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 !)]

@9toenails I'm so enjoying your input. Looking forward to your return to this thread. @somedyke too. I always enjoy your posts.

I was drawn to this thread because I’m still trying to work out how/why lots of people are falling for the identifying fallacy. To identify means that one is actually not but would like to belong to a class of people -surely that’s a given?!

So for example I was born in Germany (to German parents) and lived in Germany until I was 19. I have the papers, the language, the lived experience of a German.
I moved to the UK 19 years ago and have been here since. I have acquired the language and don’t have a noticeable accent and am part of my local community (I get even obscure Alan Partridge references, etc) for all intents and purposes I ‘pass’ as a native Brit.
I could get a British passport and even give up my German one if I wanted. BUT I will always be German. I can’t unlive my German years and I don’t know ‘what it feels like to be British’ (or to be German for that matter) and if I said I identified as British then that would be sinnlos because I simply can’t be as a German. Words like German and British then make no sense anymore.
TLDR identifying as anything is bunk unless you bend language in which case I’m a quargle

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity, and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

Well spotted heresy

"To identify means that one is actually not but would like to belong to a class of people -surely that’s a given"

seems like almost nothing is a given. the more you look, the less common ground there is.

To identify as something could have quite a range of meanings and nuances I think....

I think Rats latest attempt highlights nicely the utter uselessness of the 'identify as' stuff. Because I could say yes or no or wibble because i am drunk, insane, or german so didn't understand the question. For such consent to be meaningful the person answering the question must understand so no good saying by saying yes you have just identified as a woman to which my answer would be no i don't. It's like believers claiming you as a believer because you send Christmas cards without asking why. Like those who try to claim we are a christian country despite the many who when asked explicitly would say they are atheists.

Well, the whole reason the "identify as" thing reminds me so much of "doublethink" is because it relies on you knowing the definitions of the words already, and acknowledging material reality while denying it at the same time.

And I think this is where the point about existing attachments to these words comes in beautifully. We only "think" the statement makes sense, because we already know what the REAL definitions of these words are.

I think you have to put yourself in the shoes of being a complete newcomer to the language and a concept, in order to really see the problem.

"A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman."
This is loaded, because we already all know that woman = adult human female.

Let's get rid of the baggage.
"A faroghitudeian is anyone who identifies as a faroghitudeian"

What is might the resulting conversation be?

What is a faroghitudeian?

A faroghitudeian is someone is a faroghitudeian and identifies as a faroghitudeian, or anyone who identifies as faroghitudeian.

But who IS a faroghitudeian?

Anyone who identifies as faroghitudeian.

Right, but what does faroghitudeian mean?

A faroghitudeian is someone who identifies as a faroghitudeian.

But. How do I know if I identify as a faroghitudeian?

I do. Do you?

I don't know, because I don't have any idea of what a faroghitudeian is! What is it that makes you a faroghitudeian?

Because I identify as faroghitudeian.

Well, what do all faroghitudeians have in common?

They identify as faroghitudeian.

But. How do YOU know if someone else is a faroghitudeian?

Well, they identify as a faroghitudeian. If you're unsure, just ask!

Doublethink, interesting.

Let me ask you, what do you call it when you give someone else's interpretation of reality the same potential for veracity as your own?

What do you call it when you acknowledge in your mind that God both simultaneously exists to your brother, and cannot possibly exist to you, and that both of you have just as much right to claim correctness for your version as the other?

How do you live alongside people with whom you don't agree?

What do you call it when, not all that long ago, most people thought homosexuality was unnatural; a mental illness; perhaps they were resistant to the doublethink that for some people it could be as natural as breathing. Would it be doublethink to acknowledge two contradictory evaluations?

What do you call it when to you, gender identity is a nonsense that cannot possibly be, and to others it is a defining phenomenon of their existence?

Would you call it doublethink?

Or would you call it tolerance?

Would it be doublethink to acknowledge two contradictory evaluations?

Let me replace this with "would it have been doublethink", because I don't think society either is or should be especially tolerant of our opinions of the past on this subject.

People keep trying to relabel prejudice as "boundaries" and tolerance as "doublethink", and to tell me that is "seeing the truth".

Well if that's your truth it harks back to the darkest periods of human history. My world is nothing like the one where that is "truth", and I hope to god it never is.

That's the only reason I keep posting here.

So do the words 'prejudice' and 'tolerance' have actual definitions that aren't whatever Rat says they are?

Rat
I genuinely do appreciate you continuing to engage. Sincerely I am not trying to attack you as a person, but I am saying that the idea we should redefine very basic words in order to fit in two contradictory categories as though they are the same reminds me of the Orwellian concept of doublethink. The passage from 1984 is the closest explanation I can find for the ability to be able to hold such a position, because it highlights the mental gymnastics that I think are needed.

Now, to get to your other points, each in turn:

Let me ask you, what do you call it when you give someone else's interpretation of reality the same potential for veracity as your own?

You say that everyone may interpret reality in their own way, that's their prerogative. But we still draw the line somewhere, and keep certain commonalities in our language, things we can agree on, in order to work together properly. We do keep an open mind, but we can also reserve the right to do things like "hypothesis testing" in science, or debate positions to see how rigorously an assertion can be defended.

What do you call it when you acknowledge in your mind that God both simultaneously exists to your brother, and cannot possibly exist to you, and that both of you have just as much right to claim correctness for your version as the other?

Well, the God hypothesis is an unverifiable claim. Just as gender identity is. Because both cannot be proven, really. So then I say, that's fine. But you cannot make me believe it, or insist we restructure all of society according to that belief. There is separation of Church and State for a reason.
Additionally, this is completely different to whether males and females exist as different categories. Because we physically exist and are different. If there is an ideology out there that says males can be the same as females, I absolutely reserve the right to question that. Because that can be proven false or true. And the idea that trans women (i.e. people who, per definition, were born male) are exactly the same as women (i.e. people who, per definition, were born female) is the same kind of statement to me as "Ignorance is strength." If someone wants to believe that ignorance is strength, then that's on them. But I will not sit passively by and say that I can agree.

How do you live alongside people with whom you don't agree?

You say "we agree to disagree." You argue when the topic is actually going to be relevant to you. So, I would not mind whether a religious person believes in God and lives their lives accordingly. But I will not submit to following religious laws I do not believe in, to having my words re-defined according to religious belief (like if there was a push to call "evolution" "trans-creationism", you better believe I would protest) nor will I be forced to believe there is a God.

What do you call it when, not all that long ago, most people thought homosexuality was unnatural; a mental illness; perhaps they were resistant to the doublethink that for some people it could be as natural as breathing. Would it be doublethink to acknowledge two contradictory evaluations?

That's a false analogy completely. Firstly, I have never argued on this thread about the classifications of mental illnesses or how we should treat people.
In order to make the homosexuality argument the same as the doublethink involved with redefining "woman" according to transgender ideology you have to pretend that homosexuals said that they were trans-heterosexuals (or trans-straight):
"Trans-straight people are straight"
Where the idea is that homosexuality is a subset of and indistinguishable from heterosexuality.
Which it clearly isn't. Per definition.
And let me tell you, one thing I really appreciate about the "Gay and proud" idea, is that it celebrates that difference. The idea is that being homosexual isn't the same as being heterosexual. But that this is great, and gay people should be respected and loved. If the trans movement wanted to say "trans is not the same as being born in the opposite sex, that's wonderful," they should still be treated with respect and love, then it's a message I'd be completely behind. But right now I am being bullied into agreeing that males=females depending on a completely unfalsifiable claim, and that's just not true. So I can't be on board.

What do you call it when to you, gender identity is a nonsense that cannot possibly be, and to others it is a defining phenomenon of their existence?

I'd say it's exactly the same to me as religious belief. I am happy for others to believe as they wish and live their lives accordingly. But it's not for me, thanks. I will argue with you if you're making laws where I have to pretend that I believe the same things as you.

Would you call it doublethink?

No. Doublethink is very clearly defined, as I outlined.

Or would you call it tolerance?

Nobody is against tolerance. But I will stand for truisms.

Moreover, the point of this thread is specifically debating the idea that self-identification should be definitive of anything. To me, it's conceptual.

I am saying that I agree with the OP that your definition of "woman," being "anyone who identifies as a woman" tells us absolutely nothing about what "woman" means.

I think it only seems to make sense, because we already know that woman actually means adult human female. And you tacitly have to acknowledge the biological framework which you are simultaneously denying in order to make your definition hold. This still sounds like doublethink, to me.

So pretend you are an absolute newcomer to the language.

A "faroghitudeian" is "anyone who identifies as a faroghitudeian."

What is a faroghitudeian? What separates a faroghitudeian from non-faroghitudeians? How do you explain faroghitudeian to a child? How do we make laws for the protected identity faroghitudeian? What if being a faroghitudeian carries with it access to certain facilities? How do we know whether someone is a faroghitudeian for access to those services, or because they genuinely believe they are a faroghitudeian?

(That last question is obviously redundant, as anyone who says they are a faroghitudeian IS a faroghitudeian, by self-definition logic, and cannot be questioned.)

Do you see my issue with your definition now?

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

RatRolyPoly
... that statement is manifestly true. I wouldn't for a second deny it

And your proposed definition of 'woman', I recall, was 'an adult human female, or one who identifies as such'.

Look at the second disjunt there, 'one who identifies as [an adult human female]' According to this, to be a woman is to identify as an adult human female. But, of course, an adult human female is a woman. (If we were unaware of this, we could just check your first disjunct.)

So, of course, we get to this: to be a woman is to identify as a woman. (A standard trans statement of self-ID.)

The part of your definition of 'woman' that deals with self-ID, then, says nothing about what a woman is. You 'wouldn't for a second deny' this. What sort of definition says nothing about what the definiendum is? (Answer: no sort of definition at all.)

OK, we agreed the statement above is, as you say, manifestly true. What part of what follows from this about your definition is not manifest, I wonder? Again, help me out here, if you will.

Moreover, the point of this thread is specifically debating the idea that self-identification should be definitive of anything

That may be what you are debating on this thread, but personally I'm not interested. It is not in the least relevant to context of the definition I gave (I. E. Dictionary) and i'm not arsed about any Sunday navel gazing.

What separates women and trans women? The protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

How do we explain it to a child? Using more words than in the dictionary definition.

How do we write laws? Things have their own definitive definitions in law that may be slightly different to how those words are used in common parlance.

How do we separate services? We exclude those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment as per the equality act when necessary.

How do you know who's a woman? Most of the time it is none of your effing business, but when it we have ID and unchangeable birth records (FYI when you get your GRC you get a new revised birth certificate but the original birth record is not changed).

So by all means, debate the concepts all you like, but don't mistake me for someone who thinks it's particularly important to the actual issues at hand.

Let me rephrase that; the definition I offered up was a definition of the word "woman".

If the purpose of the thread is to debate how that definition is an insufficient description of the concept of a "woman", what I will say to that is...

"Yeah... duh."

speakingwoman

Re 'equals': I think use of '=' might be misleading.

Here is why. When we say 'A is B' for some A and B, the 'is' could mean one of two different things. Roughly speaking, there is the is of equality (often called 'identity', dread word) such as in 'twice two is four', and the is of predication (often called the 'copula') such as in 'T May is Prime Minister'.

It is easy enough to confuse these two, but actually they are genuinely different.

And, when we define things, we most often use the copula rather than the identity. In the case to hand we certainly do.

OK, but even saying that, I think your example of Muslims/Jews a fine one. Let us look at it. (I think some Jews accept converts, but that is irrelevant. There could consistently be such a practice as you describe, involving Muslims and not Jews, and that is all you need.)

So, look.
" to be a Muslim is to identify as a Muslim "
But " to be a Jew is not to identify as a Jew "

So, you conclude, identifying as x does sometimes tell us something about x as there is a difference between Muslims and Jews as regards their self-identification practices. Neat.

Note, first, that implicit in the example is our knowledge that it is necessary to be M that one identifies as M (though probably not sufficient!), whilst it is not sufficient to be J that one identify as J (although it may well be necessary).

So what is denied in the J case, it seems, is not what is asserted in the M case. Perhaps this might give us pause.

But maybe not. As I said above, the actuality is not important - it is whether the example is conceivable. And surely it is conceivable that we could have a difference between M and J in that to be M it is necessary to identify as M, whereas it is just not necessary to identify as J in order to be J.

Will that do for your case? No. Here is why. The difference turns on the necessity and not the self identification. The self identification tells us nothing, albeit that whether or not it is a necessary condition does have consequences for what it it to be M (or J). We may well miss this, again, at least in part because our background knowledge of the example hinders our focus on the formal aspects of the case (its logic, in short).

Recalling that we were/are interested in self-identification as definitive, we can stick with the original 'To say that to be x is to identify as x says nothing about what x is.'

Thanks for the example, again. Interesting to think through. No real relevance to the self-ID debate however; I wonder if you agree.

[I have to go away again for a day or two, offline (nothing serious, but inescapable). Again, I will come back and read, possibly post more, after that.]

Rat
Thanks for coming back to me on this Sunday . I would like it very much if you could extend that courtesy to our OP 9toenails and their question, as they started this whole conversation in the first place, and I worry that I am derailing the intent of the thread.

In response to the points you addressed to me:

What separates women and trans women? The protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Here you are actually acknowledging that women and trans women are not the same. But you haven't given me a clear definition of woman, which includes both categories, is non-circular, and doesn't rely on self-identifying.

How do we explain it to a child? Using more words than in the dictionary definition.

No really, I'd like to hear how you would explain it to a child. Ideally without both acknowledging and denying biology at the same time.

How do we write laws? Things have their own definitive definitions in law that may be slightly different to how those words are used in common parlance.

But the whole point is that self-ID would change your legal sex. Therefore males can be the same as females, legally, as long as they "identify as such" without any gatekeeping. This is merging the two categories, and we still don't have anything that specifies what holds them together apart from the troublesome "identifies as," which tells us nothing about that the group means.

How do we separate services? We exclude those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment as per the equality act when necessary.

You know as well as I do that this is a practical nightmare waiting to happen. Again, you are acknowledging that trans women are not actually women, because "gender reassignment" separates them. Practically, self-ID it will either come down to "passability", which seems even more unfair than our current systems. Or everyone is let in, which will absolutely impact services for females.

How do you know who's a woman? Most of the time it is none of your effing business, but when it we have ID and unchangeable birth records (FYI when you get your GRC you get a new revised birth certificate but the original birth record is not changed).

The original birth certificate is SEALED and can only be viewed by a few people. I believe it is a criminal offense to reveal someone's gender history without consent if they have a GRC. So it is not as though I can just phone up and check. Legally, holders of a GRC are the same as members of the opposite sex, unless very exceptional circumstances arise. The fact that the original is somewhere under tight security is of very little practical use to me. Additionally, you're still agreeing that trans women are not actually the same as biological women, but have yet to give me a unifying definition of the two that doesn't rely solely on the self-ID principle, which I think we all agree doesn't define anything in concrete terms.

And I don't think working out ideological positions, definitions of terms, and explaining concepts is a waste of time. Is philosophy just navel-gazing? You're welcome to disagree.

Now, to OP's questions:

The part of your definition of 'woman' that deals with self-ID, then, says nothing about what a woman is. You 'wouldn't for a second deny' this. What sort of definition says nothing about what the definiendum is? (Answer: no sort of definition at all.)

OK, we agreed the statement above is, as you say, manifestly true. What part of what follows from this about your definition is not manifest, I wonder? Again, help me out here, if you will.

Toenails.

You’re trying to say we still don’t know what a Jew/Muslim is. They might not be religions. They might be types of tree, cave, etc.

Ok

Don’t understand the expression “to be x is to identify as X” if I can’t substitute an equals sign. Don’t understand the predicate thing, plse explain. Thanks.

Isnt the key thing that these labels(black/asian/Jewish) are externally imposed

speakingwoman:

Don’t understand the expression “to be x is to identify as X” if I can’t substitute an equals sign. Don’t understand the predicate thing, plse explain. Thanks.

I will try.

[TLDR. Using '=' in place of 'is' can sometimes be confusing given different uses for 'is'. Let us try to avoid it if possible .]

Let me say first, as an aside, that the nomenclature here is not wholly settled, as often happens when we straddle overlapping areas. (Linguistics, formal semantics, model theory, philosophy, philosophical semantics, to name but a few.)

Some people call 'is' a copula wherever it appears, for instance, then distinguish different copulae; others take 'copula' to refer to the predicative use only, and go on to distinguish this from the use as identity, denying this latter the name 'copula'. And so on. A can of worms for the neophyte.

I will try to ignore such divergence of use. 'The predicative thing' is what you want to know about. I will try to explain that and why I am wary of '=' in such contexts as ours.

What follows looks complicated, but really only because of attempts at being fairly precise. The ideas are actually quite simple (honest!):

There are different uses of the verb 'to be', in English as well as other languages. Sometimes these are hidden. (Hence, in part, ' analyis ' in ' analytic philosophy'.)

Here are four such uses:

1. Existence
2. Predication
3. Subsumption
4. Identity

To help with the first three, a famous example (from Bertrand Russell, see, e.g. On Denoting ) :

Suppose someone says, 'The King of France is bald'. Is that true, false, or meaningless? There is no King of France, so 'The King of France' does not denote anything, but nevertheless the sentence seems to make sense. So?

Long story short. On analysis, 'The King of France is bald' can be seen as equivalent to this:

' There is(1) a King of France (and only one), and whatever is(2) The King of France is(3) bald. '

Seeing this equivalence allows us satisfyingly to categorise the original ' The King of France is bald ' as false, and for exactly the right reason too - because there is no King of France.

So, focusing on our own specific purpose,

1. The claim there is a King of France involves an 'is' of existence: it amounts to saying the King of France is something that exists.

1. Now consider the 'whatever is the King of France'. This involves an 'is' of predication. This might be more easily seen if - as is conventional - we replace the 'whatever' by a variable - 'x', say. Then we will have, simply 'x is the King of France', which we say, predicates the property of being the King of France to the (indeterminate) x.

1. We can also name the property of being the King of France; call this property 'K'. Now the last part of the statement above comes out as 'Anything K is bald'. This illustrates the 'is' of subsumption. The property of being K is subsumed under the property of being bald.

[This latter 'subsumption' use/meaning for 'is' clearly relates to logical implication, and (thereby) also to set (or class) inclusion. One reason I am wary of giving exlanations in this area involving sets/classes is that similar confusions sometimes arise in doing so to those that may occur regarding '='. Best to try to do as much as possible in ordinary language.]

Now, what about the 'is' of identity? I had 'two times two is four' as an example earlier. Possible confusions with the 'is' of predication was what made me suggest we eschew using '=' as an 'is' replacement, even if in some cases it is appropriate, as in 'twice two = four'.

[People have also confused identity with existence and with subsumption, as I mentioned just above. Easy enough to do.]

In our example, 'A woman is a female' predicates 'female' of 'woman'; it says that a woman has the property of being female. An identity between being a woman and being a female? Or beween 'woman' and 'female'? Hmm.

One difference between predication and identity is that identity is a relexive relation: if x is(identically) y then y is(identically) x. Predication, not so: x is(predicatively) y does not imply y is(predicatively) x. A woman is a female, but a female is not necessarily a woman.

Or what about subsumption? Being a woman is subsumed under being female? Hmm again.

These 'Hmm's are intended to indicate that the distinctions may not be clear cut. For example in some cases we might want to generate a kind of identity using predicative 'is's. Some people talk of gaining a 'general identity' in definitions involving necessary and sufficient conditions stated in predicative terms, for instance.

But I would rather not go down that route, at least here at the start.

speakingwoman

[There is a bad typo in my previous post: for 'relexive' relation, read 'reflexive' relation. ]

As you say,
You’re trying to say we still don’t know what a Jew/Muslim is. They might not be religions. They might be types of tree, cave, etc.

Indeed. In fact, just from taking it it that to be M is to identify as M, we do not even know whether or not there even is anything at all that is M. Do we?

The ' nothing ' in ' says nothing about what x is ' means what it says: nothing, nada, zilch, as some would put it.

-- Which makes ratrolypoly's 'definition', as I think I may have said, something of a non-starter. I wonder if ratroly might have the confidence to let us know where the misunderstanding lay.

That may be a step too far. But, still, thanks to all who contributed to this thread. (and apologies for not replying directly to everyone). I am still at something of a loss regarding the mistakes people make, but I think the fog may have lifted around some corners.

I will look at the thread over the next day or two. If anyone wants to know about the difference sinnlos vs unsinnig and its relevance, or anything else really, say so and I will have a go at explaining.

What about another is?

"to read 9toenails' posts is to realise that she has mistaken mumsnet for one of her student seminars and is applying inappropriate rules"?
and
"to know 9toenails is to love her and to realise that she's ok really"

I don't think you've covered that type of is....

Is your predicate thing saying that the "is" might mean that the second half of the thing might be describing a property of the first half of the thing.

And what did Rat actually say? There is so much obscurantism here I've completely forgotten.

speakingwoman

... mistaken mumsnet for one of her student seminars ...

Ha. Yes indeed, on reflection Russell On Denoting may have been a bit OTT. Might it be appropriate to leave the question of which sort that 'is' is as an exercise for the reader? (Although there may be precious few of those left by now, I would hazard.)

Is your predicate thing saying that the "is" might mean that the second half of the thing might be describing a property of the first half of the thing.

Yes, that is roughly the idea. Do notice, though, that to say, for instance, that violet is a colour, does not describe a property of violet so much as ascribe a property (that of being a colour) to violet. Or perhaps what looks like a predicate may actually hide a subsumption? Anyway, not an identity.

I know generally such fine distinctions can be ridden over roughshod, so to speak. I am in favour of allowing ordinary language to do its work. Sometimes, though - and self-ID and its associated conceptual pitfalls seems a case in point - such careful distinctions can be what helps us to a clearer understanding.

And what did rat actually say?

-- "A woman is an adult human female, or one who identifies as such", offered in response to the persistent challenge by the gender critical to the trans rights activist to come up with a definition of 'woman'.

To which my response, 'The whole notion of self-identification as definitive of anything is a non-starter (even as a disjunct ...)'

I was not sure how that is not understood by Rat and others. I am a little clearer now, although not much.

And, speakingwoman, one last thing. I am a man. Although I have mentioned this in posts on other threads, I did not in this thread. It seemed irrelevant.

Now I wonder if 'mistaking mumsnet for a student seminar' might not be re-interpreted as a genre of mansplaining. What do you think? I have long been aware of that possibility, given my job; in some ways teaching, particularly philosophy, allows/encourages mansplanations.

In any case, I had no intention to mislead, and I feel it incumbent on me to allow you the chance to withdraw your " to know 9toenails is to love her [actually 'him'] and to realise that she's [actually 'he's'] ok really " now you know me a little better, as it were.

Thanks for the thought, though, in any case.

We default the female here.

I think you’re a bit self-obsessed and/or a likeable troll. All the best.