• Moliere
    1.4k
    The amount of time and types of things you do for each other can be said to be physical quantities. I could even say that feelings are physical as well, but I don't like to use those incoherent terms, "physical" and "mental". Everything is information. Your feelings inform you of the state of your body and can say that they are the relationship between mind and body. Relationships are a process. Nothing is either physical or mental. It is all process/information.Harry Hindu

    The important thing here is that these aren't measurable quantities that you can independently verify.
  • TheWillowOfDarkness
    1.6k


    I'm not talking about just individual preferences. I'm talking about a feature of a person that is womanhood or manhood. This is an objective feature which will defy the preferences of some individuals.

    If you want to use an "umbrella term" to look people into one particular notion of what manhood or womanhood might be, they objective feature of their manhood or womanhood will defy you. When you get up up spluttering: "Buuuutttt, they cannot have womanhood/manhood. They don't have these genitals/chromosomes/hormones/behave in the right way....," the objective fact of their womanhood or manhood will not care one iota for you preference for womanhood/manhood to be restricted to your preferred set of traits. The truth of womanhood or manhood itself will always win.

    Why call it manhood or womanhood? It's the feature of the person we are describing. A woman, whatever her traits. A man, whatever his traits. We don't call it manhood or woman because we get told the specific traits someone (we have the precise descriptions of body part, behaviour, etc. for that) has, we do so because we are talking about the specific feature of belonging to manhood and womanhood.

    Neither have ever been "umbrella terms." In the context of describing as belonging manhood or womanhood, they are descriptions that an individual has the trait of being a man or being a women.

    The so called "umbrella term" has only ever been used by those who are interested in declaring men and woman have to be one thing or another, an attempt to institute their preference for men and women over the objective feature of being a man or woman. It's never what is referenced when someone is described as being a man or a woman.
  • Harry Hindu
    1.3k
    The important thing here is that these aren't measurable quantities that you can independently verify.Moliere
    Of course they are. Time is measurable and the things people do for each other are categorical.
  • Harry Hindu
    1.3k
    I don't see how any of this is any different from the post I responded to, so my previous post stands. Your whole post is circular. You simply state that there is some objective feature that is called either "manhood" or "womanhood", but fail to actually point out what that objective feature is. If it is objective, then we can all see it.

    Does the fact that I prefer chocolate ice cream fall under "manhood" or "womanhood"?

    And if the notion of "manhood" and "womanhood" are of an individual preference or feeling, then how can you call someone who has a different notion of what "manhood" and "womanhood" are a "bigot"? You people just keep contradicting yourselves. Can you please filter your thoughts a bit more for consistency before posting them?
  • Moliere
    1.4k
    What actions with respect to time lets you know if someone you met is the nephew of someone else?
  • Harry Hindu
    1.3k
    Aren't we getting off topic here? I did say time and the types of things people do for each other and genetic relationships are what make your identity. I also said that we have many different identities. Some identities are measured by one or more of those three features, while some are measured by just one. Nephew, for instance, is of the genetic type. Friend could probably be measured by time and the things people do for each other.

    Stop creating red herrings and get back on topic.
  • Moliere
    1.4k
    Not at all.

    Thus far you believe there must be some objective, measurable entity you can independently verify in order to take the claim that someone's identity is what it is seriously. I'm saying that this is inconsistent with how we do, in fact, determine someone else's identity. So rather than focus on the contentious claim I'm going to other parts of identity that you are likely to accept, such as nephewhood.

    How do you determine nephewhood? You wouldn't focus on genes here for the simple fact that someone can be adopted into a family. So that leaves, in your list of acceptable criteria, things people do for each other and time.
  • Harry Hindu
    1.3k
    Re-read my post above because I edited while you were replying.

    I'll add in response to to your latest post that nephewhood can be measured by either genetic or legal relationships. While many might consider "legal" something non-physical, I would just fall back on my previous explanation of my dislike in using the terms, "physical" and "non-physical". Let's just say that they are measurable and categorical. Nephewhood still falls into the category of "son of your sibling", which could be biological or legal.
  • Moliere
    1.4k
    Alright, so if there were a law, say, that people could declare their gender-identity and it was written down then you'd accept the claims being made?
  • TheWillowOfDarkness
    1.6k


    The objective feature is being a man or woman, that someone is of womanhood or manhood. My point issuing a man or woman is itself a feature of a person, a property of them as an existing being. We can pick it out and describe the presence like anything else-- e.g. just as we understood the presence of red hair, someone with six fingers, which one of us is John, that I belong to The Philosophy Forum, we understand the feature of belonging to manhood or womanhood through the concept which understands its a future of a person (e.g. "John is a man/has manhood). It is not a feature granted by others (e.g. have certain genitals, behave the right way, etc.), bur rather a fact of a person giving in itself ("X is a man/woman"). Being man/women is the objective fact referred to.

    Preferring a certain sort of ice cream does not fall under manhood/womanhood. In any case, since you are a man, you will always be a man who likes the given flavour of ice cream. You will be a man no matter which flavour of ice cream you like, until such time (if any) it no longer a fact you are a man.

    This is this a question of individual preference or feeling. So long as you are man, anyone who thinks you are not a man will be factually wrong.

    In terms of bigotry, that is given on the basis of how an act is discriminatory, devalues and expresses power over a certain group, trans people in this case.

    When you get up and claim their identities are nonsense, it forms a social environment hostile to them. It claims those expressing trans identity out not be valued has having a genuine position, that there is something inherently wrong with being a trans person who exists, like they aren't meeting the standard of what consists a proper human. This is defined in terms of how your actions affect the group. In this respect, the issue of bigotry doesn't actually depend on trans claims being accurate. Even if we were to consider a world in which trans claims are mistaken, your position still has this discriminatory effect upon them and would be identified as such.
  • Harry Hindu
    1.3k
    Alright, so if there were a law, say, that people could declare their gender-identity and it was written down then you'd accept the claims being made?Moliere
    Now we're getting back to those arbitrary cultural rules I was talking about before. Culturally, nephewhood could be anything. Biologically, it is only one thing. Cultures emulate "newphewhood " by creating laws. Cultures can create "gender roles" by creating certain laws that men and women are suppose to abide by, even though both women and men can physically engage in any of those behaviors, cultures will limit those behaviors to certain groups. Again, all we are talking about is how cultures differ, not how the genders/sexes differ.
  • Harry Hindu
    1.3k
    The objective feature is being a man or woman, that someone is of womanhood or manhood. My point issuing a man or woman is itself a feature of a person, a property of them as an existing being. We can pick it out and describe the presence like anything else-- e.g. just as we understood the presence of red hair, someone with six fingers, which one of us is John, that I belong to The Philosophy Forum, we understand the feature of belonging to manhood or womanhood through the concept which understands its a future of a personTheWillowOfDarkness

    This is this a question of individual preference or feeling. So long as you are man, anyone who thinks you are not a man will be factually wrong.TheWillowOfDarkness

    These two statements contradict each other. If we can pick out what it is to be a man or woman because it is objective, then how can so many people be wrong and only the transgenders are right?

    Manhood and womanhood have to do with those objective features that differentiate the two, like in their physical structures the behaviors allowable by those structures. If you can't differentiate the two, then it becomes arbitrary, which is to say that is isn't objective at all.

    Preferring a certain sort of ice cream does not fall under manhood/womanhood. In any case, since you are a man, you will always be a man who likes the given flavour of ice cream. You will be a man no matter which flavour of ice cream you like, until such time (if any) it no longer a fact you are a man.TheWillowOfDarkness
    But if my individual preference is that preferring chocolate ice cream is a feature of manhood, then you'd be wrong - factually wrong (as you put it). Do you see where your argument is contradicting itself?

    When you get up and claim their identities are nonsense, it forms a social environment hostile to them.TheWillowOfDarkness
    Then why is it not considered hostile to tell a someone who believes themselves to be a special creation of "God", that they aren't?
  • TheWillowOfDarkness
    1.6k

    Apologies, I missed a "not." That second statement should read, "It's not a question of individual preference of feeling."

    As for how so many people can be wrong: lots of people sometimes make an error. This is the point: manhood or womenhood is an objective feature itself. To think it is made by the presence of physical or behaviours is an error. We don't have bodies which make us men or women, we are men/women with a body. We have manhood or womanhood not by having a bodily trait, but by having an objective feature of being a man or woman.We can always differentate the two: in itself, one man and the other is women.

    Even when two people have similar traits we can tell this. By the objective feature of "a person who is a woman" we know it's different to an objective feature of "a person who is a man." Which, for example, why a man isn't a transwoman or vice versa, even though they both have a penis.

    It is hostile to proclaim someone claiming to be the vessel of God is delusional. When we dismiss, scoff, laugh at them, we are discriminationating against them as a group. We are holding a position their understanding of themselves is incoherent, wrong and deserves no place of respect in society.

    The difference in this case is not in the fact a discrimination occurs, but in that discrimination in this case is justified.
  • Harry Hindu
    1.3k
    As for how so many people can be wrong: lots of people sometimes make an error.TheWillowOfDarkness
    Exactly. We can be wrong about who we are. I have provided evidence of this.

    We don't have bodies which make us men or women, we are men/women with a body. We have manhood or womanhood not by having a bodily trait, but by having an objective feature of being a man or woman.We can always differentate the two: in itself, one man and the other is women.TheWillowOfDarkness
    The only way I can differentiate between man and woman is by body structure and behavior. This is the same circular BS you said before. It is meaningless. I think you owe me and the readers of this thread an apology for wasting our time in reading your nonsense.

    It is hostile to proclaim someone claiming to be the vessel of God is delusional. When we dismiss, scoff, laugh at them, we are discriminationating against them as a group. We are holding a position their understanding of themselves is incoherent, wrong and deserves no place of respect in society.

    The difference in this case is not in the fact a discrimination occurs, but in that discrimination in this case is justified.
    TheWillowOfDarkness
    I'm not discriminating against the person. I'm discriminating their beliefs because they are inconsistent. It IS okay to dismiss incoherent dribble, like what you, Moliere and Banno are posting. All three of you do it on this forum, and it isn't hostile. It seems hostile if you are delusional - which is a symptom of a delusion.

    All you three have done is propagate this mass delusion of transgenderism as if it were a religion. The incoherence and ill-formed arguments are no different from those that attempt to defend their own delusions. It is obvious by the mental gymnastics you all performed that you simply don't want to admit that you are wrong. We all have to accept that we are wrong sometimes to grow as individuals - to evolve your identity.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment