| Comment | Yes, they really do. Many things are essentially defined as what we consider to be them. Hell, it's pretty much the basis of learning. You see a thing your parents call a car, and then using characteristics of that first car you identify others.
It's a little cliche, but I'd challenge you to give a definition for a chair that includes all chairs but excludes all non chairs. Realise that essentially, a chair is just an object that has characteristics of a chair that we learn, but that there is no strict checklist.
Circular definitions are not the same as circular arguments.
You could in theory identify as anything you like, but this shows your bad faith. When I say identify, I obviously don't mean saying so in the moment. I of course mean the personal identity that somebody holds. If I were to lie and say that I was Chinese, I still wouldn't personally identify as Chinese, as I consider myself English. Somebody could then come along and call my bullshit.
Hell, this is partly why the GRC is actually important, because it allows trans people to provide proof of their sincerity of their identification.
​
You can withhold your definition if you wish, but it suggests strongly that you don't have one that would support your stance when examined. Seems like you lack confidence in defending your stance. |
|---|