That's like asking if a false construct can be part of a valid logical derivation. Like if the statement "dragons are greedy, greed is bad, therefore dragons are bad" can be construed as meaningfully referring to something, let alone logically valid.
-
All ideas worth anything tend to come in and out of fashion perennially even without any exposure to them. But really, let's say you have two legs. Then you say "I identify as a two-legged person". What have you done here? Have you even made a statement that engages with fact?
It seems to me that the statement doesn't engage with fact, because identification doesn't make any truth claims. But then what is identification? Is it some sort of phenomenological striving, like Sartre thought? That's the only analysis I've encountered that even broaches it
-
-
But what's the point of striving to become what you already are? The only way transsexualism makes sense is if you assume that self-identification is generated by some underlying fact which is sufficient to cause the identification but insufficient to provide satisfaction for it.
-
That is, a transsexual is not a man or a woman but carries some fragment of neurological manhood or womanhood that causes them to want to ground a reflexive identity (I identity as a woman because women identify as women and I am one) in something else, like secondary sex traits
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.