Pronouns and References

[chriscase]

So wait, are you saying my anti-identity identity is illogical? Even absurd? I'm appalled.

Actually I've explained the details of my thought experiment several times in this thread. You just seem to be ignoring the explanation for some reason.

[Cyclops]

Well strictly speaking if you recall the OP I said I did not accept the axiomatic definition of either identity or existence. So you can't necessarily assert that I exist unless you want to disrespect my personal philosophy. ..

Happy to disrespect you since you're an old fart with a tertiary education who plays TW games: you're me (only better).

I'd paraphrase von Moltke and say no philosophy survives contact with reality. If you have a philosophy, or any though whatever, an existence will be provided.

My reality is two young second cousins who have transitioned to male. They both want to be "he" now. Statistics suggest if we go with this they are less likely to kill themselves. I'm going with it. My ability or inability to comprehend is irrelevant, as is any sand in any of my orifices current or added in the future.

I don't know about non-binary people and the use of they in reducing suicide, but I work with two "theys" and if it makes them (both) happy, then I'm in.

If someone gets in your face like an uppity kid let them trip over their own tongues. The trans kid down my street has a diagnosed autistic level of irritating smart-alec-ery. I give him both barrels, and I call him him, because young guys need their heads figuratively kicked regularly and I don't want to contribute to his suicide.

If you're worried that "they" works multiple jobs welcome to the new economy. If you think English is a lame language you're right and maybe that's part of the reason that we speak Russian in space.

[PointOfViewGun]

So wait, are you saying my anti-identity identity is illogical? Even absurd? I'm appalled.
Actually I've explained the details of my thought experiment several times in this thread. You just seem to be ignoring the explanation for some reason.

More like you have exposed yourself applying logic selectively. If you indeed provided those explanations you'd have paraphrased them when I asked for one directly or you'd merely refer to those posts. Instead, just like others highlighted as well, you're trying to be vague or dismissive and avoid actually addressing the criticism thrown at your way.

Why should anyone consider your opinion as genuine when you can't even hold it upright?

[chriscase]

Happy to disrespect you since you're an old fart with a tertiary education who plays TW games: you're me (only better).

I'd paraphrase von Moltke and say no philosophy survives contact with reality. If you have a philosophy, or any though whatever, an existence will be provided.

My reality is two young second cousins who have transitioned to male. They both want to be "he" now. Statistics suggest if we go with this they are less likely to kill themselves. I'm going with it. My ability or inability to comprehend is irrelevant, as is any sand in any of my orifices current or added in the future.

I don't know about non-binary people and the use of they in reducing suicide, but I work with two "theys" and if it makes them (both) happy, then I'm in.

If someone gets in your face like an uppity kid let them trip over their own tongues. The trans kid down my street has a diagnosed autistic level of irritating smart-alec-ery. I give him both barrels, and I call him him, because young guys need their heads figuratively kicked regularly and I don't want to contribute to his suicide.

If you're worried that "they" works multiple jobs welcome to the new economy. If you think English is a lame language you're right and maybe that's part of the reason that we speak Russian in space.

I don't really blame the kids though. Kids will find and take advantage of every bit of slack they can. I do blame the adults in the room however who seem to be so terrified of... something... that they have entirely abdicated their authority.

There seems to be an epidemic of suicidal ideation and actions amongst our youth, and it's certainly not just about sexual identity. If my child were stressed about sexual identity of course I would try to find a way to be supportive. That doesn't mean agreeing to absolutely everything and anything though. One of the duties of a parent is sometimes to say "no".

More like you have exposed yourself applying logic selectively. If you indeed provided those explanations you'd have paraphrased them when I asked for one directly or you'd merely refer to those posts. Instead, just like others highlighted as well, you're trying to be vague or dismissive and avoid actually addressing the criticism thrown at your way.

Why should anyone consider your opinion as genuine when you can't even hold it upright?

I'm sorry you don't like my identity, but it's mine mine mine. If you've been paying attention that means you are being very bad by disrespecting it. For shame!

Here you go:

Suppose I'm profoundly doubtful about the axiomatic nature of existence. By this I don't mean I doubt the existence of some particular thing, but rather I doubt the validity of the concept of existence itself. Since the coherence of the existence property is generally assumed as part of the axioms of modeling the world, this doubt might corrupt my reception of existence arguments. That is to say, at a fundamental level I doubt whether identity or existence are anything more than conventional fictions we use to facilitate communication.

I declare that references to my supposed existence are in violation of my dearly held belief that I don't exist. Any attempt to refer to what others might believe is "me" are therefore unforgivable acts of violence and should be condemned.

But, one might say, isn't this a self-refuting statement? If you don't exist, who is making the argument?

To which I say, logic no longer matters. Haven't you heard? The only thing that matters is my independent right to decide what my identity is, including my right not to have one.

But, another might say, isn't this terribly inconvenient for anyone who simply has to interact which you?

To which I say, how dare you place your convenience before my right not to exist?

I’m not saying I want to cease to exist or anything like that. After all, if I cease to exist this implies I once existed. I’m suggesting the concept of existence is a fiction. A convenience. A lie.

If anyone can prove that the concept of identity is coherent without circularly invoking the identity concept itself in the proof, I’ll concede the argument.

I'd go with the usual assumptions in first order logic. Anywhere you see the phrase "there exists" or a mirror-image "E" the concept of existence is being used axiomatically, i.e. with an assumption that it's a valid property to assign (or not) to an object of consideration.

To some extent the claim I am making is not subject to standard logical examination because one of the premises is that I do not accept some foundational logical principles such as non-contradiction and identity. That doesn't mean we must accept overtly contradictory claims, merely that there may be claims that fail to obey the principle of non-contradiction. So for instance I might have a claim "P" that I can assert does not have the truth value "True". The PNC then forces me to accept P is false, which non-PNC systems allow it also not to have the truth value "False" but perhaps another, intermediate or indeterminate value.

To the point of the OP though the role of this non (or anti) logic is simply that current PC thinking doesn't appear to value logic at all anyway when stacked against the value of the individual's purported right to (in my view, somewhat arbitrarily) decide to identify as whatever they happen to feel like being that day.

If you are referring to the identity definition I raised, what I'm doing is removing some axioms. That's not a premise, but a lack of some.

OK how about this:

Suppose we don't assume the law of identity and carry that as a personal philosophy into an identity-laden topic such as gender pronouns.

Formally what I'm suggesting is the removal of some axioms. Since they are axioms, we have granted up front they are assumed with no proof. It's perfectly natural to wonder what would happen if one of more of those axioms was not assumed to be true. I wouldn't really call it a premise though, since it's more removing something we conventionally assume to be true as opposed to asserting something. None of this is particularly new in the context of mathematics and formal logic.

I'm just taking it into the world of personal philosophy which is arguably a category error but does dovetail well enough with my other point which is about the absurdity of assuming communication can be completely overridden by some notion of individual self-determination. There's no reason why I would have to take issue with all names and references and view them as inherently violent, even if I doubt the laws of identity. I just do. And that's my right. Right?

Proving an axiom is a fool's errand.

Well strictly speaking if you recall the OP I said I did not accept the axiomatic definition of either identity or existence. So you can't necessarily assert that I exist unless you want to disrespect my personal philosophy.

If an axiom could be proven or disproven, it wouldn't be an axiom. This isn't something I made up, nor is it controversial to anyone familiar with modern mathematics or formal logic.

Again, it's not me who defined these axioms. They are well established as axioms. The practice of exploring what happens when we drop axioms is also well established. Nothing particularly controversial here, except apparently to you.

So wait, are you saying my anti-identity identity is illogical? Even absurd? I'm appalled.

Actually I've explained the details of my thought experiment several times in this thread. You just seem to be ignoring the explanation for some reason.

[PointOfViewGun]

I'm sorry you don't like my identity, but it's mine mine mine. If you've been paying attention that means you are being very bad by disrespecting it. For shame!
Here you go:

Two questions:
How does you copy pasting your posts explain why you ended up using axioms selectively?
How can I not like your identity when I don't know what your identity is?

[chriscase]

Choice of axioms is ultimately up to the designer of the system, in this case me. Of course there might be reasons, but those reasons of necessity cannot be proven or backed by deductive logic, since such a proof would have to be based ultimately on some set of axioms.

I pasted the previous posts at your request. Can't say I had a lot of faith you would read them any better than the first time though.

[PointOfViewGun]

Choice of axioms is ultimately up to the designer of the system, in this case me. Of course there might be reasons, but those reasons of necessity cannot be proven or backed by deductive logic, since such a proof would have to be based ultimately on some set of axioms.

You're not the designer of the system though. Why do you get to decide it?

I pasted the previous posts at your request. Can't say I had a lot of faith you would read them any better than the first time though.

I didn't request you to do that though. Why did you do it?

[chriscase]

You're not the designer of the system though. Why do you get to decide it?

This particular one, yes I am. Are you saying that when I decide what my identity is or is not, I am somehow obligated to contend with anything other than my own wishes? Like, maybe... other people?

I didn't request you to do that though. Why did you do it?

Because you asked me to. Is this like a staring contest? First one that blinks loses?

[PointOfViewGun]

This particular one, yes I am. Are you saying that when I decide what my identity is or is not, I am somehow obligated to contend with anything other than my own wishes? Like, maybe... other people?

It's not something you get to design. It's something you'd merely be. Especially when you claim to have none which is basically an oxymoron.

Because you asked me to. Is this like a staring contest? First one that blinks loses?

Nope. I did not ask you to.

[Dave Strider]

OK but I don't object to transgenderism. I don't even object to calling a guy who dresses like a woman "she" and a woman who dresses like a man "him". I am balking at the "they/their" thing because I guess it just sounds wrong to me.

Returning to this thread after a few days and been reading some replies, wanted to address this point. Singular they has been in the English language since the days of Shakespeare at least. All you've gotta do is say "my apologies, I'm not used to it, I wasn't taught it in school and am still adjusting to using it."

But really, I find it pretty easy to use, especially over the extraordinarily clunky "he or she", or "his or her".
Every singer took their place. (His or her place?)
The delivery driver forgot their hat. (His or her hat?)

And in conversation: My friend Cal said they'll come over on Friday; they're vegan, so let's take them out to a nice place that's got good food options for them.

The most important point is that language doesn't have strict rules. Languages change over time, otherwise French, Spanish, and Italian would all still be Latin. You're not breaking rules or doing something bad by using a new pronoun for someone.

[Dave Strider]

There seems to be an epidemic of suicidal ideation and actions amongst our youth, and it's certainly not just about sexual identity. If my child were stressed about sexual identity of course I would try to find a way to be supportive. That doesn't mean agreeing to absolutely everything and anything though. One of the duties of a parent is sometimes to say "no".

If you're saying "no" to your child asking if you will support and accept them as who they feel that they are, then all we're saying is, you'd better be prepared for your child to no longer trust you or feel safe around you as a result. If I had a nickel for every self-proclaimed "awesome parent" who is now saying "Why won't my kids talk to me? I just told them it was a phase and they'd grow out of it, and now I never hear from them anymore", I'd be rich. And if you have a child who turns out to be trans, and they hear you making jokes about Apache helicopters and the like...all we're saying is that cause and effect plays a role here.

[chriscase]

If you're saying "no" to your child asking if you will support and accept them as who they feel that they are, then all we're saying is, you'd better be prepared for your child to no longer trust you or feel safe around you as a result. If I had a nickel for every self-proclaimed "awesome parent" who is now saying "Why won't my kids talk to me? I just told them it was a phase and they'd grow out of it, and now I never hear from them anymore", I'd be rich. And if you have a child who turns out to be trans, and they hear you making jokes about Apache helicopters and the like...all we're saying is that cause and effect plays a role here.

As a parent (and really as an adult in the community), supporting and accepting children as they are is something most of us should embrace with few reservations. But as pointed out in the thread, one of the challenges is that kids - especially teenagers - aren't yet all that sure about how it is that they are. A parent that moves around as nimbly as their child when it comes to expectations is doing that child a disservice. Kids need something relatively stable to push against as they develop a sense of self. I am pretty sure it's possible to provide that stability in a way that expresses unconditional love and support as well.

I do think that when we give too much latitude and put too many of the options on the table, it can also backfire. Things a kid wouldn't really have thought much about take on a lot more emphasis. An example - suppose a child has expressed vaguely suicidal ideation, something along the lines of "I'm not going to do anything but I think it'd be fine if I just wasn't here." Something clinicians are trained to do as part of a risk assessment is to find out if there is any detailed plan for how to end one's life. So what do they do? They ask. Once. Twice. Three times.

Four visits to the hospital and lo and behold, the answer to the question has become, "Oh yes, now I have a plan." Why did the plan develop? I can't help but suspect it was in response to all that probing. Institutional processes can become self-fulfilling. This is something the adults in the room need to be vigilant about, that we are not effectively prompting the very indications of the things we are most afraid of.

[Dave Strider]

As a parent (and really as an adult in the community), supporting and accepting children as they are is something most of us should embrace with few reservations. But as pointed out in the thread, one of the challenges is that kids - especially teenagers - aren't yet all that sure about how it is that they are. A parent that moves around as nimbly as their child when it comes to expectations is doing that child a disservice. Kids need something relatively stable to push against as they develop a sense of self. I am pretty sure it's possible to provide that stability in a way that expresses unconditional love and support as well.

I do think that when we give too much latitude and put too many of the options on the table, it can also backfire. Things a kid wouldn't really have thought much about take on a lot more emphasis. An example - suppose a child has expressed vaguely suicidal ideation, something along the lines of "I'm not going to do anything but I think it'd be fine if I just wasn't here." Something clinicians are trained to do as part of a risk assessment is to find out if there is any detailed plan for how to end one's life. So what do they do? They ask. Once. Twice. Three times.

Four visits to the hospital and lo and behold, the answer to the question has become, "Oh yes, now I have a plan." Why did the plan develop? I can't help but suspect it was in response to all that probing. Institutional processes can become self-fulfilling. This is something the adults in the room need to be vigilant about, that we are not effectively prompting the very indications of the things we are most afraid of.

As someone who was suicidal myself for a good portion of my childhood, I can vouch for exactly what you're talking about. A lot of the time I was afraid to talk about it because I feared that I would be taken into a room somewhere for "important, serious conversations" with my parents and teachers and counselors and such. I know they were doing their jobs, and they did it because they cared, and even that it would objectively have been worse for me if they hadn't done that, but still, it was overwhelming. I wanted to talk to someone and vent my feelings and be met with sympathy and understanding, but I also wanted to forget about it and try to live normally if I could.

This is why there's so much emphasis on giving the young people autonomy when it comes to things involving both mental health, but also identity. Because identity is in the mind, of course, and struggling with our identity can produce mental health problems. Give young people support and listen to them, but ultimately give them the autonomy and the choice to pursue what they feel is best for them.

[Muizer]

Yet when it comes to transgenderism, its arbitrary, quasi-religious precepts are enforced with dogmatic conviction.

What's arbitrary and quasi religious about it?

This simply isn’t true. If transgender identity and pronoun use is a matter of personal belief, consensus has nothing to do with that belief. If the consensus is to refer to me as “he, him” by default, and I have to “correct” everyone that I am to be called, “they, them,” I am deliberately going against consensus to demand everyone abide by my personal belief.

That's why I said consensus forming. Perhaps I should have used the word "convention" instead. What I tried to communicate is that to add the pronoun "they" to "he" and "she" is anything but opening the door to arbitrary "you should use whatever random pronoun I invent for myself" thinking. It's just adding a new category to the existing system.

[Lord Thesaurian]

What's arbitrary and quasi religious about it?

Here’s a more exhaustive explanation if my example wasn’t informative:

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/01/20547/

That's why I said consensus forming. Perhaps I should have used the word "convention" instead. What I tried to communicate is that to add the pronoun "they" to "he" and "she" is anything but opening the door to arbitrary "you should use whatever random pronoun I invent for myself" thinking. It's just adding a new category to the existing system.

Seems like a false dichotomy in that the reason for adding pronouns to the existing system is based on arbitrary, personal beliefs. I suppose one can enforce a consensus, often the state or private megacorps in this case, but given it’s one based on individual beliefs that must be accepted without question, seems like the term becomes moot. After all, there are hundreds of unique pronouns to refer to trans people, according to trans people. "You should use whatever random pronoun I invent for myself" is an accurate description of how these pronouns and/or their usage come to be.

https://askanonbinary.tumblr.com/pronouns

[Prodromos]

Here's an example of what being "affirming" can lead to:

[chriscase]

Well it’s pretty hard to know the bottom line here, isn’t it? I do take the point that if we are obligated to accept whatever the person themselves thinks about their identity at face value then we’d have to accept this person’s interpretation as well, assuming it’s not simply a fabrication.

[antaeus]

Well it’s pretty hard to know the bottom line here, isn’t it? I do take the point that if we are obligated to accept whatever the person themselves thinks about their identity at face value then we’d have to accept this person’s interpretation as well, assuming it’s not simply a fabrication.

To be fair, I have no problem with calling you "Null chriscase"

If that's what you prefer.

My basic sense of human decency extends to allowing you to define yourself within the context of our interactions. Sarcasm aside, I can continue to respect your wishes and label you Null for the foreseeable future until you choose another self-descriptor. Is that the point of the post? To announce this to us all?

I'll also allow anyone else who identifies themselves as a woman or man or tarantula to do so. They can use the gender neutral bathrooms that are efficiently popping up like mushrooms too. They're much easier/cheaper for architects and engineers to design and manage. Trust me.

In that sense, obligation is the wrong term. I make a choice to treat you with decency. If I make that choice known, then some others might have an opinion on that choice. They are free to. I am free to respond to those opinions however makes me happy. Everything else here is just justifying being an ass. If that's what you want, just own it.

[Dave Strider]

Here's an example of what being "affirming" can lead to:

Right, so clearly the answer is to not be affirming and have even more suicidal teenagers who are upset that they can't transition in the first place.

[Sir Adrian]

Except suicide rates have gone up since "yeah let's listen to what a 10 year old thinks about gender" became the norm.