DeepEnigma
Gold Member
That's the crux of this whole situation.Also do biological women have no say in this? Is JK Rowling no a woman?
That's the crux of this whole situation.Also do biological women have no say in this? Is JK Rowling no a woman?
Don't forget that whole WW2 thing....Dont go that far in time, Just Last month Russia decided to destroy his economy and wealth for no apparent reason, societies do that all the time, they have a stupid idea and go full ape shit
People who believe all progress is good and positive, are fucking naive, if not full idiots
WAIT WHAT LMAOTransgender Activist Yaniv 'Shocked' Gynecologists Don't Treat Men
Jessica Yaniv is the future, personified, if we continue down this path. The further a society moves from the truth, the closer it moves to tyranny.thefederalist.com
a rapidly outdated and insufficient cultural definition for "women"
I onestly fear to know the woke crowd modern cultural definition of a woman...
"Someone who identifies with cultural norms commonly assumed to be 'feminine' in nature. . ."
The norms of which culture? Using that definition someone can be a woman to one culture and a man to another."Someone who identifies with cultural norms commonly assumed to be 'feminine' in nature. . ." or some such. I'm not an anthropologist but I imagine it would go something like that if you wanted an explicit or rigorous definition.
. . .why you would need one for such an anodyne ask of "Hey can we expand this completely arbitrary cultural definition to include others that will in no way infringe on the already existing biological definitions that already exist and further distinguish us and will almost certainly have zero impact on another's personal life."
That sound way too open and broad as a concept."Someone who identifies with cultural norms commonly assumed to be 'feminine' in nature. . ." or some such. I'm not an anthropologist but I imagine it would go something like that if you wanted an explicit or rigorous definition.
. . .why you would need one for such an anodyne ask of "Hey can we expand this completely arbitrary cultural definition to include others that will in no way infringe on the already existing biological definitions that already exist and further distinguish us and will almost certainly have zero impact on another's personal life."
The norms of which culture? Using that definition someone can be a woman to one culture and a man to another.
That sound way too open and broad as a concept.
To make the term worthless and unusable in almost all situations?. . .that's the point.
. . .that's the point.
We are all women now.To make the term worthless and unusable in almost all situations?
What do you feel is the breakthrough thing in science that leads you to believe we are more correct now?One of the good things about human civilization so far is that the longer we are on the Earth, the more intelligent we've become of ourselves and the everything in the Universe around us. So just because something was so-called "true" pre-2015, doesn't mean we don't elevate our thinking and knowledge on the matter.
500 years ago we thought the Earth was the middle of the solar system with the sun, stars, and other planets orbiting us. Nowadays........we know better.
To make the term worthless and unusable in almost all situations?
What do you feel is the breakthrough thing in science that leads you to believe we are more correct now?
How would it be worthless and unusable? If I refer to a trans-woman as "that woman", without seeing them, you should have a general expectation on what they will physically present as. The idea that there is "no information" or "information loss" by putting "trans-women" under the umbrella of "women" is ludicrous.
. . .in any case, this has veered SPECTACULARLY off-topic and from my original comment so it might be time to dial shit back.
- MC you bored at work and feel like throwing water into boiling oil or something??Should "she" tell you before the first date, on the first date, or one minute before you have sex. We are still evolving on that.
Drivel.No one said she did. It was a comment made all the way back there on the previous page, so you'll be forgiven for missing it.
Language changes. Because it has to. JKR knows this, which is why her clumsy tweets are so surprising. If JKR wants to stick to a rapidly outdated and insufficient cultural definition for "women" that's fine; she just can't be shocked when people push back on comments that are summed up as "women menstruate" which (for like the billionth time*) others trans-women and biological females who don't or can't menstruate. There was a better way to argue her point than doing the preceding; she went a different, snarkier route (which also didn't help) and thus she has received the unsurprising pushback.
That's a pretty wide open question there man? LOL! That's like asking what the meaning of life is. What do you mean in particular?
No it doesn't tell me how they would physically present as. A person can identify as something without presenting in the culturally normalized way that thing presents. A person can currently identify as a woman without changing their physical appearance or their dress.How would it be worthless and unusable? If I refer to a trans-woman as "that woman", without seeing them, you should have a general expectation on what they will physically present as. The idea that there is "no information" or "information loss" by putting "trans-women" under the umbrella of "women" is ludicrous.
. . .in any case, this has veered SPECTACULARLY off-topic and from my original comment so it might be time to dial shit back.
It isn't an outdated definition. This isn't like the term "f*g" which used to mean cigarette and now is ubiquitously accepted as a derogatory term to insult homosexuals. The "new" definition of woman is only accepted by a small portion of the population. Most people still believe the traditional definition of what constitutes "woman."No one said she did. It was a comment made all the way back there on the previous page, so you'll be forgiven for missing it.
Language changes. Because it has to. JKR knows this, which is why her clumsy tweets are so surprising. If JKR wants to stick to a rapidly outdated and insufficient cultural definition for "women" that's fine; she just can't be shocked when people push back on comments that are summed up as "women menstruate" which (for like the billionth time*) others trans-women and biological females who don't or can't menstruate. There was a better way to argue her point than doing the preceding; she went a different, snarkier route (which also didn't help) and thus she has received the unsurprising pushback.
Dude, don’t bother.It isn't an outdated definition. This isn't like the term "f*g" which used to mean cigarette and now is ubiquitously accepted as a derogatory term to insult homosexuals. The "new" definition of woman is only accepted by a small portion of the population. Most people still believe the traditional definition of what constitutes "woman."
Just because some people have altered their definition of it, doesn't mean JK Rowling or anyone else has to go along with it.
One who likes to secretly talk to 5 year olds about sex and gender.a rapidly outdated and insufficient cultural definition for "women"
I onestly fear to know the woke crowd modern cultural definition of a woman...
No it doesn't tell me how they would physically present as. A person can identify as something without presenting in the culturally normalized way that thing presents. A person can currently identify as a woman without changing their physical appearance or their dress.
Please show some examples of her being transphobic... I would love to see some direct quotes that show she is a bigot.I agree with you that she doesn't speak the truth. And it's weird to see her promote transphobic messages, but you aren't helping with calling her a cunt and speaking like that. It only increases the "us" versus "them" mentality. The way you're speaking only kills the nuance this topics needs.
They can't show those examples because she hasn't, it's just easier to respond that way than having an adult conversation.Please show some examples of her being transphobic... I would love to see some direct quotes that show she is a bigot.
It's really down to the definition. Everyone is transphobic that considers a real women to be biologically female. One needs to see no difference between being born as one, or nominating to be one. 1:1 no difference whatsoever.Please show some examples of her being transphobic... I would love to see some direct quotes that show she is a bigot.
it definitely is occurringTo be fair, I have never heard that kids were being affirmatively pressured into these decisions and I am not saying that occurs.
You’re calling your way “elevated thinking.” What makes your post 2014 mentality seem like elevated thinking on this subject?
Its kind illegal in Japan and that is a good thing.Like it or not, cancel culture is free speech. It can't be illegal. At least not in America. And that's a good thing.
Gender in this use has always described biological sex. By the time gender was first used in English the French version, where English got the word, was already being used to describe biological sex. The whole gender as a social concept was created in the 1950s by a terrible human. The idea is only alive today because he lied for years about his terrible failed experiment.What's remarkable to me around this whole issue is how few people on either side actually know why men and women are designated as such, and thus cannot give a straightforward, coherent answer to the question of what a man or woman 'is'. There's a reason biological sex is called 'sex': men and women are defined by their reproductive roles. A man is an adult human whose body develops to produce the male sex cell (sperm). A woman is an adult human whose body develops to produce the female sex cell (eggs). Even among the tiny number of intersex people, there is always a dominant sex, even where that person has biological/genital characteristics associated with both sexes.
The complication is of course that transpeople are - rightly - able to legally and socially be recognised as the gender they present as. The key here is the difference between sex and gender. Sex is a biological term, giving fixed definitions for the two actors in the human reproductive process. Gender, while heavily influenced by sex in its expression, is a cultural/presentational one and thus somewhat more mutable and open to the semantic quibbles this 'debate' revolves around. In practice, when we talk about men and women, we are almost always making a biological distinction between two groups, so the biological definition takes precedence unless clarified otherwise = that's why 'transman' and 'transwoman' are useful, non-judgmental terms of inclusion. JK Rowling was thus factually correct when saying that 'people who menstruate' are women. I can't remember what the original context was, but the term 'people who menstruate' ought to have read 'women and transwomen' if inclusivity was the aim.
None of this means transpeople's legal and social right to be recognised in their chosen gender should be denied or disrespected, which includes using the pronouns attached to the person's preferred gender (unless you have a really good reason to believe they are acting in bad faith). Transpeople exist, even if you believe that there are social factors at play in the huge increase in recent years of people 'coming out', and they deserve the same base level of respect as everyone else. Hell, I don't believe that the 'non-binary' concept has any legitimacy, but even though I won't use 'they/them' as individual pronouns for the simple reason of its grammatically hideousness when applied to a specific individual, I will offer to use the person's name in lieu of pronouns if that person isn't comfortable with 'he' or 'she'.
As an aside, addressing a semi-relevant pet peeve, I'd like to point out that there is technically another definition of 'man' - that is, outside sex and gender - which is actually the original: 'human' (of no specified sex). Sexual distinctions were originally separate words from man (often used as prefixes): 'wer' for men, and 'wyf' for women: most famous example being werewolf literally meaning 'man-wolf'. Thus, when we say 'chairman', or 'mankind', for instance, contrary to the blathering of under-informed activists, those words are not discriminatorily specifying the male sex, but are using the original neutral definition of 'man'. This also means that technically, the most grammatically correct neutral pronouns are 'he/him', though I reiterate that even if you don't think the 'non-binary' concept has any credibility, that's not an excuse to be unpleasant and address someone as 'he' if they aren't comfortable with it. 'They' has indeed existed as an individual pronoun for a very long time, nearly always for a person either of unknown sex or representative of a group, but up until recently all credible style guides would contest its credibility and suggest writing around it (in practice, 'he' as a neutral pronoun has obvious limitations and a high risk of confusion). Anyway, TLDR: using 'man' neutrally isn't sexist or a result of the patriarchy, but rather the consequence of the word 'man' effectively being a homonym ('homo' in this context slightly confusingly deriving from the Greek 'homos' meaning same, and not the Latin 'homo', meaning man). Rant over.
As far as I'm aware, the original application of 'gender' was applied to nouns and simply meant a linguistic category, of which 'male' and 'female' noun genders could be two of many depending on the language. How these genders were delineated and applied to certain words is a mystery (again, as far as I'm aware). It's possible that the male and female noun genders were applied in some way based on association with biological sex, but they weren't interchangeable. French people, for instance, do not literally think that a table or a house - la table, la maison - are biologically female, though one can speculate that associations with biological sex (tables and houses perhaps being related to domesticity and thus womanhood) might have influenced those nouns/objects being associated with that linguistic gender.Gender in this use has always described biological sex. By the time gender was first used in English the French version, where English got the word, was already being used to describe biological sex. The whole gender as a social concept was created in the 1950s by a terrible human. The idea is only alive today because he lied for years about his terrible failed experiment.
Most people only care on a surface level.As has been shown, he is talking out his ass. He doensn’t give two shits about empirical data. Emotions are what rule the day for him.
So the point is that whoever wake up in the morning and feels like a woman is automatically a woman?That isn't a problem borne out of the transgender debate but of the arbitrary nature of cultural norms. This is no different than discussing what it means to "ethnically Black" in the United States or Colombia.
. . .that's the point.
i wish this was a joke, but is the truth, just before the pandemic my mom was a teacher, and 1 of their students, in 1 week, changed gender 3 times, she learned what a "gender fluid" is, when the guy says, i feel like a women today, thats why im working on the women group for the daySo the point is that whoever wake up in the morning and feels like a woman is automatically a woman?
Meh.
So happy that i live in a place where all this woke bullshit doesn't exist at all, if someone would try something like that where i live he would be laughed at for 6 months.i wish this was a joke, but is the truth, just before the pandemic my mom was a teacher, and 1 of their students, in 1 week, changed gender 3 times, she learned what a "gender fluid" is, when the guy says, i feel like a women today, thats why im working on the women group for the day
Yes they can.No it doesn't tell me how they would physically present as. A person can identify as something without presenting in the culturally normalized way that thing presents. A person can currently identify as a woman without changing their physical appearance or their dress.
So the point is that whoever wake up in the morning and feels like a woman is automatically a woman?
Meh.
So happy that i live in a place where all this woke bullshit doesn't exist at all, if someone would try something like that where i live he would be laughed at for 6 months.i wish this was a joke, but is the truth, just before the pandemic my mom was a teacher, and 1 of their students, in 1 week, changed gender 3 times, she learned what a "gender fluid" is, when the guy says, i feel like a women today, thats why im working on the women group for the day
Transgender Activist Yaniv 'Shocked' Gynecologists Don't Treat Men
Jessica Yaniv is the future, personified, if we continue down this path. The further a society moves from the truth, the closer it moves to tyranny.thefederalist.com
You’re calling your way “elevated thinking.” What makes your post 2014 mentality seem like elevated thinking on this subject?
Please show some examples of her being transphobic... I would love to see some direct quotes that show she is a bigot.
Its kind illegal in Japan and that is a good thing.
Like it or not, cancel culture is free speech.
moral panics of the past? really you are not so smart, we are making fun of those lunatics, gender its not a feeling or part of your personality, in fact ,you need mental heath if you belive that, and before you claim some shit like how the WHO make transgender a non mental condition un 2018, just remember, lobotomy was a great medical procedure, and tobacco was good too, that some of thew few screw up doctors made in the past and have to change their mindAgain I'll ask, outside of a punchline or as a rhetorical exercise, how often do you think this actually happens?
. . .some of you are literally reliving the moral panics of the past. Amazing to watch it happen in real time.
moral panics of the past? really you are not so smart, we are making fun of those lunatics, gender its not a feeling or part of your personality, in fact ,you need mental heath if you belive that, and before you claim some shit like how the WHO make transgender a non mental condition un 2018,
just remember, lobotomy was a great medical procedure, and tobacco was good too, that some of thew few screw up doctors made in the past and have to change their mind