So it’s not their body that is disabling so much as its interaction with its environment. — Banno

the social model; the view that disability is largely created by architectural barriers, institutional practices, and social attitudes that fail to accommodate human variation. — Banno

That rather than being inherently negative, having a disability is just one more way of being a human, not inherently a disadvantage or a negative, but treated as such by many in the community. — Banno

I see a parallel in depression. A person with depression, it could be argued, is not incapacitated by a biomedical abnormality but by a disconnect between themselves and the social world. Depression is the lived form of the contradiction between human needs (for meaning, purpose, agency, etc.) and a society of alienation and domination. This contradictory interaction is constitutive of the personal "condition".

But I don't think this is a "social construct" model. The latter is too ontologically dualist, whereas this view is relational. So maybe it fits disability.

:up:

Out of interest, and I'm not holding my breath, but I don't suppose there is any chance at all of turning particular buttons on or off in particular categories? — bongo fury

A.I. features can be restricted to certain groups, so I could conceivably make it available only to those who ask for it, by creating a group called ... whatever the opposite of Luddites is.

But I'd prefer to turn features off for everyone, rather than dividing the membership like that. People can always use their LLMs independently, just as they always do.

1. AI Summaries (Topic Summaries)
4. AI Bot
5. Post Editing Assistant
6. AI Autofill / Autocomplete — Outlander

NOTE: I'd like everyone to know that I have not decided on which features to use, so we may not have these features turned on at the new TPF. I just reported on what was available in the AI plugin and expressed some tentative views.

@Paine @Hanover

To summarize:

AI on Discourse will not participate in discussions but will just do background labour—things like summarizing, filtering spam, providing help (like telling you how to change the background colour). It's just a clever tool, not a member of the forum.

I suggest you don't think of it as a participant. As I say, it won't do philosophy, just grunt-work.

any plans for the use of AI in our new home? — Banno

Rather than worrying about how much of a post is generated by AI, it might be useful to have the AI as a participant in the forum, so that the sort of questions at which it excels can be asked and answered quite openly. — Banno

There are several AI features included, and we may use some of them, but they won't replace one's own use of AI for research, and I won't be paying to integrate GPT5 or Claude or Gemini, since users can access those LLMs through their own accounts. The AI features will be powered only by the free LLM provided on Discourse hosting.

Additionally, hosted customers can use the CDCK Hosted Small LLM (Qwen 2.5) pre-configured in the settings page. This is an open-weights LLM hosted by Discourse, ready for use to power AI features. — meta.discourse.org

The features are:

1. AI Summaries (Topic Summaries)
Automatically generates short summaries of long threads, helping users catch up without reading entire discussions.

2. Semantic Search
Search powered by embeddings rather than keywords, returning relevant results even when queries use different wording.

3. AI Moderation
Detects spam, toxicity, NSFW material, and problematic content, reducing moderator workload.

4. AI Bot
A chat-style assistant that users can interact with. It can answer questions using forum content or general knowledge, depending on the model used.

5. Post Editing Assistant
Suggests rewrites, clarifications, translations, or tone adjustments while composing or editing posts.

6. AI Autofill / Autocomplete
Offers context-aware writing suggestions to help users complete sentences or refine ideas as they type.

7. AI Tools for Staff
Provides moderators/admins with tools such as user-history summaries and condensed views of long discussions.

8. AI Tagging / Categorization
Automatically assigns tags or recommends categories, improving forum organisation with minimal manual effort.

9. Related Topics (AI-powered)
Suggests similar past threads based on semantic similarity rather than keyword matching.

10. AI Translation
Provides instant translation of posts or post drafts, supporting multilingual community participation.

In other words, it's not for doing philosophy but for (a) managing the forum, (b) providing help to users ("how do I update my avatar?"), and (c) other unobtrusive useful things like summarizing topics, translation, and suggesting titles.

We can turn all those features off, but some of them are too useful. Those who don't like the encroachment of AI might not like the "Summarize topic" feature, but I actually think it'll be good. People are often too lazy to read a whole discussion before commenting, and sometimes it's so long that nobody is going to do it. In those cases its better that they have an idea of what's been said than no idea at all, no?

As for using it for moderation: nobody is going to be banned or anything by the AI bot. It will probably flag problematic content and then the human team will review it.

There’s room for everybody but the modern world loves building walls and categorizing everything. Am I a man, a woman, are we an Indigenous band, a queer band? All these boxes feel like barriers and we just fly right over the top on them — Zaachariaha

The interesting thing is that this actually reflects a non-binary attitude, rather than representing a typical trans outlook (not that I'm assuming there is such a thing). The idea that the problem is the boxes themselves doesn’t describe the experience of a lot of binary trans people, for whom the issue isn’t “why do we have categories at all?” but “why am I being put in the wrong one?”

As we know, the situation for many trans men and trans women is that they seek recognition according to the common gender binary. This is crucial to their dignity, safety, mental health and day-to-day life. So a slogan like “we just fly over the categories” doesn’t really speak for them.

That’s not a criticism of anyone; it just shows that “trans people” don't speak as one.

Isn't that supported by basic evolution? Even common layperson knowledge (caveman grunts, etc.)? A child can barely speak, but typically, gains the ability to as most every person can today. Isn't this a parallel to evolution of human society? — Outlander

The "caveman grunts" idea is not supported by any evidence. It's just a nineteenth century stereotype. The fact is that we cannot know, looking back in time, what language was like beyond a certain point. But the earliest languages we can actually study, like Sumerian, Old Chinese, and early Indo-European languages, are more complex grammatically than many languages today. So the evidence actually runs the other way.

So as I said, historical linguistics doesn't support your speculative claim, which is an empirical claim best settled scientifically (i.e., by historical linguistics).

And no, child development does not recapitulate evolution: the speech of children does not mirror some earlier, ostensibly simple, stage of human language. Children speak simply because they're starting out in learning a massively complex system, and within a few years they've mastered it, whereas adults from other language communities take many years to become fluent. Crucially, this quick mastery is evidence of how deep and ancient our linguistic capacities already are—it does not in any way say that earlier languages were simpler.

I honestly don’t know what you’re referring to, and so your post seems to me unmotivated and out of the blue. In any case, you’re off-topic. To complain about a member of staff, please create a new topic in the Feedback category.

But first you'd have to show that languages were simpler in the past, and I don't think that's supported by historical linguistics. And @Hanover might be interpreted as pointing out the opposite: the simplification of languages over time, rather than their complexification.

But I don't think historical linguistics is in the region of what Hanover is really getting at, although with Hanover it can be difficult to tell, such is his wildly fecund mind.

I've read the lectures on Kant's CPR. Really good. He talks about the block quite a lot there.

Your circumlocutions are making me nauseous, Outlander. :wink:

The way I put it was inadequate. What I should have said is that those who disagree with the OP find that statement, or more specifically its role in @Philosophim's argument, to be problematic.

EDIT: It's what is implied by "the default goes to sex" that's the problem, namely that we can be satisfied with the definition of "man" and "woman" as relating solely to biology.

The reason I posted was to try and understand the impasse between OP and @Banno. — Outlander

:up:

Otherwise, I still have no idea what you meant by "behavior no person of any sex or society should tolerate."

For what it's worth, the OP's substantive claim is this:

Most of the world does not view man and woman by gender, but by sex, so the default goes to sex. — Philosophim

Most of those who disagree with the OP therefore disagree with this claim or with its significance.

to normalize behavior no person of any sex or society should tolerate, let alone normalize — Outlander

What behaviour are you referring to here?

I'm sure Banno is perfectly capable of referencing that if that was his intention. From my point in the context of the discussion, I did not feel that Wittenstein's term was what was implied. Its odd that out of that entire discussion you pulled one line that really wasn't key to the core argument. Was this another attempt to make me look ignorant to persuade people I'm not worth listening to? Didn't really work Jamal. — Philosophim

No, I'm not trying to score points, just helping out by correcting your faulty interpretation, since I know @Banno better than you. There is never a time when he says "language game" and does not mean it in the Wittgensteinian sense.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there is never a time when any seasoned philosophical thinker, in the Western tradition, uses the term "language game" and does not mean it in the Wittgensteinian sense.

I recall I clearly pointed out how you are NOT being friendly or honest in your critique. I have yet to see you even attempt to tackle that, look inward a bit, or even an apology or an attempt to start over. Nice try. — Philosophim

I don't think there is anything in this post—the post with which I today re-entered the discussion—which is unfriendly or dishonest. Can you point it out?

Is it because I said "the exchange between us got heated," rather than directly apologizing for calling your post stupid? I thought it was better not to bring it up, in my effort to start again. It seemed accurate at the time, because your post dismissed my critique without taking it seriously, and refused the chance to learn. I count this as classic stupidity. However, I did not say that you were stupid. Even geniuses have stupid moments sometimes.

Prejudice seemed like a good explanation for this behaviour, so maybe that's what I believed about your motivation. But as I said, I re-opened the exchange today because on the basis of other posts of yours which I've read in the interim, I've grown to believe that I was wrong about that. I was open about this; it's pretty bad form to again complain about the very thing I am attempting to reverse (my hasty and disgusted withdrawal from the discussion).

By starting it off saying my original post was prejudiced without explaining why? Good faith wouldn't have been trying to defend yourself two months after the fact and complimenting another poster I've been discussing with as "Having a strong argument" without any reason why. Please. — Philosophim

I specifically said that I no longer believe you were motivated by prejudice. May I humbly request that you read my posts more carefully?

Yes Jamal. You're wrong. You were wrong on your first logical fallacy post, wrong on the second double down post, and are wrong in trying to save face instead of moving on. I really have nothing else to say to you as you have done nothing to prove to me you have any intention of an honest debate. — Philosophim

Let's start again. I apologize for calling your post stupid. I should not have done it, because it was not conducive to reasoned discussion.

But you have not addressed my criticisms:

our OP seems reducible to this syllogism:

1. A man is an adult human male.
2. A trans man is not an adult human male.
3. Therefore a trans man is not a man.

(The same pattern for “woman”; and “male” understood biologically.)

In isolation, this does not technically beg the question, because the conclusion isn't present in the premises. But it does beg the question in the context of the debate, because the very meaning of "man" and "woman" is exactly what is disputed—and you stipulate one of the contested meanings as a premise.

And in your concluding paragraph you say this:

"So are transwomen women? Are transwomen men? No. The terms man and woman indicate a person's age and sex, not gender." — Philosophim

So your OP effectively does this:

1. Assume the contested definition.
2. Derive a conclusion that follows only under that definition.
3. Present the conclusion as if it supports the definition.

This is classic begging the question. — Jamal

And I also showed that I was not committing an ad hominem fallacy:

I wasn’t attacking your character. I was criticising your assumptions—specifically that you presuppose a contested definition and ignore the relevant existing counterarguments. That is a critique of reasoning, not of person.

This is where the two points connect. Saying "you haven't addressed X" is not personal; it is a point about dialectical completeness. My claim is that your argument stipulates the very definition of "man" and "woman" that's being disputed, and therefore does not engage with those philosophical analyses which define those terms differently. — Jamal

Can you respond to this? Can you show in what way I was doing an ad hominem? You argue that this is the crucial ad hominem:

The debate has been going on for years, and you have made no attempt to research it or address the arguments that defend the notion that trans women are women etc — Jamal

But this is to accuse you of ignoring the relevant arguments in what is a debate which is not restricted to this thread or TPF, i.e., it is one that has been going on for years and has been addressed by philosophers. If you fail to address the debate, and instead assume precisely what is at issue, I think it's philosophically legitimate to point it out.

Please break down how my accusation is ad hominem.

But if you want, we can draw a line under all that, because there is too much baggage in it and the result will be more petty bickering and grandstanding. Instead, I can just ask you: do you agree that the OP assumes a definition which is the centrally contested definition in the debate over whether trans men are men etc? And how do you propose to support this definition? Since you did not support it in the OP, it's fair to ask you to face up to the relevant criticisms of your definition.

Crucially, I do not actually need to argue for my own understanding of "man" and "woman" to show that your reasoning is at fault, although it's fair that you ask me to make such an argument.

Meaning all you have in response to an honest and friendly critique is rhetoric, so it isn't worth pursuing in the philosophical spirit in which I intervened on both occasions (page 2 and today). Each time, you respond not with argument but effectively by sticking your fingers in your ears and attempting to disguise it with bluster. I admit it’s particularly galling this time around because I was very deliberately friendly, attempting to re-open the exchange in good faith.

It seems to me that you agree with me: that the OP does not in any way support your definition, since it stipulates it. Where is the argument for the definition of “man” and “woman” which the OP depends on? I have seen you appealing to common sense and repeatedly saying that it’s the most rational definition and so on, but that’s about it. Or am I wrong?

I should have known better.

Yeah, I've learned a lot from that thread too. I'm sure there are several books I've read because someone posted about them there. I've added several of your own choices to my reading list, though inevitably it has taken me a long time to get around to reading them.

Language games are attempts to use language to confuse concepts. — Philosophim

I'm just going to butt in here to point out that the term has a technical sense, to be found in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations:

2. A is building with building stones: there are blocks, pillars, slabs and beams. B has to pass him the stones and to do so in the order in which A needs them. For this purpose they make use of a language consisting of the words “block”, “pillar”, “slab”, “beam”. A calls them out; B brings the stone which he has learnt to bring at such-and-such a call. --- Conceive of this as a complete primitive language. — PI

7. We can also think of the whole process of using words in (2) as one of those games by means of which children learn their native language. I will call these games “language-games” and will sometimes speak of a primitive language as a language-game. And the processes of naming the stones and of repeating words after someone might also be called language-games. Think of certain uses that are made of words in games like ring-a-ring-a-roses. I shall also call the whole, consisting of language and the activities into which it is woven, a “language-game”. — PI

EDIT: But note that these comments are not the last word on language games in PI. The point of quoting Wittgenstein is to show that the term has a philosophical meaning that is nothing to do with "confusing concepts".

Yes, and I want to keep it in a category which is not hidden from the main page.

@Philosophim

When I posted my contribution on page 2, the exchange between us got heated and I stepped back. But since you seem to me now to be motivated by some idea of philosophical clarity and rigour rather than by prejudice, I think it's worth my explaining more carefully what I meant, because it's directly relevant to how the discussion is unfolding now.

This was my earlier post:

Obviously if "man" is only about sex, trans men are not men. But this "if" is what is being debated, so you're just begging the question.

The debate has been going on for years, and you have made no attempt to research it or address the arguments that defend the notion that trans women are women etc., i.e., the arguments that try to show that the terms "man" and "woman" are more complex than your snappy definition allows.

See for example the idea that "man" and "woman" are cluster concepts:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/ — Jamal

There are two points here. I’ll start with the first: the accusation that your argument begs the question. Your OP seems reducible to this syllogism:

1. A man is an adult human male.
2. A trans man is not an adult human male.
3. Therefore a trans man is not a man.

(The same pattern for “woman”; and “male” understood biologically.)

In isolation, this does not technically beg the question, because the conclusion isn't present in the premises. But it does beg the question in the context of the debate, because the very meaning of "man" and "woman" is exactly what is disputed—and you stipulate one of the contested meanings as a premise.

And in your concluding paragraph you say this:

So are transwomen women? Are transwomen men? No. The terms man and woman indicate a person's age and sex, not gender. — Philosophim

So your OP effectively does this:

1. Assume the contested definition.
2. Derive a conclusion that follows only under that definition.
3. Present the conclusion as if it supports the definition.

This is classic begging the question.

But you deny it:

I'm not begging the question at all. Clearly defining terms then thinking if claims using those terms lead to logical outcomes is a normal discussion. You are very free to define 'man' in another way, you'll just need to argue why it is and if that definition makes sense in normal language use. If you want to argue a specific counter to the point I've made, feel free. — Philosophim

But in the OP (and in many of your later posts) you avoid doing precisely this. You insist on one definition but don’t properly engage with the arguments that challenge it. And that brings me to the second point.

As @Michael and @Banno have been getting at, there are serious philosophical arguments—cluster-concept analyses, social-kind analyses, externalist semantic approaches, etc.—that claim "man" and "woman" do not have the fixed boundaries your definition tries to impose. Pointing this out is not an ad hominem, contrary to what you said here:

Now this is a proper logical fallacy called Ad Hominem. You're attacking assumptions and qualifications about my character instead of addressing the points. — Philosophim

I wasn’t attacking your character. I was criticising your assumptions—specifically that you presuppose a contested definition and ignore the relevant existing counterarguments. That is a critique of reasoning, not of person.

This is where the two points connect. Saying "you haven't addressed X" is not personal; it is a point about dialectical completeness. My claim is that your argument stipulates the very definition of "man" and "woman" that's being disputed, and therefore does not engage with those philosophical analyses which define those terms differently.

That your syllogism is valid is trivial. The entire debate is about one of the premises. Everyone already agrees that if "man" is necessarily biologically male, then trans men are not men. To repeat, the dispute is over the "if".

NOTE: I haven't closely followed the discussion so if you have developed your argument to support the definition, I'd like to see it. But Banno seems to be mounting a strong challenge.

I haven't read them all but I get the impression that all his lectures from the late 50s through to the late 60s set the stage to varying degrees, allowing him to rehearse the ideas that found full theoretical articulation in ND.

I think this is the full list of his lecture courses published in English (though it includes other stuff too):

https://www.politybooks.com/author-books?author_slug=theodor-w-adorno

Fascinating stuff, thanks. I'll have to read it.

Not sure when I'll get back to ND. Soon I hope.

Videos like that are part of the problem, in my opinion. Even aside from the surface-level analysis, notice the constant background music, a distinctive feature of the products of the attention-economy. The point of background music is (a) to smooth everything out into an easily digestible paste, like baby food, (b) to give you a dramatic or portentous or serious or peaceful atmosphere in place of analysis and argument. The result is featureless and frictionless, lacking any ability to make you think again.

I'm lucky in finding constant background music almost unbearable.

What I find striking is that Thrasymachus just kind of rage-quits, yet his position wasn’t truly defeated; he simply abandoned the conversation. It makes you wonder whether "might makes right" rests on firmer ground than it first appears in the book. And of course, for Plato, someone who takes such a point of view had to appear as driven more by anger than by reason. — Zebeden

That's right. But Thrasymachus's psychological withdrawal sets the scene for the rest of the book, which is meant to defeat cynical nihilism philosophically, in a different way from that attempted in Book I—since direct refutation according to Thrasymachus's terms is shown not to be conclusive or persuasive.

You're not the sole vanguard of intellectual spaces online, need I remind you. — Outlander

I'm working on it.

I can browse most popular websites easily and with full functionality: Facebook, Twitter (X). Amazon, Google, banking websites, etc. Discourse is literally the only site I can recall that gives me the "your browser is out of date" spiel (along with reduced functionality) I have ever seen on this PC I've had for 5 years now. — Outlander

Those websites you mention are traditional multi-page applications, whereas Discourse is an SPA. That's the difference. I recall you and @Michael and I were talking about SPAs vs MPAs a couple of years ago.

And now, your worst fears have come true and TPF is becoming an SPA.

I am (now) on the most up to date version of Firefox: 115.30.0esr. That's the acronym of "Extended Support Release" I had posted prior, yes. The result is the same. Which again is no concern of mine. I don't think the presence or absence of the occasional emoticon or having to right-click on an image to view it's full link is anything worth giving a second thought about. If it were a more widespread issue, that might actually result in more than one or two disengagements or disinclination to participate, then yes. But if the statistics you read are accurate, no such concerns are present.

It's fairly interesting how, despite every single other site I browse being basically normal with full features (banking, eCommerce, social media, etc.) this one platform decides to be like "ok let's turn his experience into something from the 1990s" for seemingly no reason at all. But again, perhaps motives I've yet to understand are justified. — Outlander

Do you have JavaScript turned off? Discourse is basically a JavaScript application.

In any case I think you might have more trouble than you think, I'm sorry to tell you. It won't just be a matter of visual style, emojis and so on.

I have a feeling that the last time I used Windows it was Windows 7, and that feels like a whole lifetime ago: before I joined PF, before I got married, before I went housesitting around France, and before I had grey patches in my beard.

So, your image troubled me, because I do want to be inclusive. But there's a limit: according to StatsCounter, Windows 7 is 2.5% of the worldwide market share: 2.36% in the US, 1.9% in Europe, 0.28% in Asia, 2.56% in Africa, less than 1% down under. In my opinion that's not enough to demand we abandon Discourse.

Unfortunately this means you'll have trouble using the new forum unless you just use your phone, or—and you should sit down before you read this suggestion—update your operating system.

Actually you can apparently use Firefox ESR on Windows 7, but that's just what ChatGPT told me.

https://gs.statcounter.com/windows-version-market-share/desktop/worldwide

I found the relevant passage. It's a good one; I hadn't read it before.

As rococo horticulture arose from the feeling 'nature is ugly, savage, boring - come! let us beautify it! ' (embellir la nature) - so there again and again arises from the feeling ' science is ugly, dry, cheerless, difficult, laborious - come! let us beautify it!' something that calls itself philosophy. It wants, as all art and poetry want - above all to entertain: but, in accordance with its inherited pride, it wants to do this in a more sublime and exalted fashion and before a select audience. To create for these a horticulture whose principal charm is, as with the ' more common' kind, a deception of the eyes (with temples, di stant prospects, grottos, mazes, waterfalls, to speak in metaphors), to present science in extract and with all kinds of strange and unexpected illuminations and to involve it in so m uch indefiniteness, irrationality and reverie that one can wander in it ' as in wild nature' and yet without effort or boredom - that is no small ambition: he who has this ambition even dreams of thereby making superfluous religion, which with earlier mankind constituted the highest species of the art of entertainment. — Daybreak

I see this as a genealogical critique, an account of how philosophy came to be such a disappointment: the desire to entertain the elite.

But I don't think Nietzsche actually says or implies that the purpose of philosophy is entertainment. From what I have read (three to four of his books), he believes that philosophy at its best, i.e., genuine philosophy, is Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, the gay science: a joyous, playful, life-affirming creative activity.

Where he implies that philosophy is mere amusement, he is criticizing philosophers for their vanity, shallowness, habitual thinking, and so on.

And he is much closer to Plato than you might think—in some ways. He does, I think, believe that philosophy is a search for truth. It's just that their conceptions of the truth look very different.

EDIT: Incidentally, Adorno inherits this attitude of Nietzsche's in his negative dialectics, where philosophy is simultaneously (a) a playful and creative endeavour, and (b) a serious search for truth.

And what do you think of what they said?

One of the things I really like about PlushForums is that when I click on a discussion it takes me to the last comment I viewed, and not just the first/last page.

Does Discourse do that? — Michael

Yes.

Yeah, just had a look. Works quite nicely on the phone. That timeline thing sticks to the right of the posts on a pc, rather than floating.

Ah. Windows 7 is old so you can't run up-to-date browsers. ChatGPT told me "Use Firefox ESR. It’s the last modern browser that still supports Windows 7."

So I'm responsible for mental illness now? :wink:

Is there simply no pagination at all? — Outlander

I think that's right, yes.

I'm curious how that would work with a long discussion with say several hundred posts. Presumably you'd click a new topic and end up at the first post. There's surely some "jump to most recent post" or effective pagination link, yes? — Outlander

There's lots of in-discussion navigation conveniences, and you're taken to the last post you read, just like here. But why don't you go and have a look? Here's the meta.discourse.org topics ordered by number of replies descending:

https://meta.discourse.org/latest?ascending=false&order=posts

Now don't judge it too quickly. It'll take some getting used to for an old codger like you.