"Butch" and "Femme" - Truly Antiquated Terms or More Marginalization?

dreadgeek · 12-22-2009, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemme

So, how do you explain Transguys and girls using math?

I wish my identity were only that simple to come by, but it's not. As Corkey mentioned, there are many people on this site that do not id as a lesbian, for whatever reason.

Are you, through math, saying that their identities are invalid because it doesn't fit into a nice neat box, because that's what it's starting to feel like.

I see what you are saying here. Thank you!

No, I'm not sure where you get that from. How do I explain transguys and transgals using math? I don't. Because the math was an argument from analogy, obviously something ELSE that shouldn't be done in this venue.

Let me be clear, I do not think that 3+2=5 means lesbian--or male or homosexual since that is clearly getting confused here. I was merely making the point that if A = B then B , by definition, must equal A.

There are no consistent statements of the form A = B where B does not equal A. Since for A = B to be true, B = A must also be true. That's it. That's my whole point. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing about your identity (which neither picks my pockets nor breaks my leg) and nothing about the identities of transguys or transgals.

For the record, transguys are men to me. Transgals are women to me. Full-stop. No questions asked, no quibble. Their chromosomes do not change but they are still male or female as far as I am concerned. My point was about the meaning of words more than anything else. I guess I am old fashioned in the sense that I still cling to the naive belief that words have meaning and that it is necessary for them to have meaning in order for communication to occur.

Cheers
Aj

Gemme · 12-22-2009, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

No, I'm not sure where you get that from. How do I explain transguys and transgals using math? I don't. Because the math was an argument from analogy, obviously something ELSE that shouldn't be done in this venue.

Let me be clear, I do not think that 3+2=5 means lesbian--or male or homosexual since that is clearly getting confused here. I was merely making the point that if A = B then B , by definition, must equal A.

There are no consistent statements of the form A = B where B does not equal A. Since for A = B to be true, B = A must also be true. That's it. That's my whole point. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing about your identity (which neither picks my pockets nor breaks my leg) and nothing about the identities of transguys or transgals.

For the record, transguys are men to me. Transgals are women to me. Full-stop. No questions asked, no quibble. Their chromosomes do not change but they are still male or female as far as I am concerned. My point was about the meaning of words more than anything else. I guess I am old fashioned in the sense that I still cling to the naive belief that words have meaning and that it is necessary for them to have meaning in order for communication to occur.

Cheers
Aj

I think we're all tired here, so I guess I'll say poe tay toe and you can say poe ta toe. Either way, someone's getting a big ole batch of french fries down the line.

Kosmo · 12-22-2009, 11:35 PM

I was watching the discussion from a respectful distance, but I couldn't help researching the argument; so I apologize if I've now made mashed potatoes. From Wikipedia:

The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a logical fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed. It is thus a syllogistic fallacy. More specifically it is also a form of non sequitur.

The fallacy of the undistributed middle takes the following form:
All Zs are Bs.
Y is a B.
Therefore, Y is a Z.

It may or may not be the case that "all Zs are Bs," but in either case it is irrelevant to the conclusion. What is relevant to the conclusion is whether it is true that "all Bs are Zs," which is ignored in the argument.

Note that if the terms were swapped around in either the conclusion or the first co-premise or if the first premise was rewritten to "All Zs can only be Bs" then it would no longer be a fallacy, although it could still be unsound. This also holds for the following two logical fallacies which are similar in nature to the fallacy of the undistributed middle and also non sequiturs.

An example can be given as follows:
Men are humans.
Mary is a human.
Therefore, Mary is a man.

12-22-2009, 11:35 PM	#3
Kosmo Member How Do You Identify?: just me Preferred Pronoun?: he Relationship Status: This seat is taken Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Buckeye Posts: 210 My Photo Gallery Thanks: 180 Thanked 274 Times in 119 Posts Rep Power: 227089	I was watching the discussion from a respectful distance, but I couldn't help researching the argument; so I apologize if I've now made mashed potatoes. From Wikipedia: The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a logical fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed. It is thus a syllogistic fallacy. More specifically it is also a form of non sequitur. The fallacy of the undistributed middle takes the following form: All Zs are Bs. Y is a B. Therefore, Y is a Z. It may or may not be the case that "all Zs are Bs," but in either case it is irrelevant to the conclusion. What is relevant to the conclusion is whether it is true that "all Bs are Zs," which is ignored in the argument. Note that if the terms were swapped around in either the conclusion or the first co-premise or if the first premise was rewritten to "All Zs can only be Bs" then it would no longer be a fallacy, although it could still be unsound. This also holds for the following two logical fallacies which are similar in nature to the fallacy of the undistributed middle and also non sequiturs. An example can be given as follows: Men are humans. Mary is a human. Therefore, Mary is a man.