Can You Define What a Table Is? Well, Can Ya?

The other day, I saw a meme created by Young America’s Foundation that quoted Ben Shapiro. It said, “Men cannot become women. Women cannot become men. Men who believe they are women are not real women.” I commented, “Still baffling that this has to be underscored.”

Cue the dissenter.

A man showed up that was going to set me straight on language and definitions. I want to walk you all through our conversation so that you can see the thoughts thrown out by Progressives. I want to show what I did right in the argument and what I didn’t do right. So, let’s jump in.

My interlocutor said, “That’s because you’re taking a broad category as self-evident when in reality, it’s not. Language is incredibly complicated, for instance, when you think of the category of a table. Can you define table in a way that excludes everything strictly not a table while simultaneously including everything that is a table? Does a table have to be a certain height? Must it have four legs or can it have three? Is it just something to lay things on? Do tables exist in nature? If I sit on a table does it become a chair?”

Boy, this guy really has thought a lot about tables. The “broad” category he is referring to is the “broad” category of sex, though I wager he’d say “gender.” Biological sex is not a broad category, but we’ll shelf that for a moment. At first, when he started talking about all this table business my first reaction was, “Wow, this is bizarre.” Then, as I thought about it, I saw what he was trying to do. He was trying to trap me into giving a definition of a table which he therefore would find an exception to that definition.

My first wrong move was that I fell for the trap and the reason I fell for it is because what a table is, is obvious. The only way he was able to ask me all those questions is because he and I have an understanding of what a table is and isn’t. Language is only complicated when you don’t understand it. He understands English quite well, as do I, and therefore we both have an understanding of what a table is. But, let’s continue.

I replied back, “When I say, ‘Let’s eat at the table,’ do you have any confusion and wonder what I’m talking about? No, you don’t. You don’t ask for clarification or wonder at what I mean. You might ask, ‘Which one?’ if there is more than one around, but you don’t need me to clarify more than that because we all know exactly what a table is. It’s not a chair. It’s not a couch. Tables may come in different sizes and shapes but the purpose and general build is the same–flat top structure with legs meant generally to eat or work at.”

And boom. Right there, I gave him a definition for him to play around with, which he did. It wasn’t necessarily bad for me to give a definition because words have meanings. Dictionaries are useful for a reason. But, his goal was to get me to give a definition so that he could find an example of something that’s not a table, but could sort of fit the definition. He wanted to find an exception to the rule, thus apparently proving me wrong.

His counter: “We, as humans, falsely assume that categories are far more rigidly defined than they actually are. You basically just admitted yourself when you said tables come in different shapes and sizes. What shape constitutes a table? When does a table stop being a table and become a chair? If it’s generally meant to eat or work at, does that mean anything that I eat or work at is a table?”

He then went on to tell me that tables in Japan are different than here in America (well, duh) and that Amazon tribesmen may not even have a concept of a table, so how would it be defined to them? What he was trying to get at is that tables can’t really be defined as structures with a flat top and legs that we gather around because what about beds? What about piano benches? What about bookcases? What about tv stands?

In his mind, since all those things have flat tops and legs and we could gather around them, they must also be tables. In essence, his argument says either 1. tables don’t exist because they can’t be defined or 2. basically anything can be a table, which, also, means tables don’t exist. A dog with a flat back and legs is a table. You see where this is going. What he is trying to prove is that anyone can be a woman because women come in all shapes and sizes and looks. Because they do, how can you ever really pin down a definition for one?

However, the word “woman,” can be rigidly defined; even more so than a table. A woman is an adult human with XX chromosomes and a body ordered towards pregnancy. Yes, women come in many shapes, sizes, races, looks, and they come with different personalities, but they all share XX chromosomes and they have bodies ordered towards pregnancy. This does not mean they will all get pregnant, but their bodies are ordered that way. Women do not have penises. I feel like such an idiot saying that, but to assert that they can means that women don’t actually exist because anyone can be one if they feel that way. This is absurd.

I then asked my new found friend if he had any children. He replied that he didn’t. I explained to him that I did and that in teaching my children to speak English, I didn’t get out a dictionary and read to them the definitions of things. To teach them what a table was, I showed them a table. Its attributes spoke for itself. I showed them a cat and then said, “Cat.” I showed them a shoe and said, “Shoe.” As they got older and had a better grasp on nouns, I added in adjectives to more rigidly define different types of tables: Dining tables, poker tables, card tables, end tables, folding tables.

The adjective gives more description, but they all have a similar essence about them, which is table-ness. Table-ness is not the same as chair-ness. Yes, I could sit on a table but that doesn’t make it a chair. I could eat off a chair like a table but it would be bothersome, messy, and uncomfortable because it’s not designed for that. Just because I could possibly pretend that a chair is a table, doesn’t make it so. Just like a man that dresses up and tries to look like a woman doesn’t make him a woman.

The reality is, is that, yes, there are lots of types of tables. But, this is where the category thing actually destroys his point. Categories help us to rigidly define things even more to bring about MORE meaning and understanding. A desk is a type of table, but we’ve separated it out from just a normal eating table. With inanimate objects, there are lots of things that could pose as another inanimate object. Not with living things, though. A cat can never be a dog or pose as one. A butterfly can never be a bird, yet both fly. An oak tree can never be a sunflower even though they are both plants. And to add another category, a female cat can never be a male cat.

What this guy and so many other Progressives ignore are adjectives, similes, and metaphors. They do it on purpose in order to confuse and try to sound overly intelligent by talking about the “false assumptions” we all make and how somethings “aren’t self-evident.” But, he’s wrong and he knows it. He does not live his life wondering at the definition of every single thing and assuming everything can be pretty much anything. He knows a bookshelf is not a table based on attributes he can distinguish.

Helen Keller’s early life is a perfect example of what this kind of confusion creates–a world that is meaningless and void of purpose. Because she grew up blind and deaf, she could not understand that things have specific words attached to them. She was in the dark and could not communicate with her parents, leaving everyone frustrated and miserable. Once Anne Sullivan, her teacher, unlocked the world of words to her, she was brought into the light of clarity and understanding. She then went on to thrive in the world.

Finally, at the end of our conversation, I got smart and asked for his definition of a table. Wanna know what he said?

He said, “I’ll use your definition.” What a cop-out.

Thankfully, we actually left it on friendly terms and he even admitted that he went and read some of my writings on Instagram. He complimented my writing style, though he didn’t agree with a lot of what I say. Well, hey, I’ll take the compliment if nothing else.

Hold tight to the truth, Catholic Pilgrims, and be brave enough to say it.