Carl-Richard

I'm not telling you which definition you should adopt. I'm telling you which one I prefer to use for myself, inside my internal world. Again, that does NOT mean that I will purposely reject your preferred pronouns. If it's not a circular definition, then no. My definition is merely convenient, and I'm not pushing it on anyone. True, but don't expect me to use a circular definition. My internal definition of a word, which I don't push on anyone, and which I will easily concede in a social situation, is at the expense of human rights. Ok. You're entitled to your opinion. Just know that there are many opinions on what transphobia is, and that the self-ID definition is only one out of many, and that there exists trans inclusive philosophers who prefer the bio-essentialist definition. I think the issue here is how do we balance those views with our community's views, with the moderators' views, and with Leo's vision for the forum. On top of that, I think that completely shutting down critical discussion on a topic is unhealthy, but yes, we need nuance there as well (we can't have trolls who spam "hehehe trans women are not women, get lost losers").

@bejapuskas Ok. What do you suggest we do from here (not just in this thread, but in general)? Because I don't see it as a feasible outcome that one moderator ends up banning half of the forum (judging by the opinions in this thread alone), including most of the moderators (judging by the opinions of us here and those who responded to your old thread about this exact issue in moderator discussions). There is a definition problem here about what transphobia even is, and I think that me having to explain how a circular definition is not a definition is somehow indicative of this larger issue. As far as I'm concerned, there is one major point that we need to get straight: Should warning points for transphobia be given on par with other phobias, i.e. something analogous to a charged statement that places said group in an overtly negative light and in a non-thoughtful manner (e.g. "women are less smarter than men — end of story"), or do we need to take any specialized measures for transphobia? I've been waiting to hear your opinion on this, because again, I have not yet seen a clear counterargument being presented towards the majority view in the aforementioned thread.

Do the Mike Tyson method (just never swallow it). I don't know

Don't post while high or drunk, certainly not drive

How is your definition not doing that?

In other words, it doesn't tell you anything. "A carpenter is somebody who works as a carpenter" does not tell you what a carpenter is. All you know is that it involves working with something, and it makes no distinctions between different types of work. Likewise, "a woman is somebody who self-identifies as a woman" does not tell you what a woman is. It only tells you that it involves self-identifying as something, and it makes no distinctions between different cases where one self-identifies as something. How so?

It's easy to fall in the trap of perfectionism of trying to deduce the most accurate definition. You don't have to do much mental gymnastics to figure out which one you prefer.

It's not a definition though. It doesn't tell you what a woman is. Now, me expressing a preference for the bio-essentialist definition is not about logic per se, but the fact that it is a definition and self-ID is not has to do with logic.

I think I should've said this instead: it's a definition, and self-ID is not even a definition. Btw, you gave an essentialist definition as well earlier (only based on archetypal traits rather than biological traits), so according to some people, you're a transphobe as well

You actually don't have to be very specific at all. You just need to have a general idea. Definitions will never be perfect, but with a circular definition, you have no idea what it means. It can mean anything.

A circular definition is fundamentally inconsistent, which is what I was referring to. A circular definition is actually not a definition at all. You just want people to not use definitions?

Welcome! My prescription is daily meditation and watching some videos of somebody like Rupert Spira

Which scientists specifically? ?

That is so cool. My MD mom says me feeling good when eating a lot of veggies is probably placebo. No, mom, I'm feeding my little minions ?

Ah, I thought you meant "pre-non-logical" and "trans-non-logical", which didn't make much logical sense

Yeah, same with the logical one

I guess I forgot this category existed for a second :

Do you do this for something like "mailman", "toothbrush" or "toilet"? Oh yeah, so you're just some ethereal smut without a body that floats around in the sky disconnected from all of society and human endeavors? Stop it. I'm asking for your preferences as a human, not for a lesson on metaphysics.

That is all true, but regardless of calling people by their preferred pronouns or not, if you were to choose the definition which makes the most sense (or the one you like the most), which one would you pick?

Ok, so I'll address both of your points. You're using the self-identification definition, which is a circular definition which doesn't make sense in a purely analytical sense. Now, referring back to my earlier point, most people don't really care about definitions making logical sense or not — they simply use words to communicate and to relate to other people, and judging by how you're using an illogical definition, you probably fall under that category, and most trans activists do as well. I'm saying that is actually fine, but now your movement is no longer about being logically consistent but solely promoting social responsibility, which means your focus should be on how people actually treat each other and not stuffing definitions down people's throats, because while most people don't give a fuck, some people actually prefer their definitions to be logically consistent, and you have no leverage there. So, when I say "I think the bio-essentialist definition makes the most sense, but I'll still call trans people by their preferred pronouns", you should be very happy, because I'm following your social demands AND you have no business telling me which definitions make logical sense.

What is your definition of woman? According to you, you can't know if Roy is a transphobe by observing him interacting with a trans person. Roy only becomes a transphobe if you interrogate him about his internal state and pin him down on a fucking descriptive definition of a word, not something like a hidden emotional reaction of disgust or a negative belief about trans people. This is a standard that does not exist for any other "phobia" as far as I'm aware.

Btw, something that also helped was incorporating regular masturbation back into my life, even if you're not particularly horny. It seems like sexual energy gets converted to spiritual energy when you reach a certain level of "refinement", and opening the crane at a lower level can help to empty out some of it.

You should not use meditation to avoid anything. Then you're doing it wrong. Meditation teaches you the exact opposite: to face reality head on.

Crying in meditation is the best thing you can ever do.

Ah, I already made my point though. We'll try to get this moderation issue straight among the mod team.