|
Sorites paradox, if we actually make the comparison valid, would go something like this: We have a somewhat vague idea of what a man is, and a somewhat vague idea of what a woman is. In the analogy, we have a vague idea of the difference between grains of sand and a heap of sand.
Now, you argue that no matter how much of a transformation we make from a man to a woman, that person can never become a woman, because that person started out as a man. Even if the trans woman is identical to the cis woman, in the same way that the many, many grains of sand are identical to the heap, the transformation can never actually occur. In much the way the paradox argues that a grain of sand can never become a heap of sand.
I think you're right. Sorites paradox totally can apply to this.
|
Kwark is basically a logical positivist and those who disagree are wittgensteinians ^^
Of course one can make a category that would exclude transwomen. It would be considered arbitrary by those who already consider transwomen "real women" and it would likely be considered correct by those who dont do so.
Some people (including women) dont consider a woman who cant have children a "real woman" either. This was especially the case in the past. There is no clearcut universal definition of what constitutes being a "real woman", no more than there is one for what a "real man" is.
It has nothing to do with being a "real" versus a "fake" woman. People want to sleep with cis or trans women or both. That's all it is. Since we can have meaningful conversations about what a cis woman is and what a trans woman is, there's no point coming up with exact definitions, given that both categories (along with the term "woman") are arbitrary to start with and only exist because humans are sexually dimorphous and evolved as such. We needed words to refer to both different sorts of human beings, so we made 'em from the start.
|
On August 04 2013 03:22 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +Kwark is basically a logical positivist and those who disagree are wittgensteinians ^^
Of course one can make a category that would exclude transwomen. It would be considered arbitrary by those who already consider transwomen "real women" and it would likely be considered correct by those who dont do so.
Some people (including women) dont consider a woman who cant have children a "real woman" either. This was especially the case in the past. There is no clearcut universal definition of what constitutes being a "real woman", no more than there is one for what a "real man" is. It has nothing to do with being a "real" versus a "fake" woman. People want to sleep with cis or trans women or both. That's all it is. Since we can have meaningful conversations about what a cis woman is and what a trans woman is, there's no point coming up with exact definitions, given that both categories (along with the term "woman") are arbitrary to start with and only exist because humans are sexually dimorphous and evolved as such. We needed words to refer to both different sorts of human beings, so we made 'em from the start.
Sure. Ive never argued anything differently. In fact I was called a bigot or transphobe or whatever 10-15 pages back for pointing this out. What I do get slightly annoyed by however is how some people argue over whether a transwoman is a "real woman" or not by trying to use a scientific definition, when there is absolutely nothing scientific about the phrase "real woman" to begin with.
so a) I agree with you: assuming we cant use words that lack a clearcut definition is denying how language works. Most words dont have one single meaning, their meaning changes depending on circumstance (hence my reference to logical positivism vs the later wittgenstein) etc.
b) trying to prove that a transwoman is or isnt "real" is ridiculous. Its a category-mistake. It depends who you ask and no one is right or wrong, its more a question of decent or douche in my opinion.
c) Admitting that transwomen are "real women" doesnt mean you have to want to sleep with them. I strongly disagree that anyone would be a bigot or a ---phobe or whatever because of that.
|
I agree then 100% that the term "real" man or woman should be avoided entirely for those reasons.
I definitely wouldn't consider myself transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a trans though.
|
On August 04 2013 04:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I agree 100% that the term "real" man or woman should be avoided entirely for those reasons.
I definitely wouldn't consider myself transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a trans though.
Would you not consider yourself a racist if you wanted to sleep with a biracial woman who you thought was white, but upon finding out she wasn't, decided you no longer wanted to sleep with her? If the answer is yes, then at least you're consistent, but I doubt the woman in question would feel the same way you do. If no, then you should reconsider your answer.
|
On August 04 2013 04:22 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 04:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I agree 100% that the term "real" man or woman should be avoided entirely for those reasons.
I definitely wouldn't consider myself transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a trans though. Would you not consider yourself a racist if you wanted to sleep with a biracial woman who you thought was white, but upon finding out she wasn't, decided you no longer wanted to sleep with her? If the answer is yes, then at least you're consistent, but I doubt the woman in question would feel the same way you do. If no, then you should reconsider your answer.
I think there are far more differences between the sexes than there are differences between "races".
The differences between man and woman, be it cis or trans, is far more significant than the differences between black and white.
I suppose it might be somewhat racist because I can't really think of any other reason someone would be upset over that for the reasons mentioned above
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On August 04 2013 04:22 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 04:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I agree 100% that the term "real" man or woman should be avoided entirely for those reasons.
I definitely wouldn't consider myself transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a trans though. Would you not consider yourself a racist if you wanted to sleep with a biracial woman who you thought was white, but upon finding out she wasn't, decided you no longer wanted to sleep with her? If the answer is yes, then at least you're consistent, but I doubt the woman in question would feel the same way you do. If no, then you should reconsider your answer.
What's the context though? Certainly in this day, feeling some discomfort about someone who has gone through a whole set of experiences that you simply cannot relate to is understandable.
Can you draw that parallel with your analogy?
|
On August 04 2013 03:10 shinosai wrote:Sorites paradox, if we actually make the comparison valid, would go something like this: We have a somewhat vague idea of what a man is, and a somewhat vague idea of what a woman is. In the analogy, we have a vague idea of the difference between grains of sand and a heap of sand. Now, you argue that no matter how much of a transformation we make from a man to a woman, that person can never become a woman, because that person started out as a man. Even if the trans woman is identical to the cis woman, in the same way that the many, many grains of sand are identical to the heap, the transformation can never actually occur. In much the way the paradox argues that a grain of sand can never become a heap of sand. I think you're right. Sorites paradox totally can apply to this.
You have to be careful here, philosophy isn't straightforward.
If I change my name to Brad Pitt, shave my head like Brad Pitt, surgically alter my facial characteristics to look like Brad Pitt, do I eventually become Brad Pitt?
Do you think the Sorietes paradox shows there is no difference between Brad Pitt and a Brad Pitt impersonator?
|
On August 04 2013 04:26 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 03:10 shinosai wrote:Sorites paradox, if we actually make the comparison valid, would go something like this: We have a somewhat vague idea of what a man is, and a somewhat vague idea of what a woman is. In the analogy, we have a vague idea of the difference between grains of sand and a heap of sand. Now, you argue that no matter how much of a transformation we make from a man to a woman, that person can never become a woman, because that person started out as a man. Even if the trans woman is identical to the cis woman, in the same way that the many, many grains of sand are identical to the heap, the transformation can never actually occur. In much the way the paradox argues that a grain of sand can never become a heap of sand. I think you're right. Sorites paradox totally can apply to this. You have to be careful here, philosophy isn't straightforward. If I change my name to Brad Pitt, shave my head like Brad Pitt, surgically alter my facial characteristics to look like Brad Pitt, do I eventually become Brad Pitt? Do you think the Sorietes paradox shows there is no difference between Brad Pitt and a Brad Pitt impersonator?
That's not a proper representation of the paradox. The paradox is about vague predicates not reality vs perception.
|
On August 04 2013 04:26 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 03:10 shinosai wrote:Sorites paradox, if we actually make the comparison valid, would go something like this: We have a somewhat vague idea of what a man is, and a somewhat vague idea of what a woman is. In the analogy, we have a vague idea of the difference between grains of sand and a heap of sand. Now, you argue that no matter how much of a transformation we make from a man to a woman, that person can never become a woman, because that person started out as a man. Even if the trans woman is identical to the cis woman, in the same way that the many, many grains of sand are identical to the heap, the transformation can never actually occur. In much the way the paradox argues that a grain of sand can never become a heap of sand. I think you're right. Sorites paradox totally can apply to this. You have to be careful here, philosophy isn't straightforward. If I change my name to Brad Pitt, shave my head like Brad Pitt, surgically alter my facial characteristics to look like Brad Pitt, do I eventually become Brad Pitt? Do you think the Sorietes paradox shows there is no difference between Brad Pitt and a Brad Pitt impersonator?
If we did something like the teleporter experiment, where all your atoms are reassembled to be exactly like Brad Pitt's, then yes, you are Brad Pitt, although the other Brad Pitt and you would diverge due to different locations in space, you would still be equally real Brad Pitt's.
I have a degree in philosophy, so I think I'll be alright.
|
On August 04 2013 04:24 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 04:22 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I agree 100% that the term "real" man or woman should be avoided entirely for those reasons.
I definitely wouldn't consider myself transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a trans though. Would you not consider yourself a racist if you wanted to sleep with a biracial woman who you thought was white, but upon finding out she wasn't, decided you no longer wanted to sleep with her? If the answer is yes, then at least you're consistent, but I doubt the woman in question would feel the same way you do. If no, then you should reconsider your answer. I think there are far more differences between the sexes than there are differences between "races". The differences between man and woman, be it cis or trans, is far more significant than the differences between black and white. I suppose it might be somewhat racist because I can't really think of any other reason someone would be upset over that for the reasons mentioned above
If you can agree that it's somewhat racist, then you should agree that you're a bit transphobic. Which is okay - you have a hangup that a lot of other people do, which is probably related to cultural upbringing.
|
On August 04 2013 04:25 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 04:22 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I agree 100% that the term "real" man or woman should be avoided entirely for those reasons.
I definitely wouldn't consider myself transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a trans though. Would you not consider yourself a racist if you wanted to sleep with a biracial woman who you thought was white, but upon finding out she wasn't, decided you no longer wanted to sleep with her? If the answer is yes, then at least you're consistent, but I doubt the woman in question would feel the same way you do. If no, then you should reconsider your answer. What's the context though? Certainly in this day, feeling some discomfort about someone who has gone through a whole set of experiences that you simply cannot relate to is understandable. Can you draw that parallel with your analogy?
There's totally valid reasons that someone might feel discomfort about sleeping with a black woman or a trans woman. It doesn't automatically make you a bad person, but it also doesn't change the fact that you're a little bit racist/transphobic if you're selecting your sexual partners exclusively on these traits.
|
On August 04 2013 04:35 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 04:24 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:22 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I agree 100% that the term "real" man or woman should be avoided entirely for those reasons.
I definitely wouldn't consider myself transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a trans though. Would you not consider yourself a racist if you wanted to sleep with a biracial woman who you thought was white, but upon finding out she wasn't, decided you no longer wanted to sleep with her? If the answer is yes, then at least you're consistent, but I doubt the woman in question would feel the same way you do. If no, then you should reconsider your answer. I think there are far more differences between the sexes than there are differences between "races". The differences between man and woman, be it cis or trans, is far more significant than the differences between black and white. I suppose it might be somewhat racist because I can't really think of any other reason someone would be upset over that for the reasons mentioned above If you can agree that it's somewhat racist, then you should agree that you're a bit transphobic. Which is okay - you have a hangup that a lot of other people do, which is probably related to cultural upbringing.
I don't think it's a good analogy though, unless you're willing to admit the difference between a black man and a white man is as great as the difference between a white man and a white woman.
And I don't think you'd be willing to concede that. Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
On August 04 2013 04:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 04:35 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:24 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:22 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I agree 100% that the term "real" man or woman should be avoided entirely for those reasons.
I definitely wouldn't consider myself transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a trans though. Would you not consider yourself a racist if you wanted to sleep with a biracial woman who you thought was white, but upon finding out she wasn't, decided you no longer wanted to sleep with her? If the answer is yes, then at least you're consistent, but I doubt the woman in question would feel the same way you do. If no, then you should reconsider your answer. I think there are far more differences between the sexes than there are differences between "races". The differences between man and woman, be it cis or trans, is far more significant than the differences between black and white. I suppose it might be somewhat racist because I can't really think of any other reason someone would be upset over that for the reasons mentioned above If you can agree that it's somewhat racist, then you should agree that you're a bit transphobic. Which is okay - you have a hangup that a lot of other people do, which is probably related to cultural upbringing. I don't think it's a good analogy though, unless you're willing to admit the difference between a black man and a white man is as great as the difference between a white man and a white woman. And I don't think you'd be willing to concede that. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I concede that the difference between a white woman and a biracial woman who appears white is less than or equal to the difference between a trans woman and a cis woman. It's a rather easy concession to make, since I don't think that there's a meaningful difference between trans women and cis women.
|
On August 04 2013 04:31 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 04:26 Darkwhite wrote:On August 04 2013 03:10 shinosai wrote:Sorites paradox, if we actually make the comparison valid, would go something like this: We have a somewhat vague idea of what a man is, and a somewhat vague idea of what a woman is. In the analogy, we have a vague idea of the difference between grains of sand and a heap of sand. Now, you argue that no matter how much of a transformation we make from a man to a woman, that person can never become a woman, because that person started out as a man. Even if the trans woman is identical to the cis woman, in the same way that the many, many grains of sand are identical to the heap, the transformation can never actually occur. In much the way the paradox argues that a grain of sand can never become a heap of sand. I think you're right. Sorites paradox totally can apply to this. You have to be careful here, philosophy isn't straightforward. If I change my name to Brad Pitt, shave my head like Brad Pitt, surgically alter my facial characteristics to look like Brad Pitt, do I eventually become Brad Pitt? Do you think the Sorietes paradox shows there is no difference between Brad Pitt and a Brad Pitt impersonator? If we did something like the teleporter experiment, where all your atoms are reassembled to be exactly like Brad Pitt's, then yes, you are Brad Pitt, although the other Brad Pitt and you would diverge due to different locations in space, you would still be equally real Brad Pitt's. I have a degree in philosophy, so I think I'll be alright.
So, the original Brad Pitt is living his life. He drops by the lab to have his body scanned with extreme precision (though not destroyed, reassembled or teleported), and walks out again. While he is scanned, we assemble an atom-perfect copy of Brad Pitt - for convenience, we will refer to him as Brad Pitt*.
You suggest that both of these are the real Brad Pitt, and that people would be wrong if they said that Brad Pitt starred in Fight Club, whereas Brad Pitt* did not?
|
On August 04 2013 04:41 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 04:31 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:26 Darkwhite wrote:On August 04 2013 03:10 shinosai wrote:Sorites paradox, if we actually make the comparison valid, would go something like this: We have a somewhat vague idea of what a man is, and a somewhat vague idea of what a woman is. In the analogy, we have a vague idea of the difference between grains of sand and a heap of sand. Now, you argue that no matter how much of a transformation we make from a man to a woman, that person can never become a woman, because that person started out as a man. Even if the trans woman is identical to the cis woman, in the same way that the many, many grains of sand are identical to the heap, the transformation can never actually occur. In much the way the paradox argues that a grain of sand can never become a heap of sand. I think you're right. Sorites paradox totally can apply to this. You have to be careful here, philosophy isn't straightforward. If I change my name to Brad Pitt, shave my head like Brad Pitt, surgically alter my facial characteristics to look like Brad Pitt, do I eventually become Brad Pitt? Do you think the Sorietes paradox shows there is no difference between Brad Pitt and a Brad Pitt impersonator? If we did something like the teleporter experiment, where all your atoms are reassembled to be exactly like Brad Pitt's, then yes, you are Brad Pitt, although the other Brad Pitt and you would diverge due to different locations in space, you would still be equally real Brad Pitt's. I have a degree in philosophy, so I think I'll be alright. So, the original Brad Pitt is living his life. He drops by the lab to have his body scanned with extreme precision (though not destroyed, reassembled or teleported), and walks out again. While he is scanned, we assemble an atom-perfect copy of Brad Pitt - for convenience, we will refer to him as Brad Pitt*. You suggest that both of these are the real Brad Pitt, and that people would be wrong if they said that Brad Pitt starred in Fight Club, whereas Brad Pitt* did not?
This is getting deep into philosophy (a very popular philosophy discussion, I might add), and while I do enjoy a philosophical discussion, it's frankly veering into deep off topic territory.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On August 04 2013 04:37 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 04:25 marvellosity wrote:On August 04 2013 04:22 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I agree 100% that the term "real" man or woman should be avoided entirely for those reasons.
I definitely wouldn't consider myself transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a trans though. Would you not consider yourself a racist if you wanted to sleep with a biracial woman who you thought was white, but upon finding out she wasn't, decided you no longer wanted to sleep with her? If the answer is yes, then at least you're consistent, but I doubt the woman in question would feel the same way you do. If no, then you should reconsider your answer. What's the context though? Certainly in this day, feeling some discomfort about someone who has gone through a whole set of experiences that you simply cannot relate to is understandable. Can you draw that parallel with your analogy? There's totally valid reasons that someone might feel discomfort about sleeping with a black woman or a trans woman. It doesn't automatically make you a bad person, but it also doesn't change the fact that you're a little bit racist/transphobic if you're selecting your sexual partners exclusively on these traits.
Just so you know, I'm just trying to flesh this out rather than antagonise 
What are the valid reasons someone might feel discomfort with sleeping with a black person? I ask because each and every single trans person goes through an intensely personal and, I guess, difficult experience, unlike a black person.
Further, I'm not entirely sure why the totally inability to relate to this and therefore distance created or lack of understanding or whatever translates to transphobia. Explain?
|
On August 04 2013 04:43 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 04:41 Darkwhite wrote:On August 04 2013 04:31 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:26 Darkwhite wrote:On August 04 2013 03:10 shinosai wrote:Sorites paradox, if we actually make the comparison valid, would go something like this: We have a somewhat vague idea of what a man is, and a somewhat vague idea of what a woman is. In the analogy, we have a vague idea of the difference between grains of sand and a heap of sand. Now, you argue that no matter how much of a transformation we make from a man to a woman, that person can never become a woman, because that person started out as a man. Even if the trans woman is identical to the cis woman, in the same way that the many, many grains of sand are identical to the heap, the transformation can never actually occur. In much the way the paradox argues that a grain of sand can never become a heap of sand. I think you're right. Sorites paradox totally can apply to this. You have to be careful here, philosophy isn't straightforward. If I change my name to Brad Pitt, shave my head like Brad Pitt, surgically alter my facial characteristics to look like Brad Pitt, do I eventually become Brad Pitt? Do you think the Sorietes paradox shows there is no difference between Brad Pitt and a Brad Pitt impersonator? If we did something like the teleporter experiment, where all your atoms are reassembled to be exactly like Brad Pitt's, then yes, you are Brad Pitt, although the other Brad Pitt and you would diverge due to different locations in space, you would still be equally real Brad Pitt's. I have a degree in philosophy, so I think I'll be alright. So, the original Brad Pitt is living his life. He drops by the lab to have his body scanned with extreme precision (though not destroyed, reassembled or teleported), and walks out again. While he is scanned, we assemble an atom-perfect copy of Brad Pitt - for convenience, we will refer to him as Brad Pitt*. You suggest that both of these are the real Brad Pitt, and that people would be wrong if they said that Brad Pitt starred in Fight Club, whereas Brad Pitt* did not? This is getting deep into philosophy (a very popular philosophy discussion, I might add), and while I do enjoy a philosophical discussion, it's frankly veering into deep off topic territory.
Thanks for giving a straight answer.
|
United States41958 Posts
On August 04 2013 04:41 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 04:31 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:26 Darkwhite wrote:On August 04 2013 03:10 shinosai wrote:Sorites paradox, if we actually make the comparison valid, would go something like this: We have a somewhat vague idea of what a man is, and a somewhat vague idea of what a woman is. In the analogy, we have a vague idea of the difference between grains of sand and a heap of sand. Now, you argue that no matter how much of a transformation we make from a man to a woman, that person can never become a woman, because that person started out as a man. Even if the trans woman is identical to the cis woman, in the same way that the many, many grains of sand are identical to the heap, the transformation can never actually occur. In much the way the paradox argues that a grain of sand can never become a heap of sand. I think you're right. Sorites paradox totally can apply to this. You have to be careful here, philosophy isn't straightforward. If I change my name to Brad Pitt, shave my head like Brad Pitt, surgically alter my facial characteristics to look like Brad Pitt, do I eventually become Brad Pitt? Do you think the Sorietes paradox shows there is no difference between Brad Pitt and a Brad Pitt impersonator? If we did something like the teleporter experiment, where all your atoms are reassembled to be exactly like Brad Pitt's, then yes, you are Brad Pitt, although the other Brad Pitt and you would diverge due to different locations in space, you would still be equally real Brad Pitt's. I have a degree in philosophy, so I think I'll be alright. So, the original Brad Pitt is living his life. He drops by the lab to have his body scanned with extreme precision (though not destroyed, reassembled or teleported), and walks out again. While he is scanned, we assemble an atom-perfect copy of Brad Pitt - for convenience, we will refer to him as Brad Pitt*. You suggest that both of these are the real Brad Pitt, and that people would be wrong if they said that Brad Pitt starred in Fight Club, whereas Brad Pitt* did not?
You are not the atoms, you are the pattern in which they are organised. If that were not the case then you'd have bits of you everywhere from shed skin cells and the like.
|
On August 04 2013 04:41 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 04:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:35 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:24 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:22 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I agree 100% that the term "real" man or woman should be avoided entirely for those reasons.
I definitely wouldn't consider myself transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a trans though. Would you not consider yourself a racist if you wanted to sleep with a biracial woman who you thought was white, but upon finding out she wasn't, decided you no longer wanted to sleep with her? If the answer is yes, then at least you're consistent, but I doubt the woman in question would feel the same way you do. If no, then you should reconsider your answer. I think there are far more differences between the sexes than there are differences between "races". The differences between man and woman, be it cis or trans, is far more significant than the differences between black and white. I suppose it might be somewhat racist because I can't really think of any other reason someone would be upset over that for the reasons mentioned above If you can agree that it's somewhat racist, then you should agree that you're a bit transphobic. Which is okay - you have a hangup that a lot of other people do, which is probably related to cultural upbringing. I don't think it's a good analogy though, unless you're willing to admit the difference between a black man and a white man is as great as the difference between a white man and a white woman. And I don't think you'd be willing to concede that. Correct me if I'm wrong. I concede that the difference between a white woman and a biracial woman who appears white is less than or equal to the difference between a trans woman and a cis woman. It's a rather easy concession to make, since I don't think that there's a meaningful difference between trans women and cis women.
I think ideally in a future where the actual scientific transformation process is much more refined and thorough, you might be right. Currently though, I see a significant enough difference between cis and trans women to warrant not wanting to sleep with a trans woman. Going into where the line is drawn is where the paradox arises.
I definitely don't see how that makes me a transphobe. Further, I don't see how I am being inconsistent for thinking that in the situation regarding race, one actually might be somewhat racist for not wanting to sleep with someone who appears white but is actually biracial purely for the reason that they are biracial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
