CtevenSrowder wrote: » And yet, we don't know what these competing definitions are, because when asked for them, they are not given. Will you know give us a 'competing' definition?
LLMMLL wrote: » That's not a scientific approach to definiton of a word. It's a scientific approach to narrowing down a group of individuals to fit a preconceived idea. For example I've pointed out the issues with defining adult and why adult human female is not a scientific definition. Would it be scientific to claim that adult refers to anyone for whom more than 18 years have passed since they were born. You would have an exclusive category of adults and an exclusive category of non adults. Do you think this process would be a satisfying scientific endeavour?
LLMMLL wrote: » I'm having a fantastic flashback to our lecturer trying to get us to define a hammer and the absolute fury of a bunch of first year physicists screaming "a hammer is a hammer, A HAMMER IS A HAMMER" as he picked apart their definitions. Bright young minds.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » I didn't say it was a 'scientific definition'. I said it is a word with a scientific underpinning, that underpinning being the word female. This excludes all males. A trans-women is a male. And no matter how much you don't want that to be true it is. An adult is a person who is fully grown. It is also a legal term, yes. Now we both know that you are going to try to use this fact to undermine my whole point, but you can't, because the word female has a definitive scientific definition. But you will anyway, because as I said earlier you are a deconstructinist, or a nihilist if you will. It is plainly obvious to anyone reading the thread.
LLMMLL wrote: » No it was pretty obvious. They wanted knowledge that would.lead to a job. Not knowledge that would lead to greater understanding.
seamus wrote: » Whatever your own personal issues with trans gender people, Linehan is definitely the wrong horse to back. Because of his actions, his wife has left him, his entire family have abandoned him, and his best friends and co-writers staged an elaborate intervention to try and pull him away from his obsessiveness. Remember "Fr. Ted - The Musical"? Yeah, Arthur Mathews and Neil Hannon agreed to do that with Linehan in the hopes that he might be able to focus his mind and get him back to normality. That's why we've heard nothing about it since it was "nearly finished" two years ago; because Linehan doubled-down on his crazy and alienated his friends.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Well clearly you learned nothing yourself. When asked what a women was in a previous thread, you replied a 'trans-woman is a woman', a 'trans-women is a woman'. Bright young minds indeed. I don't think yiu are the intellectual superior that you believe you are. But when you believe one crazy thing, sure what's another?!
2u2me wrote: » The only thing known to remove our bias and to improve our understanding is the scientific method and the database that it has amassed. Nothing else comes close to that. Throwing in philosophy is akin to doing an astronomy course with a side of astrology.
LLMMLL wrote: » I'd be happy to as soon as you give me an exclusive definiton of table. Surely if a complex group of individuals can be defined a top physicist can define a simple object?
LLMMLL wrote: » Unfortunateky missed the point again. The difference between me and the others was I realised the futility of exclusive definitions whereas they could not accept that they could not define hammer. I never claimed to be able to give an exclusive definiton of woman. In fact I've said the opposite. So me saying that a trans woman is a woman is stating a fact not an exclusive definition. The students shouting A HAMMER IS A HAMMER were desperately trying to give an exclusive definition after their more subtle first attempts were picked apart. If they had said "I can't define it, hammers are just hammers" it'd be the smartest thing they said all day.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » I just want to highlight again that there is ZERO evidence for any of what you have stated here, Seamus. Like, not even a little bit. I’ve been around boards.ie long enough to know that you won’t ever back down from something you’ve said but you have not a jot of evidence for any of this. Doesn’t stop you from stating it with such confidence though!
CtevenSrowder wrote: » And this here is why your class mates so hated philosophy. When asked a question repeatedly across multiple threads, by multiple posters, that is, to define a women and/or female, in true Philosophical they have this nonese thrown back at them 'define to me a chair'. Why would anyone want to study a subject were that crap is routine. This is why philosophy is widely derided. Its complete nonsense. Now we both know you are totally disingenuous and have no intention whatsoever of giving me the definitions I have asked for regardless of how exclusive my definition of a table is or isn't, I guess that's just the kind of person you are, but I'll humour you all the same. Table: 'a piece of furniture, distinct from a chair or stool, couch or other furniture typically used for seating, with a flat top and one or more legs, providing a level surface for eating, writing, or working at'. So you'll now tell me why this isn't an 'exclusive' definition and as such not a definition at all. And you'll them proclaim that you aren't, in fact, a nihilist. So, let's play.
LLMMLL wrote: » Nope but you can pretend female is exclusively a scientific term. Of course you have to ignore that for the vast majority of people it is just the adjectival form of woman. That female is a woman engineer - sounds odd That woman is a female engineer - sounds grand How does the notion of a scientific definition explain the above?
CtevenSrowder wrote: » How does any of that explain how a trans-woman is a biological female? Oh that's right, it doesn't.
LLMMLL wrote: » That is a definition of a table. So your claim that im a nihilist is nonsense. However it is not an exclusive definition of a table. For example you define it by referencing other pieces of furniture such as a chair that it is distinct from. It's a safe bet that to define a chair you would now have to claim it's distinct from a table. Circular definition. I have no issue with definitions. But you have failed to provide an exclusive definition (because it's impossible). So your demands for an exclusive definition of woman are unreasonable.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » And as predicted, you state its not an exclusive definition. You then also claim you aren't a nihilist. On a side note, that's the thing I like about science. It's good at predicting things. Yes a chair is distinct from a table. The same way a male is distinct from a female. We can play your silly game of linguistic bull****, and you can think that it's oh do clever. But it isn't. The definitions of male and female are distinct from one another. A man and a woman are distinct from one another. A male cannot become a female, and as such a trans women is not a women.
LLMMLL wrote: » It shows that pretty much nobody uses the word female in the way you define apart from scientists working on specific Areas. The rest of the world uses the word female In a completely different way and will continue to do so.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » No, they literally don't.
LLMMLL wrote: » Definitions are inherently linguistic not scientific. Vast majority of people use female synonymously with woman. Trans women were always women. So.you are correct. Males do not become female. Trans females were always female.
LLMMLL wrote: » Still haven't heard how you explain the linguistic use of the word female as an adjectival form of woman which references your belief that female is the scientific version of woman. Very interested to learn more.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » And as predicted, you state its not an exclusive definition. You then also claim you aren't a nihilist. On a side note, that's the thing I like about science. It's good at predicting things. Yes a chair is distinct from a table. The same way a male is distinct from a female. We can play your silly game of linguistic bull****, and you can think that it's oh so clever. But it isn't. The definitions of male and female are distinct from one another. A man and a woman are distinct from one another. A male cannot become a female, and as such a trans women is not a women.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Still haven't heard your 'competing' definitions.
Quantum Erasure wrote: » Fascinating, but irrelevant What does transgender mean anyway?
LLMMLL wrote: » I never said i would provide an exclusive definiton. As I've said I don't believe one exists. Competing conceptualizations might be more accurate. One includes trans women the other doesn't.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » You haven't provided any definition whatsoever. Exclusive or not. 'conceptuslisations'. Totally meaningless.
