Law of noncontradiction and is a woman a woman?

[skippy64]

You see, I’m a conservative and it’s been a big thing these days to question “what is a woman?” And while many people don’t want to answer the question, I thought of a question epistemological one myself. Now a progressive leftist might agree that a woman is a woman. Now I’d like to follow that up with “permanently?” Now I don’t know but maybe I’d get some kind of response like “not if they don’t want to be.” The point is this, a woman can’t be a woman and not a woman at the same time. It’s nonsense.

 

[aeon]

My sense is people are who they say they are, and I respect the freedom and liberty of each and every individual to define that for themselves.

I can decide that for myself, just as you can. I have no right to say otherwise, or say you are otherwise than what you say you are.

To me, that seems a basic and fundamental example of personal boundaries.

I’ll leave you with a quote from one of America’s greatest poets:

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Wyote]

You can be whatever you want if you just believe hard enough

 

[Enso]

The way you have phrased the question seems very social constructionist. If you are not looking at it from this perspective it would simply be chromosomes and reproductive organs that provides a definition.

 

[John K]

Many truths can be whatever each of us choose and that truly work for us in the great dance. The action of choosing is a process though, not an event.

Personally, I get stuck pondering what a person is, well before the issues of gender. Life is one big adventure of koans really - the more significant ones can be those that don't look like it at first glance, or that are so familiar we never really see them as questions.

 

[skippy64]

Now I’d like to clear things up by quoting from a booklet which I was influenced by although maybe I need to spend more time reading so my opinion sounds less botched.

By R.C. Sproul

Examining the work of the French Jesuit mathematician René Descartes. But for him to be absolutely certain that to think means that he exists, he has to assume two principles, both of which are closely related to each other.

The law of noncontradiction. This law states that A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. That is to say, a thing or a proposition cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time and in the same relationship. We use the symbols A and non-A as a kind of philosophical shorthand.

A person can be A and B at the same time. I can be a father and a son at the same time—but not in the same relationship. Now, when Descartes says, “I think; therefore I am,” he assumes the law of noncontradiction. He is assuming that if he is thinking, he is not at the same time, in the same way not thinking. You can’t think and non-think at the same time and in the same relationship. You cannot doubt and not be doubting at the same time in the same relationship. And so he assumes the validity of a rational principle or a rational law, a rational form of thinking. That’s why we call this a formal principle.

 

[aeon]

Right, but one makes a basic and profound mistake thinking that which is human can be constrained by logic.

Logic is a tool created by humans, not the other way ’round.

Logic does not tell us how to love, how to dream, how to be, or who we are. What logic describes is but a very thin slice of what it is to be human.

And regardless, referencing my earlier post—each and every defines for themself who they are. I can say you are this or that, but my opinion is immaterial. You have the agency and autonomy to decide for yourself, not me, not anyone else.

Consider if you deny someone else this freedom and liberty, at some point, someone may deny your freedom and liberty in this regard.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[John K]

Now I’d like to clear things up by quoting from a booklet which I was influenced by although maybe I need to spend more time reading so my opinion sounds less botched.

By R.C. Sproul

Examining the work of the French Jesuit mathematician René Descartes. But for him to be absolutely certain that to think means that he exists, he has to assume two principles, both of which are closely related to each other.

The law of noncontradiction. This law states that A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. That is to say, a thing or a proposition cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time and in the same relationship. We use the symbols A and non-A as a kind of philosophical shorthand.

A person can be A and B at the same time. I can be a father and a son at the same time—but not in the same relationship. Now, when Descartes says, “I think; therefore I am,” he assumes the law of noncontradiction. He is assuming that if he is thinking, he is not at the same time, in the same way not thinking. You can’t think and non-think at the same time and in the same relationship. You cannot doubt and not be doubting at the same time in the same relationship. And so he assumes the validity of a rational principle or a rational law, a rational form of thinking. That’s why we call this a formal principle.

The essence of a logic chain though is that it rests on given premise concepts that are accepted as true or false by definition. The logical analysis then works on these to its deductive truths. or to inductive most likely implications.

So it seems to me that when it comes to gender the issue of the starting point is one of definition - and different people accept different starting points as truth. Logic is not able to resolve these differences by itself.

Often some of the most profound ethical issues hang off the premises that people disagree about. The issue of whether abortion is murder is an example. If you believe that human life is fully present at conception then it is murder; if you think a foetus isn’t human until much later in the womb then it isn’t. Both of these are valid positions ethically and logically to the people who hold one or other of these divergent views.

So the question of what is a man or a woman seems to me to be similar- different people will have different and contradictory premises which are logically valid because they are chosen by definition.

 

[Asa]

If you are speaking of transwomen, women are born women. This includes transwomen. It is no mystery that the human body does not always obey our minds and hearts.

 

[skippy64]

If you are speaking of transwomen, women are born women. This includes transwomen. It is no mystery that the human body does not always obey our minds and hearts.

Okay so this is kind of the point I was getting at and a great example. If we’re going on the premise that people are defined by what they say is true about themselves then I think it’s worth taking a look at where the logic leads. Let’s say you have a man who has no problem being identified as a man and he makes no qualm about it and even identifies himself this way. But if he wakes up one morning and decides he wants to be a woman, and he not only wants people to identify him as such (or trans woman) he also wants people to consider that in the past he was also a woman/trans woman at heart, then what we consider about who he was at the moment in time when he was biologically a man is that he was a woman/trans woman and not a woman at the same time and in the same relationship. And this by way of examining all of his truth claims.

Now I realize there are some trans women that make the claim that they always felt like a woman trapped inside a males body but they didn’t feel comfortable expressing that to anybody at the time, but I know it must also be true that not every case turns out that way. And regardless of whether people feel a certain way at a certain time, some of those same individuals may consider detransition later in life.

But whatever, that was a mouthful! I realize I may have not convinced anybody here so I’ll have to just agree to disagree.

 

[Enso]

I see where you’re coming from but the world has simply thrown out any conservative ideals or “standards” which had an element of implicitness to them and not just explicit biological markers. Without this implicit nature of what makes a women a women (or a man a man) then we can’t really come to a conclusion using logic because a dualism (male/female) cannot be nondual and dual at the same time (male v female being male/female). I agree it’s nuts. On a more general level men and women are both ying and yang so it doesn’t surprise me one person would identify as male and then identify as female later. I think it’s all very interesting, but I think it has been well established by now that most post-modern though is ridiculous these days and isn’t even tied to reality or logic. It's kinda tragic that randoms on a forum realise this but most people in power don't.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

I can only say that a biological woman has a different aesthetic to me than a trans woman. But I have no desire to intellectualize this nor do I think that I would find any satisfying answer. It's a purely spiritual matter. You can involve biological factors, but it will be a hollow explanation, like answering "Why are we alive?" by explaining reproduction or the Big Bang. This is never the place whence these kinds of questions come from, and a mechanical answer to an existential question is no answer at all.

As for the LNC, it has been long taken for granted to the point where it seems like that's just how reality works. But there are alternatives. Dialetheism is a foil to classic logic that allows for contradictions in a single instance, and what is known of quantum mechanics suggests than paradoxes and inconsistency may be fundamental parts of the world. Or in other words, inconsistencies can be true in and of themselves. Sort of like a dichotomy that does not resolve in one direction or the other, but is itself true in that both of its parts are necessary for its existence. Schrodinger's cat or Wigner's friend.

 

[John K]

Okay so this is kind of the point I was getting at and a great example. If we’re going on the premise that people are defined by what they say is true about themselves then I think it’s worth taking a look at where the logic leads. Let’s say you have a man who has no problem being identified as a man and he makes no qualm about it and even identifies himself this way. But if he wakes up one morning and decides he wants to be a woman, and he not only wants people to identify him as such (or trans woman) he also wants people to consider that in the past he was also a woman/trans woman at heart, then what we consider about who he was at the moment in time when he was biologically a man is that he was a woman/trans woman and not a woman at the same time and in the same relationship. And this by way of examining all of his truth claims.

Now I realize there are some trans women that make the claim that they always felt like a woman trapped inside a males body but they didn’t feel comfortable expressing that to anybody at the time, but I know it must also be true that not every case turns out that way. And regardless of whether people feel a certain way at a certain time, some of those same individuals may consider detransition later in life.

But whatever, that was a mouthful! I realize I may have not convinced anybody here so I’ll have to just agree to disagree.

Just chewing the issue over a bit ...

I can't help feeling that the real life situations are complex, varied and nuanced. It seems to me that many people who decide to identify as a different gender to their native biological one have reached that point only after a long and difficult process and a struggle with their sense of personal identity and of inner peace. On top of that, they also have to cope with the reactions of people close to them who may or may not be supportive, and that can bring additional burdens and influence how their fate unfolds and how quickly and easily they make any decisions.

I think life is full of that sort of gestation and change within us, but for most of us it doesn't lead to a change as spectacular as that of a different gender identification - it might lead to changes in our lives that are just as big, though maybe not so socially controversial. They are often long in the cooking, even if the change when it is actually manifest, comes suddenly.

I can understand why people have problems with the softening of the edges of gender identity though. There are social consequences beyond the individuals who wish to change their identification that need working through, but I suspect that the more spectacular problems are blown up by the media who are more interested in profits and controversy than true social reporting. My own gut feeling is that a balanced approach will work best and that people will come to terms with these gender issues eventually just as they have started to do with the gay world, but it will take a while to sort out and normalise the details. I guess my biggest concern is making sure kids are properly advised and supported because any physical intervention can be irrevocable, and few people know their own minds properly in their teens - yet that is the time when some interventions are essential.

 

[David Nelson]

There’s being a biological woman by having a different set of chromosomes, and there is which sex you feel you belong to. They can be different or the same.

 

[aeon]

I guess my biggest concern is making sure kids are properly advised and supported because any physical intervention can be irrevocable, and few people know their own minds properly in their teens - yet that is the time when some interventions are essential.

This is why I value the availability of puberty blockers, which allow additional time as needed, and are 100% reversible in that you can either stop taking them, or begin a process.

That said, children essentially have the legal status of property, and it’s a steep hill to climb in this culture to recognize children as people with full legal rights.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[mintoots]

Let’s say you have a man who has no problem being identified as a man and he makes no qualm about it and even identifies himself this way. But if he wakes up one morning and decides he wants to be a woman, and he not only wants people to identify him as such (or trans woman) he also wants people to consider that in the past he was also a woman/trans woman at heart, then what we consider about who he was at the moment in time when he was biologically a man is that he was a woman/trans woman and not a woman at the same time and in the same relationship

As I've understood it, you are building your inquiry based on time, are you not?

I am inclined to believe and I dare cite that even by just everything I could not and could understand about Einstein's theory of general relativity, there is no inarguable scientific law that you can build this upon. This was succinctly mentioned by Sidis here:

what is known of quantum mechanics suggests than paradoxes and inconsistency may be fundamental parts of the world. Or in other words, inconsistencies can be true in and of themselves.

To me, that the very logical physical science makes ample room for a lot of things robs us of any chance to philosophically decide what or what does not make a woman. Enso stated that clearly here:

. Without this implicit nature of what makes a women a women (or a man a man) then we can’t really come to a conclusion using logic because a dualism (male/female) cannot be nondual and dual at the same time (male v female being male/female).

To simplify for my sake, what we know both of science and of ourselves is simply too little. The very recognition of the vast unknown makes an infinite number of truths possible, including simultaneously existing paradoxes, which directly debunks the law of non contradiction if used to argue the spatiotemporal aspects of womanhood or femininity or even the construct of our genitalia. If our very spatio-temporal existence is limitless in its possibilities, to be a man and only a man at a given time is then pure nonsense. If our thoughts manage to be simultaneous among our subconscious and consciousness, how then can we decidedly utter that it is nonsense to be anything in between including non-binary gender?



I interpret that your inquiry is less a philosophical exploration but more an attempt at making sense of pre-existing social constructs. It's complicated because these constructs have been built from a time of lesser understanding compared to what is understood today. While tradition and repetition renders them valuable by virtue of cultural acceptance, it is also apparent that it cannot be a singular construct. Even if all of our personal thoughts and feelings were set aside respectively and if womanhood is interpreted just as a choice or even just as potential biological turnouts, the resulting probabilities are still more than just his and hers. The breadth of the factors that connive to result to our being is wide such that it even mathematically, we cannot just be a result of being an x or xy chromosome at the onset of our existence. Thus, the social construct must be decidedly archaic and equally alienating although still, evidently organized and by that makes it beneficial in some regards.

@John K succinctly and compassionately stated this:

I can understand why people have problems with the softening of the edges of gender identity though. There are social consequences beyond the individuals who wish to change their identification that need working through

In total, I think that we could simply accept that the paths of one are not the paths of all. Social constructs can still exist if it so wishes to for practical purposes, but it must not alienate. If science and math could argue that we are limitless, why then should we be limited just because of what is accepted by the majority?

If even the laws of humans are subject to revision, why not our minds and our interpretations and acceptance of what gives the other their claim -no matter how temporary- to being a soulful human?

 

[skippy64]

As I've understood it, you are building your inquiry based on time, are you not?

I am inclined to believe and I dare cite that even by just everything I could not and could understand about Einstein's theory of general relativity, there is no inarguable scientific law that you can build this upon. This was succinctly mentioned by Sidis here:

(mentions quantum mechanics)
Yes, I was arguing on the basis of time because time exists. It is the progression from one moment to the next. The measurement of time is a construct but we have our “being” if you can believe that. The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics is an interesting study, I’ll say, and scientific discovery, though it usually raises more curious questions, generally works to our advantage.

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

If our thoughts manage to be simultaneous among our subconscious and consciousness, how then can we decidedly utter that it is nonsense to be anything in between including non-binary gender?

It's worth asking here if gender dysphoria stems from some genuinely anomalous qualia of gendered psychological energy, or from gender expression which doesn't fit enculturated prescriptions. I don't think we could tell for sure either way as one shapes the other, but in the case of the former, there is no binary outside of symbolic archetypes to begin with. And speaking of archetypes...

It's complicated because these constructs have been built from a time of lesser understanding compared to what is understood today.

I don't think that's accurate. The rigid gender standards are less a result of poor prior understanding and more a result of enantiodromia, where any popular idea is eventually decontextualized and taken to its extreme conclusion. My interpretation is that the dichotomy was initially one of many expressions of cosmic duality and served a ritualistic or artistic purpose (notice that femininity/masculinity in Western traditions is comparable to Eastern Yin/Yang characteristics, which implies a certain degree of universality in these observations). From a cognitive perspective, these could roughly apply to the duality of Te and Fi (it's hard to determine where Fe and Ti exactly fits in this because they are both part objective and subjective, whereas the former pair is double extraverted and double introverted, and as such carry in themselves the typical assertive proactivity of masculinity and demure passivity of femininity, respectively). Generally I go by the principle that all statistics are wrong, and especially so in the case of MBTI, but for the sake of the argument, Te dominant types tend to be men and Fi dominants women.

You can see how this becomes a problem when taken out of its symbolical concept, as it by no means precludes men from adopting feminine tendencies and vice versa. For example, INFP men almost always have a characteristic feminine tilt to their energy, and it's no accident that some of the most vocal proponents of LGBT rights belong to the FP category. Today, we are in the opposition stage of this collective mentality, where more and more subversion of the rigid taxonomy occurs in the form of new labels which don't actually introduce anything new from the traditional standpoint. They are merely symbols of rebellion that seeks to return to equilibrium.

The question is obvious at this point: is it possible that the recent relative increase in cases of gender dysphoria is caused by a fundamental mismatch between what is culturally imprinted from early childhood and the individual's actual psychological state, resulting in a misled feeling of being "wrongly assigned" to your body despite this apparent incongruity being completely natural?

I don't expect an answer beyond speculation of course, but to me this implies a potential solution to gender dysphoria outside of invasive procedures that may reveal itself in time.

 

[Wyote]

enantiodromia

Thanks, been needing this word in my vocab