Banno

I would like to set out what is objectionable and what is illogical in your OP. The introduction is the ubiquitous claim that you started out neutral ...

Like this?

The trouble with a presupposition's not being true is that it could not then be used to make any deductions - if it is not true, nothing true could fo...

Why not? Truth and justification are quite distinct, after all; they are independent of each other.

...?

A curious response. So her argument would carry more weight for you if she shaved her head and wore a suit? Not you, Un. But there is the point that t...

SO gender is fine, provided we don't take it seriously. Fine.

Seriously?

How's that? I don't see your argument.

Sure. But given that feelings change, how could you know when an issue involving feelings is resolved? Hence we are again dependent on the fervently d...

Thanks for your reply. Your reflections are valuable for me. I find myself in the position of defending transgender folk and finding the existing expl...

Well he would, wouldn't he? What, with all that omnisciences and stuff. Knowing what will happen is his job.

why?

Where Wittgenstein differs from this may be in saying they are true but unjustifiable.

What is a "absolute presupposition"? They appear not at all dissimilar to "hinge propositions".

Anyone who takes on the pretence of doing philosophy, but has not felt this, is no philosopher. Welcome to the fraternity.

Meh. Logic is the mechanics of justification. Move on.

Is there a way to edit the name of this thread?

I haven't followed your discussion in detail. The notion of innate homosexuality plays a great roll in the legal thinking that leads to equity for hom...

I suspect that in defending the concept of gender you both missed the thrust of this discussion.

The ethics is much clearer here than the logic, isn't it. The issue is not what we (you and I) do about transgender folk, and we will continue to supo...

Can you tell me what it is you feel by introspection, without using publicly assessable criteria? And if you can't how are your feelings to be made pa...

Where?

"What it is like to be a man" invites a list of publicly assessable criteria "What it feels like to be a man" invites introspection.

It's not just me that's kicking the can:

Because it is a hollow claim.

If a rich person feels like a pauper, their feelings are out of step with the reality of their wealth. They certainly are not wealthy. If a commoner f...

How can you tell that "I feel female" were true? You have to claim that here is a feeling that is had by all women, and that this is shared by your pr...

That is an odd turn of phrase. I don't sit back and observe myself being male. Yet the notion that I experience being male implies something like that...

There's a difference, of course, between "What it is like to be a man" and "What it feels like to be a man". And I remain unconvinced that there is a ...

Where do you think this goes? Your arrogance suggests you somehow think this line of thought supports your position. How's that, then?

I am. What a silly question!

I think it is. What more could there be?

these are justifications, not theories of truth.

Yep.

We each must decide. And making that choice is exactly the question. Hiding behind the law is no better than hiding behind god.

Sure thing. Give me a link to Jesus' writing, as opposed to the more popular commentaries.

Enough. This is too much like kicking a puppy. Go ahead and believe in your religion. Whatever gets you through the night. But don't pretend to the mo...

Prove what? That Seneca had a better conception of mercy than Jesus? Sure - let's compare their writings. oh, wait... Or prove that Christianity is mo...

No. But, for example, some men who suppose themselves to feel like women may be mistaken.

Mercy. Seneca knew more about mercy than did Jesus' folk. See De Clementia. Not only does Christianity not have the moral monopoly it claims, it is it...

Perhaps that is because you have not grasped the T-sentence.

Just go read up on T-sentences.

Some folk suggest there is something it's like to be male or female, yet this seems not to be defensible.

Especially if your method involves threats of violence:

Indeed; on your part, if you are going to convince folk that your ethics is of any value.

Yeah, you don't understand how the T-schema works. That explains this thread. Cheers.

Are we getting somewhere? Can you see the puzzle?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Lunatic would seem a reasonable assessment. But given that we only have a few highly edited texts...

Perhaps. Do you suggest that those with body integrity disorder ought be permitted to amputate whatever body part they fell is not their own? IS that ...