QT: If anorexics identify as underweight, is it wrong to give them weight-restoring treatment?

submitted by assignedcopatbirth from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 14 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 2 fun -  (73 children)

And that would make them Napoleon Bonaparte? Or would that make them someone who altered their appearance to look like him?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (72 children)

If they changed their name to Napoleon boneparte they would literally be Napoleon boneparte. Whether they were crazy or just odd is determined then by whether the believe they are literally the historical figure of the person they have made themselves into from where they were.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (71 children)

Sure, they can legally change their name. But you’re well aware that I’m asking you if that would make them the actual Napoleon Bonaparte that they identified with? So would this person who has surgically altered their appearance to resemble a famous historical figure actually be that figure? Or would they be someone who took drastic steps to resemble them? Clearly, we are saying that this person identifies as the actual man, Napoleon. Because, you would have to think that this person is literally Napoleon to say TWAW. Otherwise, there’s contradiction allover.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (70 children)

That specific person? No it’s an individual so obviously not the Napoleon boneparte but A Napoleon boneparte.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (69 children)

The whole question is what if someone thinks they are Napoleon. As in the historical figure. That was the whole premise of this discussion. So if you’re saying that this person is not Napoleon, the actual Napoleon Bonaparte that they were identifying themselves to be, but you’re still claiming that TWAW because of how they identify themselves, you’re not making much sense. Everything you’ve said about this hypothetical Napoleon Bonaparte contradicts what you say about transwomen and their identity.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (68 children)

The whole question is what if someone thinks they are Napoleon. As in the historical figure.

Then they’re delusional because that’s factually wrong. As distinct from identifying as a woman which is a matter of using a different popularly used definition. They aren’t the same thing. Trans women are women, not female and that doesn’t mean the same thing to you as it does to me. It’s only contradictory because you are acting like I ascribe to a definition that I don’t.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (45 children)

Since when is “woman” only popularly defined? If anything, transwomen and the people who think of them as women are using a made up definition. Not an actual one. So they would be “factually wrong”

I’m not acting like you ascribe to a definition that you don’t. What I’m saying is that your definition is not concrete or universally understood. Even people who think TWAW understand that the reason others disagree is because of the actual definition that even they understand even if they reject it. You don’t really have a basis for redefining woman other than your personal need to do so. So you seem to be operating under the assumption that Your definition is concrete. I haven’t even seen you offer a definition of woman that doesn’t include “woman”. So you’re defining a word with itself and don’t see that that doesn’t make any sense and doesn’t define anything. And if you can’t even explain it logically, I don’t see how to take it seriously. How do you define woman?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (44 children)

All definitions are made up. It’s collective and enough people accept us that it’s at least linguistically relevant. You disagree and I accept that. Why can’t you?

Your definition isn’t universally understood either because it excludes trans woman and many people hear woman and assume it includes us.

It’s not easily defined. As I said it’s an amalgam or factors.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

I hate when people say this. Definitions are not just “made up”. They are literally made up of words that have also been defined. That’s why we have words, that’s how we have language, that’s why and how we understand meanings. It’s how you read and comprehend what I ask even if you disagree. Because you know the meaning of the word I use and I know the meaning of the words you use. Language is not just created at random. Yes the sounds and syllables and prefixes and suffixes and all of it is “made up”- but it was made up with the intent of effective communication, and hinges on everyone understanding specific words (or parts of words) in the same way. “Woman” was not just made up. The specific formation of the letters is clearly relevant to the word “man”, it’s meant to distinguish and describe a type of human. This is not just made up on a whim. There was a purpose behind it, a reasoning to why w o m a n means what it means and is spelled how it was spelled. The meaning of words relate to each other often. Particularly when describing things that are connected and related but still different. It does neither of us any favors to pretend that’s not true. If it’s all made up, language has no meaning. My disagreement stems from you not even being able to define it lol. Like- if it’s all made up then you shouldn’t have a problem with being misgendered or called a man. But you do. Based off of what you said, it should be absolutely fine because I’m simply using a different definition than you and both are correct because neither can be wrong because it’s all made up anyway. But you have an issue with it, because you know what that means definitively, as well as what you’ve placed on the word.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (33 children)

Language evolves through use and understanding. I and many other people see women as including trans women. It’s an established and accepted definition. You use a different one. And that’s fine. You don’t and never will think I’m a woman. We will forever disagree. It bothers me deeply that you do, but there’s nothing I can do but accept that you think of me in the worst possible terms as I see it. That doesn’t mean either of us is wrong in their definition.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Language exist to communicate. Every word must mean the same or at least very similar thing for everyone to understand each other. That is why definitions are descibing something factual and exact, that is the whole point of definition. If I am talking about my cat, but for you "cat" means table - we can't understand each other and nothing makes sense. Each category and each thing have their definition and words, you can't just "unite" them, so "cat" will mean both cat and table, and pretend that table can walk and meow as well. Nothing then will make sense. This means that to effectively communicate we will need to create new words, that will separate cats from tables - as we need to discuss cat-exclusive problems or healthcare for them. However, table-fanats will want that new word meaning cat as well! And it will be going on forever.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Every word must mean the same or at least very similar thing for everyone to understand each other.

This just isn’t true. Language evolves and can hold multiple even contradictory meanings. Look at inflammable for example. Which in the dictionary now means both flammable and not flammable.

You see women as natal women. I see it at natal women (not including trans men or Afab enbies), intersex people who identify as women, and trans women. Both groups are understand to fit that definition by many people. Enough to socially count as a definition.

[–]BayHorseGender Critical 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

And what if I say that my definition of Napoleon Bonaparte is different than yours, and so this person litterally is Napoleon, according to me. Trans Napoleons are Napoleon!

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

An individual identity as opposed to class membership with multiple accepted definitions isn’t the same thing.

[–]BayHorseGender Critical 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Fine then. Let's suppose a meaningful number of people agree with my definition. Does this make this person Napoleon?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (18 children)

Not to me, but I also wouldn’t tell them they weren’t if enough of society agreed. I’d think it would be pretty odd but no skin off my back.