This is getting on my nerves. People seem to think any statement where any suggestion that a person literally does not represent a group is a No True Scotsman. Here let me explain:
Correct example:
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
This is an example of the fallacy at work, because the literal definition of Scotsman does not mention using sugar on porridge; it may be a stereotype and/or a general occurrence, but it's not a definite thing.
Incorrect example:
Person A: Feminists want men and women to have fair and equal rights.
Person B: <Insert nutcase of choice here> wants women to be dominant over men.
Person A: She's not a feminist.
This is not a fallacy as <nutcase of choice> does not fulfil the actual definition of the word feminist: "One who advocates social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men." Therefore <nutcase of choice> is, de facto, not a feminist.
This is an example of the fallacy at work, because the literal definition of Scotsman does not mention using sugar on porridge; it may be a stereotype and/or a general occurrence, but it's not a definite thing.
But isn't there the cultural side of the Scotsman? Even though nothing is mentioned in the incredibly breif description about him other than "he's a native a Scotland" in the dictionary, there must be a cultural norm that usually holds true among their lot. Even if a Scotsman were to deviate from the cultural norm, he would still be considered a Scotsman although maybe a not a true Scotsman. Just because Dictionary .com defines a Scotsman of a native of Scotland doesn't mean that the "Scotsman" is actually Scottish by breed, culture, indenity, or nature. For example, some family from Kerplachistan could move there and start making babies. According to the dictionary, those kids would be as Scottish as a kid with a thousand years of genuine Scottish lineage dating back to the time of William Wallace or what ever. The true Scotsman thing sounds a maybe just a little bit more reasonable now, doesn't it?
@SportShark, you may be interpreting this as, I'm descended of High King Robert De Brus, the one who won the war William Wallace could not, so I believe that No True Scotsman would be sugar in his porridge, (of course, being related to Robert De Brus doesn't make me a true Scotsman).
The point of what at @09philj is trying to make is in regards to the logical fallacy of "No True Scotsman", and it's continued use to this day. It's like this:
"No true American would want Muslims in this country!"
"Uh... I'm fine with Muslims in this country"
"THEN YOU'RE NOT A TRUE AMERICAN!"
From what I understand of this logical fallacy is what this it does to devalue contradictory statements, a kind of "You're with us, or against us" stance.
Understanding what a logical fallacy is and why to avoid them, can help to create stronger arguments without presenting yourself as someone who knows next to nothing on the subject they are debating but speaks like they do, like Donald Trump.
Just because Dictionary .com defines a Scotsman of a native of Scotland doesn't mean that the "Scotsman" is actually Scottish by breed, culture, indenity, or nature.
Don't forget, they must also be genetically Scottish and have at least 30% of their body fluid consist of scotch.
This is not a fallacy as <nutcase of choice> does not fulfil the actual definition of the word feminist: "One who advocates social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men." Therefore <nutcase of choice> is, de facto, not a feminist.
I disagree, especially with the particular usage of feminist.
In this instance the description of feminist is something one can attribute to themself according to their perception of the idealogy of feminism. If <nutcase> believes their actions are justified according to their idealogy of feminism, who are we to say she is not therein representing feminism?
I mean, it doesn't help, in your example, that feminism has become so broad and has many different ideologies.
Intersectionalism, veganism, Gender identity, LGBT+, etc have become core parts of different breeds of feminism
Although I agree with the crux of your argument (if there is a clear definition for an adjective to adhere by the argument of No True Scotsman becomes moot), it's in cases like these where the definition of the adjective is blurred that I disagree with fundamentally
