments ago.

Facts don't matter. Logic doesn't matter. Consistency doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is belief.

There's an awful lot going on in the world like that at the moment. Maybe trans ideology is a natural part of the zeitgeist.

merrymouse · 30/12/2020 10:40

You know the Serenity Prayer:

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference."

Well this ideology is the opposite.

Original poster

9toenails · 30/12/2020 10:32

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

I think we need to start from the basis that there is a difference in kind between "female" and "feminine", and between "male" and "masculine".

"Female" and "male" are biological, in all cases; some individuals may be a combination of both, or may be neither, but all cases of female or male are defined by their biology.

"Feminine" and "masculine" are performative, and can be said of actions performed by anyone of either female or male sex.

Thus weightlifting is perceived in general as a masculine performance, nurturing in general as a feminine performance. Females can weight-lift, males can nurture, but they perception of the activities is of feminine and masculine.

Male people who for whatever reason strongly wish to be female find that performative femininity is not satisfactory to them, and wish actually to become female. They cannot do this, but they want very much to be acknowledged as female (except where this is not convenient, as eg nursing the elderly, deferring at all times to the male, being paid less for the same work as a male, and so forth). Hence their assertion that what is not fact, is fact. Similarly females who long to be male wish to be told that they are male.

All the rest stems from that desire: it is what used to be called "crying for the moon".

This looks about right. I am a little wary of 'difference in kind', though; sometimes talk of 'kinds' may be taken the wrong way, I think.

We all understand do we not? the words involved here: 'masculine', 'feminine', 'male', 'female', 'man', 'woman'. Those of us with mother-tongue English certainly do, at least.

Part of this understanding involves the knowledge that, for instance, 'a feminine man' makes sense, whereas 'a female man' or 'a male woman' is nonsense. This is a semantic point it is about what these words mean. To labour this a little, 'a male woman' is nonsense because the way we use these words rules out such a conjunction 'male woman' is, we might say, a contradiction in terms, given what 'male' and 'woman' mean.

There is no need to get into any science or metaphysics about any of this. All we need is to know English. And, perhaps, faced with someone tying themselves into knots about men turning into women and the like, an appropriate response might be simply to remind them of their knowledge of their mother tongue, rather than demanding peer-reviewed references or whatever for their nonsensical claims.

.
.
.

[ And that (said John) is that. This thread is about played out. Shorter than the thread which occasioned it, that one by the self-styled 'young feminist' claiming not to understand, but I hope anyway less goading at least in intent. Thanks for all your responses and encouragements. Keep up the good fight. I return to my ('Childcare') Bubble. (Childcare in its contemporary manifestations brought me to MN a while back for hints for looking after the most recent generation of offspring; still here now and then for, well, this sort of thing I guess.)]

OP posts:

NaturalBlondeYeahRight · 29/12/2020 17:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BrassicaRabbit · 29/12/2020 17:13

Late to this enjoyable thread. I especially liked

Do transgender ideologues know English? The English ones surely do. So we have the right to just ask them, off the bat as it were (without opening the OED or whatever), what on earth they think they mean by 'transwomen are women', given that this is either self-contradictory or meaningless.

I always wonder why these idealogues get away with only messing with some words and not others. I have just been reading a rather sweet piece in the Guardian by an author who has vehemently stated elsewhere she believes TWAW. The piece wasn't anything to do with trans and I liked it. But at the same time as reading it I have a little commentary running in my head. I notice that the thread of her story hangs off various nouns and would fall apart were the meaning of those nouns to be messed with. The article, it being commissioned and the author being paid, relies upon our shared understanding of the language she writes in, including various nouns. Why is it OK for her to mess with "women" but assume we share the same understanding of all the other words she needs to use?

Original poster

9toenails · 29/12/2020 16:16

Yes, CaraDuneRedux, a bit of common sense goes a long way.

But we should beware of 'instinctive reactions', I think; sometimes people's instincts are right, but equally sometimes they are wrong -- witness the popular instinctive move from 'only women have periods' to 'so you say those who have no periods are not women?' and so on. And the instinctive 'Let us be kind ' does seem to lie behind much current nonsense

The answer to poor logic as you say, would seem not to be a dose of theory. My experience (with young people anyway) was always that theoretical knowledge could quite easily co-exist with crazy fallacious thinking. (And, yes, of course there are grown-ups who exhibit the same syndrome, some of them making a living from it.)

Perhaps the answer is first to apply common sense in argument; theory can then build on that if necessary.

What is wrong with 'transwomen are women' is not that its advocates are over-endowed with theory partially digested; it is that they are silly. The best way of dealing with silly arguments in or out of the philosophy class is to point out their silliness. Taking a theoretical stance rarely helps with this. Common sense is needed.

Oh, and I reiterate my point about definition. Arguing about definitions is a mugs game when we are really just interested in meaning (and hence use).

I know people especially young people do not like being told they are silly. But really, 'transwomen are women'? Come on , people. Earlier on the thread someone wondered if I was John Cleese; this all makes me think more along the lines of Victor Meldrew: 'You cannot be serious.'

Really, what on earth do they think they are up to? But, yet, it matters ... there are consequences to this foolishness. So, well, action is required rather than words. As long as we are discussing it all, though, yes, common sense wins ... we can but hope.

OP posts:

CaraDuneRedux · 29/12/2020 14:08

I sometimes think (see confusion over "only women have periods" versus "all women have periods" mentioned on other threads) that a bit of compulsory logic, set theory and statistics might get us out of this mess.

But then I reflect that a lot of the TRA arguments I read come over like a poor lower second answer to a philosophy exam on Hume on scepticism on natural kinds, or on the Sorites paradox. (Hence the fixation on differences of sexual development - "so post menopausal women are still women... and women who don't menstruate due to PCOS... and women who are phenotypically female but lack internal reproductive organs... and, and, and" until we arrive at fully male bodies in women's sports and Lisa Nandy saying with a straight face that she would have no problem with a person with penis convicted of raping an underage teen being placed in a women's prison if he violated his parole conditions).

Mix a bit of poorly understood scepticism on natural kinds (as my philosophy tutor said many years ago "do you think Hume would still have made this argument if he'd known about modern particle physics, or even 19th century atomic theory?"), a half-remembered lecture on vagueness in predicates in natural language, and (especially dangerous) a partially understood course on Derrida and Foucault, and the result is almost inevitably someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out. But with (unfortunately, due to an expensive but poorly understood university education) a more than healthy opinion of their own intellect (a kind of post-modernist Dunning Kruger effect at work). A little bit of knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing.

Which is why I think there's actually a hell of a lot to be said for common sense - for instance an instinctive reaction of "fuck no, that's just inhumane treatment of women prisoners" to being told men with penises who've committed rape should be incarcerated alongside vulnerable women who've failed to paid fines acrued for not paying their TV licence, simply because those men have uttered the magic words "but I'm a woman."