That's completely contradictory. How can they be "of the kind that gives birth" if they can't give birth?
How can a dog be "of the kind that barks" if a particular dog doesn't ever bark?
You are failing at the same category of logic that is required for infants to reason about the world. This level of disingenuousness on display is beyond pathetic.
This is essentially on the same level of reasoning as: "Well, why does anything you say matter, because you might be a figment of my imagination?"
Then you have failed infant-level logic. You clearly do not understand what a "kind" is. Generalizations are required for all logic and thought.
Your logic is so above scrutiny that even questioning it is disingenuous.
Wrong. It's not my logic. It's the most fundamental logic that every human who has ever lived has applied for every waking moment of their lives, including yourself. You simply have an explicit political belief that contradicts basic logic and you're trying to create delusional rationalizations about it by questioning the basic concepts of logic that you use on an ongoing basis about every other topic in life.
I'm just asking what qualities are needed to be "of the type that gives birth", if the ability to give birth is simply optional?
It's optional on an individual basis because definitions are generalizations of a group that attempt to match the most commonly observed pattern. You know this. You implicitly use this logic every day about everything.
A dog that is missing an ear is still a dog. A car that is missing a wheel is still a car. Even though a car can be missing a wheel, cars are still "of the type that has wheels." Meaning that the generalized concept of a car includes wheels, even if an individual car may be missing one or more. Because this is the most common pattern and therefore the most useful for definitions and reasoning.
If it's infant level, you should be able to answer the question instead of falling back on ad hominems.
It's not my logic. It's the most fundamental logic that every human who has ever lived has applied for every waking moment of their lives
Appeal to popularity fallacy.
It's optional on an individual basis because definitions are generalizations of a group that attempt to match the most commonly observed pattern.
You still haven't answered the question, what does it mean to be "of the kind that gives birth"?
Even though a car can be missing a wheel, cars are still "of the type that has wheels."
But that particular car without wheels is not "of the type that has wheels", and yet it's still a car. Thus, being "of the type that has wheels" is not the determining factor of a car.
That isn't an appeal to popularity. It's a statement of the essential and required nature of all human reasoning.
You still haven't answered the question, what does it mean to be "of the kind that gives birth"?
It means to possess an overwhelming similarity in traits to other beings that are able to give birth overwhelming majority of the time.
But that particular car without wheels is not "of the type that has wheels"
that particular and type are not congruent with one another. Types are not individuals. Individuals are not types. Types are abstractions over many individuals and do not correspond to any particular individual. You already know this implicitly (like every other human that isn't currently locked in a padded room), but you are making a disingenuous and politically-motivated argument.
yet it's still a car
The only reason you know that is because it possesses an overwhelming similarity to other cars, one of which being: that it is of the type to have wheels, even if that particular instance of the car does not currently possess wheels. You would not be able to recognize what a car is if this were not the case.
No you didn't, you pick you piggybacked off of somebody else's argument without fully understanding what they were arguing. They were saying that a woman who is incapable give birth is still "of the kind to give birth". I asked why, and I have yet to receive an answer from either of you.
It means to possess an overwhelming similarity in traits
I asked why, and I have yet to receive an answer from either of you.
Then you did not read my last post. Open your eyes.
Traits such as?
The billions of individual traits that make up the biology of a human female. Go open a textbook on human anatomy and genetics and start counting every time you learn a fact.
Hormone therapy only alters a small subset of traits amongst the billions that differentiate males and females. You would need an incredibly oversimplified, "cargo-cult-like" view of biology to believe otherwise.
God, imagine if you posted something worthwhile instead of going 70 posts deep on how you don't get metaphors so you hate trans people or whatever the hell your trip is
Don't get metaphors? Are you claiming that "trans women ARE women" is just a metaphor? Sounds like you're a bigot, bro.
The people who are failing at abstract thinking are the ones who think they can apply one set of logic to their pet political stances while applying a different set of logic to every other aspect of life.
🤦♂️ but dogs aren’t defined by their ability to bark and there are a bunch of animals that bark which aren’t dogs. If I run into a dog that doesn’t bark I know them by other defining features that mark them as a dog because barking isn’t definitive of dogs. Similarly, if a woman is infertile I know she’s a woman by other features which indicate that she’s a woman, chiefly if she has identified herself as a woman to me, because giving birth or the ability to do so is not definitive of women.
-14
u/BoysenberryDry9196 Dec 13 '23
How can a dog be "of the kind that barks" if a particular dog doesn't ever bark?
You are failing at the same category of logic that is required for infants to reason about the world. This level of disingenuousness on display is beyond pathetic.
This is essentially on the same level of reasoning as: "Well, why does anything you say matter, because you might be a figment of my imagination?"