Fantastic to see - a paper explicitly critical of current feminist philosophy orthodoxy finally makes it over the wall and into an academic journal. Great work by @TomasBogardushttps://philpapers.org/rec/BOGSIP-3
-
I enjoyed reading this - thanks for sharing. But I’m still puzzled that so many smart people are having to waste so much time finding ever more elaborate ways to say that a circular definition is no definition at all
I want to know what word I can now use to denote the biological class, & I want a guarantee that if I accept the new broader conception of "woman", I can continue to use the new word to refer only to adult human biological females. 
-
-
Yes. But they won’t let you do that - ultimately they want some magic formula of words that will say that certain males are females.
So they won’t let you have a definition/words for male and female... - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah. Orwell
.
But seems the "Ameliorative Inquiry" is barking up the RONG tree, putting the social justice cart well in front of the logical & syntactical horse - no wonder "circular definitions" abound
Would be as bad as Newton defining mass to motivate universal suffrage.pic.twitter.com/087p0zJqFh
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.