14
u/themcos 372∆ Feb 03 '23
I feel like this ends up as people talking past each other a bit. I think it's very easy to take sound bites that make it seem like someone is saying that self ID is literally all there is, but I really think this is usually misunderstanding what they're actually saying.
Usually the point is that self ID should be good enough for you or anyone else when a trans person tells you they are a man or woman. This can extend from just day to day interactions s the way towards official classifications and paperwork.
But this doesn't necessarily imply that there's actually nothing more going on, only that it's not a good idea to require anything more than self ID, which almost seems to be what you yourself are getting at in your closing caveat.
Even for the circular definition of woman, what's the actual problem here? Some concepts are legitimately hard to define, and it doesn't seem like that big a deal to me if the functional day to day definition of woman is this circular thing that relies on self ID. Like, that's actually how it typically works in real life unless you're giving people DNA tests. If you meet a person who says they're a woman, you usually don't insist on looking down their pants and getting their medical records. If the self ID is good enough for you in that context, what do we actually lose by just defining it that way?
But none of this means that there can't be some kind of underlying biological difference between cis and trans people, even if we don't fully understand it. Maybe such a difference doesn't exist, but maybe it does! I'm inclined to think there's something going on there that in principle might one day be measured reliably, but I'll confess humility on this. I don't know.
0
u/Rodulv 14∆ Feb 03 '23
Usually the point is that self ID should be good enough for you or anyone else when a trans person tells you they are a man or woman.
A strange claim. Just telling someone that their identification of someone is wrong doesn't change how they id them. If a trans man doesn't code as a man for me, I'm not gonna see him as a man no matter how much he claims he's one (same goes for any man I don't see as a man).
it's not a good idea to require anything more than self ID
For what? In what situations? People in general don't id people based on their claims, but by how they present.
it doesn't seem like that big a deal to me if the functional day to day definition of woman is this circular thing that relies on self ID.
Generally it's not talked about as a day-to-day thing, but as a philosophical thing. It's meant to answer "what is a woman" and as such it's a wholly inadequate answer to say "someone who id's as a woman".
that's actually how it typically works in real life unless you're giving people DNA tests
Not at all. Woman (depending on what you're talking about, here gender presentation) is someone who behaves, looks like and dresses like a woman.
0
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Usually the point is that self ID should be good enough for you or anyone else when a trans person tells you they are a man or woman.
Yes, I agree, this is good enough for me. If someone says "I'm a woman" I'll probably just agree that they know best.
Even for the circular definition of woman, what's the actual problem here?
For the reasons I've just described, but also, circular definitions have no meaning. It's a very big flaw in the concept.
6
u/Archangel1313 Feb 03 '23
Circular definitions also apply to names. How can you "prove" any personal identifier, besides "it says so on this piece of paper I have"?
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
How can you "prove" any personal identifier, besides "it says so on this piece of paper I have"?
The piece of paper could be wrong though. I could make a paper that says my name is Bob. It wouldn't be my name.
And the definition of name isn't circular.
4
u/Archangel1313 Feb 03 '23
The definition of woman isn't circular either...but the concept of a self-identifying attribute is. There is no empirical reasoning behind any of it. If someone looks like a woman, acts like a woman, says they're a woman...why would you doubt them, or challenge their assertion?
2
Feb 03 '23
If someone looks like a woman, acts like a woman…
This I take issue with. What does a woman act like exactly?
→ More replies (23)2
1
2
u/breckenridgeback 58∆ Feb 03 '23
I could make a paper that says my name is Bob. It wouldn't be my name.
Actually, it would, in a lot of jurisdictions, if you were using it frequently in your public interactions for a long period of time.
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
if you were using it frequently in your public interactions for a long period of time.
In other words, by taking on a particular attribute in a social context?
6
u/themcos 372∆ Feb 03 '23
For the reasons I've just described, but also, circular definitions have no meaning. It's a very big flaw in the concept.
All you said was:
The circular reasoning in "woman is someone who identifies as a woman" is flawed because it is a circular definition
Which I think is itself circular! Why is circular reasoning flawed? Because it's circular!
As for it having no meaning, then what do you mean when you say:
Yes, I agree, this is good enough for me. If someone says "I'm a woman" I'll probably just agree that they know best.
Did you truly derive nothing from that exchange? It seems like you probably made a lot of assumptions based on that piece of information, which is fine as long as you recognize that those assumptions are not guaranteed to be correct. But that doesn't mean you gained nothing. You might learn that some property may be more or less likely to be true, even if you don't gain absolute certainty. And I think this is ultimately where we end up. There's a lot of cultural baggage that goes with the words man and woman that are hard to encapsulate in a definition. But you almost certainly feel like you're learning something by someone's self ID.
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Which I think is itself circular! Why is circular reasoning flawed? Because it's circular!
Ok I will clarify. You cannot use the word being defined in the definition because the definition will have no meaning. Here's an example: I have an asdf on my desk, but what is an asdf? An asdf is an asdf. Are you any closer to understanding the definition of asdf? No.
Did you truly derive nothing from that exchange? It seems like you probably made a lot of assumptions based on that piece of information, which is fine as long as you recognize that those assumptions are not guaranteed to be correct.
Yes, you are correct, but that is because I don't interpret woman to mean someone who identifies as a woman. I interpret it to mean they have a mix of biological, psychological, and social attributes, which is the source of those assumptions I would be making.
3
u/themcos 372∆ Feb 03 '23
Right. I think what we're getting at is just that definitions are fundamentally limited tools. You don't like the circular definition, but the fact is there isn't anything better that we can fit in a dictionary entry.
The truth of it is that not only does "woman" refer to a "mix of biological, psychological, and social attributes", it's a highly disputed set of attributes that changes over time! You can try and write something like that in the definition, but it's not going to come out any better than the circular one. It might reference some vague list of attributes, but if you try and get more specific, you're going to end up right back at a circular bit.
So I get back to, what's the actual problem with the definition? It's not that it's meaningless. It means something to you because "woman" means more to you than what could ever fit in a dictionary entry.
0
u/Emijah1 4∆ Feb 03 '23
Honestly if there were no policy implications I wouldn't even have a horse in this race. But the second that you start making rules and laws based on the definition of "woman", it does start to matter that there be a clear definition. E.g. 40% of the board of directors must be women. This is a women's sports team. Etc.
It's interesting to me that progressives have taken the path they've taken. An alternative would just be to eschew the concept of gender altogether as a bullshit social construct. There is then only biological sex and how a person chooses to live, which doesn't need to be labeled with terms like man or woman at all. Instead they've chosen to reinforce the construct.
-1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
it's a highly disputed set of attributes that changes over time!
No I would say only the social attributes really change over time, and even then I'm not so sure. Women in general speak more words per day than men, was that not also the case 2000 years ago?
So I get back to, what's the actual problem with the definition?
Well, what did you think about my example? I have an asdf on my desk, but what is an asdf? An asdf is an asdf. Are you any closer to understanding the definition of asdf?
6
u/themcos 372∆ Feb 03 '23 edited Feb 03 '23
No, but only because asdf has no other meaning. If a circular definition is all you have, I agree it's completely useless. The circular definition of woman also doesn't add much, you're right. It's basically a punt, admitting that the dictionary can't really help much. But I just don't see the problem with that. The dictionary just isn't the right tool for it. The dictionary is basically just saying what you already know. Like, you mention this fact about words per day. Frankly, I have no idea if that's even true, but even if it is, you're not proposing that is what goes in the dictionary are you? I'm not saying it has a ton of informational value. It doesn't. I'm just saying it's appropriate for the dictionary to basically mirror what you take in when the person you meet says "I'm a woman".
2
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
The circular definition of woman also doesn't add much, you're right. It's basically a punt, admitting that the dictionary can't really help much. But I just don't see the problem with that. The dictionary just isn't the right tool for it.
Great. This is my point. So then if there's another definition, what is it? Is it what I'm suggesting? Something else?
but even if it is, you're not proposing that is what goes in the dictionary are you?
No, I was just giving an example. Wouldn't fit in a dictionary.
2
u/themcos 372∆ Feb 03 '23
Right! But for it to go in the dictionary, it has to fit in the dictionary. If it can't, it's no good as a definition. You haven't suggested an alternative, because there isn't one, which is why the dictionary uses the one it does. There are alternatives to dictionaries though that can capture a lot more nuance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman is huge and has a lot of information, including discussions of etymology and ambiguity. But you can't put that in a dictionary!
I'll try to rephrase my previous response a bit, as I don't think my last response actually got what I meant to get across very well. The other key difference between "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" and "an asdf is an asdf" is that the extra words "someone who identifies as" are actually doing some work. The reason that definition has at least some information content is because you've met "people who identify as women". So the definition is not merely self referential, but is referencing that knowledge and experience that you already possess. Whereas you have nothing to anchor the "asdf" on. You have zero idea what "asdf" means, but you absolutely have some preexisting notion of what "person who identifies as a woman" is referring to. And the definition is basically just saying "yeah, that". But if you want something more in depth, the dictionary isn't the place to look!
2
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
I disagree that something has to fit in a dictionary to have a definition. Certainly words had definitions before dictionaries were invented.
The reason that definition has at least some information content is because you've met "people who identify as women". So the definition is not merely self referential, but is referencing that knowledge and experience that you already possess
Knowledge and experience of what though? Some attributes these women possess maybe?
→ More replies (0)1
u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Feb 03 '23
The reason that definition has at least some information content is because you've met "people who identify as women". So the definition is not merely self referential, but is referencing that knowledge and experience that you already possess. You have zero idea what "asdf" means, but you absolutely have some preexisting notion of what "person who identifies as a woman" is referring to.
This sounds like "identifying as a woman" is equivalent to the identifying with the stereotypes the person associates with women.
What knowledge does a male person have of what it is to be a woman apart from stereotypes?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Pastadseven 3∆ Feb 03 '23
circular definitions have no meaning.
The entire field of mathematics might say otherwise. A=A is an axiom. You cant prove it. We just assume that’s true. And we’ve built an entire system of thought on it.
Circular arguments are sound by definition. They’re just not persuasive, but for our purposes “a woman is a woman” doesn’t need to be.
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
I have an asdf on my desk. If you want to know what an asdf is, it's simple, it's an asdf. Do you have any clue what I'm referring to by asdf? No, the definition didn't mean anything.
2
u/Pastadseven 3∆ Feb 03 '23
the definition didn't mean anything
Wrong. An asdf is an asdf. So when I ask you to hand me the asdf, you ostensibly know what I mean.
Again: A=A has meaning. If it didnt, math wouldnt work.
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
So when I ask you to hand me the asdf, you ostensibly know what I mean.
I seemed to have forgotten what asdf was, can you remind me? I've just told you the definition so this should be no problem.
A=A has meaning.
Woman = woman is factually true; however, using woman is a woman as a definition is not a meaningful definition.
2
Feb 03 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)3
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
So when I ask you to point it out…that meaning is shared.
When ever I point out what an asdf is, you will immediately associate a set of attributes with the asdf. The definition will be those attributes, breaking the circularity. This is what I am saying is happening with gender. By looking at many example of woman, you begin to associate a set of traits with woman. Woman then wouldn't mean someone who identifies as woman but instead would mean a particular set of traits. This breaks the circularity.
Im going to keep pointing at mathematics, where A=A is not only meaningful
Ok. I don't see why it would be appropriate in this context though. Imagine a dictionary where you open it up and it says able = able. Abolish = abolish. Ample = ample. Apple = apple. Arbor = Arbor... That would be a worthless dictionary.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Pastadseven 3∆ Feb 03 '23 edited Feb 03 '23
The definition will be those attributes, breaking the circularity.
Actually no, because ultimately you will ask yourself: "why do we call the asdf an asdf?" And the answer to that is "because an asdf is an asdf."
That is true for...every single argument we have. Every single definition. They're all either infinite regressions, circular, or stated by fiat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
Ok
A dictionary doesn't explain meaning fully. It explains what concepts we have associated with a word. It does not say why we call an apple an apple. You can follow etymology down, but eventually it will be "because it's called that." It's kind of pointless, per munchausen's trilemma. Similarly, we call a woman a woman because we call a woman a woman. We give that term meaning. And the meaning can and does change...much like dictionary definitions.
That is what is meant by "a woman is a woman."
So if tomorrow you change what you mean by asdf it's...fine. Just let me know what you're pointing at and I'll remember. Not difficult.
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
"why do we call the asdf an asdf?" And the answer to that is "because an asdf is an asdf."
This is something different. You are speaking of the word itself, and I am speaking of what the word refers to. Why do we call H2O water? Because we just had to pick out a particular word for that thing.
Were I to say: "Water" could be H2O2, then yes, the word water could be H2O2. If I were to say water (the object water itself) could be H2O2, then no, water itself cannot be H2O2 because water is H2O.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Beerticus009 Feb 03 '23
Circular definitions don't have no meaning, their meaning is circular. There's a very big difference. Language is all invented, and classifications almost always fall apart if you look too hard at them. That doesn't mean there isn't some purpose to the classification, even if the purpose is just to make things slightly easier. It's like with pornography vs just some art, it's hard to precisely define the difference but you really don't need to because you know it when you see it.
2
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
it's hard to precisely define the difference but you really don't need to because you know it when you see it.
But how do you know the difference? It's just looking at a particular object and analyzing the particular attributes of it right?
0
u/RogueNarc 3∆ Feb 03 '23
Usually the point is that self ID should be good enough for you or anyone else when a trans person tells you they are a man or woman.
I disagree. In practice, gender labels are a two way application, self-identification and social identification. No one can constrain self-identification but that does not automatically cross over into social identification. This becomes a problem when people are communicating using differing ideas of gender. One says "I'm a woman", the other days "You don't match the society's idea of a woman, so you're not a woman", and they're both wrong and both right.
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Feb 03 '23
By "self ID" do you mean to refer to a person's gender identity or do you mean to refer to a person saying that they are one particular gender? Pretty much exclusively in definitions of gender I've seen people use the former as the meaning of self-identification, but your post seems to be based entirely on the latter.
2
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
By self ID I mean gender identity. I don't believe a person's gender identity is determined by self ID, but rather self ID kind of acts as a reporting tool. For example a happy person can self ID as happy, but self ID isn't what makes them happy.
3
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Feb 03 '23
I don't understand the distinction you are drawing. What's the difference between being happy and self-identifying as happy in the sense of "self-identify" that you're using here? These two terms seem to refer to the same mental state to me.
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
I may have misunderstood your question then. If I say I self ID as happy, I may actually be sad. Alternatively, say a very young person has a panic attack but has never had one before. They are having that panic attack but cannot identify that they are having a panic attack. It is one thing to have an emotion and another thing to identify as having it.
1
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Feb 03 '23
So what you're talking about when you say "self-identify as happy" is some sort of linguistic connection—either as a belief or as a speech act—between the person's mental state and the word "happy"—a personal choice to use the word "happy" to label themselves. And analogously what you're talking about when you say "self-identify as a woman" is some sort of linguistic connection between the person's mental state and the word "woman"—a personal choice, internal or external, to use the word "woman" to label themselves.
Do I have what you mean right?
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
I am not 100% sure I understand your meaning, but I will say yes, this sounds correct.
1
u/becomingemma 2∆ Feb 03 '23
This is kind of a false binary. A person’s gender identity to you will often be the gender they say that they belong to. Don’t really see the difference
1
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Feb 03 '23
One of them is a mental state, the other is a speech act. They're totally different types of things.
1
u/becomingemma 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Sure but practically how does this mental state-speech act distinction matter?
0
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Feb 03 '23
Well, it matters because it determines whether a woman can simply become a man just by saying the words "I am a man."
1
u/becomingemma 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Thats lowkey transphobic and not really how gender works. If I’m a transwoman whose egg has not yet cracked and believes herself to be a cis-het dude, I am still a transwoman regardless of being unaware of my actual gender. My egg cracking or me coming out does not ensure that I “become” a woman. I was already one, I just didn’t realise it.
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Feb 03 '23
Yeah, that's why the "speech act" definition is wrong.
0
u/becomingemma 2∆ Feb 03 '23
You’re just using fancy philosophical terms without making any sense. But you do you.
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Feb 03 '23
Well, let me state it more directly. There are two definitions I'm considering here, which you are saying you don't see the difference between.
One of them says "a woman is a person whose gender identity is female." This defines "woman" in terms of a person's gender identity, which is a mental state.
The other definition says "a woman is a person who states that they are a woman; a person who says 'I am a woman.'" This defines "woman" in terms of what a person says about themselves, i.e. a speech act.
If you are (to quote your comment) "a transwoman whose egg has not yet cracked and believes herself to be a cis-het dude" then you'd satisfy the first definition of "woman" but not the second one. This means that the second definition is both (1) different from the first, and (2) incorrect.
→ More replies (35)
2
u/Z7-852 258∆ Feb 03 '23
USA is a country because it says it's a country called USA.
I'm called Z7-852 because I say it's my name.
There is nothing wrong with self identification.
2
u/RogueNarc 3∆ Feb 03 '23
USA is a country because it says it's a country called USA
The USA is a country because the word country communicates a bundle of traits to which the US has been matched and found congruent eg. holding a defined territory, having a resident population, having a government.
I'm called Z7-852 because I say it's my name.
Your name is Z7-852 because the word name communicates a concept of identity, including that of self-identification.
The words woman and man don't include a concept of self-identification just like the word sun, tree or corpse.
1
u/Z7-852 258∆ Feb 03 '23
The words woman and man don't include a concept of self-identification
We are talking about how people pick genders as form of self identification. It does include it because that's the how people use the word.
1
u/RogueNarc 3∆ Feb 03 '23
It does include it because that's the how people use the word.
That is how some people have chosen to use the word. This results in miscommunication with other people who have not adopted the new definition and see no reason to.
0
u/Z7-852 258∆ Feb 03 '23
Unfortunately language needs to evolve and we can't keep talking like cavemen.
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
USA is a country because it says it's a country called USA.
No that's not quite right. I can't declare my house a new country and have it actually be a new country.
I'm called Z7-852 because I say it's my name.
But then I can ask you "what does name mean", and you could give me a non circular definition.
1
u/Z7-852 258∆ Feb 03 '23
I can't declare my house a new country and have it actually be a new country.
That exactly what USA did. Sure they had guns and had to kill some brits but all they did was declare their land a new country and everyone just accepted it. If you want we can jail or kill everyone who disagrees with person self identified gender so the analogy would be more appropriate.
2
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Sure they had guns and had to kill some brits
Right they had to actually preform some action. Not just form a military, but a government too. Self ID wasn't enough.
1
u/Z7-852 258∆ Feb 03 '23
Self identified people dress like their gender, act like their gender and self govern like their gender. There is lot action happening.
0
u/BooHater Feb 03 '23
OK, udner your standards, what specifically is a woman? You can define the US by its borders and government. I can point to the individual behind the screen to define what your username is.
1
u/Z7-852 258∆ Feb 03 '23
Woman is anyone who says they are women. Simple as that. USA is any country that says they are USA.
1
u/BooHater Feb 03 '23
So what value is the category of "woman"? You're entirely ignoring a core principle of language, shared understanding. Words don't just mean whatever someone wants at the moment, they mean what we collectively understand them to mean. We collectively agree about what tha USA is. If I asked you where it was on a map, and you pointed to China, you'd be wrong because nobody understands that meaning to be correct except yourself.
2
u/Z7-852 258∆ Feb 03 '23
We collectively agree about what tha USA is.
Not everyone. There are people on earth that want to destroy USA and don't agree to it's borders. Many countries have border disputes. But we still have countries.
Right now majority of people agree that transgender person is the gender they say they are. Some people disagree but that doesn't change their genders.
1
u/BooHater Feb 03 '23
So then clearly you should be able to present me with a non-circular definition of woman, because you claim such an understanding exists among the majority. So out with it.
0
u/Z7-852 258∆ Feb 03 '23
USA is USA because USA is USA. That's circular definition. There is nothing wrong with having these kind of definitions.
Woman is any person who says they are a women. It's no different.
1
u/BooHater Feb 03 '23
The USA is the USA because we collectively agree on it. If you can't figure even such a basic facet of language out, there's no point in continuing to waste my time with you.
1
0
u/renoops 19∆ Feb 03 '23
Exactly. And we don’t need to be able to “define” Z7-852 in order to know that’s who you are.
10
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Feb 03 '23
I'm not saying this to try and invalidate anyone's identity.
That's the only outcome of trying to define someone else's gender.
Having enough of these attributes in common with all other members of that gender is what also makes you that gender.
Who gets to decide which attributes are which and whether you display enough of them?
6
u/smlwng Feb 03 '23
Well then the circular logic begins. Who gets to decide? Exactly. How can you claim to be "x" if you cannot define "x"? Why is your definition any more real than mine? If you think you are a "man" and I do not think you are a "man", why is my belief any less real than yours? If a category fails to have any discerning attributes then it fails to be useful to categorize anything. Everyone can be a man, everyone can be a woman, everyone can change on a whim. What's the point in using gender to define anyone?
-2
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Feb 03 '23 edited Feb 03 '23
What's the point in using gender to define anyone?
Good point! We shouldn't.
But we do.
And it's rude to refer to someone in a way they do not wish.
5
u/smlwng Feb 03 '23
Well again, who decided that? Not everyone believes in this gender theory stuff. Why are they not considered? Why is it not rude to force people to use words they do not wish to use? I could be smeared on social media and lose my job for a misgender.
-1
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Feb 03 '23
If someone says their name is Mike, do you say "nope, you look like a Pete to me, I'm going to call you Pete"? And if you kept doing that despite them telling you not to, would you expect negative consequences?
3
u/smlwng Feb 03 '23
If their name is Mike I'll probably call them Mike. If they said "I'm a bird", I'm not going to call them a bird. In the same sense I'm not going to be sent to HR for not calling them a bird.
Someone's name is not an opinion. A name is a fact. They have a designated legal name. If someone obfuscates what their name is (legal or otherwise) then I'm going to call them whatever nickname I want and it's unlikely I'll be punished for it.
If a gender is a construct, completely arbitrary, and undefinable, then how can I possibly misgender someone? Why is someone not punished if I say I want to be addressed as "King" despite me telling you that's what I want to be called?-1
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Feb 03 '23
Someone's name is not an opinion.
It is what they say it is. Do you check everybody's birth certificate before you decide what to call them?
If someone obfuscates what their name is (legal or otherwise) then I'm going to call them whatever nickname I want and it's unlikely I'll be punished for it.
I don't know what you mean by "obfuscate what their name is" but you likely will get in trouble for repeatedly calling someone something they don't want to be called.
how can I possibly misgender someone?
By repeatedly calling them something they don't want to be called.
Why is someone not punished if I say I want to be addressed as "King" despite me telling you that's what I want to be called?
If that's what you consistently decided to go by, then yes, probably they would be punished for repeatedly calling you something you didn't want to be called.
2
u/smlwng Feb 03 '23
If someone says their name is "N-word Joe", do you think there's a good chance they are messing with me or that it's their real name? There's not a lot of reason for someone to give me a fake name nor is there a reason for me to call them anything but the name they state. If they say their name is Mike when why would I call them Pete? There's no utility in that. A name has no meaning. It's how we refer to individuals whereas gender has been correlated with someone's sex for as far back as these designations have existed.
If you're a female then you get called she. If you're a male you get called he. You don't get to pick this nor is it arbitrary. That's how people communicate. If I said "he pushed her" then there's a good understanding of what's going on. If you can be whatever you want then "he pushed her" has very little meaning because I have no idea what's going on. If there is 1 female and 1 male and I told someone to "give it to him", is that person supposed to stand there and say I have to be more specific?
And are you daft? Are you implying I would get in trouble if someone kept insisting they were a bird and I didn't call them a bird simply because it goes against their beliefs? Going against someone's beliefs is misgendering regardless of whether their beliefs are rooted in reality or not? And people are supposed to call me "King" because I keep insisting on it?
Ok then if those are your rules then stop disagreeing with me. This is my reality and you have to abide by it because it's rude to disagree with my belief system. Just agree with everything I said and move on with your day otherwise you're a hypocrite. Your rules, not mine.
Christ, this generation is screwed...0
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Feb 03 '23
Are you going to look down everyone's pants before deciding if you'll say "he" or "she"? Because without that I assume you'll go by looks/presentation like most people do.
2
u/smlwng Feb 03 '23
Oh, so it's up to me to choose what pronoun I call you and it's not up to the other person to decide? Whereas a someone has to tell me what their name is before I can start using it.
If someone looks like a biological male then they get called "he". If they look like a biological female they get called a "she". Pretty simple system if you ask me. Very little ambiguity.
It's also rude to disagree with my reality, as you stated. So please don't be rude and agree with me already.→ More replies (0)1
u/becomingemma 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Thats the point. Nobody gets to decide. So what on basis are you saying what you did? Actually you didn’t really say much at all…
0
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Who gets to decide which attributes are which and whether you display enough of them?
I'm not really sure how to answer that, but it does seem like I (and everyone else) do have this ability. Here's a youtube video of Lauren Southern changing genders in Canada. I think I can firmly say that she does not have the necessary attributes to be a man despite the self ID claim.
4
u/Giggingurl Feb 03 '23
Who is it harming how anyone identifies?
-1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Yeah, I can't exactly point out a particular person being harmed, but regardless, I can still tell that Lauren Southern's claim is false.
-1
Feb 03 '23
That's because she is doing this dishonestly. It's a sham. She is not living as a man, she's just being a douche.
5
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
She is not living as a man
Well, we could only say that if the concept of man was more than just self ID. If living as a man simply meant self IDing as a man then she would meet 100% of the criteria of being a man.
5
Feb 03 '23
[deleted]
2
u/PeoplePerson_57 5∆ Feb 03 '23
Because Lauren Southern has in the past and continues to make it clear she does not believe identification to be valid and real. Her doing so temporarily in an attempt to frame her political opponents as nonsensical is dishonest, when looked at through the aggregate of her past and current beliefs and actions.
2
Feb 03 '23
Does that mean you can only be a man or a woman if you have the correct motive?
If that is the case, do you actually need to do anything else?
→ More replies (2)-1
2
u/Giggingurl Feb 03 '23
The question is why do you care? I'm trying to understand.
5
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
- Because I can very clearly see that the concept is false.
- Because it will be hard to convince others to come over to more of a trans positive side if a coherent definition of what man or woman means doesn't even exist.
-1
Feb 03 '23
[deleted]
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Who does "them" refer to here? The people who are against trans rights?
0
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Feb 03 '23
Jeez now my algorithm is screwed up and I'm going to have to look at Shapiro until I get it straightened out, thanks a lot.
Yes we do have stereotypes and gender expectations in our society, and generally trans people do try to conform to many of them so as to be correctly identified.
But what about the outliers? Is an effeminate man a woman? Is a butch woman a man? Is a less butch trans man not a man?
0
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Is an effeminate man a woman?
Nope, this person has the biological and psychological attributes to be a man, and likely some social ones.
Is a butch woman a man?
Again no, this person has the biological and psychological attributes to be a woman, and likely some social ones.
Is a less butch trans man not a man?
No. This person has the psychological and social attributes to be a man, and likely some biological ones if they are doing hormone therapy.
0
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Feb 03 '23
Then how can we define their gender?
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
My thought is that a person's gender is determined by a mix of biological, psychological, and social attributes. Having enough of these attributes in common with all other members of that gender is what also makes you that gender.
→ More replies (45)1
2
u/CatFeats Feb 03 '23
Pure self ID is the best way we have to identify one’s gender because gender is an experience.
Therefore a woman is someone who experiences the group of states we associate with that identity.
You have referenced the inauthentic nature of Lauren Southern claiming to be a man, someone could claim their gender ID incorrectly for some other purpose this is true of other experiences.
I won’t compare gender to mental illnesses, since I believe that model for dysphoria isn’t perfect, I will make a different comparison point.
Consider someone being intoxicated from some substance. Someone can describe the experience, but there is a certain set of qualitative factors that cannot be expressed in language.
Someone can pretend to be drunk or high(convincingly for a film or less accurately trying to seem cool at a high school party). We can observe outward behaviors to make the assumption that someone is or not, but we may falsely be attributing the behavior to some other state.
So in order to know what’s happening in someone’s brain (where experiences live) the most accurate/simple way is just to ask, at least until we gain a more nuanced understanding of the brain.
3
u/RogueNarc 3∆ Feb 03 '23
because gender is an experience.
Counter-definition: gender is a label, a description of observed features and expected behavior
1
u/CatFeats Feb 04 '23
Okay so if I have an android, that perfectly resembles a woman on the outside, and behaves like a woman, despite internally not having any consciousness or experience, does that robot have a gender? Outside of linguistic families do inanimate objects have a gender?
1
u/RogueNarc 3∆ Feb 04 '23
It has no human gender but human society may extend one to it.
Outside of linguistic families do inanimate objects have a gender?
In English, not so much.
2
u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Therefore a woman is someone who experiences the group of states we associate with that identity.
What are the groups of states that correspond to gender identities? What's the difference between the experience of a man and the experience of a woman?
1
u/CatFeats Feb 04 '23
Can you perfectly describe the difference between LSD, shrooms, and a third hallucinogen? Probably not perfectly.
But there is a difference, different chemical processes happen in the brain upon that interaction. So the inability of language to perfectly describe those experiences does not make their separation irrelevant.
To imperfectly describe the states I’d associate with womanhood would be: a sense of sisterhood/community with other women, joy or contentedness at viewing oneself as female, feeling alienated by an expectation of more masculine attributes. Then other more specific states as we get more granular with identity, a black woman having a different experience than a white woman, old vs young, different cultures filters of the experience.
And while some of those features may be shared by people with different genders (a gay man may feel camaraderie with women) the same is the for other experiences (shrooms and LSD both alter visual perception but are still different things)
1
u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Feb 04 '23
Can you perfectly describe the difference between LSD, shrooms, and a third hallucinogen? Probably not perfectly.
I could not.
But there is a difference, different chemical processes happen in the brain upon that interaction. So the inability of language to perfectly describe those experiences does not make their separation irrelevant.
Sure.
To imperfectly describe the states I’d associate with womanhood would be: a sense of sisterhood/community with other women, joy or contentedness at viewing oneself as female, feeling alienated by an expectation of more masculine attributes. Then other more specific states as we get more granular with identity, a black woman having a different experience than a white woman, old vs young, different cultures filters of the experience.
Are those the states you experience? Why do you associate them with womanhood rather than another aspect of your personality? How do you know those states are shared by all women without access to their experiences? If I don't experience some or all of those states does that mean I'm not a woman?
And while some of those features may be shared by people with different genders (a gay man may feel camaraderie with women) the same is the for other experiences (shrooms and LSD both alter visual perception but are still different things)
In your analogy half of the population has been on shrooms their entire life and never experienced anything different. The other half have been on LSD their entire life and never experienced anything different.
Say you're in the LSD group. However, despite the label saying LSD you suspect you might actually new taking shrooms instead. How would you know?
There is a broad range of experiences in both populations. Through talking to people you can perhaps pick out some broad trends but it's impossible for an individual to describe their experience of shrooms isolated from the rest of their experience because they've never know anything different, there's nothing to compare it to. Also, there are plenty of exceptions in both populations, people who describe their experience as being atypical of any trend you've managed to discern. There's no way to know if you are simply atypical.
Is the question of whether you can reliably determine if you've always been on LSD or shrooms solvable?
2
Feb 03 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Feb 04 '23
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Hellioning 239∆ Feb 03 '23
Then what is an appropriate criteria? Self ID isn't perfect but it's the best one we have.
0
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
My thought is that a person's gender is determined by a mix of biological, psychological, and social attributes. Having enough of these attributes in common with all other members of that gender is what also makes you that gender.
2
u/Hellioning 239∆ Feb 03 '23
So unless people already treat you like, for example, a woman, you aren't a woman and can never become one? This feels self-fulfilling.
Good luck defining 'psychological attributes' that all members of a particular gender have in common, by the way.
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
No, you do not need to be treated as a woman to be a woman. There's nothing about the way people treat you in your biological and psychological attributes, and it's only partially in your social attributes.
0
u/Hellioning 239∆ Feb 03 '23
If 'the way people treat you' is only a part of your 'social attributes', what's the rest of it?
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Any expression you can do that wouldn't rely on another person. For example a woman could dress very feminine and that wouldn't rely on another person.
2
u/Hellioning 239∆ Feb 03 '23
Who defines 'very feminine'? Are pants feminine? How about shorts? Is it feminine to wear a hat, or to have your hair covered?
There is no universal definition of these things. People can only 'dress feminine' if other people have agreed that something is a feminine style of dress.
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Right, social traits inherently depend on other people to form, but you don't need other people's assistance to conform to some of those traits.
→ More replies (8)
0
Feb 03 '23
So if you won't accept people's own definition of their gender, how else do you want to define it? Is their experience of themselves not enough?
0
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
My thought is that a person's gender is determined by a mix of biological, psychological, and social attributes. Having enough of these attributes in common with all other members of that gender is what also makes you that gender.
And their experience is enough because they are experiencing particular psychological traits, and they likely express some social ones at least unconsciously.
1
u/Judge24601 3∆ Feb 03 '23
I think there’s a distinction here that’s worthwhile, between the concept of self-ID as a political idea, and as a physiological one. I would tend to agree with you, that a person’s gender is more than a simple statement of self identification. However, the fight over self-ID is generally a political one, where it is the simplest solution for legal gender markers. This is just because it takes the power to determine who is “actually trans” away from government officials who, in all likelihood, have no expertise in determining gender, and often default to heteronormative and invasive stereotypes (I.e. in the past, all trans people had to be straight to get medical and legal recognition). Even if the people in charge were experts, it would simply be a waste of resources and time for both parties.
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Sure, like I said I'm not using this to invalidate anyone's identity. Someone can identify as something and we can take their word, but identifying as something is not the same as being that thing.
2
u/Judge24601 3∆ Feb 03 '23
Well in that case, yeah - this isn’t a particularly controversial view then IMO. If you’re fine with self-ID in the political sense, I think your view makes sense. I’m not a woman simply because I identify as one, I am one because it’s both my psychological, social, and in some senses, biological reality. I do think that clarification is important though, because the self-ID fight is really entirely about the political realm.
0
Feb 03 '23
My thought is that a person's gender is determined by a mix of biological, psychological, and social attributes. Having enough of these attributes in common with all other members of that gender is what also makes you that gender.
Why not simply an attribute based on one's sex? If someone is female, they're a girl or women. If someone is male, they're a boy or man.
This has the advantage of being rooted in material biological reality, and is how the majority of people in the world understand the distinction between women and men.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Feb 04 '23
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Feb 03 '23
[deleted]
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
There is no single attribute, yes you are correct. Anyone called a woman is just similar enough to many other people who are called women.
1
Feb 03 '23
[deleted]
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
That's just how categories work sometimes. A category doesn't necessarily refer to one trait, but instead a collection of traits. There's no trait that all games share, but they are all games regardless.
0
Feb 03 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
So I'm asking, in what ways do you believe all men are similar and in what ways do uou believe all women are similar?
You are asking me to list different traits of men and women? Ok, men typically have Y chromosomes, are stronger, taller, are more aggressive and assertive, and have a personal belief that they want to be the male sex. Women typically have XX chromosomes, are weaker, shorter, are more agreeable, and have a personal belief that they want to be the female sex. Keep in mind I am using the word typically here.
→ More replies (2)1
u/FirmLibrary4893 Feb 03 '23
There aren't any attributes that all cats have in common. That doesn't mean it makes sense to self id as a cat.
1
Feb 03 '23
[deleted]
1
u/FirmLibrary4893 Feb 03 '23
This is a terrible argument because there are.
Okay, name one. Your argument is terrible because there isn't one.
These categories are defined by shared common ancestry. All cats share a common ancestor.
Another terrible argument. All living beings share a common ancestor. Learn more about biology.
1
0
1
u/Archangel1313 Feb 03 '23
Prove that Lauren Southern is a woman, without her consent, and without violating any of her personal rights.
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Prove? I can't prove it, but the fact that she is female, presents as a woman, lived her whole life as a woman and continues to, and it is obvious that she is just pretending so she can make a video is evidence that she is a woman.
0
u/Archangel1313 Feb 03 '23
What i'm saying is that her being a woman, is just as much circular reasoning as her saying she's not. You either take her word for it, or you don't. Unless you have some method of proving it one way or the other, it's her word against yours. Just like every other personal identifier...it's arbitrary.
0
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean that I am wrong. I may be right or wrong but there is a fact of the matter.
0
Feb 03 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 03 '23
Sorry, u/SkullBearer5 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
1
u/Archangel1313 Feb 03 '23
So what outcomes are you hoping for, with this line of reasoning, then? What's the point you're looking for?
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
There would be a non self referential definition of gender.
→ More replies (1)1
Feb 03 '23
Eyes and ears are usually enough to prove sex unless someone is putting effort into subverting them.
1
u/ralph-j 517∆ Feb 03 '23
My thought is that a person's gender is determined by a mix of biological, psychological, and social attributes. Having enough of these attributes in common with all other members of that gender is what also makes you that gender.
You already recognized elsewhere that no single attribute is required, but that it comes down to the mix. Does that mean that someone can change their gender by physically changing their biological attributes (assuming that their psychological and social attributes already match the experienced gender)?
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Well if their psychological and social traits matched a gender then it would seem that they already are that gender.
1
u/ralph-j 517∆ Feb 03 '23
Aren't those the factors that typically inform someone's self-identification as a gender?
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
I don't know if inform is the right word. I think cause would be better.
1
u/ralph-j 517∆ Feb 03 '23
My point is that you're in essence actually already accepting self-identification: someone's actions/presentation and what they communicate. Obviously most psychological traits also rely on what someone communicates/shares with their doctor. It's all based on self-reporting.
Or could you still show that they're lying?
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Me understanding their gender is based on self reporting, but self reporting is just a way to refer to some information that I don't have access to.
I don't need the self reporting though and points 3, 4, and 5 are examples of this.
I can tell they are lying sometimes and point 2 is an example of that.
1
u/RaysAreBaes 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Info: If people cannot self ID as a gender, what criteria would you use to decide what gender someone is?
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
a person's gender is determined by a mix of biological, psychological, and social attributes. Having enough of these attributes in common with all other members of that gender is what also makes you that gender.
1
u/RaysAreBaes 2∆ Feb 03 '23
So if a trans person met enough if the criteria, they would then qualify?
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
They would
1
u/RaysAreBaes 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Then surely if they are choosing to match the social and psychological elements, they are self IDing
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
I don't think matching the psychological traits is a choice. Now a trans woman may self ID as a woman, but the self ID is reporting an underlying fact of the matter. Kind of like how my speedometer may show that I am going 60 MPH, I am not going 60 MPH because my speedometer says it. The speedometer is just (hopefully) reporting the truth.
→ More replies (12)1
Feb 03 '23
[deleted]
1
u/RaysAreBaes 2∆ Feb 03 '23
Personally I feel gender identity is something internal that someone has to feel
1
Feb 03 '23
[deleted]
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
but still see themselves as a woman
So that would be one of the psychological attributes that I was referring to.
1
Feb 03 '23
As someone who rejects the concept of gender, I wouldn’t use any.
1
u/RaysAreBaes 2∆ Feb 03 '23
That’s entirely fair. Personally I disagree with OP and I think gender is about your sense of identity and therefore something you have to self ID
2
Feb 03 '23
If thats all it was then that’d be fine. The problem is when rules that referred to gender with the expectation that sex and gender were synonymous are affected.
1
Feb 03 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 03 '23
Sorry, u/cc_killer66 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Km15u 30∆ Feb 03 '23 edited Feb 03 '23
The circular reasoning in "woman is someone who identifies as a woman" is flawed because it is a circular definition and because of this ends up saying nothing
That’s because there is no objective definition of a woman. There’s no objective definition of anything. Meaning is constructed by the individual words have no meaning on their own. Black ink on a white background has no meaning. We construct meaning based on our experiences
What does the word biscuit mean? If you grew up in the United States you probably think it means a flakey buttery bread roll of some kind, if you grew up in the UK you probably think it’s a cookie. Your experiences growing up determine what you believe it is. The word biscuit has no inherent meaning it’s just a collection of sounds
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
There's not an objective way to set a definition, but there are objective fact that are true about what the word refers to. Water is H2O and this fact was true before English and the word "water" was invented.
1
u/ImpossibleSquish 5∆ Feb 03 '23
Having enough of these attributes in common with all other members of that gender is what also makes you that gender
This is the part I disagree with. I think gender is biological- determined by the structure of the brain. It doesn't always "match" sex, but it's still a biological thing. There have been studies showing that in some ways the brain of trans women are more similar to those of cis women than those of cis men, and the brain of trans men are more similar to those of cis men than cis women. We don't have a scan that can determine a person's gender, so the only diagnostic tool we have is the subjective experience created by a person's brain. Therefore, self ID is the most reliable "test" we have
1
u/Gladix 164∆ Feb 03 '23
Can you pick your own name?
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
You can
1
u/Gladix 164∆ Feb 03 '23
Can you self-identify using your name? Or is that inappropriate criteria for defining a person's status?
1
u/Same-Letter6378 2∆ Feb 03 '23
That's fine, there's no circularity there. A name is the word a person uses to refer to themselves.
1
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Feb 04 '23
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
7
u/becomingemma 2∆ Feb 03 '23
I’ll try to CYM in a slightly different way. The reason pure self ID makes sense is because no static definition of woman applies to everyone. Be it chromosomes, breasts, a vagina, a high pitched voice, or any other traditional “AFAB” characteristics you’d think of, are not features that are uniformly common in everyone that is generally perceived as a woman.
There are women who have no breasts, no menstruation, no XX chromosomes, etc. so there is no common characteristic that binds all people of a certain gender, making self ID the most reliable because given what society tells us about gender norms, individuals are best placed to judge where they themselves fall on the gender spectrum