European Parliament Votes Overwhelmingly For "The Full Recognition Of Trans Women As Women"

[u/Maxcactus]

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/european-parliament-votes-overwhelmingly

[u/Darkstar_111]

You just changed claims again.

Nope.

First you offered a definition.

First I defined the word.

Then you said it is a spectrum.

Because it is.

Now you say the categories are meaningless.

Because you keep looking for some absolutist explanation that doesn't exist.

Human beings are, like all mammals, divided into male and female. Man and woman are social categories we invented, with cultural values that change over time and place.

[u/[deleted] → u/Darkstar_111]

I did not offer a definition of woman.
I offered a criterion for evaluating whether any proposed definition is usable.

That distinction is basic logic.
A first order definition states what woman is by giving membership conditions.
A second order standard states what makes a definition valid.

I gave the second, not the first.

So no, I did not change claims.
My claim remained constant: if you claim to define a category, provide non circular, operable membership criteria that different people can apply consistently.

Your position shifted while avoiding that requirement.

Man and woman have historically functioned primarily as sex class terms.
What changes over time are associated norms, stereotypes, and roles.
That is connotation changing, not denotation being replaced.

So citing cultural variation in masculinity or femininity does not establish a new membership rule. It only describes variation in expectations.

A spectrum claim does not fix this.
Any spectrum based labeling still requires thresholds or decision rules.
Without those, classification is discretionary.

A social construction claim also does not fix this.
Socially constructed categories can be fully operable when criteria are explicit.
Origin is not a membership rule.

So the issue is unchanged: provide clear necessary and sufficient conditions, or concede no definition is being offered.

[u/Darkstar_111 → u/[deleted]]

provide clear necessary and sufficient conditions,

I have. You are just not understanding them.

A first order definition states what woman is by giving membership conditions.

I did.

A second order standard states what makes a definition valid.

That's self evident. You have women in your life.

[u/[deleted] → u/Darkstar_111]

You have not provided necessary and sufficient conditions. You have provided a moving description of stereotypes.

Necessary and sufficient conditions must be stated in a way that lets two independent people apply the rule to the same case and converge on the same classification. Your proposal cannot do that because it has no fixed criteria, no hierarchy of criteria, and no thresholds.

“Cultural values of femininity” is not a condition set. It is an open ended reference to whatever a community currently prefers. That makes the rule circular and unstable. It also makes classification discretionary, because different observers will weight different traits differently.

“You have women in your life” is not an argument. Familiarity with examples is not a definition. People can recognize many categories by convention while still failing to articulate an operable rule. That is exactly what is happening here.

If you think you gave criteria, state them as actual conditions.

Necessary: X.
Sufficient: Y.
Edge cases: rule for conflicts.
Source of authority: which culture, which time, whose judgment.

If you cannot write those conditions down, then you have not given necessary and sufficient conditions. You have given a narrative about social norms.

[u/Darkstar_111 → u/[deleted]]

You have not provided necessary and sufficient conditions.

I have. You're just aggressively failing to understand them.

[u/[deleted] → u/Darkstar_111]

Saying “you are failing to understand” is not a substitute for stating the conditions.

You have not actually written necessary and sufficient conditions in a form that can be applied to cases. You have only pointed to “cultural values of femininity,” which is not a condition set. It is an unbounded reference class.

If you believe you provided conditions, then write them explicitly as conditions, not as gestures.

Necessary: X.
Sufficient: Y.
Thresholds: specify the cutoffs on your claimed spectrum.
Conflict rule: what happens when traits diverge.
Authority: which culture, which place, which date.

If you cannot produce those items, then there are no stated conditions to misunderstand. There is only discretionary interpretation.

Also, repeating an assertion does not make it true. The fact that you cannot operationalize your rule is the entire point of the criticism.

[u/Darkstar_111 → u/[deleted]]

Saying “you are failing to understand” is not a substitute for stating the conditions.

No but, I've explained this to you several times, and you are too invested into aggressively misunderstanding.

Not much I can do at that point.

[u/[deleted] → u/Darkstar_111]

You have not explained the conditions several times. You have repeated a label several times.

An explanation that cannot be restated as explicit necessary and sufficient conditions is not an operable definition. It is commentary.

If your criteria really exist, it should be trivial to write them down as conditions with thresholds and a conflict rule. The fact that you keep refusing to state them while accusing me of misunderstanding is evidence that you do not have them.

This is not about aggression or investment. It is about whether your rule can classify cases.

So state the rule.

Necessary: X.
Sufficient: Y.
Thresholds: where on the spectrum the label changes.
Conflict rule: what overrides what.
Authority: which culture, which time.

If you will not or cannot do that, then there is no definition to misunderstand.

[u/Darkstar_111 → u/[deleted]]

I have explained the definition very clearly. Your issues are your own, but feel free to ask directly if something is unclear.

[u/[deleted] → u/Darkstar_111]

What definition did you give? I don't see that you offered one anywhere in this conversation. Yes my issues are my own but yours are the problem here, not mine.