A social construction can't be rejected by an individual feeling, or else it's not a social construction. — Harry Hindu
If gender is a social construction that is being rejected by an individual, then that makes that individual non-gendered. — Harry Hindu
Then at that point you've crossed the line to it being biological.Now... what if instead of disowning the entire social construction of gender and throwing the baby out with the bathwater, a person came to disown the gender associated with their birth sex? — fdrake
If people are using a word, they must expect that it has a public meaning — Isaac
What I'm guessing you mean is that the information about each person which is used to label them with a gender is done 'publicly', so it's something which has a social-behavioural-biological component which everyone has access to. — fdrake
So when someone says they feel like a different gender, I imagine you imagine that they're taking their feeling 'I'm not this gender, I'm that one', and they're trying to put this feeling through the sorting machine above, and voila they're now whatever gender they desired as a result of their feelings. IE, their feelings suffice for the correct application of the identity label. — fdrake
So unless you can think of a fourth response, I think 3 is the better. Which means "man gives birth" (and other attempts to solidify identity choices) is a stupid headline because the only reason it would be newsworthy is in the biological context which is the one context in which its incorrect to label the person concerned a 'man' — Isaac
The 'community of language users' could all die in a fire and so long as a use is able to be learned in principle — StreetlightX
So, with a use where 'woman' is a lebel based on a private feeling, how is anyone able to learn it's use in principle? — Isaac
The conclusion is that a language in principle unintelligible to anyone but its originating user is impossible. The reason for this is that such a so-called language would, necessarily, be unintelligible to its supposed originator too, for he would be unable to establish meanings for its putative signs. — SEP, on the Private Language Argument
gender becomes one thing and one thing only and that is the expression of the private feeling of an individual.
I think you're completely over-estimating the role that "I am a woman" or whatever plays in the social process of identifying as any gender. No one would sincerely say "I am a woman" as a statement of their identity solely because of 'private feelings', they would feel a certain way about social relations and social roles which leads them to reject them. Whether they are motivated by personal feelings is much different from whether they are somehow imagining an impossible language whereby feelings alone can vouchsafe the meaning of words. — fdrake
It is no more a label based on a private feeling than the word 'pain' is a label based on a private feeling. And just as we learn to use the word 'pain', we learn to use the word 'woman' or 'man'. — StreetlightX
Words are not labels — StreetlightX
We learn to use the word pain by observing the actions and reactions of people using the word. If we say "I'm in pain" every time we laugh, smile carelessly and skip about with joy, we are using the word incorrectly. Pain has to have external, publicly available signs for us to use it, otherwise it would be impossible to learn. It cannot be a private feeling alone. — Isaac
And exactly what the fuck do you think those asking to be called women are asking? — StreetlightX
I think you're completely over-estimating the role that "I am a woman" or whatever plays in the social process of identifying as any gender. No one would sincerely say "I am a woman" as a statement of their identity solely because of 'private feelings', they would feel a certain way about social relations and social roles which leads them to reject (or embody) the social branding and expectations. — fdrake
Really, the error in imagining you're having is that you're thinking of these things as 'feelings alone' or 'private feelings'. As if they're not also reactions to public phenomena. — fdrake
The second part of your sentence seems to contradict the first. It reads to me as - they would not do so because of feeling, they would do so because of some way they feel. Which is the same thing. — Isaac
Ah, so you're a gender abolitionist then? — StreetlightX
I think you've both got the wrong impression of what I'm arguing. I'm not saying that the trans position is to make some kind of private language. I'm saying that the position it claims in response to accusations of gender stereotyping would do if it were true. I'm claiming that the trans agenda is very much at risk of gender stereotyping and its claims to the contrary are incoherent. — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.