Pronouns

Author: rbelivb

Posts

Total: 327
#181
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@rbelivb
For example, we could construct a totally arbitrary language game in which we refer to "oranges" as "apples" and vice versa. As long as we both agree on the terminology and the reality underlying it, there is no distortion of reality involved. If you ask me to pass you the orange then I would pass you the object we would otherwise refer to as an apple. To say that we "think apples are literally oranges" would be confused, and a falsehood.
What you are referring to is a dichotomous switch - all apples are now referred to as oranges. I would have no problems with this because we would still be able to define what an orange (which is now a pome fruit) and apple (now a citrus fruit). The transgender ideology is not like this - it prohibits a cogent definition of what a man and a woman is. Your scenario still allow for operable definitions. 

My worldview can easily define what a man is - that is, a plethora of biological complexions, however, your position would be hard pressed to form a cogent definition of a man. I throw the question to you. 
I don't view definitions as preceding the use of words in some essentialist way. A definition is simply a summary that allows us to understand how a word is used, and at times our use of words might conflict with the definitions provided by dictionaries, there is nothing inherently wrong about that.
When you use the term "man", by virtue of the way in which language operates, you are referring expressing an idea or a notion which is shortened into a small collection of characters. For me, instead of "I am a being consisting of X biological complexions", I say, "I am a man". So when you use the term "man" what are you referring to? 
Topic's author
#182
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Bones
The term "man" would now have two uses:
- An adult person who was born male and identifies as male.
- A shorthand for "trans man" - an adult person who was not born male but identifies as male.

Now it seems like your primary issue is that this would split the term into more than one possible use, or that it is different from how the language was previously used. I don't really understand what the problem is with that. 
#183
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,349
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@rbelivb
The problem is that it's nonsense,
From my point of view.

A woman is not a man.
#184
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@rbelivb
The term "man" would now have two uses:
- An adult person who was born male and identifies as male.
- A shorthand for "trans man" - an adult person who was not born male but identifies as male.
So the term "man" can refer to 
    • An adult person who was born male
    • An adult person who was not born male (A shorthand for "trans man")
    This makes no sense. 

    Now it seems like your primary issue is that this would split the term into more than one possible use, or that it is different from how the language was previously used. I don't really understand what the problem is with that. 
    The problem is that it will nullify the distinction between men and women in a way which makes both terms meaningless. 
    Topic's author
    #185
    rbelivb
    rbelivb's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 210
    1
    2
    5
    rbelivb's avatar
    rbelivb
    1
    2
    5
    -->
    @Lemming
    @Bones
    "Meaningless" or "nonsense" is an empty qualification that reflects only your own lack of understanding. There is no such thing as meaningless nonsense, since we live in a universe that is dense with information. Once you overcome the sense of generalized fear or distrust, then what seemed to be the meaninglessness of your environment or of other people's ideas, is revealed to be only your own pessimism. That is when you can adopt an attitude of enthusiasm, cooperation and curiosity about the complexity of the world, rather than reactive concern and worry. As the international model based on the nation state fades away, and we move into a global information economy, those who have a primary attitude of reactance and conservative fear will see evidence everywhere that their worries were justified, and their sense of injustice and resentment will only deepen. Yet cybernetic circuits of information are not meaningless, and in fact they offer new vectors of possibility for human life to those who are willing to explore them.
    #186
    Lemming
    Lemming's avatar
    Debates: 7
    Posts: 3,349
    4
    4
    10
    Lemming's avatar
    Lemming
    4
    4
    10
    -->
    @rbelivb
    Sure nonsense has 'explanations,
    But they're 'still absurd, abnormal, incorrect.

    My second brother's nonsense can mostly be attributed to his drug abuse effecting his brain,
    Lars and the Real Girl (Fictional movie) can be attributed to deep rooted psychological issues.

    I don't pretend that I believe in random theists deities.
    I don't see a need to believe that random trans are what they are not. (From my point of view)

    People can believe 'themselves what they are,
    But if a theist kept insisting to me that I need to call their deity real and the one true deity in conversation, I'd probably avoid talking with them so much.

    . . .

    Or flat earthers, need I say yes the world is flat, in conversation with them?
    Because their feelings will be hurt if I don't play along?

    . . .

    Tolerating individuals and/or groups, isn't the same as adopting their beliefs.
    #187
    sadolite
    sadolite's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 3,167
    3
    2
    4
    sadolite's avatar
    sadolite
    3
    2
    4
    -->
    @Lemming
    You know that and I know that,  that's two people not living a delusional indoctrinated lie.
    #188
    Bones
    Bones's avatar
    Debates: 31
    Posts: 968
    3
    7
    9
    Bones's avatar
    Bones
    3
    7
    9
    -->
    @rbelivb
    Let me unpack what you are saying a little more because it gets more wrong the more I read it. 

    - An adult person who was born male and identifies as male.
    - A shorthand for "trans man" - an adult person who was not born male but identifies as male.
    The underlined are contrapositive options selected from a binary sample, that is, they are the only two options out of a selection of two. We can thus just consider the entire set valid and not mention them (since you can only either be a biological male or not a biological male, and you argue that either can be a women, there's no need to mention born male or not born male as a criteria. That's like me saying "if you are a human you must either have hair or have no hair" - there's no point of mentioning it as "no hair" and "hair" are the only two possible outcomes, it's a necessary part of all human which is fulfilled by default.   

    This leaves us with the second half, identifies as a male. This is completely circular. You are saying a man is that who identifies as a male. But what is a male then?  What are trans man identifying as? 


    #189
    Lemming
    Lemming's avatar
    Debates: 7
    Posts: 3,349
    4
    4
    10
    Lemming's avatar
    Lemming
    4
    4
    10
    -->
    @sadolite
    Well, if I was looking at it from the other side,

    I might suppose some 'parts of ancient societies, Romans, Greeks, had the idea of there being a dominant and a submissive part, in male homosexual relationships,
    But so far as I know, submissive 'still wouldn't be women.

    Used to be in America, we used to view women more often in the caretaker/home role,
    But even if there was a guy in such a role, they still wouldn't be a woman, and people wouldn't view them as such, though maybe the guy feels his honor hit, if not taking his expected role.

    I suppose eunuchs, lose a bit of their maleness,
    Thought being so they can guard a harem without people worrying about the women's chastity, or so they don't have kids and harbor ambitions of taking power.
    But they'd 'still be a guy to my thinking, just a guy missing his reproductive parts.

    Hm,
    Looking at it 'farther on the other side, it's true that there are individuals born or raised in either social or medical confusion as the opposite sex or both,
    But I see such as an 'exception, and not the topic of debate usually, in which people argue it's normal for men/women who are physically 'obviously their sex, to have a 'sex 'change 'operation.

    There's even various arguments for the operation, some arguing it's about choice, some arguing it's in their brain and they 'have to have it.

    Though what 'really bothers people against normalizing trans operations, is people who encourage it on kids who are physically 'obviously their sex.

    . . .

    I think Jordan Peterson said he's willing to use someone's pronoun if asked, but is heavily against the refusal to do so being lawfully made a hate crime.
    #190
    Bones
    Bones's avatar
    Debates: 31
    Posts: 968
    3
    7
    9
    Bones's avatar
    Bones
    3
    7
    9
    -->
    @rbelivb
    If you can't provide a sound, scrutinised definition of "man", your entire position falls apart, for I can always ask, "what are trans men identifying as". 
    #191
    sadolite
    sadolite's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 3,167
    3
    2
    4
    sadolite's avatar
    sadolite
    3
    2
    4
    -->
    @Bones
    The irony of this whole argument is that the very people pushing the trans/gender/pronoun agenda are the very same people telling us that gender is a social construct and should be ignored.  You cant make this shit up.
    Topic's author
    #192
    rbelivb
    rbelivb's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 210
    1
    2
    5
    rbelivb's avatar
    rbelivb
    1
    2
    5
    -->
    @Bones
    This leaves us with the second half, identifies as a male. This is completely circular. You are saying a man is that who identifies as a male. But what is a male then?  What are trans man identifying as? 
    Male, or man, would in this sense be a gendered term used to refer to those who choose that label. Another similar example would be names: I'm sure you cannot provide a definition of "Bones" that makes it "meaningful" that I refer to you by this name. It is simply the term which you have elected and there is a given understanding that others will refer to you under this name. It is a sort of contract of understanding between the two parties to use language that way.
    #193
    3RU7AL
    3RU7AL's avatar
    Debates: 3
    Posts: 14,582
    3
    4
    9
    3RU7AL's avatar
    3RU7AL
    3
    4
    9
    -->
    @sadolite
    You know that and I know that,  that's two people not living a delusional indoctrinated lie.
    which is exactly what any christian would argue about any non-christian
    #194
    Bones
    Bones's avatar
    Debates: 31
    Posts: 968
    3
    7
    9
    Bones's avatar
    Bones
    3
    7
    9
    -->
    @rbelivb
    Male, or man, would in this sense be a gendered term used to refer to those who choose that label. 
    Choose that label? You do understand that this is still circular right? 

    • A man is that who refers to that label. 
      • The label in question is man. 
        • A man is therefore a man. 
    If you wish to use the term man, please define it cogently. 

    I'm sure you cannot provide a definition of "Bones" that makes it "meaningful" that I refer to you by this name. It is simply the term which you have elected and there is a given understanding that others will refer to you under this name. It is a sort of contract of understanding between the two parties to use language that way.
    Okay so if we consider pronouns as names, this brings a whole plethora of problems. Consider the name David" - I'm sure any Davids connection with their name is one of pure nostalgia - were all the Davis in the world to have been born "Jim", they wouldn't likely be saying "Damn I wish my name was David". You may refute this by saying "well why do people change their names? What is the reason? To which I will say that one changes their name because they like the ideas that the name resonates - whether it be for the etymology or purely phonetic appeal, they change their name because they like the properties of the new name. 

    Why do trans people change genders? For the etymology? Phonetic appeal of "her" instead of "him"? (please don't say because they feel like a man) The reason must be because of the properties which the new pronoun contains. To which I ask, what are the properties i.e. what is a man? 
    #195
    zedvictor4
    zedvictor4's avatar
    Debates: 22
    Posts: 12,071
    3
    3
    6
    zedvictor4's avatar
    zedvictor4
    3
    3
    6
    -->
    @Bones
    People are born neither Jim nor David.

    Whereas people are born either as a sperm producer (m).

    Or an egg producer (f)

    Though developmental anomalies will occur.

    But not to be confused with the development of sociological anomalies.

    Whether or not one wishes to be referred to as male, female or a banana, doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the base categorisation.

    m f......We all know what you are

    other......Always an element of frisson.

    LGBGTQetc......Boring.
    #196
    Bones
    Bones's avatar
    Debates: 31
    Posts: 968
    3
    7
    9
    Bones's avatar
    Bones
    3
    7
    9
    -->
    @Lemming
    I think Jordan Peterson said he's willing to use someone's pronoun if asked, but is heavily against the refusal to do so being lawfully made a hate crime.
    I agree - there is absolutely no way the law should be able to compel you to certain speech, especially if the speech is demonstrably false. 
    Topic's author
    #197
    rbelivb
    rbelivb's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 210
    1
    2
    5
    rbelivb's avatar
    rbelivb
    1
    2
    5
    -->
    @Bones
    Okay so if we consider pronouns as names, this brings a whole plethora of problems. Consider the name David" - I'm sure any Davids connection with their name is one of pure nostalgia - were all the Davis in the world to have been born "Jim", they wouldn't likely be saying "Damn I wish my name was David". You may refute this by saying "well why do people change their names? What is the reason? To which I will say that one changes their name because they like the ideas that the name resonates - whether it be for the etymology or purely phonetic appeal, they change their name because they like the properties of the new name. 
    I agree that there is reason behind it, but certainly not in direct sense that every word in our vocabulary must be provided with an encompassing definition in the sense that it refers to a material object in a semantically enclosed way. As I previously mentioned, I think words like the or and are good examples, since we all agree that they are useful, yet they are incapable of the kind of definition you are talking about, the definitions provided in dictionaries are simply grammatical descriptors of their use in language; e.g. the is defined as, "denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge." This is "circular" because the definition of the term is the description of its use in everyday language.

    Like you say, we might choose a name because of the way that this name resonates, and this resonance may provide the meaning which causes us to choose one label over another, but this resonance does not constitute a direct definition. Therefore, if we are asking about the resonance of the term man, we are asking about its cultural instantiations, its historical meaning, its context and the connotations it has. The reason people choose the label depends on their personal psychological response to all of these, and I choose personally to respect their decision even if it is purely because of its "phonetic appeal".
    #198
    3RU7AL
    3RU7AL's avatar
    Debates: 3
    Posts: 14,582
    3
    4
    9
    3RU7AL's avatar
    3RU7AL
    3
    4
    9
    -->
    @Bones
    om a binary sample, that is, they are the only two options out of a selection of two. We can thus just consider the entire set valid and not mention them (since you can only either be a biological male or not a biological male, and you argue that either can be a women, there's no need to mention born male or not born male as a criteria. That's like me sa
    it's exactly the same as someone self-identifying as a "christian" or self-identifying as an "atheist" or self-identifying as a "gnostic" or self-identifying as a "hindu"

    you don't need a "strict definition" of "christian" in order to understand generally what someone means when they call themself a "christian"

    have you even considered why this particular "denial of reality" is any concern of yours, when many other "denials of reality" don't seem to bother you in the slightest ?

    and sure, what if it is, for the sake of argument, technically "a denial of reality", so what ?
    #199
    3RU7AL
    3RU7AL's avatar
    Debates: 3
    Posts: 14,582
    3
    4
    9
    3RU7AL's avatar
    3RU7AL
    3
    4
    9
    -->
    @Bones
    I agree - there is absolutely no way the law should be able to compel you to certain speech, especially if the speech is demonstrably false. 
    which means you agree that nobody should be forced to call themselves "male" or "female" based on anything except their personal preference
    #200
    Lemming
    Lemming's avatar
    Debates: 7
    Posts: 3,349
    4
    4
    10
    Lemming's avatar
    Lemming
    4
    4
    10
    -->
    @Bones
    It's a bit off topic, but I suppose I'd understand compelled speech if it were a nation built around and 'of an idea,
    Such as if America 'was a Theocratic state,, requiring an oath before God for public officials when taking office,
    Would 'limit the country though, to Christians, thus limiting talent, which would be bad,
    Though argument can be made for homogeneity,
    And I 'greatly dislike how items such as the pledge of allegiance trivialize oaths and by such make them meaningless.

    I can't say I view America 'as a pure Theocratic state currently though,
    Though it's not the separation between church and state that I say this,
    Even with such a separation, I think religion could have a heavy enough pull that people 'still make laws and expectations around it,
    Number of monarchies, even when they had power, monarchs and people still steeped in religion.

    Not saying I 'want America to be a Theocratic state,
    Just that if a nation were founded or 'of enough people who believe certain concepts, an 'amount of compelled speech would be required,
    A lesser example would be no cursing in school.

    People can 'call 'themselves what they wish,
    But,
    We can't have male or female prisoners going to the wrong prison, just because they 'say they're the opposite sex,
    We can't have Mike Tyson competing in the Bantam weights, just because he 'says he weighs  116 pounds.
    It's not right for someone to lie to their partner and claim to be the opposite sex when getting married.
    A 'degree of forced speech is necessary, such as if a person when asked, claims there is no fire in a building when there is, and a bunch of people die.
    Topic's author
    #201
    rbelivb
    rbelivb's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 210
    1
    2
    5
    rbelivb's avatar
    rbelivb
    1
    2
    5
    -->
    @3RU7AL
    have you even considered why this particular "denial of reality" is any concern of yours, when many other "denials of reality" don't seem to bother you in the slightest ?
    Really, it's nothing to do with homophobia, they're just really big fans of the dictionary.

    If we venture outside the boundaries of Merriam-Webster, Western Civilization is in danger of collapsing. 😅
    #202
    3RU7AL
    3RU7AL's avatar
    Debates: 3
    Posts: 14,582
    3
    4
    9
    3RU7AL's avatar
    3RU7AL
    3
    4
    9
    -->
    @Lemming
    And I 'greatly dislike how items such as the pledge of allegiance trivialize oaths and by such make them meaningless.
    The pledge story begins with Daniel Sharp Ford, publisher of a children’s magazine called The Youth’s Companion. In 1888, Ford’s publication began selling American flags to public schools as a way to encourage subscription sales. Unfortunately, most school administrators weren’t putting these symbols of the American republic in classrooms. What Ford needed to drive up flag sales was a patriotic marketing scheme. The entrepreneur understood that creative marketing beats as the heart of modern-day capitalism. Luckily for Ford, he found a ready-made marketing opportunity – the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’s first voyage to the Americas.

    Ford’s nephew, James Upham, ran The Youth’s Companion’s premium department. Upham came up with a novel idea – invent a patriotic pledge for children to swear allegiance to the American republic as symbolized by the flag. In 1891, Youth’s Companion hired Francis Bellamy, a former Baptist preacher from Massachusetts, to devise the flag oath.

    The year before, Bellamy’s Boston congregation had forced him to resign his job as church pastor. The trouble had been the slant of his sermons. Bellamy was a Christian socialist. He believed that, following the teachings of Jesus, Christians should always be active in promoting “the rights of working people and the equal distribution of economic resources.” [**]
    #203
    3RU7AL
    3RU7AL's avatar
    Debates: 3
    Posts: 14,582
    3
    4
    9
    3RU7AL's avatar
    3RU7AL
    3
    4
    9
    -->
    @Lemming
    A 'degree of forced speech is necessary, such as if a person when asked, claims there is no fire in a building when there is, and a bunch of people die.
    citation please
    #204
    3RU7AL
    3RU7AL's avatar
    Debates: 3
    Posts: 14,582
    3
    4
    9
    3RU7AL's avatar
    3RU7AL
    3
    4
    9
    -->
    @rbelivb
    Really, it's nothing to do with homophobia, they're just really big fans of the dictionary.
    wouldn't it be nice if "the dictionary" could answer every single question on every single topic ?
    #205
    3RU7AL
    3RU7AL's avatar
    Debates: 3
    Posts: 14,582
    3
    4
    9
    3RU7AL's avatar
    3RU7AL
    3
    4
    9
    -->
    @Lemming
    We can't have male or female prisoners going to the wrong prison, just because they 'say they're the opposite sex,
    current laws do not prevent this

    it makes way more sense to divide sports and prisons by "weight-class" and or "muscle to fat ratio" (both of which are quantifiable without a biopsy and or strip-search)

    We can't have Mike Tyson competing in the Bantam weights, just because he 'says he weighs  116 pounds.
    boxers drop weight to qualify for lighter weight-classes all the time, regardless if they are named "mike tyson" or not
    #206
    Lemming
    Lemming's avatar
    Debates: 7
    Posts: 3,349
    4
    4
    10
    Lemming's avatar
    Lemming
    4
    4
    10
    -->
    @3RU7AL
    Say there are three doors in a zoo, and I lie to an individual, telling them that the trapdoor to the Tiger Pit is the bathroom,
    How do I need a citation?
    Free Speech doesn't need to be black and white,
    There's gray, exceptions,
    It's like that blasted abortion disagreement this site had a bit ago,
    People fall into the gray more than the extremes, I 'think,
    It's absurd to go about life in black and white morality/

    There's a reason men and women are separated to a degree in society, 'beyond weight.

    The point is that Mike Tyson would have to actually 'be bantam weight,
    He couldn't just 'say he was because he 'felt like it,
    And as current technology goes, a normal human man can't be made into a woman or vice versa, I think.
    #207
    FLRW
    FLRW's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 6,597
    3
    4
    8
    FLRW's avatar
    FLRW
    3
    4
    8
    -->
    @Lemming
    And as current technology goes, a normal human man can't be made into a woman or vice versa, I think.
    No, but his brain can have him think like a woman. “The brain and the body can go in different directions,” Dr. Altinay says. “Gender is not only in our genitalia; there’s something in the brain that determines gender.”
    #208
    Lemming
    Lemming's avatar
    Debates: 7
    Posts: 3,349
    4
    4
    10
    Lemming's avatar
    Lemming
    4
    4
    10
    -->
    @FLRW
    A brain tumor can tell a person to kill people,
    Doesn't make it 'normal or desirable.

    And arguably, I'd say people are bothered less by people born with genetic defects in body, or scientifically identifiably 'material brain disorders,
    Than they are by people who 'normalize sex changes for 'normal people.
    #209
    3RU7AL
    3RU7AL's avatar
    Debates: 3
    Posts: 14,582
    3
    4
    9
    3RU7AL's avatar
    3RU7AL
    3
    4
    9
    -->
    @Lemming
    Say there are three doors in a zoo, and I lie to an individual, telling them that the trapdoor to the Tiger Pit is the bathroom,
    How do I need a citation?
    an actual legal case study might clear this up nicely
    #210
    3RU7AL
    3RU7AL's avatar
    Debates: 3
    Posts: 14,582
    3
    4
    9
    3RU7AL's avatar
    3RU7AL
    3
    4
    9
    -->
    @Lemming
    People fall into the gray more than the extremes, I 'think,
    It's absurd to go about life in black and white morality/
    exactly

    not necessarily 100% M (OR) 100% F