Law of noncontradiction and is a woman a woman?

[Krypton]

I guess I don't see the contradiction here.

If "Woman" means identifying as one, then when you identify as one you are one. If someone didn't identify as one earlier but does now, they are one now and weren't earlier, per the definition. If they say they actually were one back then too they're lying about having identified as a man/other earlier or about having identified as a woman then.

If it's based on something else, other criteria apply.

If the problem is with the definition being used, what's the problem with it?

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

Thanks, been needing this word in my vocab

Admins not knowing basic Jungian terms, the insolence!

 

[Wyote]

Admins not knowing basic Jungian terms, the insolence!

Lol I have come across it before, but at the time it didn't really stick. I think it will now since the context you put it in is something I've been thinking a lot about.

 

[Reason]

If you can't clearly define what a woman is then being or not being a woman is just meaningless semantics. At that point call yourself whatever you like and change your mind as often as you like.

 

[April]

Agreed with @Reason

How can we say what is or isn't if we can't properly define what is?

We are all both feminine and masculine, so I dont feel the need to state anyone "is" or "isnt" all of one or the other. To me, it's "simply" complicated lol. We are all just complex beings with our own understandings, biological makeups, and circumstances and it is constantly changing. As I have said with pretty much everything, saying "is" or "isn't" is too black and white for me. It's all in the grey and that is where most if not all of us stay, whether we realize it or not.

Just my two cents. Probably too simple for this discussion, but oh well. I think we've put too much emphasis on this topic and others like it. If people would just accept people as who they are, we wouldn't even have this problem. But because people are at different areas on different spectrums, there is disagreement and therefore, discord.

It will never end. Because even though we are more alike than we all realize, we are all different too.

I love the Walt Whitman quote. <3 I highly identify with it.

For clarification I consider myself a woman but I easily recognize my masculine side. It's not dominant enough for me to consider calling myself a man, or even to call myself manly. This is all while being very physically attracted to women. But the thing is, thoughts, feeling, hormones, almost everything in our lives change. So while I very highly doubt that I'll ever feel like a man, I don't rule that out entirely and I don't think it absurd to feel the way I do.

Just wanted to contribute. <3

 

[aeon]

it's no accident that some of the most vocal proponents of LGBT rights belong to the FP category.

Thanks @Sidis Coruscatis. I never deeply considered it from this perspective before. But you’re right, you’re so very right in my case.

It’s all part of wishing to meet people where they are, as they are, because anything else would tend toward inauthenticity to some degree.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[April]

enantiodromia, where any popular idea is eventually decontextualized and taken to its extreme conclusion.

This stuck out to me because I've always had a disgust or extreme dislike for this very thing. I didn't know this word, and I didn't understand how to describe what it was I disliked so much. I have also never liked individuals' perspectives that follow this path, like someone always taking something to the extreme or trying to fit something into a box when it's not gonna fit. Things are generally much more complex than people realize/admit. My ESTJ father is a perfect example of someone who does this and it's the main reason why we don't get along very well when discussing topics.

To me, context is so very important. People do so much damage to a topic when they remove contexts and take out nuances and try to stick it on a "yes" or "no" basis ("is" or "isnt" in this case).

The truth is, you cannot take everything apart, put it back together again while leaving some things out, and call it the same construction as before. Nor can you add to it and call it the same. Once you do that, you're dealing with an entirely different construction/concept and the two cannot be managed or looked at the same usually.

Thanks, @Sidis Coruscatis for this gem of an explanation! I probably won't remember that word but I need to. Lol. It's something I think about a lot.

 

[mintoots]

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

But you said you doubted statistics!

Jesting aside, and to clarify, I meant what you quoted of my post in a biological sense and also generally in terms of what science has been able to verify for us. Before 2005, we didn't even care to map out the clitoris, which we now know to be a tiny inward version of the penis. I mention this because biology --the more apparent aspects of it-- seem to be the strongest ground on which all the symbolisms are anchored, gender-wise.

Your point on these social constructs being more instinctive expressions of dual energies as mankind have experienced them is interesting too because I think that is true to many extents but also even with those constructs, there remained those who dwelled somewhere along the spectrum and not the extremities. Even the energies were always fluid in that sense. Now that we understand a bit more about the science that explains our biologies and hormones and everything else, in my view these have simply become evidences of gender being a range of many things hence transitions are all natural. Thus, if labels must exist, they simply would have to if only to explain somewhat of where a person is on that range and not as a point of judgement. With all this fluidity being so evident, I am simply trying to say there is no need to judge in a way that ostracizes. I must point that nobody ostracized anyone at all here in this thread but this boxing in of a person is a bit uncomfortable solely because of the appendages awarded to the labels. If a color were simply a hexcode and nothing else, there shouldn't be anything illogical to that.

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 think so, yes, but all because we expect much from the labels assigned or claimed by one. Recognition of the labels as only arbitrary benchmarks and then coupling this with a culture of acceptance of how it is okay to be confused should be healthy. Man is an x chromosome with outward genitalia, woman is an xy chromosome with inward genitalia BUT there are ranges in between even in that biological distinction and that's okay. I think this is how we must explain biology to children and we could tell them that hey, you could associate with whichever energy you prefer and that is also fine. Sometimes I think the dysphoria is laced with fear of being different and unusual. Of little girls who prefer dirt bikes but would still like boys eventually, or little boys who simply like boys and pageants and dresses even at an early age and then maybe fearing not being accepted for that.

 

[mintoots]

If you can't clearly define what a woman is then being or not being a woman is just meaningless semantics. At that point call yourself whatever you like and change your mind as often as you like.

But then this begs the question, what is indeed a woman?

 

[aeon]

Before 2005, we didn't even care to map out the clitoris, which we now know to be a tiny inward version of the penis.

I wouldn’t say the clitoris is tiny, but I suppose that’s subjective. The majority of it is certainly internal, and hidden from view. Also, from an anatomic, and developmental perspective, the penis develops from the clitoris, not the other way ’round. Penis is the version, clitoris is OG.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[April]

Thanks @Sidis Coruscatis. I never deeply considered it from this perspective before. But you’re right, you’re so very right in my case.

It’s all part of wishing to meet people where they are, as they are, because anything else would tend toward inauthenticity to some degree.

Cheers,
Ian

Agreed!

 

[April]

But you said you doubted statistics!

Jesting aside, and to clarify, I meant what you quoted of my post in a biological sense and also generally in terms of what science has been able to verify for us. Before 2005, we didn't even care to map out the clitoris, which we now know to be a tiny inward version of the penis. I mention this because biology --the more apparent aspects of it-- seem to be the strongest ground on which all the symbolisms are anchored, gender-wise.

Your point on these social constructs being more instinctive expressions of dual energies as mankind have experienced them is interesting too because I think that is true to many extents but also even with those constructs, there remained those who dwelled somewhere along the spectrum and not the extremities. Even the energies were always fluid in that sense. Now that we understand a bit more about the science that explains our biologies and hormones and everything else, in my view these have simply become evidences of gender being a range of many things hence transitions are all natural. Thus, if labels must exist, they simply would have to if only to explain somewhat of where a person is on that range and not as a point of judgement. With all this fluidity being so evident, I am simply trying to say there is no need to judge in a way that ostracizes. I must point that nobody ostracized anyone at all here in this thread but this boxing in of a person is a bit uncomfortable solely because of the appendages awarded to the labels. If a color were simply a hexcode and nothing else, there shouldn't be anything illogical to that.


I think so, yes, but all because we expect much from the labels assigned or claimed by one. Recognition of the labels as only arbitrary benchmarks and then coupling this with a culture of acceptance of how it is okay to be confused should be healthy. Man is an x chromosome with outward genitalia, woman is an xy chromosome with inward genitalia BUT there are ranges in between even in that biological distinction and that's okay. I think this is how we must explain biology to children and we could tell them that hey, you could associate with whichever energy you prefer and that is also fine. Sometimes I think the dysphoria is laced with fear of being different and unusual. Of little girls who prefer dirt bikes but would still like boys eventually, or little boys who simply like boys and pageants and dresses even at an early age and then maybe fearing not being accepted for that.

Agreed as well!

 

[April]

But then this begs the question, what is indeed a woman?

In my very broad and not detailed opinion, I feel a woman is one who sees themselves as a woman. No matter if they saw themselves as a man previously. We all began as the same thing in utero, right? As "female" if you can agree with that. Or has that been disproved in some way? Lol. Probably.

 

[April]

I wouldn’t say the clitoris is tiny, but I suppose that’s subjective. The majority of it is certainly internal, and hidden from view. Also, from an anatomic, and developmental perspective, the penis develops from the clitoris, not the other way ’round. Penis is the version, clitoris is OG.

Cheers,
Ian

Yes, this is what I meant in my previous reply. That it started as "female".

 

[April]

If people would just accept people as who they are, we wouldn't even have this problem

I can see how this could cause problems as well, if you're going to include people who think they should be allowed to have sex or relationships with children, or people who say that they should be allowed to murder... my point originally was that within reason, we should accept people as they are. But therein is a whole different argument... where to draw those lines. Within the law of course, but semantics... people argue what is and isn't right or legal all the time. Sigh. It's never ending. Lol.

I wouldn’t say the clitoris is tiny,

You're very right... in some cases it's rather large. Lol. Especially in women who have higher androgens than most. There's that spectrum thing again... where does a woman fall in relation to typically "male" and "female" hormones... hmm. I wonder if I'm right about this whole spectrum thing!? (Yes, that is sarcasm. Har, har.)

 

[aeon]

I can see how the opposite could cause problems as well, if you're going to include people who think they should be allowed to have sex or relationships with children, or people who say that they should be allowed to murder... my point originally was that within reason, we should accept people as they are. But therein is a whole different argument... where to draw those lines. Within the law of course, but semantics... people argue what is and isn't right or legal all the time. Sigh. It's never ending. Lol.

It’s one thing to accept people as they are. We need not accept everything people do, especially those things nonconsensual.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[April]

It’s one thing to accept people as they are. We need not accept everything people do, especially those things nonconsensual.

Cheers,
Ian

Right! Exactly! Thank you for this clarification, I have difficulty explaining things the way I mean them sometimes.

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

But you said you doubted statistics!

Lol. That's just my personal observation.

there remained those who dwelled somewhere along the spectrum and not the extremities

Of course, that's my point. I'm not sure if my message was clearly conveyed, but most of what you say is simply paraphrasing what I implied, and I don't know if that's intentional or if it's meant to be an argument. I certainly wasn't boxing anyone in, quite the opposite. I'm just saying that your biological form can naturally host many divergent psyches, and if this was accepted, most transitions might be completely obviated because a false internal dilemma was dispelled. If someone still wants to change at that point, then I can't really argue with it.

Sometimes I think the dysphoria is laced with fear of being different and unusual. Of little girls who prefer dirt bikes but would still like boys eventually, or little boys who simply like boys and pageants and dresses even at an early age and then maybe fearing not being accepted for that.

You summed up my point again.

 

[skippy64]

Agreed with @Reason

How can we say what is or isn't if we can't properly define what is?

Not to labor the point too much, but I assume existence is real so it goes without saying. Epistemology is the study of simple questions: How do we know what we know? Is there some kind of objective basis for the truths that we affirm, or are they grounded in nothing? But maybe that’s just it, my question is too narrow. Why ask is a woman a woman? Do you even believe that you have your being? Do you exist?

I would argue, yes! You do exist. In order to be thinking, you have to exist. And if you doubt that you’re thinking, you have to think in order to be doubting. You can’t escape the conclusion that you are doubting, and if doubting, thinking, and if thinking, being.

 

[mintoots]

I wouldn’t say the clitoris is tiny, but I suppose that’s subjective. The majority of it is certainly internal, and hidden from view. Also, from an anatomic, and developmental perspective, the penis develops from the clitoris, not the other way ’round. Penis is the version, clitoris is OG.

Cheers,
Ian

Exactly. My point exactly. Yes it isn't tiny at all for sure hence my saying that we know more about it now more than ever which only further verifies how much else we possibly still do not know but also to say that a vulva is not all there is that makes a woman. Or maybe it should be that. Idk. @Reason was surely right in saying it was all semantics. It's just that at this point, and with all the continuing fluidity, there's no way to know what an x label is exactly. I suppose intuition could help us there or just plain open-mindedness. I'm just thinking out loud here.

I'm not sure if my message was clearly conveyed, but most of what you say is simply paraphrasing what I implied, and I don't know if that's intentional or if it's meant to be an argument

It was surely verbose but yes, it came across as you meant for it to be understood. Somewhere along my response I wanted to say "there is no argument here" but then if I used the word "argument", it would look like there was an argument which there isn't so I could only convey my point as I did. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not to labor the point too much, but I assume existence is real so it goes without saying. Epistemology is the study of simple questions: How do we know what we know? Is there some kind of objective basis for the truths that we affirm, or are they grounded in nothing? But maybe that’s just it, my question is too narrow. Why ask is a woman a woman? Do you even believe that you have your being? Do you exist?

I would argue, yes! You do exist. In order to be thinking, you have to exist. And if you doubt that you’re thinking, you have to think in order to be doubting. You can’t escape the conclusion that you are doubting, and if doubting, thinking, and if thinking, being.

Aha! It seems that and the topic of "what makes a woman?" are on its own their own threads.