> "Define 'internally' within the context you are using it here. My interpretation is the inference to internalizing is in direct relation to those within the "communities" (LGBTQ+). This presents the obvious dilemma remains...what's being internalized by the individual to mean whatever they desire it to mean whether or not it conforms with reality. And I would hardly call the fictional stuff coming from the T community linguistically innovative."
The phrase "conforms to reality" is somewhat misleading, since we can agree on a language game regardless. For example, for the sake of argument we could say that in 99% or 100% of previous cases, gender identity and chromosomes are associated with each other. I can nevertheless agree to call someone by their preferred pronoun, with the understanding that the gender I am identifying them as is not their biological sex, therefore this use "conforms to reality". I am not using "innovative" in the loaded / moralistic sense you are implying, but instead saying that it is different from previous conventions.
> "Ah yeah, I do not believe "increased access to abortion, increased participation from women in the workforce, and the changing nature of work due to communication technologies," has anything to do with the mental illness of gender dysphoria and the "we ought to define female in terms of sex as opposed to gender.""
So if they are not related then why does the "mental illness" appear specifically at this time historically? Of course, there have been non-conformists, gender questions etc. historically, but the specific form these trans debates take currently, is characteristic and culturally relevant.
> "No, identity is not based on social roles over time or at any time. Identity is an internal thing inherent to the individual and their personal experiences in life. Identity is a component of psychology, not economics and professionalism. Also, please augment your claim that there is no such struct division between the household and the workplace. I do not want to guess what you're trying to say here."
In the very literal sense that people are working from home more, and the increase in changes of employment, casualization of the workforce, and many various changes which have obvious connections amongst each other - that is, moving away from the large-scale industrial model of corporate work.
The gender roles have some historical connection to biology, since of course the female role has been organized around giving birth and raising children. My argument is not that the "gender identity" paradigm has always existed, but that it is a linguistic innovation or paradigm which is internally consistent and which as its merits for the communities that adopt it. The understanding in terms of chromosomes is of course historically recent, and so overall my argument is that the main function of identity categories such as gender is to organize people into social roles. In a context of increased access to abortion, increased participation from women in the workforce, and the changing nature of work due to communication technologies, the "social roles" are changing, and in my view this is the cause of the new paradigms for identity. It is a concept of identity in which people actively construct fluid social roles over time, just as they are e.g. able to change their job role much more commonly in the modern economy, and the two things are actually connected. There is no such strict division, for example, between the household and the workplace.
I agree that there is a mix of biological and cultural inputs that ultimately determines one's personality and impulses. My argument about the various gender identity paradigms historically is that they are ways of organizing people into social roles. Just as you said, there are various subterranean impulses, which nevertheless might manifest very differently depending upon how they are filtered or "constructed" through the vector of that culture's norms. The function of the state is always to repress certain impulses, and in the case of the nation-state I argue that its purpose is to do this by constructing domains of transparency, by which we become visible and legible to the administrative institutions. The trans movement is one form of resistance, in the sense that they are "re-constructing" their identity, rendering it opaque to large administrative bodies, to recapture those subterranean forces which are being repressed. One example of this is in the proliferation of identities or pronouns, which literally cannot be processed in the administrative tools e.g. databases. The only universal language is the language of the past. Therefore such attempts to encapsulate identity within a universally legible paradigm, carry a presumed conservatism under the guise of objectivity.
It is pointless for me to keep entertaining your challenges to me, while you are consistently dodging my challenges to your position. If you want to know my answer to that question you can read my previous responses where I already answered it.
A circular *argument* is a fallacy, but a circular *definition* is not actually a fallacy. Circular definitions are in fact formalized in computer science in the form of recursion. The point isn't that it's circular, but that it is being used like a label, which you accept in the case of proper nouns, but consider axiomatically incoherent in the case of nouns. You have not explained why we treat e.g. screen names online as labels, and why this is not axiomatically incoherent, beside the fact that in the process of using it, the people using these words do not have a psychological association with some other object - this is an appeal to the existing social and linguistic conventions which does not establish your view axiomatically or logically.
You have still not established that the unconventional use of a noun is inherently invalid or incoherent. Every time I push on this point you drop what I said and either change the subject, or return to some previous point in your cycle of arguments. Please address this point specifically, without going back to some previous point in the chain of justifications: if you justify A on the basis of B, and I ask you why B is true, you can't base it on A.
"This is the first time you have ever proposed a non circular definition. You are asserting that “female” is a label which people adopt because of the social see les associated with that label. This is a common definition, however it is erroneous. Whatever “social role” you can define for me (you haven’t done so yet) is one which will inevitably render some “women” (who don’t wish to conform to your proposed roles) “non females”."
It is not a definition, and that is exactly why. My argument has been that the specific criteria or meaning of the feminine social role has changed over time, and can vary based upon the context or psychology of the people involved. Trans communities therefore adopt the "gender" paradigm under which someone can be considered "female" solely on the basis of a self-elected label. The psychological motivations are part of what the term *means* to the individuals, not the *definition* in the sense of a universal criteria - I still do not feel you have understood or recognized my distinction between the definition and the meaning of a term. A word can have connotations which are not part of its definition.
I just want to outline specifically the structure of this argument:
- You claim that gender identity is incoherent because it is "circular" - the use of a noun as a self-elected label.
- I asked why such an unconventional use of grammar is necessarily invalid.
- You responded that words must reference an object, and made reference to the fact that trans people's *motivation* for identifying with gender identities involve the feminine traits they are associated with.
This last part does not work, because someone's psychological reason for identifying with a label does not need to be part of the definition. You are implying that the uses of "gender identity" language in practice only *seem* to function successfully to the degree that they covertly make use of the "sex" definition - but this is false because the sex definition is different from the social role definition, and neither are they using social roles as an absolute definitional criteria. We already agree that e.g. proper names or screen names on a website can be self-elected, so that not *all words* need to be defined in terms of reference to a specific external object. Your argument is then really that this use of the word is invalid because it does not align with other, previous definitions, or that it does not capture the psychological reasons people have for choosing that label. This fails to establish that it is a priori incoherent.
"Feminists in the 70's-80's primarily were arguing against the need to conform to gender roles, that there was more than one way one could be a woman. Now, we have people arguing for a definition of 'woman' that runs entirely counter to this."
The point is that there is not actually criteria by which we could say of someone, they claim to be female but are not *really* female, since it would be a category people could choose for themselves. They would self-identify. The point about social roles is because Bones asked about the psychology behind *why* someone would become trans.
"Yes, culturally gender has been intrinsically a so-called "construct," but it does NOT negate the glaring physiological, biological and psychological FACT that men are men and women are women."
I have no idea what that means. How can gender be determined absolutely by biology if it is (or "has been") a cultural construct?
"If these things aren't part of the definition, then why are you mentioning it?"
You were the one that brought up femininity, when you asked why people who transition take on feminine characteristics. In fact, it is a non-sequitur regarding the argument about whether the definition itself renders the term incoherent. The psychological reasons for someone to transition is a separate question from the incoherency of using a noun in a certain way. Your argument that gender is invalid because it does not "possess the means for manifesting a coherent definition" is independent of the actions or psychological motivations of particular trans people. They can adopt a label, and do so for *any* psychological reason, without that affecting the logic of my argument.
If people who transition tend to also take on feminine characteristics, then we both agree that this is beside the point because femininity is not part of the definition of female. Gender identity is a label, which people can self-elect because they want to adopt the social role *associated* with that label.
You are ignoring the distinction between the meaning of a word and its definition.
People might "identify" as female because of a set of reasons, e.g. they prefer to have long hair, breasts, have a certain personality, etc. - but presumably we agree that these things aren't part of the *definition* because there are women who don't have those things.
People who transition want to be "as close to biological women as possible" because the *meaning* (not the definition) of the label *to them* involves all its historical connotations and uses.
But you agree that what you call "circularity" is not an issue in the case of other types of words such as names, right? When challenged you based the objection specifically on that fact that "woman" is a noun - so the issue is not that words in general cannot be "circular," but that you think *nouns* should not be circular. If you allow that people can change their names, then a name can refer to "those people who identify under that name" legally or otherwise, e.g. a screen name online. So it's not that "words refer to something that is not themselves," but that you think *nouns* should work this way, although I provided some examples such as friend, favorite, where the referent of the noun can be elected by the person using the word in each case.
Further, I do not really understand why a certain use of language is amenable to a particular kind of definition, means that we "shouldn't" use it. Even if I grant your claim that this is a totally unprecedented way of using a noun, you still have not established the value statement that we "shouldn't" use nouns in a new way. This being in the context of communities where such an "incoherent" use of language is already adopted, where it is fully understood by speaker and listener in each case, that what is meant by "she" or "female" is gender identity and not sex - since it fosters communication to this extent, what you mean by "incoherent" or "circular" is clearly a further standard which you are personally holding language to, e.g. that it respects conservative conventions, that "unorthodox is synonymous with wrong," etc.
If I were to follow the same structure as these arguments about animals, I could say:
"You think people ought to be allowed to change their name, therefore you must accept people changing their gender."
Bones' response to this would need to come down entirely to the grammatical difference between a noun and a proper noun.
When asked why we can't just decide to use a noun in a way that is more like a proper noun, Bones makes recourse to this idea of it being "false" or untrue. This is illegitimate because his justification for its untruth is based on the grammar point, which makes it circular.
It is not to claim that it is legitimate just because it is possible, but rather it is a refutation of Bones' case which entirely hinges on it being *incoherent*, which is in fact different from false or undesirable.
Bones' argument:
- Gender identity is an illegitimate because it is *untrue*.
- It is untrue because the sex/gender distinction is circular / incoherent.
- The sex/gender distinction is incoherent because it involves using a noun in an unconventional way. (i.e., using "male" as a label, as in something like a name)
- Using a noun in such an unconventional way is illegitimate because it involves an *untruth*.
Do you see how this is a circular argument?
The point about identifying as 99 year olds or staircases or anything else is a separate argument, because while we agree that those language games would not be socially desirable, we must still agree that they could still *function* and that the users of that language could distinguish between "age identification" and "biological age" if they choose to. In that very specific sense it is still coherent. It is important in this context to keep in mind how strong Bones' claim is and what he would need to establish for this argument to work. Bones did not argue *why* we *shouldn't* accept gender identity in a consequentialist sense, instead opting to argue entirely in terms of it being contradictory and incoherent, which is an importantly different argument.
Bones only responds by calling it a "bait and switch" - which is a psychological description and not a logical proof. Whatever the psychological motivations for those making the sex/gender distinction are irrelevant, since it does not prove that unconventional uses of grammar are inherently incoherent.
Also, the irony is that you have just ignored my most essential point about Bones' circular argument. You have accused me of "not responding point for point," but you entirely ignored the most important part of my response, which is about Bones' circular argument with regard to the "incoherence" of gender.
I did not respond point-for-point on these other points in depth, because there was such a number of separate syllogisms to which my response is the same, e.g. that point about animals which is refuted by the same response as the other similar arguments, which is that our relation to gender has a specific and unique sense in the context of our attributes of agency, individuality and self-expression. These other categories are different and so their relationship to language and identity also differs.
"As for the point about animals, the same response holds because animals do not have agency, so obviously in that case the idea of "female" would have a different meaning."
The point is ultimately shallow because we are able to use the term differently in different contexts. This is what I meant by calling Bones' view "robotic." We are not obligated to use the same term the same way in every context. Animals do not have the agency to self-identify when it comes to gender so obviously we could only have recourse to biology.
Clearly, the implication of the resolution for the debate is that we are talking about humans. If the meaning of that argument were strictly limited to what is included in that syllogism, then the argument would be just a semantical gotcha. The implication is that my view in some unspecified way commits me to apply the same definition for humans as for animals. I am not proposing some unilateral programmatic definition for gender terminology, like in a programming language or what biological essentialists are proposing.
Ok, well because I have been accused of being "vague" and dropping arguments, I think I can summarize my response in a very terse and logical way.
I think Bones' arguments can be summarized in two parts: the comparison, e.g. that if trans language is accepted, then I must also accept people identifying as animals or children. And the other argument, is that the trans language is incoherent or false.
The reason my first round needed to encompass so much, is because of the "ought" of the resolution for the debate. Whether a specific linguistic paradigm or cultural movement should be accepted, cannot be proven using only a single empirical test or logical syllogism, but involves the entire context of gender and culture. Imagine e.g. debating whether "rock and roll should never have been invented," or "punk culture is degenerate" or "debate club culture is nerdy and people shouldn't do debates" - there are a lot of assumptions baked into those statements, and we could not simply prove that "rock and roll is true / false" and establish a conclusion using a syllogism. This is why the argument about identifying as animals or children is a straw man, since as I said in the debate, my argument is not that all self-elected labels ought to be accepted simply because they are self-elected, and I never made that argument. When Bones asks why e.g. people can't identify as children, I respond by delving into the cultural context that makes gender categorically different from age, to which Bones responds by either moving to a different example like animals, or repeating the assertion that I must accept one if I accept the other.
As for the argument that the "gender" concept is incoherent: Bones claims that we shouldn't e.g. use male pronouns for biological women, because it is an untruth. To this I respond that it is not an untruth by definition, because of the sex/gender distinction. Bones responds that the gender-based distinction is "circular" or incoherent. This argument of "incoherence" ultimately comes down to the idea that using a noun in this way does not follow the conventional rules of grammar. When I ask why such an unconventional use of grammar is inherently illegitimate, Bones responds by claiming that it is illegitimate because of its untruth. As you can clearly see, this is a textbook example of a circular argument. This is essential to the debate because so much of Pro's case depends specifically on this point, that the trans language is not merely undesirable but entirely incoherent and contradictory. Your statement that you land on Pro's side because of the "far more consistent philosophy" as some kind of gestalt - this is a bit beside the point, as the entire debate for Pro hangs on whether he managed to establish these logical points, since he did not really make a broader ethical, philosophical or cultural argument. As I argued in the debate, it is also not clear what it means to call a use of language "incoherent" when there are already communities adopting that use of language and evidently understanding each other's intention when speaking - an important point which Pro did not address.
In fact, it is my logical responses on these points which were dodged, since as I outlined in the debate, Pro treats these points as if they were self-evidently wrong, and repeats the same conclusions without properly addressing what I said. Case in point, Pro's statement that, "Unorthodox is merely a pretty way of saying "wrong", but nonetheless." If Bones interprets the debate under the lens that "unorthodox" is self-evidently synonymous with "wrong," then he is incapable a priori of even perceiving my argument, let alone refuting it.
I don't know exactly the rules about what I am allowed to discuss during the voting, so I will discuss the debate in general without going into my specific argument.
My first round was used to make a positive case, and I spent the rest of the debate responding to Bones in detail. But this is my frustration, that I have a very specific response to that argument, which I have been repeating for many posts, in the forum and in this debate. And the opposition continues to run the same cycle of arguments without properly addressing my response - and then I am being accused of dropping arguments. The idea that I "dropped" or did not respond specifically to Bones' arguments, or even that my responses were "vague" - is demonstrably false, and after the voting period I can quote the particular sections where I responded to any of Bones' arguments. As for your statements that I didn't mention or address those arguments, all my rounds after the first were spent responding to Bones. For the most terse version of my response, you can refer to my final round.
Maybe after the voting period I will make a post with detailed analysis showing what I mean, and in specific the logical structure of Pro's arguments and my response. I happen to write discursively, rather than using syllogisms. But, the logical rigor of my underlying arguments should not be discounted simply on the basis that I have a superior writing style.
I guess I can't respond here since it would be making more arguments.
However, I will say that I agreed to this debate because in the forum post the argument was going in circles. In the end, I still don't feel like my argument has actually been understood or addressed. I would appreciate if Pro or anyone who thinks I was "wrecked" could outline *specifically* what they think *my response* was to Pro's claim that the trans language is untrue, "circular" or incoherent - and explain why it doesn't work.
I can go into a more detailed response after the voting period.
Also, I will note that Novice_II claims I was "wrecked" and then swiftly blocks me without us ever having interacted.
I agree that it's a shame mine was the only vote, and I do think that Novice made some good points and put effort into the debate. However, if we start trying to delete every vote we disagree with, then that will only discourage voting even more. Ultimately, I found that the two events being compared in the debate weren't really comparable, and neither side really managed to bridge that gap properly. But PRO's use of empirical statistics for the most part completely neglected that problem, by ignoring the qualitative differences between the two events.
This was due mostly to pro's justification of using biased sources using the "genetic fallacy," and attempting to ask voters to take conduct points away from con for posting in the comments.
> "Define 'internally' within the context you are using it here. My interpretation is the inference to internalizing is in direct relation to those within the "communities" (LGBTQ+). This presents the obvious dilemma remains...what's being internalized by the individual to mean whatever they desire it to mean whether or not it conforms with reality. And I would hardly call the fictional stuff coming from the T community linguistically innovative."
The phrase "conforms to reality" is somewhat misleading, since we can agree on a language game regardless. For example, for the sake of argument we could say that in 99% or 100% of previous cases, gender identity and chromosomes are associated with each other. I can nevertheless agree to call someone by their preferred pronoun, with the understanding that the gender I am identifying them as is not their biological sex, therefore this use "conforms to reality". I am not using "innovative" in the loaded / moralistic sense you are implying, but instead saying that it is different from previous conventions.
> "Ah yeah, I do not believe "increased access to abortion, increased participation from women in the workforce, and the changing nature of work due to communication technologies," has anything to do with the mental illness of gender dysphoria and the "we ought to define female in terms of sex as opposed to gender.""
So if they are not related then why does the "mental illness" appear specifically at this time historically? Of course, there have been non-conformists, gender questions etc. historically, but the specific form these trans debates take currently, is characteristic and culturally relevant.
> "No, identity is not based on social roles over time or at any time. Identity is an internal thing inherent to the individual and their personal experiences in life. Identity is a component of psychology, not economics and professionalism. Also, please augment your claim that there is no such struct division between the household and the workplace. I do not want to guess what you're trying to say here."
In the very literal sense that people are working from home more, and the increase in changes of employment, casualization of the workforce, and many various changes which have obvious connections amongst each other - that is, moving away from the large-scale industrial model of corporate work.
The gender roles have some historical connection to biology, since of course the female role has been organized around giving birth and raising children. My argument is not that the "gender identity" paradigm has always existed, but that it is a linguistic innovation or paradigm which is internally consistent and which as its merits for the communities that adopt it. The understanding in terms of chromosomes is of course historically recent, and so overall my argument is that the main function of identity categories such as gender is to organize people into social roles. In a context of increased access to abortion, increased participation from women in the workforce, and the changing nature of work due to communication technologies, the "social roles" are changing, and in my view this is the cause of the new paradigms for identity. It is a concept of identity in which people actively construct fluid social roles over time, just as they are e.g. able to change their job role much more commonly in the modern economy, and the two things are actually connected. There is no such strict division, for example, between the household and the workplace.
I agree that there is a mix of biological and cultural inputs that ultimately determines one's personality and impulses. My argument about the various gender identity paradigms historically is that they are ways of organizing people into social roles. Just as you said, there are various subterranean impulses, which nevertheless might manifest very differently depending upon how they are filtered or "constructed" through the vector of that culture's norms. The function of the state is always to repress certain impulses, and in the case of the nation-state I argue that its purpose is to do this by constructing domains of transparency, by which we become visible and legible to the administrative institutions. The trans movement is one form of resistance, in the sense that they are "re-constructing" their identity, rendering it opaque to large administrative bodies, to recapture those subterranean forces which are being repressed. One example of this is in the proliferation of identities or pronouns, which literally cannot be processed in the administrative tools e.g. databases. The only universal language is the language of the past. Therefore such attempts to encapsulate identity within a universally legible paradigm, carry a presumed conservatism under the guise of objectivity.
It is pointless for me to keep entertaining your challenges to me, while you are consistently dodging my challenges to your position. If you want to know my answer to that question you can read my previous responses where I already answered it.
A circular *argument* is a fallacy, but a circular *definition* is not actually a fallacy. Circular definitions are in fact formalized in computer science in the form of recursion. The point isn't that it's circular, but that it is being used like a label, which you accept in the case of proper nouns, but consider axiomatically incoherent in the case of nouns. You have not explained why we treat e.g. screen names online as labels, and why this is not axiomatically incoherent, beside the fact that in the process of using it, the people using these words do not have a psychological association with some other object - this is an appeal to the existing social and linguistic conventions which does not establish your view axiomatically or logically.
You have still not established that the unconventional use of a noun is inherently invalid or incoherent. Every time I push on this point you drop what I said and either change the subject, or return to some previous point in your cycle of arguments. Please address this point specifically, without going back to some previous point in the chain of justifications: if you justify A on the basis of B, and I ask you why B is true, you can't base it on A.
"This is the first time you have ever proposed a non circular definition. You are asserting that “female” is a label which people adopt because of the social see les associated with that label. This is a common definition, however it is erroneous. Whatever “social role” you can define for me (you haven’t done so yet) is one which will inevitably render some “women” (who don’t wish to conform to your proposed roles) “non females”."
It is not a definition, and that is exactly why. My argument has been that the specific criteria or meaning of the feminine social role has changed over time, and can vary based upon the context or psychology of the people involved. Trans communities therefore adopt the "gender" paradigm under which someone can be considered "female" solely on the basis of a self-elected label. The psychological motivations are part of what the term *means* to the individuals, not the *definition* in the sense of a universal criteria - I still do not feel you have understood or recognized my distinction between the definition and the meaning of a term. A word can have connotations which are not part of its definition.
I just want to outline specifically the structure of this argument:
- You claim that gender identity is incoherent because it is "circular" - the use of a noun as a self-elected label.
- I asked why such an unconventional use of grammar is necessarily invalid.
- You responded that words must reference an object, and made reference to the fact that trans people's *motivation* for identifying with gender identities involve the feminine traits they are associated with.
This last part does not work, because someone's psychological reason for identifying with a label does not need to be part of the definition. You are implying that the uses of "gender identity" language in practice only *seem* to function successfully to the degree that they covertly make use of the "sex" definition - but this is false because the sex definition is different from the social role definition, and neither are they using social roles as an absolute definitional criteria. We already agree that e.g. proper names or screen names on a website can be self-elected, so that not *all words* need to be defined in terms of reference to a specific external object. Your argument is then really that this use of the word is invalid because it does not align with other, previous definitions, or that it does not capture the psychological reasons people have for choosing that label. This fails to establish that it is a priori incoherent.
"Feminists in the 70's-80's primarily were arguing against the need to conform to gender roles, that there was more than one way one could be a woman. Now, we have people arguing for a definition of 'woman' that runs entirely counter to this."
The point is that there is not actually criteria by which we could say of someone, they claim to be female but are not *really* female, since it would be a category people could choose for themselves. They would self-identify. The point about social roles is because Bones asked about the psychology behind *why* someone would become trans.
"Yes, culturally gender has been intrinsically a so-called "construct," but it does NOT negate the glaring physiological, biological and psychological FACT that men are men and women are women."
I have no idea what that means. How can gender be determined absolutely by biology if it is (or "has been") a cultural construct?
"If these things aren't part of the definition, then why are you mentioning it?"
You were the one that brought up femininity, when you asked why people who transition take on feminine characteristics. In fact, it is a non-sequitur regarding the argument about whether the definition itself renders the term incoherent. The psychological reasons for someone to transition is a separate question from the incoherency of using a noun in a certain way. Your argument that gender is invalid because it does not "possess the means for manifesting a coherent definition" is independent of the actions or psychological motivations of particular trans people. They can adopt a label, and do so for *any* psychological reason, without that affecting the logic of my argument.
If people who transition tend to also take on feminine characteristics, then we both agree that this is beside the point because femininity is not part of the definition of female. Gender identity is a label, which people can self-elect because they want to adopt the social role *associated* with that label.
You are ignoring the distinction between the meaning of a word and its definition.
People might "identify" as female because of a set of reasons, e.g. they prefer to have long hair, breasts, have a certain personality, etc. - but presumably we agree that these things aren't part of the *definition* because there are women who don't have those things.
People who transition want to be "as close to biological women as possible" because the *meaning* (not the definition) of the label *to them* involves all its historical connotations and uses.
But you agree that what you call "circularity" is not an issue in the case of other types of words such as names, right? When challenged you based the objection specifically on that fact that "woman" is a noun - so the issue is not that words in general cannot be "circular," but that you think *nouns* should not be circular. If you allow that people can change their names, then a name can refer to "those people who identify under that name" legally or otherwise, e.g. a screen name online. So it's not that "words refer to something that is not themselves," but that you think *nouns* should work this way, although I provided some examples such as friend, favorite, where the referent of the noun can be elected by the person using the word in each case.
Further, I do not really understand why a certain use of language is amenable to a particular kind of definition, means that we "shouldn't" use it. Even if I grant your claim that this is a totally unprecedented way of using a noun, you still have not established the value statement that we "shouldn't" use nouns in a new way. This being in the context of communities where such an "incoherent" use of language is already adopted, where it is fully understood by speaker and listener in each case, that what is meant by "she" or "female" is gender identity and not sex - since it fosters communication to this extent, what you mean by "incoherent" or "circular" is clearly a further standard which you are personally holding language to, e.g. that it respects conservative conventions, that "unorthodox is synonymous with wrong," etc.
It seems we agree entirely on the conclusions then, and your issue is with my style.
Which is understandable, and I'll take your critique on board.
Not that I really plan on doing many more debates anyway lol, I prefer discussing in the forum.
If I were to follow the same structure as these arguments about animals, I could say:
"You think people ought to be allowed to change their name, therefore you must accept people changing their gender."
Bones' response to this would need to come down entirely to the grammatical difference between a noun and a proper noun.
When asked why we can't just decide to use a noun in a way that is more like a proper noun, Bones makes recourse to this idea of it being "false" or untrue. This is illegitimate because his justification for its untruth is based on the grammar point, which makes it circular.
It is not to claim that it is legitimate just because it is possible, but rather it is a refutation of Bones' case which entirely hinges on it being *incoherent*, which is in fact different from false or undesirable.
Bones' argument:
- Gender identity is an illegitimate because it is *untrue*.
- It is untrue because the sex/gender distinction is circular / incoherent.
- The sex/gender distinction is incoherent because it involves using a noun in an unconventional way. (i.e., using "male" as a label, as in something like a name)
- Using a noun in such an unconventional way is illegitimate because it involves an *untruth*.
Do you see how this is a circular argument?
The point about identifying as 99 year olds or staircases or anything else is a separate argument, because while we agree that those language games would not be socially desirable, we must still agree that they could still *function* and that the users of that language could distinguish between "age identification" and "biological age" if they choose to. In that very specific sense it is still coherent. It is important in this context to keep in mind how strong Bones' claim is and what he would need to establish for this argument to work. Bones did not argue *why* we *shouldn't* accept gender identity in a consequentialist sense, instead opting to argue entirely in terms of it being contradictory and incoherent, which is an importantly different argument.
Bones only responds by calling it a "bait and switch" - which is a psychological description and not a logical proof. Whatever the psychological motivations for those making the sex/gender distinction are irrelevant, since it does not prove that unconventional uses of grammar are inherently incoherent.
Also, the irony is that you have just ignored my most essential point about Bones' circular argument. You have accused me of "not responding point for point," but you entirely ignored the most important part of my response, which is about Bones' circular argument with regard to the "incoherence" of gender.
I did not respond point-for-point on these other points in depth, because there was such a number of separate syllogisms to which my response is the same, e.g. that point about animals which is refuted by the same response as the other similar arguments, which is that our relation to gender has a specific and unique sense in the context of our attributes of agency, individuality and self-expression. These other categories are different and so their relationship to language and identity also differs.
In fact I responded to this point:
"As for the point about animals, the same response holds because animals do not have agency, so obviously in that case the idea of "female" would have a different meaning."
The point is ultimately shallow because we are able to use the term differently in different contexts. This is what I meant by calling Bones' view "robotic." We are not obligated to use the same term the same way in every context. Animals do not have the agency to self-identify when it comes to gender so obviously we could only have recourse to biology.
Clearly, the implication of the resolution for the debate is that we are talking about humans. If the meaning of that argument were strictly limited to what is included in that syllogism, then the argument would be just a semantical gotcha. The implication is that my view in some unspecified way commits me to apply the same definition for humans as for animals. I am not proposing some unilateral programmatic definition for gender terminology, like in a programming language or what biological essentialists are proposing.
Ok, well because I have been accused of being "vague" and dropping arguments, I think I can summarize my response in a very terse and logical way.
I think Bones' arguments can be summarized in two parts: the comparison, e.g. that if trans language is accepted, then I must also accept people identifying as animals or children. And the other argument, is that the trans language is incoherent or false.
The reason my first round needed to encompass so much, is because of the "ought" of the resolution for the debate. Whether a specific linguistic paradigm or cultural movement should be accepted, cannot be proven using only a single empirical test or logical syllogism, but involves the entire context of gender and culture. Imagine e.g. debating whether "rock and roll should never have been invented," or "punk culture is degenerate" or "debate club culture is nerdy and people shouldn't do debates" - there are a lot of assumptions baked into those statements, and we could not simply prove that "rock and roll is true / false" and establish a conclusion using a syllogism. This is why the argument about identifying as animals or children is a straw man, since as I said in the debate, my argument is not that all self-elected labels ought to be accepted simply because they are self-elected, and I never made that argument. When Bones asks why e.g. people can't identify as children, I respond by delving into the cultural context that makes gender categorically different from age, to which Bones responds by either moving to a different example like animals, or repeating the assertion that I must accept one if I accept the other.
As for the argument that the "gender" concept is incoherent: Bones claims that we shouldn't e.g. use male pronouns for biological women, because it is an untruth. To this I respond that it is not an untruth by definition, because of the sex/gender distinction. Bones responds that the gender-based distinction is "circular" or incoherent. This argument of "incoherence" ultimately comes down to the idea that using a noun in this way does not follow the conventional rules of grammar. When I ask why such an unconventional use of grammar is inherently illegitimate, Bones responds by claiming that it is illegitimate because of its untruth. As you can clearly see, this is a textbook example of a circular argument. This is essential to the debate because so much of Pro's case depends specifically on this point, that the trans language is not merely undesirable but entirely incoherent and contradictory. Your statement that you land on Pro's side because of the "far more consistent philosophy" as some kind of gestalt - this is a bit beside the point, as the entire debate for Pro hangs on whether he managed to establish these logical points, since he did not really make a broader ethical, philosophical or cultural argument. As I argued in the debate, it is also not clear what it means to call a use of language "incoherent" when there are already communities adopting that use of language and evidently understanding each other's intention when speaking - an important point which Pro did not address.
In fact, it is my logical responses on these points which were dodged, since as I outlined in the debate, Pro treats these points as if they were self-evidently wrong, and repeats the same conclusions without properly addressing what I said. Case in point, Pro's statement that, "Unorthodox is merely a pretty way of saying "wrong", but nonetheless." If Bones interprets the debate under the lens that "unorthodox" is self-evidently synonymous with "wrong," then he is incapable a priori of even perceiving my argument, let alone refuting it.
I don't know exactly the rules about what I am allowed to discuss during the voting, so I will discuss the debate in general without going into my specific argument.
My first round was used to make a positive case, and I spent the rest of the debate responding to Bones in detail. But this is my frustration, that I have a very specific response to that argument, which I have been repeating for many posts, in the forum and in this debate. And the opposition continues to run the same cycle of arguments without properly addressing my response - and then I am being accused of dropping arguments. The idea that I "dropped" or did not respond specifically to Bones' arguments, or even that my responses were "vague" - is demonstrably false, and after the voting period I can quote the particular sections where I responded to any of Bones' arguments. As for your statements that I didn't mention or address those arguments, all my rounds after the first were spent responding to Bones. For the most terse version of my response, you can refer to my final round.
Maybe after the voting period I will make a post with detailed analysis showing what I mean, and in specific the logical structure of Pro's arguments and my response. I happen to write discursively, rather than using syllogisms. But, the logical rigor of my underlying arguments should not be discounted simply on the basis that I have a superior writing style.
I guess I can't respond here since it would be making more arguments.
However, I will say that I agreed to this debate because in the forum post the argument was going in circles. In the end, I still don't feel like my argument has actually been understood or addressed. I would appreciate if Pro or anyone who thinks I was "wrecked" could outline *specifically* what they think *my response* was to Pro's claim that the trans language is untrue, "circular" or incoherent - and explain why it doesn't work.
I can go into a more detailed response after the voting period.
Also, I will note that Novice_II claims I was "wrecked" and then swiftly blocks me without us ever having interacted.
Just saw your comment, thank you for that!
I agree that it's a shame mine was the only vote, and I do think that Novice made some good points and put effort into the debate. However, if we start trying to delete every vote we disagree with, then that will only discourage voting even more. Ultimately, I found that the two events being compared in the debate weren't really comparable, and neither side really managed to bridge that gap properly. But PRO's use of empirical statistics for the most part completely neglected that problem, by ignoring the qualitative differences between the two events.
This was due mostly to pro's justification of using biased sources using the "genetic fallacy," and attempting to ask voters to take conduct points away from con for posting in the comments.
Thanks, it's my first debate here, and good luck to you.