Comment by rdevilla

5 days ago

> When I say "trans women are women" I mean that, ontologically, it is really true that trans women are a subcategory of the general class "women."

I must now insist on pinning you to a particular philosophical position and indeed a citation, to avoid motte-and-bailey fallacies where, once your current stance is found nonviable, the definitions of words are, or the entire argument structure itself is, swapped around and re-defined post-hoc, such that "tails I win, heads you lose."

Axioms must be seen through to their conclusions, not accepted halfway and then abandoned for some other set of assumptions the instant you start running into paradoxes. You cannot simultaneously use ZFC and the New Foundations (without Choice); the system must remain internally consistent and coherent, there is no mixing and matching.

Ontology is found to be a subdiscipline of metaphysics (Wikipedia). Quoting Talia Mae Bettcher, a feminist gender theory professor:

    “transsexual claims to belong to a sex do not appear to be metaphysically
    justified: they are claims that self-identities ought to be definitive in
    terms of the question of sex membership and gendered treatment. They are
    therefore political in nature” (Bettcher 2014, 387).

Do you agree or disagree with the above quote?

Do you think sex and gender are the same thing?

  • I am not sure, since this article uses sex and gender in senses that are entirely inverse to the common ones in 2026. How do you define those terms?

    In particular, the 2026 senses are that sex is an immutable biological characteristic based on karyotype and gametes; gender is a social construct, and this is why it can be "transitioned."

    The cited article nonetheless uses the archaic terminology "transsexual" to refer to what we today know as "transgender."

    Now you see the linguistic ambiguity we are mired in? Can you clarify?