DeepEnigma
Gold Member
That's the crux of this whole situation.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gaming journalist refuses to cover Hogwarts Legacy due to its "ties" with J.K Rowling.
- Thread starter CheeseCake
- Start date
Halo is Back
Member
Don't forget that whole WW2 thing....
chromhound
Member
WAIT WHAT LMAO
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
"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."
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
The norms of which culture? Using that definition someone can be a woman to one culture and a man to another.
Last edited:
GymWolf
Member
That sound way too open and broad as a concept.
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.
To make the term worthless and unusable in almost all situations?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
We are all women now.
#CancellationOfWomen
The nurturers & foundations of our societies and civilizations.
93xfan
Banned
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.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
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?
In most cases people like M Moneal (no disrespect at all) is speaking about when we as men meet "women" at a bar or at a store and want to talk to them to get them on a date. In "those" situations in theory we'd like if that person revealed themselves as a transwoman to us. What the ethics is about that is still confusing to me to be honest. I can see it both ways. 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.
Last edited:
- MC you bored at work and feel like throwing water into boiling oil or something??I am 100% kidding with you to be clear.
Ogbert
Member
93xfan
Banned
You’re calling your way “elevated thinking.” What makes your post 2014 mentality seem like elevated thinking on this subject?
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.
DragoonKain
Neighbours from Hell
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.
Ogbert
Member
Dude, don’t bother.
Engaging in this discussion demeans us. It’s gibberish. Daft left wing linguistic nonsense attempting to reframe material reality.
They’ll be reframing gravity next.
RoboFu
One of the green rats
One who likes to secretly talk to 5 year olds about sex and gender.
. . .where are these edge cases? Other than as the punchline to a joke or an academic exercise, where are all these trans-women who don't actually engage with any part of the experience of being a woman? Lets see a list of all these trans-women out there that have so diluted the concept of femininity - by casually deciding they're gender identity is now that of a woman of course - that when its suggested you should have a general expectation of what a woman will present as (trans or otherwise), you instead furrow your brow in consternation as this befuddling though.
So absurd.
MacReady13
Member
Please show some examples of her being transphobic... I would love to see some direct quotes that show she is a bigot.
JerryinSoCal
Member
They can't show those examples because she hasn't, it's just easier to respond that way than having an adult conversation.
Shmunter
Member
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.
Even language is being changed to accommodate this by substituting elaborate wide cast descriptions for Woman, Mother, Brest feeding, etc.
Last edited:
Arkangelus0
Banned
What the woke People dont understand, is the majority of the World its not racist/bigot/transphobe etc, just becsuse they dont believe their delusion, that dont make them their enemies, many People dont believe transwomen are women, but still treat them with respect and talk to them like they are women, just dont believe the full delusion
Something i have in my mind when they can define what a women is, its like the defnition of the object, why my chinese rolex its not a rolex? It says rolex, look like a rolex, and i feel i own a rolex, why its not a roldx, becsuse its not original?
Something i have in my mind when they can define what a women is, its like the defnition of the object, why my chinese rolex its not a rolex? It says rolex, look like a rolex, and i feel i own a rolex, why its not a roldx, becsuse its not original?
graywolf323
Member
it definitely is occurring
A Mom’s Fight to Save Her Daughter from Trans Orthodoxy at School | National Review
A Wisconsin school decided to encourage her daughter’s transition against her will. She fought back.
www.nationalreview.com
Dr. Claus
Vincit qui se vincit
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.
Lokaum D+
Member
Its kind illegal in Japan and that is a good thing.
Last edited:
What's remarkable to me around this whole issue is how few people on either side seem to 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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
I'm aware of John Money and his nonsensical claims (disproven by his own 'research', as per the case you linked to) that sex and gender are entirely separate from each other when in fact they are closely related, but there is a useful application in making the distinction between biological sex and the external/social expression of one's sex (the modern definition of gender) even if the two are again very much interlinked. Thus, while Money was an awful man (including alleged child abuser) and a terrible scientist, I think the modern usage of gender has legitimacy if used in the correct context.
EDIT: Just to clarify, there's no single reason why objects or nouns might have become associated with a certain linguistic gender. Language is a hodgepodge which evolved wildly inconsistently over millennia, so when I speculated about table or house being categorised as feminine based on characteristics associated with women, that was not only complete speculation, but speculation which even if it did contain by pure chance a germ of truth, does not mean it is true for how/why any other nouns/objects are gendered as they are. There are broad trends which can be identified - a majority of French words ending in 'e' or in a vowel preceded by a double consonant are feminine, for instance, but not all - but trying to assign a theory of everything to linguistic gender categorisation is a fool's errand and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
Last edited:
InterMusketeer
Gold Member
When discussing larger societal and political issues we need to consider the facts. There is a difference between females and trans women. And we should be able to acknowledge that fact when it is relevant. Trans people don't get to one-sidedly decide when it's relevant or not.
Rowling's publications about transgenderism seemed honest and informed to me and I have yet to see someone prove otherwise. People should be able to have a discussion about it. Labeling it transphobia is just a means to censor unwanted criticism. This ongoing smear campaign sooner makes me think she might have a point.
Rowling's publications about transgenderism seemed honest and informed to me and I have yet to see someone prove otherwise. People should be able to have a discussion about it. Labeling it transphobia is just a means to censor unwanted criticism. This ongoing smear campaign sooner makes me think she might have a point.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
You guys bring up some good points above.
Xandaca's post is really good telling a history of words. Problem is in present day I don't think anyone (especially activists) give a shit about history. They just want what they want how they want it now.
CGiRanger's quick post is similar to me. If it wasn't for all the social media and trans stuff the past 5 years, I thought Sex and Gender were the same thing. It's like filling out a form. Some use Sex, some use Gender. Interchangeable. Maybe in modern day forms they might have both demographic metrics to fill out, but I bet if you pull out random blank forms, that box you fill out will say M or F no matter what the company labeled that box. So it shows even government and companies can't even tell the difference.
As for me, I will stick to the scientific route. If that's what JK Rowling was doing in her old tweets, then I agree with her.
I don't care what a person thinks they are. But in reality, they are going to be 99.99% chance you are born Male (dick) or Female (pussy). And women are the ones who give birth. There is a rare chance you are both (hermaphrodite I believe) where you are born with both parts. Ok, so if there's one group of people who has a case for having H as an option on a form it's them.
When it comes to standards for sex and gender, there's reasons for it. You can see all the mayhem Lia Thomas has done to women's swimming, but I'll give you another one that applies to everyone.
The classification of being an adult or anything at a certain age. Makes no difference if a country's adult classification for driving or drinking law requires someone to be 18, 19 or 21 etc.... There's a specific age needed to do certain things.
If you think about it? What is age? Why does the government do this? Well because they are thinking if you reach a certain age you are mature enough to do that thing. That's not true. If a city says you can drink booze at 18 or older, who says someone 16 cant handle booze? Who says a 26 year old can? There are drunks getting into car accidents at 56 years old.
But for sake of standards, the government puts a stake in the sand to basically keep life and order going. Just like having someone say they are M or F on a driver's license. You can think what you want, but the formal classification is M or F.
Now someone can say, "I think I'm mature enough at 16 to do things requiring me to be 18". And that can be 100% true. But the gov will say fuck you and wait two more years. Your classification is 16 years old. And no matter what you think or how good you are at controlling beer intake, you aren't 18. You are 16 and not allowed to drink.
Xandaca's post is really good telling a history of words. Problem is in present day I don't think anyone (especially activists) give a shit about history. They just want what they want how they want it now.
CGiRanger's quick post is similar to me. If it wasn't for all the social media and trans stuff the past 5 years, I thought Sex and Gender were the same thing. It's like filling out a form. Some use Sex, some use Gender. Interchangeable. Maybe in modern day forms they might have both demographic metrics to fill out, but I bet if you pull out random blank forms, that box you fill out will say M or F no matter what the company labeled that box. So it shows even government and companies can't even tell the difference.
As for me, I will stick to the scientific route. If that's what JK Rowling was doing in her old tweets, then I agree with her.
I don't care what a person thinks they are. But in reality, they are going to be 99.99% chance you are born Male (dick) or Female (pussy). And women are the ones who give birth. There is a rare chance you are both (hermaphrodite I believe) where you are born with both parts. Ok, so if there's one group of people who has a case for having H as an option on a form it's them.
When it comes to standards for sex and gender, there's reasons for it. You can see all the mayhem Lia Thomas has done to women's swimming, but I'll give you another one that applies to everyone.
The classification of being an adult or anything at a certain age. Makes no difference if a country's adult classification for driving or drinking law requires someone to be 18, 19 or 21 etc.... There's a specific age needed to do certain things.
If you think about it? What is age? Why does the government do this? Well because they are thinking if you reach a certain age you are mature enough to do that thing. That's not true. If a city says you can drink booze at 18 or older, who says someone 16 cant handle booze? Who says a 26 year old can? There are drunks getting into car accidents at 56 years old.
But for sake of standards, the government puts a stake in the sand to basically keep life and order going. Just like having someone say they are M or F on a driver's license. You can think what you want, but the formal classification is M or F.
Now someone can say, "I think I'm mature enough at 16 to do things requiring me to be 18". And that can be 100% true. But the gov will say fuck you and wait two more years. Your classification is 16 years old. And no matter what you think or how good you are at controlling beer intake, you aren't 18. You are 16 and not allowed to drink.
93xfan
Banned
Most people only care on a surface level.
They don’t consider how this ideology will hurt many, many kids in the future.
GymWolf
Member
So the point is that whoever wake up in the morning and feels like a woman is automatically a woman?
Meh.
Arkangelus0
Banned
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
John Bilbo
Member
What is the meaning of words? Why do we even speak or try to communicate?
Just try and change the meaning of all words and see how well you can get your point across.
Reality is there to be observed even without language. But with language we can try to make sense of things and derive or distill meaning and ideas out of this chaos we call life.
The meaning of a word is bigger than any one of us. A word has a history. A word is an idea.
Like Jared Leto's Joker.
Just try and change the meaning of all words and see how well you can get your point across.
Reality is there to be observed even without language. But with language we can try to make sense of things and derive or distill meaning and ideas out of this chaos we call life.
The meaning of a word is bigger than any one of us. A word has a history. A word is an idea.
Like Jared Leto's Joker.
GymWolf
Member
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.
Tams
Member
Yes they can.
They also have mental health issues and will be (deservedly) shunned (at best).
Again 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.
SaucyJack
Member
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.
isn’t this the ”wax my balls” guy? Harassed a whole load of female beauticians that didn’t see men And complained that they wouldn’t wax “her” cock and balls.
a really unsavoury character.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I think it'll be proven out by the majority of human civilization by the year 2200 that not only is sexual orientation not binary, but neither is gender (again.....I'm not talking about "sex"). Gender too will be understood to be viewed on a scale. I believe that 90%-95% of people by that time will still identify as the gender that they were born as. But that most in societies in the majority of 1st world nations will recognize that this "scale" of gender exist.
At the moment (as a human race) we have too much ingrained beliefs to let our emotions detach from what we were taught, so the culture war at this day in age continues. And the pushback to the inevitable is happening. To me, if you look at human history this is normal. This conversation is normal. The majority in this thread (on both sides) are playing the roles that we are supposed to play. It ALWAYS happens like this in 1st world nations. But as time goes on, in most cases, we evolve our understanding on these matters.
*****Please understand as a black male in America, I've had to understand the history of how we were viewed in general by the colonists back in 1619. Not only in "the new world", but also in Europe. Alot of those conventional wisdoms about our lack of intelligence has been proven wrong over the centuries (even though we still have to fight against it on a smaller scale today.) Women had to go through a similar change of perception too. It took centuries to fully see that change, but it happened.*****
I didn't say she's a bigot. I said she made transphobic statements. In my brain, a person can say something transphobic and not be a bigot. In the same way someone can say a racist statement, but not be a racist. Or someone can tell a lie to their mom, but not be a lair. And I've already listed what I found to be transphobic in this thread to be fair. It's okay if some people don't think they're transphobic. Some people agree with me, others disagree. At some point people should realize that there's two sides of a coin on an issue like this.
What's illegal exactly. I'm lost on what you're saying here.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Arkangelus0
Banned
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
Explain how expanding the cultural definition of a woman to include trans-women would negatively impact society as a whole. Having done that, Google "moral panic" and then tell me how the first doesn't qualify as the second.
. . .or don't.
We'll put aside that cultural by definition is malleable, what is truly amazing is that you are making the point that ideas and what we understand to be true can evolve. . .to counter the point that ideas and what we understand to be true can evolve.
Last edited: