When it is all said and done, if you’re an adult, I don’t care what you do with your life or with your time – so long as you are not breaking the law. With that said, I don’t know why authorities are not questioning the parents that bring kids to a drag show with semi-nude men dressed up as women doing a stripper dance in-front of kids aged 10 months-14 years. Of course, the trans activists will say “this is no different than Hooters”. It is not actually, considering the performances are highly sexualized involving thrusting, simulating sexual action through nude – or semi-nude – bodies, and the exchange of money (real or fake) for the act of dancing sensually. A Hooters waitress does not simulate sexual action and is not given money for those acts – they are merely scantily clad waitresses getting food for patrons. Allow this scene from The Office create the reality of Hooters.
Consider what you see online from individuals like @libsoftiktok or @againstgrmrs who show videos of these drag shows, they are more akin to non-nude strip clubs, or gentlemen’s clubs, as opposed to Hooters; and have it be nude or non-nude, individuals under 18 are not allowed to be in strip/gentlemen’s clubs. Trans-activists will wish similarities between the two because it helps with their narrative, and they thrive on linguistic obfuscation to bolster their point of view. One of the biggest examples of this is the phrase “trans-women are women”, or “trans-men are men”, really means “trans-women are biological women because sex is a social construct”. Sex is not a social construct, it is biological determinant, just to be clear. Even trans-activists accept the biological binary between men and women as they engage in the linguistic action of acknowledging men and women, even though their conceptualization is flawed. But my focus right now is the phrase “trans-women are women”. From a formal logic standpoint this phrase needs to be broken down into distinct propositions and generated into logical axioms to test to see if this phrase is consistent with logic in linguistics.
Step 1. Break Each Word Down into a Proposition
The trans-activists unknowingly help us here by creating a distinction between trans-woman and woman. If they did not see any conception of a trans-woman, their statement would be “women are women” which would be logically consistent with the first principles of formal logic P = P. However, they do make that distinction, meaning trans-women and women are two distinct propositions. We are going to assign propositions for trans-woman (P) and woman (Q) to make sense of this. Connectives that we will use here are (↔) for is/are, (∧) for and, (→) for is/then or implies, and (¬) meaning not.
Step 2. Create a Logical Axiom
If we are to use the trans-activist distinction between trans-woman and woman, it doesn’t matter if they think trans-women are women, we can try to see if this is true through an axiom. If “trans-woman is trans-woman implies true” P ↔ P → T, and “woman is woman implies true” Q ↔ Q → T. Logically, Q could not be P and P could not be Q; asking, can P ↔ Q (or trans-women are women). What these propositions create is a determinant based on the concepts provided; and so, the propositions are dependent on the linguistic rules determined by the concepts. Below, is the full axiomatic statement.
(((P ↔ P) → ⊤) ∧ (((Q ↔ Q) → ⊤) ∧ ((Q ↔ ¬P) ∧ ((P ↔ ¬Q) → (P ↔ Q)))))
Step 3. Truthful Determinism of the Axiom
A truth table is developed based on the determinants of the axiom. This is to test whether the statement is a logical tautology (true), a logical contradiction (false), or a contingent statement (true or false depending on structure).
| P | Q | (((P ↔ P) → ⊤) ∧ (((Q ↔ Q) → ⊤) ∧ ((Q ↔ ¬P) ∧ ((P ↔ ¬Q) → (P ↔ Q))))) |
| F | F | F |
| F | T | F |
| T | F | F |
| T | T | F |
As you can see, the table determines that the concept when trans-woman is trans-woman, and woman is woman are structured — saying trans-women are women is a logically false or contradictory statement. This means that trans-activists themselves are saying a contradictory statement by way of their own flawed logic. The contradiction comes in the form of accepting trans women as women. As if you accept trans women as women — of what use is the phrase trans women, unless you accept biological reality. If you do, then trans women are not women, they are trans women.
“If you accept trans women as women — of what use is the phrase trans women, unless you accept biological reality.”
Of course, considering the trans-activists, much like neo-Marxian postmodernists, use obfuscation tactics to change linguistic rules in their favor this is not surprising. Sure they can change the meanings, but that doesn’t remove the undeniable truth that the linguistic structure of their whole argument is contradictory and logically false based on said meanings. The hope is that this brings some clarity, and regardless of the ideas and concepts presented by activists, it doesn’t change the truth dependent on determinants.
carsonbabich.com 