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

[9toenails]

... 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?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

@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.

@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.

@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..

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

@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?

[quote Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud]@9toenails that is an excellent post. [/quote]
Thank you. That is kind.

@FanEffinTastic

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

You are welcome. Thank you for the feedback.

@auldcraw

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.

Thank you auldcraw.

I am not new to this, although I do have a lot to learn.

Yes, really it was the implications for children that really made me sit up and take notice. My own children are full-grown and in many ways well-insulated from sexist nonsense, at least in thought and sensibility. But I have grandchildren ...

Not the least concerning aspect of transgenderism is the way it reinforces the very gender stereotypes we once fought solidly against in our own lives and in our children's upbringing. It is weirdly strange that young people who consider themselves socially progressive should explicitly support such a regressive and reactionary sexist ideology.

Yes, it seems like a strange cult, not least in its irrational/nonsensical underpinnings. One aspect among many of the general loss of good sense in our culture? Sometimes I fear so. But then my own children and the women of MN FWR give me hope.

OP, what is propositional calculus? Do I need to dig out my old (very old) logic text books?

(And I agree with your earlier point: because this is an irrational belief akin to a religion, trying to demolish it by means of reason is difficult if not impossible. Its adherents are in search of emotional validation, not accuracy.)

Be careful 9toenails . Poster including myself have been deleted here for comparisons to a weird religion...of course you may be exempt being a male!

[quote Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud]@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..[/quote]
Thanks for the reference. I know what strawman means, as in strawman argument.

@TheGreatSloth

OP, what is propositional calculus? Do I need to dig out my old (very old) logic text books?

(And I agree with your earlier point: because this is an irrational belief akin to a religion, trying to demolish it by means of reason is difficult if not impossible. Its adherents are in search of emotional validation, not accuracy.)

Propositional calculus is the formal basis of logic dealing with the notion and usage of words such as "NOT," "OR," "AND," and "implies."

[This taken from Propositional Calculus, in Eric Weisstein's wonderful encyclopedia of maths (bought by Steven Wolfram a while ago, long story).]

Some people call it ' sentential calculus'; I suppose it depends on whether you think of sentences as themselves being true, or more carefully, perhaps, that it is what sentences say or express ('propositions', in other words) that can be true (or false of course).

I think the latter, but it is easier to explain if I pretend to think the former. So, here are three sentences (which express three propositions; I will stop saying that):
A: The cat sat on the mat.
B: The dog ate the bone.
C: The pigeon flew out of the window.

Each of those could be true or false. Think of these as atomic sentences or atoms of meaning. OK, now, we can combine these to get molecular sentences as follows: (examples)

A=>C ('If the cat sat on the mat, then the pigeon flew out of the window' or '(the truth of) "the cat sat on the mat" implies (the truth of) "the pigeon flew out of the window"'
(A and B) => C ('If the cat sat on the mat and the dog ate the bone, then the pigeon flew out of the window')
not (A or B) ('It is not the case that the cat sat on the mat and the dog ate the bone')

OK? Now, the truth of a molecular sentence depends on the truth of its constituent atoms and how these words 'not', 'and', 'or', 'implies' work. For instance, for any two sentences X and Y, ( X and Y ) will be true whenever X is true and Y is true, but false otherwise ... and so on. (The thing most students find tricky here is how 'implies' works: ( X implies Y ) is true whenever it is not the case that X is true and Y is false. Think about it.)

( 'not', 'and', 'or', 'implies' are called ' logical connectives ': they connect sentences to get other sentences. They are interestingly related.)

There. Propositional calculus. As I said, this is structurally the same as ('isomorphic to') basic set theory (think 'set union' and 'set intersection' as 'or' and 'and' ... 'subset of' will get you 'implies': can you see how?). Also there is an isomorphism between each of these two structures and the structure of certain basic electrical connections in circuits (connectives are now 'in parallel'/'or'/'set union', 'in series'/'and'/'set intersection' ...) -- Hence computers.

This, with all its As, Bs, Xs and Ys, looks a bit like algebra. The algebraic structure exemplified by the logic, the set theory, the computer circuits and so on is called Boolean Algebra, after George Boole (1815-1864). Also important, ... well, look it up: Stanford, a good place to start.

[Sorry, you probably did not want that much. My teacher-mode took over. There's a start, anyway.]

I think the comparison to transubstantiation is pertinent. To people outside of that way of thinking, especially in modern times, it seems utterly bizarre and of no consequence if none believes or not. There are people still believing in it now of course and it has importance for them personally but doesn't greatly impact how they go about their everyday lives.

However, there have been times in history when whether or not you believed in transubstantiation would have massive implications...on what profession you could enter for example.

@9toenails thank you- that's really helpful!

Do you fancy Eddie Izzard? If not, why not?

(Is it that 'she' still gas a fully functioning penis and wears false breasts? Does this make you transphobic)

From your original question, I think the conundrum is not 'in what way is this idology logical' as it obviously isen't.
The conundrum is how/why are so many following an idology that is so obviously such utter nonesense.
I wish I knew the answer.

Here’s my steelman of the argument, though I don’t think trans activists would agree, some transsexuals probably would.

A trans woman is a person born male who would prefer that everyone they interact with is either deceived into believing they are female, or at least pretends to. In order to make this more likely trans women will sometimes change their clothing or have cosmetic medical procedures done or alternatively just shout at people until they comply some trans women have very negative perception of the sexed aspects of their male bodies as well that causes them great distress, called gender dysphoria.

When people say trans women are women what us meant is “trans women should be treated in law as if they are women, despite the fact that they are male and the usual definition of woman is adult human female, because they’ve suffered so much and can’t we just be nice?”