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 !)]

Thanks speakingwoman.
' If it's not clear to you ... you're not as bright as you think you are. '

I think you may have mistaken what I intended 'it' to refer to in " It remains unclear to me why people find it difficult to grasp. " (The second 'it', of course; the 'It' in 'It remains ...' doesn't actually refer to anything, interestingly enough perhaps.)

That was probably my fault.

Can I try again?
To say that to be x is to identify as x says nothing about what x is.

It is not clear to me why that is so difficult to grasp, especially if we give the 'x' a value ('quoll', ... 'woman' ... ' capitalist ' someone tried ...) to avoid difficulties some people have with the level of abstraction.

Whether people grasp the distinction in early Wittgenstein between 'sinnlos' and 'unsinnig', and whether that distinction is relevant here, is another matter. I thought the person I was responding to at that point might have some understanding of it, though. No real harm done if not.

Do you understand what I was saying now? I am prepared to have another go at explaining if you do not.

One of my favourite threads ever.

or perhaps some sneaky combination of the two that morphs from one into another as appropriate!

Just popped back in because childishly I don't like the suggestion that I don't see that this is in effect what I'm proposing, or that I don't understand.

Because I do understand.

And I believe it's a correct representation of the reality I'm describing. It isn't absolute, but who on earth says it need be?

Ugh, I've sworm off FWR, must not be such an egoist

Because I do understand.

FWIW, Rat, I think you understand the implications exactly. Predictably enough, I also think that this is a very bad thing.

But help me out here if you will. What is it about To say that to be x is to identify as x says nothing about what x is that you think makes it false?

Rat, OP asking you directly to help her out. Gwan, don't be coy, give the OP the help she's asked for. You know you want to...

I didn't need to answer her bananis because SomeDyke already explained the situation rather well. The only difference is she expresses it as if it were somehow an undesirable resolution simply because it is not absolute, whereas I think it's absolutelessness (I know that's not a word, I just like it) it pretty apt in relation to what it is describing. And not especially problematic, as we're simply talking about (at least in my mind I am, right this instant) whether or not I can refer to myself and my trans woman friend as "women" in day to day life.

ratrolypoly

" or perhaps some sneaky combination of the two that morphs from one into another as appropriate!

Just popped back in because childishly I don't like the suggestion that I don't see that this is in effect what I'm proposing, or that I don't understand.

Because I do understand.

No, rat. (Thanks for coming back, btw. Courage!) That is not what I was saying you do not understand. (That is, you do not understand what it is you do not understand.) Possibly this is my fault for being unclear.

OK, stick with it. Let us try to clarify.

Here is what you do not understand: To say that to be x is to identify as x says nothing about what x is.

That is obviously true. I know you think it false, because otherwise you could not offer as part of an intended definition a criterion saying that to be x is to identify as x for some value of x.

There is no lack of knowledge explaining your mistake - no fact such that if someone points it out to you you will see that you were, after all, mistaken about this. So you must lack understanding.

My failure to understand how it can be possible for someone such as you to not understand something so obvious is what engendered my OP.

So, again, help me out here, ratrolypoly: What is it about To say that to be x is to identify as x says nothing about what x is that you think makes it false?

I just love this thread.

It is so clear to me that definitions must use words, that they cannot be circular, that to define x in relation to x only is simply not in any way a definition.

However, there is an obvious difficulty here, illustrated beautifully across FWR by a number of posters who I won't name because they may take it as a personal attack (and many of whom aren't on this thread at all). The difficulty is that not only do they not understand what they don't understand, they do not wish to understand . Which is obviously another matter altogether.

What the answer is to people not understanding and not being interested in trying to understand, I don't know.

What is it about To say that to be x is to identify as x says nothing about what x is that you think makes it false?

Um, are we talking at cross purposes? Did I somehow misread SomeDyke's post where she explains how one can quite happily agree with your statement but still maintain my position?

I'm going to go back and reread her post, but for clarity that statement is manifestly true. I wouldn't for a second deny it, and it certainly wouldn't pose an issue for my understanding

Maryz it would always be wise to wonder if it isn't oneself who does not understand what they do not understand...

Er, no, SomeDyke explains it just fine; except she says that her explanations may make that conclusion less obvious, whereas I would suggest it isn't any less obvious, it just isn't necessarily important.

Just to say I have to leave for a while. (Family stuff.) But I'll come back and read what anyone writes, and respond where I can and where appropriate. It just may take a while. But I will come back.

[And thanks for the responses so far, everyone.]

Anyway, hopefully everyone's clear on what I do and don't understand (yes, yes, to identify as x says nothing about x; duh; thankfully that is never what I said, and never in a context where in my opinion it matters) - time I went home; toddlers to talk to, babies to cuddle. Adios!

Good advice, Rat. It might be worthwhile you taking it on board as well.

I'm trying very hard to understand your point of view; I have for a while. However, it makes no sense to me. Your circular definition of "woman is someone who identifies as such" is meaningless according to all the rules of logic.

I thought SomeDyke explained that you couldn't define "x" as "something that identifies as x" but you still seem to be sticking to that definition (maintaining your position, seemingly, despite admitting that it's meaningless ).

I'm still waiting for a definition of "woman" that includes all adult human females and also transwomen, but excludes men. But that's a whole other (or many other) thread(s)

@9toenails,
thank you takng the time to reply. I am glad that you are not surprised that hardly anyone knows about sinlos (whatever that is)!

can you locate and use an equals sign and a not-equals sign in your statement? I think that would help.

"to be x"="to identify as X"

does that really tell us nothing about X? Are you sure?

"to be a Muslim"="to identify as a Muslim". I think that tells me something about what a Muslim is - it is something you can be by virtue of self-declaration. Meanwhile, back in the material world, a Muslim is, indeed, something that you become by declaring yourself to be a muslim (I think).

contrast "to be a Jew"="to identify as a Jew". The sentence tells me that being a Jew is something you can be by virtue of self-declaration. But you can't - I can identify as a Jew all day long and, if my general knowledge serves me right, it won't make me one because my mum isn't one.

But neither of those statements give me any idea at all what a Muslim or a Jew is, which is what a dictionary definition should do - especially if it's the definition that is to be used in any sort of legal document.

You might as well be saying spaceman or scarecrow or snargle.

True Mary, but toenails has set me a challenge and I am responding in her language using her words (which are riddled with ambiguity).

Just to correct myself Mary, I think I have given you a strong idea about the difference between Muslims and Jews. One of the cardinal differences is that you can (I think!) self identify as a Muslim but not as a Jew.

I appreciate that I haven't learnt that these are religions yet, but give me that information and it will be utterly unsuprising that Islam is an evangelical religion whereas Judaism isn't.

"Your circular definition of "woman is someone who identifies as such" is meaningless according to all the rules of logic."

ok, I'm a mere lawyer, not a philosopher, but I don't think that's a logic issue. The definition that's contrary to the rules of logic is the one we had yesterday where the poster kept using the word "including" to mean "and" and couldn't be brought to understand the difference. That poster was illogical. Rat is just (in my humble opinion) wrong.

Do you just have to self identify to be a Muslim, or do you have to declare it in front of witnesses? If I identify as a Muslim but tell no one and do nothing at all that any other Muslims do as part of their faith, am
I a Muslim? Would Muslims communities accept me as such, and should they?

I don't know, assassinated. I expect manopedia knows.

You might understand me better Maryz if you hadn't misremembered my definition

Woman = an adult female human and/or one who identifies as such

(I left out the "and/" on the other thread, but I've proposed it previously on MN with it there and I think I prefer it.)

HTH

I would have thought that to be a Muslim you would have to take some sort of action, fill in a bit of paperwork, make a declaration, that type of thing.

So, in summary, it's impossible to become a Jew. It's possible to become a Muslim (but probably not by self-identification). Neither of those statements tell me what a Muslim or a Jew is though, and so if
I was to make a few laws using the words Muslim or Jew I'd have a few problems making people obey those laws, don't you think?

Personally I'm declaring myself a snargle. Snargles don't have to go to work; they can sit around and drink wine and talk bollocks online

Being Jewish is one of those exception that-proves-the-rule though thingies though, seeing as you can convert to the religion of Judaism without having Jewish heritage, and you can have Jewish heritage and not faith (ie being a ‘secular Jew’).

Actually, this kinda makes for an interesting analogy with the current practise of changing legal sex via getting a GRC. Converting to Judaism involves an absolute bucket ton of ‘gatekeeping’ via conversion classes etc. It takes ages and is decided by rabbis.

Becoming a legal woman (currently) takes a similar amount of time and is gatekept by a panel of doctors.

Those with a GRC who have commented on this board are unanimously in favour of this gatekeeping (although they would like it to be a bit more dignified/consistent for new applicants).

I’m not Jewish, so with that disclaimer, I’ve never heard of a push to make conversion to Judaism easier, nor a suggestion that the ‘gatekeeping’ isn’t necessary.

So, while we could use Jewishness as an example for becoming something you are not in biological terms, it’s not an example that supports moving to self ID.

In short, you can become Jewish, but not simply by adopting it as part of a self described identity.

I remember it Rat, I just didn't bother with the first half because that makes sense; it's the bit I quoted that is problematic.

Woman = (1) an adult human female and/or (2) an adult human female who identifies as an adult human female.

Is that your final answer? You are stating that if a man arrives on this thread (or at a swimming pool near you) and identifies himself as an adult human female he is one, and therefore is a woman?