@Friended4Ever @AStratelates Philosopher Alex Byrne at MIT makes an actual, extended case for

AHF “Women are adult human females.”

which is necessarily a refutation of

TW “Transgender women are women”

philpapers.org/archive/BYRAWA…
@Friended4Ever @AStratelates He employs the deflationary Convention-T.

“Women are adult human females” is true if and only if women are adult human females.

That mean there would be a double implication

woman ⇔ adult human female
@Friended4Ever @AStratelates He makes a cumulative case with no one argument being conclusive, but adding up to a fairly strong case across six arguments.
@Friended4Ever @AStratelates His first point is to note that almost all dictionaries define “woman” as an “adult human female” or something like that as the primary definition and one which most of the other definitions depend on.

This is NOT an appeal to the dictionary, but rather ⬇︎
@Friended4Ever @AStratelates an appeal to the best explanation, which is, dictionaries all define “woman” this way because that is substantially close to what the word is trying to pick out in reality.

That would explain it.

They also do not define the word as if it were a social category.
@Friended4Ever @AStratelates Argument 2 is related: we have words in English for adult females of many animals species: hen, sow, doe, vixen, etc.

It would be ODD if English did NOT contain a word that picks out “adult human females.”

But “woman” is the only candidate for this.

So, probably, it does.
@Friended4Ever @AStratelates Argument 3: We can know that someone is a woman simply by knowing (only) that she is an adult human female. We know that Mitochondrial Eve, our genetic common female human ancestor was a woman.

We can get from “adult human female” to “woman,” which is some support of

W ⇔ AHF
@Friended4Ever @AStratelates Argument 4: AHF is equivalent to

JHF “A girl as a juvenile human female”

which can be supported independently of AHF.

When a baby is born the knowledge that it is female and “it’s a girl” come together, which is evidence for JHF, which is evidence for AHF.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن

Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EveKeneinan

Feb 20
Tim Wise has written "13 Questions for those Who Want Critical Race Theory Banned."

I thought I'd answer them.

Carl and his LotusEaters did a video on this, but I haven't watched it yet.
Before we get into the questions, let us note that his framing is utterly dishonest from the start: he frames opposition to Critical Race Theory as opposition to "teaching accurate American history."

This is just an outright lie.
Suppose a 19th century curriculum in American history wanted to teach Manifest Destiny as part of American history, that is, to teach as FACT that America has a God-given right to conquer and annex all of North America.
Read 92 tweets
Feb 19
Posting things to Twitter was a lot easier when I could do it in 1-2 steps, on my Mac, instead of the 8-10 steps needed for Windows 10.

Not to mention the 4-5 extra steps to capture an image.
Mac:
1 Screen capture command
2 Select area to save
3 Done

Windows:
1 Screen capture command
2 Select area to save
3 Save to clipboard
4 Open clipboard
5 Set it not to save as a .jfif (again)
6 Save it again ("for real" this time)
7 Close clipboard
8 Done
Plus, I have to repeat steps 1-3 in many cases, because I keep thinking that once I've taken the screenshot, I'm done.

But of course, on Windows, I'm not.
Read 6 tweets
Feb 19
This strikes me as an important point from @ConceptualJames.

The Woke deal almost entirely in hyper-realities, that is, pseudo-realities, paralogics, and paraethical systems.
@ConceptualJames I keep underestimating this phenomenon, because as much as I understand intellectually that people do this, the idea of CHOOSING TO LIVE IN A FAKE REALITY is so evidently a bad and wrongheaded idea, I tend to assume people who inhabit such pseudo-realities are MAKING MISTAKES.
@ConceptualJames This turn to pseudo-reality, the deliberate orientation to the back of the cave will and way from the light of being and truth, this is a thing of the will primarily, and a thing of the intellect, which is darken by it, only secondarily.
Read 7 tweets
Feb 19
Are you, though?

The rational for e-prime, that you cannot make IS statements, is couched in IS statements. "You ARE declaring ... etc.

"You must not use IS-statements."
"Why not?"
"On the basis of some IS-statements I make."
Besides, when I say "That painting is good," I don't mean to say anything about my subjective experience of the painting.

I can, for personal reasons, DISLIKE some good things.
I am perfectly capable, as is everyone, of distinguishing an objective quality judgment from a subjective taste judgment.

E.g. you can judge a member of a sex to which you are not attracted to be sexually attractive (objectively).
Read 16 tweets
Feb 18
Everything that is, every being or entity, is something. This means that about every entity "what is it?" can be asked. The proper answer will be to name its what-it-is (Greek: τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι) or essence (Latin: essentia) or whatness (English: awkward).
The essence of an entity isn't the same as the entity, because there are (in almost all cases) many entities that share the same what-it-is.

All dogs are dogs. That is, each dog has the ontological structure of being-a-dog, the essence of dog or "dogness."
The word "species" is another word that classical functions as a near synonym for "essence" — because it marks off a natural kind.

Other natural kinds include, e.g. chemical elements or the particles of physics.
Read 8 tweets
Feb 17
Notice this demand is senseless:

What is “showing”? Nothing, according to him. What is “observable”? Nothing.

He seems to be asking for something, but isn’t, because nothing is anything, according to him.

He has to accept Platonism long enough to ask his question.
But if he accepts Platonism enough to ask, he answers himself: whatness is found in the place where he saw what “to show” and “to observe” are.
A “show me” demand refers to something that can be seen, that is, a look, ἰδέα in Greek.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(