ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

[FlashDangerpants]

As do suicides and jihadis. I don't think that makes a case for either, do you?

Are you positing a physiological cause for jihadism, or are you making an irrelevant analogy?

A relevant one.

It was you who said, above, that being "very committed and enduring[ing] a lot specifically because of X" had some value. I just pointed out that it did not.

Oh my God. The way you chop shit up as you go makes you quite infuriating to deal with. Every time you present a weak version of my argument I have scroll back to try and work out everything you left out to see if I need to rephrase to help you out or call you out for malfeasance. Why can't you just argue against the strongest version like an actual philosopher would?

But fuck it, I'll explain again. I told you repeatedly, and I have given you links to scientists saying the same, transgender brains are not just male brains, transgenderism is strongly linked to amniotic circumstances and genetic factors, resulting in atypical brains. Jihadism has no such links. Neither amniotic nor genetic factors are even vaguely suspected of influencing such matters, unless you have some evidence to the contrary? Is that clear now?

All of your carping about the is/ought problem is pointless. If you can defeat Hume then do so. I would say that totally deserves, at the very least, it's own bloody thread. If you can't find a valid way to derive an is from ought or an ought from an is then you can't sanely just ignore that to use some ought function to argue against my statement of what is.

If you want to argue that something else IS instead, then you are welcome to quit avoiding the questions about essentialism.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's a perfect circle which can be shorthanded thusly...

Jack is a guy cuz he's a guy; Jill is a gal cuz she's a gal.

Are you aware that circles are a bad thing in this context?

[henry quirk]

It's a perfect circle which can be shorthanded thusly...

Jack is a guy cuz he's a guy; Jill is a gal cuz she's a gal.

Are you aware that circles are a bad thing in this context?

Why?

-----

transgender brains are not just male brains, transgenderism is strongly linked to amniotic circumstances and genetic factors, resulting in atypical brains.

There's some evidence of this; there's also some evidence sayin' sumthin' different.

How's it go? Correlation does not imply causation? Sumthin' like that.

[Immanuel Can]

Why can't you just argue against the strongest version like an actual philosopher would?

Then give me the strongest version of this argument of yours.

"Gender dysmorphic men are not just any man, they are very committed and endure a lot specifically because of this."

Those are your exact words, copied and unreacted. If you didn't mean to argue anything on the basis of the "commitment" and "endurance" of dysmorphic men, why did you even mention those attributes in the first place? Then it would be merely an irrelevant aside, a distractor.

There is no fuller argument there that you made. So now, what, exactly did you expect me to deduce from that claim, and why is what I deduced not what you meant?

All of your carping about the is/ought problem is pointless. If you can defeat Hume then do so.

I can. But perhaps you cannot, given your suppositions. We'll see.

In order for Hume to be right, he'd have to first be right about there being nothing but "is's" from which to deduce "oughts." That's a controversial premise, and not one he can take for a given. Some people will think he may be right, but others will certainly assert it's wrong. A Theist, for example, will say that morality is revealed by the Creator. And if they're right, then Hume's dead wrong.

In other words, if Theism is right, then Hume's Guillotine is just not any kind of problem at all.

However, even if Hume is right, his perspective is desolate, devoid of moral content, and ultimately Nihilistic, if followed through. This is the fact that has disturbed not the Theistic philosophers but the secular ones. Nietzsche saw it first, perhaps; but other secular philosophers who have followed Hume have all been bamboozled by it. Nowadays, Hume's Guillotine is generally recognized as the pre-eminent problem in secular moral philosophy. And so far, no secular ethicist has an answer to it.

So at present, you're quite correct -- there is no secular solution to the is-ought, because the fault was in Hume's a priori suppositions, not in his subsequent deductions from those mistaken suppositions.

This is why secular society presently has no legitimative grounds for morality. They can thank Hume for that.

[surreptitious57]

The best one can do in a situation of refusal to compromise is to trouble the view of the other such that he /
she can no longer deceive himself / herself as to its tenability and becomes aware of his / her irrationality

This might be possible if the difference was purely ideological but what makes this issue even more controversial is
that for some it questions their very right to self identification which is not denied to any other section of society

From their perspective it is denying their very being and no one else is expected to give that up at all and nor should they

The real issue is not actually about self identification but the consequences of it such as wanting to be in female only spaces for example
For not every woman is happy with wanting to share those spaces with biological males self identifying as women and that is the problem

[henry quirk]

The real issue is not actually about self identification but the consequences of it such as wanting to be in female only spaces for example
For not every woman is happy with wanting to share those spaces with biological males self identifying as women and that is the problem

Transwomen (men) in (real)women-only spaces, as a problem, is a symptom, not the disease.

We can legislate the symptom away, but the disease would remain.

[FlashDangerpants]

"Gender dysmorphic men are not just any man, they are very committed and endure a lot specifically because of this."

Those are your exact words, copied and unreacted. If you didn't mean to argue anything on the basis of the "commitment" and "endurance" of dysmorphic men, why did you even mention those attributes in the first place? Then it would be merely an irrelevant aside, a distractor.

A lot of women also would claim that a woman's experience is unlike a man's, unique, special and valuable. Likewise, some claim that women's values, abilities and attitudes are uniquely valuable. For example, many women see having women in boardrooms or in traditionally masculine careers as a step forward. But if these can simply be reproduced by any man who believes he can, it would be hard to see how they could make that case.

Did you notice where I said I was not defending any form of type identitical womanhood here? (words to such effect anyway). You keep harping on about this as if I am, I don't think anyone in the world does though. Thisis not a strawman safari.

And where does ths just any man stuff keep coming from? The average man is not going to cut off his junk and become a woman under any circumstance, it sounds like it would make your eyes water. Gender dysmorphic men are not just any man, they are very committed and endure a lot specifically because of this.

When you cut that one sentence out of the context you can if you choose interpret it without any surroundings. Presuming that the second clause is there to justify the first. But when you put the surroundings back, you can then I hope see that it is just there as a comment on the first.

This confusion is made possible by you presenting a single sentence as if it were the whole of the point. Strategically presenting what I wrote as an absurdly weak argument that a simpleton could disprove.

[Immanuel Can]

The best one can do in a situation of refusal to compromise is to trouble the view of the other such that he /
she can no longer deceive himself / herself as to its tenability and becomes aware of his / her irrationality

This might be possible if the difference was purely ideological but what makes this issue even more controversial is
that for some it questions their very right to self identification which is not denied to any other section of society

Whoa, whoa...

Who has established that "self-identification" is a value? I can "self-identify" as a horse or a fish? That's a contentious assumption, one that needs to be proved before we accept there's even a problem.

From their perspective it is denying their very being

No, that's propaganda. They're just lying about that, to increase the pseudo-moral urgency of their claim. That's not happening, in reality.

It's not their being that's being questioned, and nobody's "denying" they exist. The question is really, "What is it that they are?" And it's an open one.

The real issue is not actually about self identification

Sure it is. It's about the legitimacy of saying one is something one may not really be, and then compelling society to compromise with one's delusion.

For not every woman is happy with wanting to share those spaces with biological males self identifying as women and that is the problem

Actually, that's A problem, and a secondary one. It's not THE problem.

The washroom problem is secondary and trivial, and only comes up after THE problem of the legitimacy of "self-identification as something one is not" is settled -- if it needs to come up at all.

[surreptitious57]

This is why secular society presently has no legitimative grounds for morality

This is not true because atheists and humanists say that morality is a human construct with zero intervention from God
Morality is a consequence of human civilisation evolving over time where it is necessary to have laws through consensus

[Immanuel Can]

This is why secular society presently has no legitimative grounds for morality

This is not true because atheists and humanists say that morality is a human construct..

I know.

But secular ethicists themselves recognize that this isn't good enough. Because the observation that "humans construct morality" is an IS, merely an IS. The problem is the question, "Do humans construct good morality?" and the answer is that they construct all kinds of contradictory moralities, and none (by Hume's thinking) can ever be legitimately better than another, and none can ever be binding.

There's no OUGHT in that IS.

Unless force is used, of course. Then you can make people do what they don't want to do. So secular morality turns out to be about forcing people to capitulate to the demands of the power-holders. Nothing more. In other words, it's merely a power move, and one which, from any perspective that includes such ideas as intrinsic human rights, would be illegitimate.

But under secularism, nothing's illegitimate.

[Immanuel Can]

When you cut that one sentence out of the context...

Let's not, then. Here is everything you gave me in that paragraph:

"And where does ths just any man stuff keep coming from? The average man is not going to cut off his junk and become a woman under any circumstance, it sounds like it would make your eyes water. Gender dysmorphic men are not just any man, they are very committed and endure a lot specifically because of this."

So again, those are your exact words, copied and unreacted, and now in their context complete.

I ask again, if you didn't mean to argue anything on the basis of the "commitment" and "endurance" of dysmorphic men, why did you even mention those attributes in the first place?

[surreptitious57]

Who has established that self identification is a value ?

Self identification is the moral right of all free thinking adult human beings of sound mind
As it is very important to us both psychologically and philosophically how we self identify

How would you feel if your right to self identify as a Christian for example was being denied to you ?
Would you just simply accept such a denial or expect it to be given to you as it is to everyone else ?

[Immanuel Can]

Self identification is the moral right of all free thinking adult human beings of sound mind...

Since Hume, you're going to have to say why you think that's true. Its' not obvious.

A right is an "ought": and worse, it's an "ought" imposed on others...they owe me my rights, in this way of speaking. So you can't expect people not to say, "Well, Hume says there are no 'oughts' that can be taken for granted; how do you get to say there are?"

What's more, "self-identification" is very clearly NOT a right, even by any secular account. A criminal in jail cannot merely "self-identify" as innocent, and walk away. And a person who imagines he's a horse, or an eagle, or a salmon, is someone we put in a mental ward, not somebody whose encouraged to "self-identify" that way. I can "self-identify" as a billionaire; it won't get me any money.

How would you feel if your right to self identify as a Christian for example was being denied to you ?

It's not a matter of "self-identification." If I identified as a Christian and wasn't, I'd expect to be challenged on that. Indeed, I would hope that anybody's claim to be a Christian would be challenged to the degree that they are not following Christ. I wish we'd all do that.

Self-identification? That's trivial.

[surreptitious57]

The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights applies to all human beings
So there is no imposition on anyone because everyone has those rights

[Skepdick]

Hume says there are no 'oughts' that can be taken for granted; how do you get to say there are?"

Exactly the same way you think you get to say how people OUGHT NOT use language.

What's more, "self-identification" is very clearly NOT a right, even by any secular account. A criminal in jail cannot merely "self-identify" as innocent, and walk away.

What does the one have to do with the other. Every prisoner in prison self-identifies as innocent. The system/lawyer fucked them.

None of them are walking out.

And a person who imagines he's a horse, or an eagle, or a salmon, is someone we put in a mental ward, not somebody whose encouraged to "self-identify" that way.

You mean we OUGHT to put them in mental ward. Yea?

You have this double-standard thing waxed!

I can "self-identify" as a billionaire; it won't get me any money.

It won't get you money, but you can self-identify as a billionaire.

You can self-identify as whatever you want - it's inconsequential. Like the name you were given at birth.