The kind of “girl” that a boy who identifies as a girl thinks he is

[MyAmpleSheep]

How do people who celebrate the transitioning of five year old children know that the kind of girl a boy who identities as a “girl” identifies as is the same kind of girl that a girl who identifies as a “girl” is?

Other than than from what he sees girls doing, how can a boy “know” what being a girl is, to be sure he is one?

is it posited that there is an innate sense of boy:girl that exists outside of the experience of seeing and being the presence of others?

If a child was “raised by wolves”, could they be trans? If that child had a male body and reached the age of 20 never having seen or met or known of the existence of women is it possible for them to grow up with dysphoria? When eventually discovering the other sex would they suddenly recognize “they had been born in the wrong body”?

And now we are back to language.

After how many posts denying that a group of people who make language demands where terms with clearly defined and limited meaning as reference terms are being demanded to be recognised as having meanings including the opposite to the intended meaning then makes the term meaningless and not usable as the reference term it was intended to be.

Why are you unable to state what you believe to be true? You've asked people to accept the lifelong medicalisation of a child on the basis of what they believe, yet you - a presumably fully grown adult - can't articulate what you believe. Do you believe that a child with a male body is a boy, regardless of what they believe?

Honestly @Lacksie , if you had been clear that you were a post-modern, queer theory ideologist from the start, your posts would have made more sense (ie I would have understood why they were inconsistent and, often, incoherent). Still, we'll know for next time, won't we?

I might give Terry Eagleton's The Illusions of Postmodernism a reread. Just for some sanity.

@Lacksie Tbh, it might be your post-modern adherence to subjective truth that is giving you problems with understanding gravitational time dilation. The foundation of Physics, and indeed all science, is an objective definition of terms.

We can agree, then, that calling a child with a vagina a “boy” isn’t inherently a question of truth or falsehood.

Yes, you can also use words in a way that is insulting or sexist or metaphorical, but I think we are talking about the word you would use for a young human male.

I'm a fan of Cynical Theories - Pluckrose and Lindsay

They have been consistent that they followed these theories from the start though of this thread and over many threads now.

It is why there is no coherency to material reality or in use of language.

Ah well. I've been off MN a short while. Lacksie is new to me. Lexibletheflexible was the last person posting in this vein before I left.
Still, it's given the folks on the other current threads a break hasn't it.😘

Sorry @lacksie had a tonne of stuff to do today so not realised you were still posting.

Simple question. Are you a believer or follower of post modern queer theories?

We can't agree that at all.

Calling a dog or a horse or an adult male a good boy has no bearing on calling a human male child a boy. With respect to a child "boy" means one thing and one thing only.

The difference in use of the word is very clear to everyone except those who deliberately obfuscate to justify the affirmation and medicalisation of children with body dysmorphia.

A human female child is never a boy. She is a girl.

She means 'boy'.

Sex is not semantics.

for the purposes of this argument, and reality, accept that 'boy' means 'child with the male sex chromosomes'.

It's 'reductive' in the sense that all words are 'reductive', in that they actually mean something, and thereby logically do not mean all the other things they might mean.

'a semantic question' is just total bullshit, Lacksie. I was honest and tried to understand your question/assertions in good faith as best as I could. If you could be honest and try to answer honestly, instead of trying to prove how damn clever you are, and steadfastly refusing to look at questions you find difficult, we might actually be able to make some progress.

Here's an experiment, Lacksie. Try to challenge your own beliefs. Test them out. Look back over this thread, and instead of getting defensive and leaping to attack, consider where the holes in your argument are and try to grasp other people's viewpoints. You might actually find it worthwhile. I get that you really want to be right, but it's a pyrrhic victory if you win by playing word games. It won't ever actually satisfy the person making the hollow, avoidant arguments.

What speaks absolute volumes to me is how Lacksie can write ream after ream after ream, all day and all night for days on end, just to try and persuade people that boys and girls are a social category. In order for people, maybe lacksie, to fit into it.

All his 'right you agree with me thus far, phew, now let's get started on what we do about it' schtick. Which fools nobody, any where, any time.

What it is though, is so obsessive it's hard to believe.

@Lacksie do you play or participate in any sport?

To go back to @MyAmpleSheep's question - Other than than from what he sees girls doing, how can a boy “know” what being a girl is, to be sure he is one? - he can't. Whichever theory you adhere to. Either he can't know because he is not a girl, or he can't know because there is no fixed term 'girl' to know. Given that uncertainty, it seems irresponsible to treat the boy in any way that attempts to give him the fixed identity 'girl'. Case closed. Back to the biscuits.

Indeed

When the word is being used as a defined reference term that is not being used ironically, it is not an accurate or factual use of the term.

And around in the cycle we go!

A significant part of the discussion always comes back to language and its use and misuse as you point out.

@lacksie claimed to agree with your post that included "it does not and cannot and could not ever mean that a girl is born 'in a boys body' or vice versa." Hard to see how, if they subsequently claim they don't know what words mean.

Ah, so we’re getting somewhere with that. We can agree, then, that calling a child with a vagina a “boy” isn’t inherently a question of truth or falsehood. The meaning of the term depends on how it’s being used.

And in this context we are talking with a child.

Do you think its wise to say to a child that these words aren't inherently true or false, it depends on how they are being used?

Are you really wanting to stop children being able to communicate clearly about these words?

Can't help thinking that Queer theory is very unhelpful to all the men who want to argue that a woman is X and that they have done XYZ to fit into that category and that therefore they are part of that category.

Imagine being convinced as a child that following certain treatment you could change sex, and then being told by people who claim to support you that sex now means nothing.

Reminded of Big Robin the Booming Barrister who claimed he is 'semantically' a woman.

Did he mean sementically?

A man can become a woman if we change the meaning of the word woman to include anyone who identifies as one.

Absolute fucking hogwash. You'd think even the pomo semiotics academics might have something to say on this specious nonsense.

Sewomantically?