this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
1064 points (94.1% liked)
Political Memes
5203 readers
2703 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is a recursive statement which gets us nowhere. We need to establish that there is some kind of basis, which is the previous definition.
This isn't a programming class, dude.
I mean, are you worried about definitions that are circular because A depends on B depends on C depends on A? No, you're not. No one has ever complained about this.
People are complaining about it, it's the whole point of this post. If saying "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" was a sufficient, then we wouldn't be talking about this.
It is sufficient.
It's not recursive.
No one complains about wider circles: A -> B -> C -> A.
This is a made up problem.
I don't accept the assertion that your definition isn't recursive.
This is like someone who says they believe in God, because their definition of God is 'The Universe'
That's cool, define God however you want. But it's not a very helpful definition when the majority of people are using that word in a very different way.
Remember, language is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Let's try an experiment, hm.
"I am not a woman."
Using the definition "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman," would you call me a woman.
When you say "call you a woman".
Do you mean, "would I personally agree with the definition?", or "would I refer to you as a woman in public?".
If it's the former, then you should know I don't use that definition.
And if someone asked me to refer to them as a woman, I would, no problems.
What are you trying to communicate or understand about someone when they say they are a woman? Will your answer change if you remember that your mom is included in that definition?
I'm not trying to communicate or understand anything in particular when someone says they're a woman.
Then what's the point of using the word woman at all?
Because it is a useful descriptor.
What is it describing? Can you be more specific?
It may be describing the appearance of someone.
What specifically about their appearance tells you they are a woman? You've said it's a useful descriptor. What about their appearance does 'woman' describe? You're the one claiming "woman" is a descriptor. How so? Support your claim with specific examples.
Ps aren't you embarrassed trying to weasel out of saying your actual opinion? Like I have transparently asked, we both know there are visual cues you're using to define woman. The reason I'm guessing you refuse to list them, is that we know I can find a woman who doesn't fit that mold and would still be defined by society as a woman. You're a coward afraid of losing and intellectually dishonest.
This is very frustrating. You're accusing me of being disingenuous but I'm not.
In any case, I'm really going to have to just ask you to infer how I evaluate how I evaluate which of those three people is a woman, and which is a man.
Let's just roll with it and see how it goes.
One physical trait is the hairstyle.
Okay, what hairstyle is exclusive only to women and not accessible to men? Was Sinead O'Conner a woman?
I never made the claim the hairstyle was exclusive to women only.
Then calling someone a woman must not be a way to describe hairstyle. What is woman a descriptor of then?
As I said before, it's not just one thing, its a culmination of things. Hairstyle is just one thing.
Yeah, it's a culmination of your experiences and impressions. It's entirely subjective to you. That's why you can't project it onto other women and force them to follow your definition of woman. Everyone grows up in different spaces with different histories.
Yes. But when I say "woman", it fits the definition of "woman" virtually everyone else agrees with.
What definition is that? You can't even say what it is. How could we know if anyone else agrees with your definition if you don't have one? Can you read minds?
Also, again, a ton of examples of huge groups of people who don't believe in a gender binary. Including throughout time and in many cultures.
Last, can't you see how Trump saying "everyone says we have the biggest crowds," I'd the same narcissistic excuse you're using to arbitrarily force gender on to others?
The second one, of my two definition, which I stated right up the top
"Remember, language is descriptive." You only need to know how I'm using it.
So, using my "recursive" definition, is it correct or not correct to call me a woman. Is it possible to derive an answer from the information given to you.
"Beer is good for your health"
Assuming the word "good" actually means "bad", then the statement is correct.
But I'm sure you still disagree that "good" actually means "bad", because it isn't helpful for describing what either of those words mean.
I believe you are prescribing a word, rather than letting it be descriptive. Furthermore, even if it was descriptive, I am not convinced it describes anything accurately, and is functionally useless because of its recursive nature.
In any case, can we say that your experiment wasn't very good because we have failed to discern anything? Have you got any other experiments lined up for me?
This is perfectly simple to follow. I have no idea what this is meant to prove.
You can prescribe words. You just make an argument. For instance, when you tell people the thing you made is called a "Tesla." You can also tell people your website is called "X," and if people disagree, well, they prescribe the opposite then, don't they?
I don't "naturally follow from sociological norms that the site is called Twitter" as much as I just refuse to call it the other one. I am prescribing something here.
No, because you refuse to engage. You know what the correct answer is, I gave you a child's problem, you just won't say it.
I'm not refusing to engage, I simply don't see things the way you do.
I don't think we're likely to make much progress here I'm either direction.
You are.
I wasn't asking you to agree with the definition, I was asking you to follow it through. You know, like a descriptivist.
If a woman must identify as a woman, then a person who says "I am not a woman" should not be called one. You're in the category if you want to be, you're not if you don't. Simple. Easy. Much utility. This is exactly what people in my camp use it for.
I'll point out, by the way, dictionaries provide a lot of useful context, but you cannot expect them to teach you the world. Words there depend on words for meaning. If you don't know any single word, you can't parse any of the meaning. If you don't believe me, read a French dictionary (no translations) and see if you can parse out from the words alone what anything is.
The only way to parse meaning is to match words you see to experiences you have in life. This is actually how children learn languages. No child knows "the definition," but they do know how to use the words.
He's refusing to engage with me too because he's a coward. It's honestly pathetic. He started the fight with misogyny thinking it would be easy and now he's embarrassed he's being beaten by women so he's refusing to try. Such a worm.
Yeah, it's the anti-intellectualism that really gets me. Reeally bothers me when people refuse to concede even simple, obvious points.
It's been funny reading your branches, too.
I don't agree with this. What I've been trying to tell you.
I don't identify as a man, I just do what's expected of me socially as a man. I fit every conventional definition of man, so I believe that's a very good descriptor and has utility. It helps that I fit the traditional role of a man too.
You mention kids learning what words mean through usage. So what is a child's conception of a woman? It's going to be based off roles within our society, not how someone feels.
Then you will forever misunderstand us.
You don't identify as a man? So, if you did things that society expects of women, would you be.. a woman.. then? Look, the dispassion is admirable, I just wasn't expecting you to be so loose about it.
It's gonna be faces of people they know along with liberal use of the word "woman" in their presence. I mean, do you understand an orange is like a banana the very first time you see one?
If I did things that society expects of women, then I would be a woman. Right.
I don't know what your point about the fruit is. Children have a working definition of what a woman is, it's a helpful description.
That's.. what you said, though. You're a man because you do things men do.
Okay. Do you know that oranges and bananas are both "fruit."
They're actually both berries, even.
Yes. I make an effort to present as a man because its convenient. Everyone identifies me as a man then it's a useful and accurate definition. I don't see there's an issue with this.
I still don't understand your point about berries.
It depends who raised that child. There are children currently raised by queer and trans people who have very different ideas of woman versus you. Children also tend to appreciate fairness and know not to name call, so respecting gender is pretty easy for them. They play pretend all the time so someone wanting to be something unexpected is definitely okay with kids.
That's fine that you repress your gender to fit the status quo and traditional role of a man. Kinda like gender Stepford Wives. That's allowed and probably won't give you brain cancer later.
Some people like having gender euphoria and happy feelings about their gender, which they can come up with for themselves as their own ideal. We don't need to make everyone cool suffer because of society's lack of imagination.
I don't repress my gender, I just don't care about how I'm perceived beyond its how convenient it is to go with the flow.
I mean I don't actually care what you do with your gender. But it doesn't sound like you experience gender euphoria by your own description of being agender (not identifying as a man) but performing gender as a man. It also sounds like you lack introspection about how the way you see gender, which is subjective and being projected onto others. So those things tend to mean you repress your gender because you don't even understand that what you're projecting is an idealized version of who'd you'd be if you were that gender/person.
Okay. I don't really appreciate the armchair psychology, because you're not a mind reader.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/98474/is-this-a-fallacy-a-woman-is-an-adult-who-identifies-as-female-in-gender
There's no real issue with recursive (self referential) arguments in philosophy or math. An example being the Fibonacci Sequence. I'm going to assume your criticism for this is that you, like many conservatives, think this definition is circular.
Oh, I was looking for something like this. The husband and wife example is really good.
Holy gish gallop.
Just engage with me as a person instead of a place to throw text at.
That's fine, if you can't keep up with the few paragraphs I will accept your resignation and defeat. It's cool I won here and we can agree "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman," is a good enough definition for women.