And?..
I have not cited anyâŚfuck me?
Youâre arguments are demonstrably and relentlessly irrational.
Not based solely on that though see, a fact that you seem.unable to absorb.
Except in isnât circular reasoning, as thatâs not the sole criteria, and you are labelling a broad scientific consus as unscientific based on this facile assertion you introduced, go to a forum with experts in psychiatry, better still contact the APA, and tell them theyâve got it wrong.
You said i havent dealt with your objections, i said i dealt with your objections in relation to you saying
To which i said
Meaning the circular reasoning of a woman being defined as someone who defines themself as a woman.
When i said its fundemantally unscientific this was in reply to your objection that it isnt circular reasoning if gender dysphoria has been proven to exist.
The scientific proof of gender dysphoria if it exists doesnt negate the unscientific circular reasoning
Still a dishonestly facile straw man, if you really believe a broad scientific consensus is ever based on a single subjective claim. This is your error, since it would require evidence, hence itâs not a circular reasoning fallacy, just a straw man you created, which youâve been told a gazillion times, and failed to address.
I asked if you accepted tge objective fact that there is a broad scientific consensus that gender dysphoria is real, and theregore well evidenced, and you said no.
I dont belief creationist or flat earthers, when they deny scientific facts, why should i believe you.
I also asked why only this scientific fact sticks in your craw, and of course got no cogent answer, only a repetition of your straw man claims.
Once again then, its evidence not proof, and yes, by definition, evidence for a claim would negate it being a circular reasoning fallacy, since the conclusion is not being simply assumed without evidence, in the premiseâŚ
Fuck me, I could have got a toaster to understand that much by nowâŚ
Self defining as a woman is soley the most prioritized defining feature of being a woman.
According to the apa.
If a biological man participates in stereotypically male activities, gets a woman pregnant, if they identify as a female according to the apa this makes them a female.
That makes it the sole defining feature if it trumps all else.
The claim is a woman is someone who says they are a woman, this is circular reasoning on the basis that the conclusion is based on defining a concept of womanhood based on defining itself.
Theres no evidence within the claim, providing evidence of gender dysphoria isnt evidence that s woman is a woman if they identify as a woman.
Trolltacular⌠
Anyone noticed it is women who were born men that seem to provoke this prejudiced histrionics, as if they might find someone attractive one day, and are protesting beforehand, but way too much, and way too hard.
more comedy goldâŚ
Sole signifies that something is the single, exclusive, or unshared instance of a particular thing or attribute. For example, âthe sole survivorâ means the only person who survived an event."
Your straw man claim.
Nope, still a lie, I am done explaining it.
Straw man fallacy, it was you and you alone who is making this claim that this is the sole criteria.
More comedy goldâŚ
Yes it is the only prioritized factor that ultimately determines gender according to the apa.
Of all other factors it possibly could be this singular one is the one that defines gender according to the apa.
No, this is the claim made by the apa.
Apart from the evidence that supports the consensus in the field of psychiatryâŚmore comedy gold.
Like evidence, for example, hence your straw man claim is not an example of circular reasoning in science. Of course it canât be, as science cannot violate a principle of logic.
Liar.
Liar.
Theres evidence that supports the consensus in the field of psychiatry that is prioitized along with or more than self identification when it comes to defining a persons gender?
Tbh this just seems like word salad, and im not sure if you just replied to the wrong part of what i said.
Everything ive seen from every apa source stated the determining factor to a persons gender is their self identification.
There are a raft of criteria for identifying gender dysphoria, contained is DSM-5. No one would just be accepted as suffering form gender dysphoria by a credible psychiatrist based SOLELY on a single claim, as you keep falsely claiming.
Not really, more likely explanations are simple bias or prejudice on your part, and a rudimentary grasp of language.
Well there you go, I quoted the text verbatim from your post, and put my simple response under it, given you have defined a few words incorrectly perhaps this is the root cause of your confusion, after all you donât seem to know what solely means.
Then you must be lying, as takes just a few seconds to find the several criteria the DSM recommends (in DSM-5), for diagnosing gender dysphoria. The idea that thereâd be a consensus in psychiatry based on just a single claim is risible.
Now, I grant you the soft sciences are not quite as robust as the hard sciences, but this doesnât mean they are unreliable, and your caricature of how psychiatry diagnose gender dysphoria speaks for itself.
This doesnât come close to what DSM-5 includes for a proper diagnosis.
So you believe that self identification is not enough to define someone as a woman?
Itâs not just what I believe, the criteria is in DSM-5, look it up.
Of course one can identify without a diagnosis, but treatment is unlikely without that diagnosis.
âWhile gender dysphoria is often associated with the experience of being transgender, itâs not a necessary or defining feature. Many transgender individuals may know and understand that their gender identity doesnât align with their assigned sex at birth without experiencing significant distress or discomfort.â
âWhile a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is sometimes required for access to gender-affirming medical care, itâs not a universal requirement. Some people may choose to medically transition without a formal diagnosis, and some may not need medical transition at all to express their gender identity.â
âThe DSM-5 defines gender dysphoria as a condition that causes distress or impairment. Not everyone who experiences gender dysphoria will have distress or impairment that meets the criteria for a formal diagnosis.â
If you genuinely want to learn about this, go and do so, and try to stop basing assumptions on how you feel about it.
Not gender dysphoria, gender.
My statement you disagreed with is that the apa definition of a woman is someone who identifies as a woman.
If this is false and not what you believe either then im asking is self identification not enough to define someone as a woman.
That may mean something to you, it is meaningless to me.
I am extremely dubious that would their only criteria for attaching that gender pronoun, assuming they did this, and beyond aiding treating their patients, I canât see why they would.
For whom? What we are talking about here is best framed as the rights of LGBTQ, and if someone is more comfortable living as a particular gender, then why would I care. Why does anyone care, come to that.
From the start you have tried to conflate subjective moral judgements, with scientific clinical assessments. Who knows to what end?
As I said, if you genuinely want to learn about this, go and do so, and try to stop basing assumptions on how you feel about it.
Bingo! FFS, what actual difference does it make in a personâs life how someone else identifies?
I think it all started as a big phat red herring. âPay no attention to the people behind the curtain who are eroding your rights, instead, you need to freak out about the relative handful of folks whose gender and sex donât match the way you think they should. Theyâre icky!â
2 Likes
The same hysteria used to be aimed at gay people, I guess haters just gotta hateâŚ