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 !)]

Mary,

The OP turned up and thought she could take a semi-profesional interest in our failure to understand her impeccable logic.

But her logic isn't impeccable.

That's all I'm really interested in saying.

You can become a Jew by converting to the religion of Judaism. It's only orthodox jews who say you must have a Jewish mother.
Otherwise, all those women who convert wouldn't be "real" Jews, and thus their children wouldn't be children of jewish mothers.

However, if your mother is Jewish you are often regarded as Jewish whether or not you follow the teachings of the religion

No Maryz, it's not two possible definitions, it's one. You either are an adult human female who identifies as such, or you simply identify as as an adult human female. Clearer?

Welcome to snarglehood Maryz! Today I am a male snargle (as it is Friday) but you are of course welcome to self-declare yourself however you wish

Oops, I took to long to type and see BettyDuMonde explained conversion before me.
Apologies for the repetition

Rat - you are jsut saying the same thing in two different ways?

Rat - in your definition we need "adult human female" to stay female-chromosomed I think?

Aren't you saying that woman = adult human female who identifies as a woman plus adult human male who identifies as a woman.

I don't agree, but I think you deserve a fairer hearing than you are getting.

PS really do have small people to cuddle now, ta ra!

To be fair, speakingwoman, there's a lot of illogical logic on these threads these days

I understand that Rat. To be a woman, according to your definition, a person has to either be an adult human female or identify as an adult human female. So I'll ask again:

If a man shows up and identifies himself as an adult human female, do you believe he is one? And that, being an adult human female, he is also (by your definition) a woman?

Just clarifying.

I didn't say it was two definitions, by the way. I was pointing out that you gave two alternatives in your single definition.

I think I'll be male today, Olennas, I fancy a pint.

Mary, I think we all claim we're being logical when we're emotionally neutral or in favour of something.

People who are under the illusion of their own neutrality are dangerous.

fwiw, rat needs to have two categories to be logical, in my view. She needs Adult Human Female (genetically natal woman) and she needs "Woman" which she's happy to be a moving target based on identity.

It's not clearer at all, to me.

You either are an adult human female who identifies as such, or you simply identify as an adult human female

Both of your definitions rely on identifying as an adult human female. You haven't said that women simply ARE adult human females.

So: I'll replace the "adult human female" for something else - like "table", to help illustrate my concern.

You either are a table who identifies as such, or you simply identify as a table

In the latter definition, we are none the wiser as to what table actually means. Just that you identify as one.

Have I got that about right?

speaking FWIW I hold those two categories, except that the term "adult" is already acknowledged as having several commonly understood meanings, so is itself a sort of moving target.

PS I always enjoy your posts. I feel like I know you... or perhaps you just remind me of someone I know well.

heresy that's not what I'm saying; the second half of my definition cannot stand alone from the first. So, a table is a slab with four legs, or something which identifies as a plank with four legs. This tells us a table is a plank with four legs, except sometimes it isn't, it just identifies as such, but we can still call that a table. K?

"PS I always enjoy your posts. I feel like I know you... or perhaps you just remind me of someone I know well."

steady on now....

You hold those two categories.....what? I think you are holding those two children whilst typing that!

steady on now....

Lol! Sorry, I just meant you could be someone I know well, but I suspect you'd know if you were :) and you're right about the kids, I'm neglecting them; must rectify that right now!

My head always hurts with these kinds of arguments. As I said, this isn't my strength but I am interested. And I thank everyone for helping me learn .

In response to Rat
To make your definition of table the same as your definition of woman, you have to add the second "identifies as" in, I think.:

So, a table is a slab with four legs which identifies as such, or something which identifies as a plank with four legs.

However, the second half what you wrote made much more sense to me:

This tells us a table is a plank with four legs, except sometimes it isn't, it just identifies as such, but we can still call that a table.

So on the woman thing: What you're saying is that a woman is an adult human female, except sometimes the person isn't, (i.e they are male), they just identify as adult human females, but we'll still call that a woman?

And then the question is how saying that sometimes a thing isn't a thing, can form a coherent definition that describes objective reality? Why are letting this slide?

Deconstructing this to "X," the first definition, which applied to woman and I had a problem with:

X is either (definition of X) who identifies as such, or you simply identify as X

I still have a problem with the "who identifies as such" part, for some reason, because it feels like you're almost saying the same thing twice? Because adult human females are also persons, right? So we can substitute "you" in the latter half of the definition for "male" (because they were the only sex excluded by naming females explicitly first).

If we do that, then the definition reads:
Woman is either an adult human female who identifies as such, or an adult human male who simply identifies as an adult human female

I think we can then simplify that down to:
Woman is a person who identifies as an adult human female

Which keeps us stuck in the "identifies as" thing

Your definition for table, which you kindly clarified for me, reads as:

X is (definition of X), except sometimes it is Y, it just identifies as X, but we can still call that X

And I've already asked my questions about how that makes sense. I hope that perhaps someone can straighten my logic out.

Which keeps us stuck in the "identifies as" thing

And I suspect you need to keep the "identifies as" part, because otherwise the definition of woman = adult human female would include trans men and exclude trans women?

It's a pickle.

But I still agree with OP's statements:

To say that to be x is to identify as x says nothing about what x is.

And I am trying to bear in mind the postscript:

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

heresy,

I don't think you can critque Rat until she distinguishes between adult human female and woman

We don't have trans folk identifying as adult human females. We have trans folk identifying as Women.

I thought I was quoting Rat, upthread, of what I took to be their definition of "woman":
"You either are an adult human female who identifies as such, or you simply identify as as an adult human female"
If I'm mistaken then that's fine, but I've done my best to explain my thinking based on that statement.

And then the question is how saying that sometimes a thing isn't a thing, can form a coherent definition that describes objective reality? Why are letting this slide?

I'm tell you why I can let it slide, and that is because the definition I have given you need not describe objective reality. I said it up thread but I didn't expand upon the point; that this definition need not be absolute in real terms. Here's why.

The definition I was given to replace was "woman = adult human female". This is the dictionary definition. Now you would be forgiven for thinking that the replacement need describe objective reality, because the original does, but that is not what a dictionary is tasked with defining. A dictionary defines what one means by a particular word, or what that word is used to mean.

I, and others of the "trans women are women" brigade, when we say "woman" we may mean either a female adult who identifies as female, or a male adult who identifies as female, or an intersex adult who identifies as female.

So personally I think my definition more accurately describes what the word is used to mean - even if you don't think transwomen are women - because mine includes intersex women, who no-one here denies are women, and aren't currently included in "adult female human".

We don't have trans folk identifying as adult human females. We have trans folk identifying as Women.

But a woman is an adult female human, so...

So everyone is talking at crossed purposes regarding "woman", where we mean natal female and you mean anyone who identifies as female regardless of their natal sex.

Interestingly by your definition I'm not a woman.

Assassinated, are you an adult female human?