Philosophy Now Forum

It is interesting how a number of posters casually assumed my ideological beliefs based on my original post.

Even the most hard-core TERFs would agree that men have the right to wear dresses if they want - they would dispute any claim that someone can change their gender identity, or that gender identity has nothing to do with genetics, presence of certain kind of genitals, etc. - but that has nothing to do with one's choice of clothes.

So for all you know, I could be a TERF - I have said nothing about that one way or another.

carlafeit wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 4:37 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 11:28 pm Now, would ANY one, here, be brave enough to go to say the islands in the south pacific ocean and tell 'those men' there, who wear 'dresses', 'you are wearing girly clothes'?

Different style of dress.

Although you NEVER MENTIONED 'this part' BEFORE.

So, when the talk WAS ABOUT 'men' wearing 'dresses' what was ACTUALLY BEING talked ABOUT was NOT 'dresses' AT ALL, but A PARTICULAR 'STYLE' OF 'dress', EXACTLY, right?

carlafeit wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 4:37 am If you read Plato, you probably know that any attempt to precisely define anything us futile.

DID "plato" KNOW the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth, here?

And, if it was even REMOTELY TRUE that absolutely ANY ATTEMPT, AT ALL, to 'precisely define' absolutely ANY thing is FUTILE, then 'this' EXPLAINS WHY 'you', human beings, in the days when this WAS being written, were, STILL, SO UTTERLY LOST and CONFUSED, here, IN Life.

carlafeit wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 4:37 am But if someone says "Amanda hates wearing girly clothes" you can generally make a pretty good guess about the kind of clothes you should not get for Amanda.

There ARE SO MANY VARIABLES, and/or CONTEXTS, TO LOOK AT, and DISCUSS, here. BUT, ATTEMPTING TO GET 'you' to DEFINE ABSOLUTELY ANY thing, PRECISELY, or EXACTLY, is ABSOLUTELY FUTILE, right?

And, if yes, then there is NO USE in even just TRYING TO HAVE ANY DISCUSSION, NOR CONVERSATION, WITH you human beings, EVER.

carlafeit wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 4:37 am This depends on the context of course. Where I am, if you hear the above statement or something like it you can make a guess with close to 100% reliability.

ALTHOUGH ANY ATTEMPT, AT ALL, TO OBTAIN PRECISE DEFINITIONS, thus PRECISE CLARITY, FROM ANY one IS FUTILE.

carlafeit wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 4:37 am Surely definitions only make sense in a particular context?

WHY are you MAKING A STATEMENT and CLAIM, here, but you PUT A QUESTION MARK, on the end of it?

carlafeit wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 4:37 am It would be silly to suggest that there is a definition of girly clothes that is universally applicable at every time and place.

Therefore, WHY then even BRING INTO A DISCUSSION, and ESPECIALLY A DISCUSSION IN A 'philosophy forum', A 'term or phrase' that even you COULD NOT DEFINE, which could be IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE?

Have you FORGOTTEN that IT WAS you who INTRODUCED 'this' MOST SILLY OF 'terms', here, in this thread AND forum?

I will SUGGEST that if one can NOT even DEFINE A 'term or phrase', which could be AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED 'universally', then BEST they REFRAIN FROM USING and SHARING that 'phrase or term'.

Also, it would be A RATHER VERY FRUITLESS task to ATTEMPT to DEFINE ANY thing like so-called 'girly clothes', which IS 'universally applicable at EVERY time and place'.

carlafeit wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 4:40 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 1:55 am That's not stereotyping at all So I assume that your definition of a girl is anyone who wants to be a 'pretty princess' in pink

I have no idea where you are getting that from.

I do not wear, and do not like wearing, "girly clothes". [//quote] This has no bearing on whether or not I am a girl.

"accelafine" talked ABOUT 'your definition' of a 'girl' and NOTHING ABOUT whether 'you', "yourself", are a 'girl' or not.

carlafeit wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 4:59 am It is interesting how a number of posters casually assumed my ideological beliefs based on my original post.

Even the most hard-core TERFs would agree that men have the right to wear dresses if they want - they would dispute any claim that someone can change their gender identity, or that gender identity has nothing to do with genetics, presence of certain kind of genitals, etc. - but that has nothing to do with one's choice of clothes.

So for all you know, I could be a TERF - I have said nothing about that one way or another.

Who are you kidding? 'Terfs' (a nasty, misogynistic and meaningless label) don't come in handmaiden form Actual women's rights activists find men in womanface incredibly offensive but are realistic enough to know that creepy perverted men are legally allowed to display their sexual fetish in public and are becoming increasingly emboldened to do just that. What they are fighting for isn't to stop creeps from wearing what they want--it's to stop creeps from being allowed to legally call themselves women and thus have the right to women-only spaces and sports. Women's prisons, changing rooms, toilets, rape centres, refuges....all becoming obsolete thanks to predatory male entitlement and misogyny. Women themselves are ceasing to exist. You only have to look at the comments on this site regarding this.

It's really pathetic when our civilisation is in such a downward spiral (and accelerating) that women are referred to as 'radical feminists' for saying that men aren't women. JFC. Can people even hear themselves? Oooh, imagine wanting to 'exclude' male rapists from women's prisons. How 'radical'.
The entire human race has gone insane, and it all started in the good ol US of A. Thanks for that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 3:58 am Motivation has nothing at all to do with truth. Somebody can be totally motivated to think something totally senseless, or something completely sensible. The only question is, which kind of thing is this belief that men can be women, and women can be men?

Well, in keeping with the particular topic raised by Carla — if you don’t mind — it is not hard for me

1) to easily understand and support the motivation to escape from an oppressive cult-like religious family and environment.

2) to also understand the choice to de-accentuate traditionally-understood feminine markers (signifiers) and to choose to appear, perhaps one would say, androgynous — within a community of people with controlling tendencies and judgments.

Is that motivation a “truth”? In itself no. Because a truth is a general statement about a universal. But such a motivation (as that described) may well be personally, spiritually, and certainly psychologically necessary.

However, there certainly are other factors to consider. One being a (potential) decision to refuse to become a mother and to have and raise children. The motivation not to do so can easily be understood, but the result of that choice can be examined from a remove. And perhaps at some point the issue of “truth” in some grand existential sense could well enter in.

There are always ramifications that follow what we choose when we respond to motivations. That is true up and down the line.

carlafeit wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 4:59 am It is interesting how a number of posters casually assumed my ideological beliefs based on my original post.

The reasons why are interesting. I’ll give it a shot.

Largely, conversation here involves debate, argument and battle over ideological issues. So, when someone makes a statement, it is taken as a sort of staking out of a position and thus invites opposition or support.

The battles rage, culturally and politically, around us. And those who participate here are partisans of specific viewpoints.

For those subjectively wrapped up in personal ideological battles, enemies or allies are sought.

So for example in my own case I indeed have certain ideas and view about “radical feminism” (my position would be largely critical but not absolutely or unyieldingly so).

It could be that you are involved with radical feminism and that you might seek opposition so to be able to hone your own ideas or to engage with the delight of debate (I am not saying this is the case).

And thus you may well evoke response by those with either contrary or supportive positions.

In the best cases these controversies are discussed dispassionately, but in truth the controversies are deeply felt and everyone is affected by them on one level or another.

See here.

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 7:52 am The entire human race has gone insane, and it all started in the good ol US of A. Thanks for that.

This is in fact an idea that can be examined philosophically and dispassionately. That is, that the core American ideology as one motivated by different radical trends.

Radical liberalism, one might say, has gone to or is moving toward the outer limits of a core ideology or belief expressed by its core tenets.

This contextualizes the plight that Carla expresses. Radical conservatism, deeply felt, and felt religiously, that must rein-in those who have deviated from certain “principles” of conduct and appearance.

Radical deviation is baked-in to Americanism.

I will be giving a talk on this interesting topic at 6:00 pm on the 6th of April. I’ll be dressed in a kilt (with underwear however) and wielding a worm-drive circular saw. All are welcome! ($499.00)

Could you post a link for that? Sounds like it will be interesting. A close-up of your big hairy calves under the kilt would be appreciated. You might want to bring up the 'satanic cult' mass hysteria (American...AGAIN) that swept the world in the 90s, which saw many innocent men imprisoned for years. If any country needs an atom bomb dropped on it...

All the pay-per-view material you will be able to access when you become a full-fledged subscriber. Consider taking the beneficial leap today!

carlafeit wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 4:48 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 5:20 pm

carlafeit wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 4:31 pm Girly clothes - dresses, clothing with lots of pink in it, frilly stuff, that sort of thing.

This is stereotyping, of course. But then, people turn around and say, "It's wrong to stereotype." It's also essentialism, and people will say, "Essentialism is wrong."

In these discussions, these incompatible claims are always involved: 1) men have a right to act "like a girl," and also 2) there's no such thing as "like a girl."

Who is making this argument?

Gender ideologists all make it. They can't help it, because they want people to "transition," which means "stop being one thing, and become another."

And when you speak of pink stuff being "like a girl," then you're setting that as a real, stable, identifiable target. One cannot be "like a girl" if there's no essential reality to, or stable features of, being "like a girl."

So the question comes back: "what is a 'girl,'" or "what is a 'woman,' if you like.

It does seem silly the way you describe it, although perhaps your summary is not entirely accurate.

Then it should be possible to summarize it a better, more coherent way. Can you do it?

There is simply no way to make gender ideology coherent, and no possibility of attributing any particular right-to-switch to somebody who wishes to cross that line. Either they cannot (because "girl" is a real, definite thing) or they don't need to (because "girl" doesn't mean any definite thing, so there's nothing to cross TO).

I have never yet seen somebody able to solve this problem.

I really cannot say anything here unless you point to specific claims.

What about your own earlier claim, that people can act "like a girl." Can you say what it means to do that? You seem to say it means "wearing pink stuff and frilly stuff...clothes and dresses...that sort of thing." If that's all there is to 'being a girl," then it's awfully simple, isn't it? And it certainly doesn't require any "transition," just a change of vestments. How does becoming a "girl" involve anything more than that? What is this girlness that some men seem to lack, or others seem to feel they need to achieve? If nobody can say, then how can they ever find it?

You seem to say it involves putting on pink, frilly clothes and such. But that surely can't be all, can it? So we must ask: what have you left out?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 10:07 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 3:58 am Motivation has nothing at all to do with truth. Somebody can be totally motivated to think something totally senseless, or something completely sensible. The only question is, which kind of thing is this belief that men can be women, and women can be men?

Well, in keeping with the particular topic raised by Carla — if you don’t mind

I'm on that very topic. She asks why these cross-dressers catch flak. And the answer is that what they are doing is simply absurd and impossible to explain rationally. Thus, they are being contradicted for their absurd, illogical, deranged and untruthful behaviour, which is a warranted correction, not "hate."

Her "girls" should actually get the same thing. That they don't is perhaps a lapse in the most proper response, if what both are believing is utterly incoherent -- which is exactly what I pointed out it is.

However, there certainly are other factors to consider. One being a (potential) decision to refuse to become a mother and to have and raise children.

How is that relevant to the topic of "guys"? "Guys" cannot "become a mother and have children" anyway.

I can see you're trying to sound pedantic, again, but right now, you're just sounding nuts.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 2:15 pm She asks why these cross-dressers catch flak. And the answer is that what they are doing is simply absurd and impossible to explain rationally. Thus, they are being contradicted for their absurd, illogical, deranged and untruthful behaviour, which is a warranted correction, not "hate."

You are not seeing well enough. First, neither you nor I can know why Carla decided to broach that topic. People are really more irrational than rational so usually there are obscure motivations. (I am not saying this is so in Carla’s case so I make a general statement).

Homosexuals and cross-dressers that get decked out in women’s clothes — I have no idea if all cross-dressers are homosexuals — incur the wrath of the so-called “intolerant” for a variety of reasons.

I think that sexual deviancy and also much of the motivation in the sex-impulse generally is “irrational” rather than rational so I guess I look at the problem differently.

Remember: you come at these issues from a pretty acute Christian perspective. So your contributions are moralizing more than anything else. That’s your prerogative of course.

I am interested more in understanding deviancies (I use the term neutrally here) rather than as prescribing moral behavior.

(Unless I am dealing with Flash, then I go all out …)

I resist agreeing with Accelafine (this is gonna hurt) but she does make a solid point: all sorts of radical deviancy comes out of the American mind.

I am interested in those points in culture where things go sort of haywire.

Haywire [From the use of baling wire for makeshift repairs .]

Word History: Why should wire used in baling hay be a metaphor for something that is not functioning properly or for a person who is crazy? It would seem a story of semantics gone haywire. From the written record, it appears the use originated among North American loggers around 1900, who often used haywire to make repairs. These repairs were often considered shoddy or unreliable, and haywire developed the general sense "makeshift, inefficient," from which come the extended senses "not functioning properly" and "crazy."

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 8:03 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 2:15 pm She asks why these cross-dressers catch flak. And the answer is that what they are doing is simply absurd and impossible to explain rationally. Thus, they are being contradicted for their absurd, illogical, deranged and untruthful behaviour, which is a warranted correction, not "hate."

...neither you nor I can know why Carla decided to broach that topic.

It isn't relevant. This is a public forum, and people are able to take from what a poster posts whatever they are able to discern. If the poster is vague, it would simply be her own fault if it goes somewhere she didn't intend. And she's free to speak up, if she becomes unhappy about its direction.

Either way, motivation is still utterly irrelevant. It has nothing at all to do with the truthfulness or the coherence of a belief. It's not even capable of making a difference to either of those things. A logical thinker knows that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2025 2:01 pm Gender ideologists all make it. They can't help it, because they want people to "transition," which means "stop being one thing, and become another."

I was hoping for something a little more specific.

I am not sure who the "gender ideologists" are - but I know that in the LGBTQ2+ community (I know this firsthand) there is a variety of views on gender, gender identity, transgender issues, etc. - the community is not a hive mind. There are people who think that if a man says he is now a woman, he becomes a woman immediately, regardless of his genetics, sexual organs, etc. There are also people who think this is ridiculous - and all kinds of views in-between.

What about your own earlier claim, that people can act "like a girl."

Are you telling me that if someone says "Bob can look good in a mini-dress and is great with makeup, but no matter how girly they look, most people see them as a guy because of how they act" - you have absolutely no idea what they are talking about?

You seem to say it means "wearing pink stuff and frilly stuff...clothes and dresses...that sort of thing." If that's all there is to 'being a girl," then it's awfully simple, isn't it?

I think the question was something like what makes clothing girly - not what does it mean to be a girl.

Many guys who like to wear girly clothes do it because they like girly clothes - without claiming to be girls. Basically, just like I do not feel comfortable wearing "girly" clothes, they feel extra comfortable wearing them. I am not sure if you ever had a conversation with someone like that? I have.

You seem to say it involves putting on pink, frilly clothes and such. But that surely can't be all, can it? So we must ask: what have you left out?

An awful lot, I am sure. My time and my knowedge of philosophy are both limited - so I cannot give you the kind of detailed answer you seem to want.

Immanuel,

Unfortunately for those with your structure of thought, the entire world and most people in it are irrational.

And that fact certainly is a very relevant one when dealing with people is the topic!

And yes, I bet Carla will have things to add.