I thought I would have a look at this thread, see how it developed, particularly as I felt I might have left a certain poster suggestionsplease1 a little in the lurch.
So, hmm, where to start. I think I mentioned upthread I would need to go back a long way: well, it is further back than I thought.
First , suggestionsplease1 , you say you think a false premise entails a false conclusion: '... my argument that there is a false premise (and therefore of course a false conclusion) in the article ...,' you say. No, sorry, that is just wrong. (Look up 'paradox of implication' somewhere, perhaps, if you want to know a bit about this -- lots of stuff available, easily found. Or maybe check out 'ex falso quodlibet' . Fun stuff, at the very least.)
It is, ime, difficult to discuss anything seriously with someone whose understanding of basic logic is so awry they do not understand, at least implicitly, the difference between validity and truth and so on. You, suggestionsplease1 , are one such, however, as this howler amongst others makes plain. (No, sorry, I do not intend to point out all your errors.) Go away and learn some elementary logic before you start bandying terms like 'premise' and 'conclusion' . You are way out of your depth.
[If this seems a tad harsh in tone, consider, suggestionsplease1 : you called me a liar: 'I am sure you are actually aware,' you said (of something I explicitly denied was the case). It is only the internet, only Mumsnet, but nevertheless I do not like being called a liar, even in my absence.]
Secondly (and more for others than you, suggestionsplease1 ), the author of the article in discussion does not make the mistake of asserting language is fixed and does not evolve. suggestionsplease1 reads 'indexical terms ... are held relatively fixed within our shared network of nested meanings' (author) as 'language is fixed and does not evolve' (suggestionsplease1)
The author says, 'when it comes to truth ..., logic has a say in the matter, other language users have a say in the matter, language itself has a say in the matter, and the objective world itself has a say in the matter' . All true.
The author's point about relative fixity within a shared network derives in part from the conclusion to the (Wittgenstein's) so-called private language argument ( pla ). (Albeit that the author takes a particular stance on precisely what the pla shows us about requirements for meanings to be 'public' (here 'shared' ), a stance which may be marginally controversial.)
Emphasis here is on 'shared' : think in particular how, as the author points out, indexicals require to be intersubjectively shared to be at all useful and hence to have any meanings. (A point whose importance to this debate is sometimes, I feel, obscured by its obvious truth. The pla is in some ways a bit of a sledgehammer for this particular nut. But there you go.)
Thirdly , a little about analytic/synthetic . The gender theorist's confusion, the author claims, '... culminates in the simple question ... “what do you mean by male?”' And such a theorist cannot give '... either a substantive analytic or synthetic definition of the term.'
There may be some discussion about the analytic/synthetic distinction. And strict definition can be something of a red herring. But really all the author is claiming here (and all he needs) is that the gender theorist cannot give an explanation of what he means in either logical or scientifically testable ('falsifiable'? -- choose your philosophy of science) terms. Which is true.
--Why? Because truth conditions, the author points out, require, once again, public criteria (not 'fixed' , notice, suggestionsplease1 : 'public' ) for their evaluation. And this the gender theorist has condemned himself to be unable to offer: all he can say, the author points out, is '... “it is the thing that I feel that I am.” Which is to say nothing at all.'
That 'nothing' is straightforwardly apt. The gender theorist here says, quite literally, nothing at all. He makes no sense.
So, once again, yes, modulo certain quibbles about side issues of possibly philosophical interest, the author is spot on. There is no such thing as gender identity because 'gender identity' makes no sense.
And, finally , suggestionsplease1 , try not to think in terms of 'intellectual superiority' (your phrase, I note). It is clear you do not understand most of this; but it is probably not that you lack the capacity to get to grips with it. Rather, you lack application to do so.
You may be content to remain ignorant. Many are. But if not, try to read some of the things I suggested; when people tell you you have misunderstood, go back and try to see where (they may be right); if someone says something, assume they mean it; and above all, do not assume everyone comes to a discussion with the attitude you presently have, of sticking with a conclusion or point of view through thick and thin. This is not a good attitude if you want to find out the truth about something.
-- Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by that same door as in I went.
-- No! Think, rather, of Ollie Cromwell's injunction to the Kirk: 'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.'