Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

88 replies

9toenails · 28/12/2020 09:11

... 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?

OP posts:
Original poster
9toenails · 28/12/2020 15:42

@FelicityMingington

Hi OP,

Your post seems like a rather superficial demolition of trans ideology. In particular I don't think this is right:

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'.

The phrase "transwomen are women" is not saying the words are synonymous. The implication is that one is a subset of the other. The whole thing can't be demolished by semantic logical syllogisms alone.

Hi Felicity

You are right to say ' The phrase "transwomen are women" is not saying the words are synonymous. (It is a sentence rather than a phrase, but never mind that.)

Indeed this should be read as an implication: If X is a transwoman, then X is a woman.
And, again, yes, this is equivalent to saying that the set of transwomen is a subset of the set of women.
[In technical terms, set theory is isomorphic to propositional calculus, which is pretty neat.]

This does not vitiate my point, though, as you seem to think. I am not sure what you mean by 'semantic logical syllogisms', but we do not need anything more complicated here than, yes, ordinary propositional logic, or (equivalently; the two are isomorphic, as I said) basic set theory.

Here is how this goes. I will use a different (and well-worn) example and let you fill in as an exercise.
'Bachelors are married' is analytically false. Why? Because the word 'bachelor' includes 'being unmarried' in its meaning. ( On analysis, we see this, hence 'analytically', roughly speaking. 'Analytically false' means the same as 'logically contradictory' here.)

OK, now saying 'Bachelors are married', as you might point out, is not saying the words are synonymous. No; it says that if X is a bachelor then X is married. Or, equivalently, it says that the set of bachelors is a subset of the set of married people.

However you parse this, as an ordinary English sentence, as an implication in propositional calculus, or as a subset-statement in basic set theory, it is analytically false/a logical contradiction.

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?

OP posts:
Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud · 28/12/2020 15:41

(for info on strawman and steelman: conceptually.org/concepts/of-strawmen-and-steelwomen)

Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud · 28/12/2020 15:30

@Abitofalark it's just from butler's Wikipedia page en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler#:~:text=Given%20the%20social%20nature%20of,associated%20with%20male%20or%20female.

I'd used the phrase "strawman" and "steelman". If someone wants to give a definition of "woman" which is a steelman of the ideology then I am happy to listen..

Abitofalark · 28/12/2020 15:26

@tara66

Mumof.. what is the meaning of ''strawman'' and ''steelman'' (in this context)? I think the English language is rich and varied but seems incomprehensible regarding transgender ideology.
Yes, I'd also like to know to whom the quoted passage is attributed.
C0NNIE · 28/12/2020 14:39

@nauticant

Yes, I struggled for ages until I realised that it simply largely doesn't make sense but importantly it doesn't make sense to the followers of the ideology. If they ever trip over something, they'll make facts disappear or new ones appear to smooth over the trip hazard, for example see the I'm a young feminist thread.

It makes me wonder why they'd go to the effort. It's because they've identified an in-group they're desperate to be seen to be part of.

Of course it doesn't make sense. Because if there’s no such thing as sex and all genders are fluid, then there’s nothing to trans to or from.
FelicityMingington · 28/12/2020 14:18

Hi OP,

Your post seems like a rather superficial demolition of trans ideology. In particular I don't think this is right:

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'.

The phrase "transwomen are women" is not saying the words are synonymous. The implication is that one is a subset of the other. The whole thing can't be demolished by semantic logical syllogisms alone.

TyroTerf · 28/12/2020 14:18

@Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud

It's easy, you just have to redefine what a woman is:

"According to Butler's theory, gender is essentially a performative repetition of acts associated with male or female. Currently, the actions appropriate for men and women have been transmitted to reproduce a social atmosphere that both maintains and legitimizes a seemingly natural gender binary.[22] Consistently with Butler's acceptance of the body as a historical idea, Performative Acts suggests that our concept of gender is seen as natural or innate because the body "becomes its gender through a series of acts which are renewed, revised, and consolidated through time".[22]

Trying not to strawman... trying not to strawman... failed- all I can see from this is that being a woman has something to do with being dainty and submissive and nurturing? Anyone able to steelman the argument/definition?

Yep, she's not wrong here.

It's in the same ballpark as when you tell your girl child that football isn't a bit thing because she's a girl and she does it. Stuff that women are commonly and repeatedly observed to do becomes part of the cultural understanding of Woman. Given that sexed bodies aren't going anywhere, this is pretty much unavoidable.

I'm assuming she's drawing a distinction between woman (the social construction) and female (the biological reality).

What this actually means is, essentially, we're expanding the bandwidth of womanhood by transgression the dainty gender box.

Logical conclusion: labels like dyke, feminazi, and terf represent types of socially-constructed woman. These are genders.

It's just the implementation of the theory that's all kinds of fucked up because it's done by sexist idiot laymen.

auldcraw · 28/12/2020 14:17

Ninetoenails - If your new to this transwomen=women idiology, then your in for a rollcoaster ride of hard to believe facts. Your not wrong - no one can change sex. If you want to learn more and like my OH who is a man of a certain age like yourself you might enjoy Glinner on you tube - "The mess were in". There's a lot more to this than womens rights - though thats a big part of it. Its also about safeguarding children - have you followed the story about Keira Bell. Read the transgendertrend site (type in one word no hyphen else you'll end up reading balony about changing sex) to read what's being taught in our schools too Its also a free speech issue - Suzanne Moore, Harry Miller, Maya Forstater, these are names to look up. Sorry if you know more about all this than I'm giving credit - I really don't want to come across as a pain - but when I started to talk about this my OH thought i was making some of this up - or had joined some strange cult.

nauticant · 28/12/2020 14:17

Yes, I struggled for ages until I realised that it simply largely doesn't make sense but importantly it doesn't make sense to the followers of the ideology. If they ever trip over something, they'll make facts disappear or new ones appear to smooth over the trip hazard, for example see the I'm a young feminist thread.

It makes me wonder why they'd go to the effort. It's because they've identified an in-group they're desperate to be seen to be part of.

Xanthangum · 28/12/2020 14:16

I can understand that some people need to believe in trans-substantiation and see it as an important part of their faith, without also demanding that the NHS put red wine into patient's veins.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 28/12/2020 14:10

That's an excellent description, nauticant. It can take a bit of getting your head around if you're largely a rational person.

nauticant · 28/12/2020 14:06

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.

FanEffinTastic · 28/12/2020 13:46

P.S. On an unrelated topic, does anyone happen to know how many toenails John Cleese has?

FanEffinTastic · 28/12/2020 13:45

I'm enjoying this thread, @9toenails. Many thanks.

Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud · 28/12/2020 13:41

@9toenails that is an excellent post. Wine

JohnMcClane · 28/12/2020 13:30

I think it's a red herring. I think the point is to twist logic so far that people spend all their time arguing that water is wet or trying to make sense of what is being said and miss what is actually being done.

Original poster
9toenails · 28/12/2020 13:17

Thanks for the responses. Apologies for not replying individually. A few things.

Re Butler and 'You just have to redefine what a woman is.' ...

I do not see how that can help. At best it just changes the subject. After this redefinition, we will have two meanings for 'women': let us call them 'women' (already extant meaning) and 'women2' (new, redefined meaning).

[This assumes, contrary to fact as far as I can see (and I have looked!) a redefinition that manages minimum requirements of self-consistence and non-circularity.]

OK, now, if 'women' means 'women2', 'transwomen are women' can be true. But why should I care about that? (Apart from it being potentially seriously misleading.) It leaves untouched the simple fact that 'transwomen are women' is analytically false if 'woman' means 'woman'.

That is at best, as I said. It is not what Butler and her ilk do, though. Without going too much into postmodern equivocations and the like, just notice the dependence on things like 'Butler's acceptance of the body as a historical idea'. Bodies are not historical ideas.

Perhaps there is a redefinition of 'body' ... But, again, why should we care? When I wrote just now, 'Bodies are not historical ideas', I meant 'bodies', not 'bodies2', whatever that might be.

In the end (or, perhaps, thinking of postmodern so-called thought, from the very beginning ), the ideology we criticise here does not make sense.

This might have strategic implications. Is it really worth marshalling scientific knowledge, statistical fact and so on, against an ideology that fails in its very beginnings to make any sense at all? I wonder. Perhaps a response to 'transwomen are women' might be, not 'No they are not ...according to science ... etc. ' but, rather, 'What on earth do you mean?'

Of course it may be necessary to tackle the consequences of the nonsense in practice. My (our) heartfelt thanks are due to all of you who have engaged politically, legally, socially in such practice. Somewhat to my surprise, it turns out this matters, something like the way other such nonsense like, say, transubstantiation used to matter. Let us hope transgender goes the way of transubstantiation and stops affecting the lives of those who see it for the foolishness it is.

[Just in passing, my boast/confession of my age (elderly) and sex (male) was occasioned by the title of that earlier thread begun by the soi-disant 'young feminist'. I hope that does not make this a forbidden thread about a thread.]

OP posts:
Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud · 28/12/2020 13:06

@rabbitwoman If it is John, that would be awesome! Cake WineBrewGin (me having a JC party)

RufustheSniggeringReindeer · 28/12/2020 13:05

No neither did the person doing it skyliner im sure it came as quite the shock 😀

It only means ‘no comment’ 😳

I’d understand it it meant ‘fuck off and die’ or something!!

Skyliner001 · 28/12/2020 12:59

@RufustheSniggeringReindeer

No worries 😀

Bless was another one and Biscuit for some weird reason

I honestly don’t think it will go but sometimes i look at a quite ‘bland’ thread and think ‘what the fuck happened 😳’

😂😂 I don't know the Biscuit could get a deletion!
andyoldlabour · 28/12/2020 12:58

As a bloke in the Autumn of life, I think the OP is going to be fine, their understanding of this subject is logical.
Sex is immutable, no human being has ever changed sex. Sex is determined at fertilisation and over the next five weeks the foetus produces hormones which will determine the sex organs.
Gender is a social construct, partly based on expected social/behavioural patters, or possibly more recently on how a person feels.
So, whilst ignoring very rare cases.
XY chromosomes - Male - boy/man
XX chromosomes - Female - girl/woman
Transwoman - Male
Transman - Female

Datun · 28/12/2020 11:29

9toenails

... I think this is because it is incomprehensible. It is not possible to understand something that does not make sense.

Correct. Saying a man is a woman necessarily demands a definition of woman other than adult human female.

You won't get one.

The closest you'll get is that one's self perception or inner identity or sense of self is as a woman. There is rarely any description, although I have heard it's because 'it makes me feel more vibrant' and 'I was jealous of the cool girls in Hollywood teen movies'. It's based on the stereotypes that eg males see through male experience and male eyes. And therefore bears little resemblance to the actually reality of women's lives. Because being 'rom com cool girls' isn't it.

And it's obviously not the basis for changing laws and removing sex segregation.

Something many more people appear to be waking up to.

Campervan69 · 28/12/2020 11:00

I know someone who got banned from mumsnet for "yawn". She headed over to Twitter instead where she is pretty vocal in support of feminists. But I digress...

The only way trans women are women is if we render the word "woman" completely meaningless. The distortion of language seems to be a common thread with cults.

RufustheSniggeringReindeer · 28/12/2020 10:51

No worries 😀

Bless was another one and Biscuit for some weird reason

I honestly don’t think it will go but sometimes i look at a quite ‘bland’ thread and think ‘what the fuck happened 😳’

Skyliner001 · 28/12/2020 10:46

@RufustheSniggeringReindeer

skyliner

I doubt any FWR regulars will report and hopefully mumsnet wont delete (cos its stupid reason to delete 😒)

But yawn used to be a deletable offence on here

Just a heads up in case it disappears 🙂

Hilarious thanks 😂😂
Swipe left for the next trending thread