self-ID ^sinnlos^ ?

[9toenails]

I first came to mumsnet for parenting advice, second time round as it were. I started reading FWR largely because I noticed discussion of 'self-ID' and related matters, which epitomised what I thought of at first as an amusing example of conceptual confusion I might use in teaching philosophy (I still do a little, although I am mostly retired).

But now I find I have become (if I am allowed) Spartacus, and a TERF.

Stimulated by mumsnet, I followed something of the wider (non-)debate about 'trans'. I do not engage with social media, so it seems I may have missed the worst. Nevertheless, I have been gobsmacked by the confusion I have come across, not least in public and political discourse. It has started to look dangerous.

Even seemingly literate and otherwise intelligent people seem not to be able to think this through. For example, a poster on another thread (who claimed to have written a 'dissertation' on related topics - probably just an undergraduate essay, but still) seemingly thinks a definition of 'woman' might coherently be ' an adult human female, or one who identifies as such '.

Can we try to be clear about this? The whole notion of self-identification as definitive of anything is a non-starter (even as a disjunct, for that dissertation writer).

To say that to be x is to identify as x says nothing about what x is. This is just true. I am interested why people do not find it obvious.

Perhaps it is the variable ('x')? Some people are afraid of anything that looks algebraic ...

... OK, try with examples: To say that to be a quoll is to identify as a quoll says nothing about what a quoll is. That is obvious. No? And its truth is not dependent on anything to do with what a quoll is or might be.

Well, but why would it be different if 'quoll' is replaced by 'woman'? To say that to be a woman is to identify as a woman says nothing about what a woman is. Why do people not see this is obvious?

I am interested (semi-professionally, you might say) in any answers to this.

[Maybe I should make clear this is not about whether we should treat as x those who identify as x, for some x. That is a different matter.

And, while I am postscripting, let me say I am severely disappointed with the extent to which mumsnet has aligned with the forces of unreason on this. It may have been for the best of reasons, but it is still a big disappointment.

And - finally - why ' sinnlos '? Check out Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. (Well, you never know, someone might get interested in the difference between sinnlos and unsinnig !)]

"Check out Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. "

You might have given us a link!

Project Gutenberg ebook -- no copyright issues.
(intro by Bertrand Russell).

"Tautologie und Kontradiktion sind sinnlos."
Tautology and contradiction are without sense.

Awww, if you're going to talk about me you could at least write my name! Thanks for calling me "seemingly literate and otherwise intelligent"

PS Self-ID in terms of GRCs makes bugger all practical difference to anything. Literally none. Try reading the original petition thread for starters, here you go: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard/3192069-AIBU-to-think-you-should-sign-this-petition-to-ask-the-government-to-consult-with-women-about-Self-ID

"Can we try to be clear about this? The whole notion of self-identification as definitive of anything is a non-starter."

I agree, you could define the class of people who identify as 'snurgles', and all you have to do to know if someone is a snurgle or not is ask them ('Do you identify as a snurgle?'). But that tells you nothing about what 'being a snurgle' is or means or might mean in the future. The people who identify as snurgles might find it socially useful and snurgles and what they do will change over time (and possibly split like many other social groupings!).

You could, if you wished try to form the union of the set of people who identify as snurgles, and the set of people formerly known as snurgles who used to be defined by the fact they have red feet. Okay? Except that falls apart once you discover knurgles (with blue feet), also now includes some people with red feet who identify as knurgles. So, you would need to expand your snurgle definition to be people with red feet who don't identify as people with any colour of feet other than red, plus people who identify as people with red feet (whether or not their feet are red, or if they even have feet).

And so on. Except your definitions, to be meaingful, keep having to come back to actual feet and actual colours. The problem here is trying to mix the objective, external and independantly verifiable (having feet or tentacles, what colour those feet are etc etc), with the subjective, what people state which can be almost infinitely variable and mutable, including those who identify, say, as having octarine feet, despite the fact that octarine is a magical colour not accessible to those of us in the mundane non-Discworld reality. We are not on the back of the turtle, whether it moves or not!

SomeDyke, you are confused.

Some people are colour blind you know; therefore any colour is only defined by the colour that the person looking at it thinks it is. So please don't refer to red or blue feet; that is offensive and literal violence to all colour blind people, and (obviously) to people with feet.

SomeDyke, you are confused.

Well, I quite often am!

But makes a nice example, given that it is necessary (well, it certainly is when the new philosophy students try and discuss what the colour red is with the physics students!), to distinguish between the measurable spectral properties of a coloured substance, and someone's perception (or not) of the appearance of that substance.

My feet are red, even if I'm not looking at then when I'm in a dark forest (although trees falling on my head might distract me a little, as do all the bears doing their business, and then all the little blighters saying they didn't hear it, therefore it couldn't have fallen............Still on my bloody foot , say I, in pain! And I've now trodden in bear poo.........).

If self id makes no practical difference, then as a tax payer I want no more government time wasted on it.

If self id makes no practical difference, then as a tax payer I want no more government time wasted on it.

Oh sorry, I wasn't clear. It makes no practical difference to anyone except the people undertaking the GRC process.

HTH

Rat
With respect, why are you making this thread about the GRC, when I thought you were a philosophy expert?
We've discussed the GRC at length elsewhere, as you've noted. Your claims that this is a non-issue have been contested by multiple posters.
I was really interested in the arguments the OP made, and looking forward to seeing you defend your position.
Even if people think I am thick, I was interested in hearing your counterarguments and hoping to maybe even learn something.

hello @9toenails

You're quite patronising!

"To say that to be x is to identify as x says nothing about what x is. This is just true. I am interested why people do not find it obvious."

Let me run a test:

"To say that to be a capitalist is to identify as a capitalist says nothing about what a capitalist is."

oh bugger, you're right.

You're still patronising though.

As to why it wasn't obvious till I ran the test, I'm not sure, but it wasn't.

Secondly, what has happened to your tenth toenail and how can we shoehorn this into the debate?

Doesn't Tracey Emin say that she is an artist because she says she is an artist? I think she does.....

I interpreted the argument as being we actually have non-circular definitions of words like "capitalism"
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
Whereas if we divorce the term "capitalist" from a dictionary definition of "capitalism", then we could theoretically get to a point where we lump communists in with them just because they own iPhones.
Or something.
I'd argue the same point for Tracy Emin. If she never produced any artwork, and simply "identified" as an artist, would she still technically be an artist?

I believe the postmodernist definition of ‘artist’ is ‘person who went to art school’.

HTH

I get the point though I don't have anything clever to add to it. (Or anything funny about bears :))

Many people seem to have lost the ability/inclination to really think things through. Not intelligence (though that helps) but the willingness to examine the parts of an argument and see how it looks if you turn it around. If they did they'd spot the structural problem with this one.

Though if you think this is bad search for Flat Earth on Youtube and see people who think humans can live on word salad alone.

In our house we say ‘Does the pope shit in the woods?’

Postructuralism?

Ahh. See, in my house we use "pope" to mean anyone who identifies as needing a bowel movement, and "woods" to mean the toilet. So yes, I s**t in the woods all the time.

words don't have any innate meaning, they mean what speakers/listeners/readers/writers collectively understand. (to see this think about how words like sensible/horrible/awful/"literal violence!") have changed meaning over time)

Thus the sentence "transwomen are women" is true if the term "women" is understood to refer to internal feelings and false if the term "women" is used to mean someone with XX chromozomes. The debate between GC and TRA is literally that we are speaking a different language.

Just dropping in to say I won't be "defending my position", as I haven't laid one out on this thread to defend. I won't be defending myself as an expert on anything except that which I have explicitly stated I am expert in; again, nothing here, or elsewhere I would suggest. And I've resolved to only engage in conversations on the subject that I see some benefit in, either to my informing myself, my feeling some value in the exchange with others, or (heaven forbid) because I might actually enjoy them. Life's too short. Nice to have a thread about my posts though - ta ra!

Oh, before I go...

why are you making this thread about the GRC

...the clue is in the title.

The problem there is that if we then use the word female to mean people with XX chromosomes, theyll take that too.

We are not allowed any way to differentiate ourselves.

The title refers to self-ID and the CONCEPT of being able to self-identify. AAIK In the title or body of the post, the GRC was not referenced once.
I understood this to be a broadly philosophical discussion, and your definition which is quoted by the OP is referenced (you even admit as much):
definition of 'woman' might coherently be ' an adult human female, or one who identifies as such
Therefore, I would have thought you'd like to take this chance to defend that assertion, and perhaps spar against those who are interested in philosophy. To be clear, IIRC, you did seem to flaunt your intellectual prowess by say that you got a first in your dissertation and "polished your knuckles."
I thought academically-minded people loved defending their positions, I am sorry to hear you think it would be a waste of time.

That last post is obviously to Rat, even if they don't read it.

So what specific impacts would it have on people understaking the grc process - I have seen cost saving mentioned as one possible outcome?

I guess that is tricky to answer as grc process simplification could mean lots of things?

If it helps, I am worried that the removal of the "living for at least 2 years" and the removal of medical and psychological support could fundamentally change what trans really means in practise. With negative impacts for some trans people and an erosion of sex based protections.

So we (GC feminists) think that any classification based on identity is meaningless and potentially regressive. TRAs think that any classification based on sex is wrong as what matters is what's inside. We can compromise - in this sense that I think the difference between emos and goths is not important but I respect their right to label themselves

was obviously tongue-in-cheek surely? Poking fun at myself as much as anybody (not that it isn't true, simply that I'm not so self-important and naive as to think it's all that important). Oh well, not to worry. The internet is rife with misunderstandings.

So I don't think there should be any gatekeeping to gender recognition. If you want to call yourself "a lady" then that's your business BUT recognition of a female gender identity should not entail right to sex based exemptions

"...the clue is in the title."
But the substance is in the opening post, which is about Wittgenstein and sinnlos. Don't you recall 'Alice', and the discussion about a name and what a name is called?............
"The name of the song is called “Haddocks’ Eyes.”’

‘Oh, that’s the name of the song, is it?’ Alice said, trying to feel interested.

‘No, you don’t understand,’ the Knight said, looking a little vexed. ‘That’s what the name is called. The name really is “The Aged Aged Man.”’

‘Then I ought to have said “That’s what the song is called”?’ Alice corrected herself.

‘No, you oughtn’t: that’s quite another thing! The song is called “Ways and Means”: but that’s only what it’s called, you know!’

‘Well, what is the song, then?’ said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.

‘I was coming to that,’ the Knight said. ‘The song really is “A-sitting On A Gate”: and the tune’s my own invention.’