Who determines the number of genders- and how?

[JoeMorgue]

You made a big deal out of an aside I posted regarding the words male and female. It wasn't about the meanings but about how the originators of the words got it backwards, probably based on their own societal biases. You demanded evidence, got it, ignored it, had it explained to you, and now you claim I am unable to entertain an idea.

"Argument with accusations of bias and bigotry through obscure Etymology."

Truly I am blessed to live in such a gilded age of discussions. The Algonquin Round Table is but the braying of sheep.

 

[shuttlt]

Personally I wouldn't mind unisex restrooms. I don't see what the fuss is about, though I guess it'd take a while for women to get used to it more than men.

Possibly. My only experience of moving to unisex toilets has been in environments where, in the unlikely event that anybody was trans, they passed and had been using the restroom that matched their presentation anyway.

I quite like having a male space. I'm struggling to think of any others. I'll be sorry to see it go.

 

[Belz...]

You made a big deal out of an aside I posted regarding the words male and female. It wasn't about the meanings but about how the originators of the words got it backwards, probably based on their own societal biases. You demanded evidence, got it, ignored it

You provided no evidence whatsoever. Would it have been that painful to simply make a short explanation? The only bit of info you provided makes no sense. I asked you to clarify, you didn't, and now you're miffed that I called you on your tactics of dodging points and arguments in favour of personalisations. If you want to make personalisations, at least have the good will to do it as an addendum to a post with actual content.

 

[shuttlt]

You made a big deal out of an aside I posted regarding the words male and female. It wasn't about the meanings but about how the originators of the words got it backwards, probably based on their own societal biases. You demanded evidence, got it, ignored it, had it explained to you, and now you claim I am unable to entertain an idea.

Is there a better quote than the one upthread from Wolpert on foetal development? I don't see anything in it that can't be reframed as female foetuses are testosterone deprived males.

I thought also there was something upthread about male and female having different roots.

 

[shuttlt]

Is there a better quote than the one upthread from Wolpert on foetal development? I don't see anything in it that can't be reframed as female foetuses are testosterone deprived males.

I thought also there was something upthread about male and female having different roots.

Also, didn't it used to be werman and wifman for man and woman with man being for humanity, or is that ********?

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's irrelevant. Some languages are practically non-gendered. Some are amazingly and complexly gendered. (As in referring to biological gender, not "grammatical gender" which also has other meanings when talking language refer to noun/verb/article interaction...)

Reality, biology, society, and the law is not beholden to how one language developed, even the society that uses that language.

 

[shuttlt]

It's irrelevant. Some languages are practically non-gendered. Some are amazingly and complexly gendered. (As in referring to biological gender, not "grammatical gender" which also has other meanings when talking language refer to noun/verb/article interaction...)

Reality, biology, society, and the law is not beholden to how one language developed, even the society that uses that language.

I agree, but qayak seemed to be building an argument on it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And yes the idea that "Woman" is somehow a subset of "Man" on a linguistic level is... well just factually wrong.

"Woman" started off as the pre-Norman Old English term wīfmann which meant "Female Human." The male equivalent was wermann (or wirmann or wermonn or wirmoon or a bazillion other spellings). The "mann" or "monn" suffix was mostly gender neutral. After the Norman Conquest the terms were muddled a little (this not exactly being the least tempestuous time for language developed in general anyway) and Man became the male term, Woman the female term, and Human the neutral term.

 

[cullennz]

And yes the idea that "Woman" is somehow a subset of "Man" on a linguistic level is... well just factually wrong.

"Woman" started off as the pre-Norman Old English term wīfmann which meant "Female Human." The male equivalent was wermann (or wirmann or wermonn or wirmoon or a bazillion other spellings). The "mann" or "monn" suffix was mostly gender neutral. After the Norman Conquest the terms were muddled a little (this not exactly being the least tempestuous time for language developed in general anyway) and Man became the male term, Woman the female term, and Human the neutral term.

Unless they have suddenly changed all the main dictionaries man has two meanings and the second is - A human being of either sex

So it is factually right if you said women is a subset of "all Man"

 

[Meadmaker]

*Very slowly* People... aren't... using... transgenderism... to... be... a... peeping... tom.

Well, not many. Hardly any, really. And most "peeping Tom" incidents have nothing to do with transgenderism.


But I think that Rolfe's contribution to the thread, regarding AGP, is more relevant. I had never heard the term before, but it's a real thing.


However, that isn't the only talking point, or even the primary talking point. The issue is that you have a girls' locker room. The girls and women who use it will be seen in their underwear or naked by other occupants of the locker room. It isn't a myth. It isn't some weird, strange, behavior. It's the reason we have locker rooms. In today's world, those girls and/or women are being told that they have to allow into that space a person who meets every definition of "man" that has ever been used, except for one. If that person self-identifies as a girl or woman, then we are told that regardless of anatomy or behavior, that person must be treated as a girl or woman. Moreover, they are told that if they are uncomfortable sharing that female only space with someone whose only female attribute is self-identification, they are close minded bigots.

It's nuts.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Unless they have suddenly changed all the main dictionaries man has two meanings and the second is - A human being of either sex

So it is factually right if you said women is a subset of "all Man"

Errrr I said that. In modern usage "Woman" is feminine, "Man" is male (usually), and "Human" is neutral.

I was countering the idea Qayak is building his case on that
A) Linguistically "Woman" is a subcategory of "Man"
B) That means anything because on an embryonic level we start as female and are modified into males early on in development which creates some sort of hypocritical paradox in his world because of reasons.

 

[cullennz]

Errrr I said that. In modern usage "Woman" is feminine, "Man" is male (usually), and "Human" is neutral.

I was countering the idea Qayak is building his case on that
A) Linguistically "Woman" is a subcategory of "Man"
B) That means anything because on an embryonic level we start as female and are modified into males early on in development which creates some sort of hypocritical paradox in his world because of reasons.

Ah

All good

 

[JoeMorgue]

However, that isn't the only talking point, or even the primary talking point. The issue is that you have a girls' locker room. The girls and women who use it will be seen in their underwear or naked by other occupants of the locker room. It isn't a myth. It isn't some weird, strange, behavior. It's the reason we have locker rooms. In today's world, those girls and/or women are being told that they have to allow into that space a person who meets every definition of "man" that has ever been used, except for one. If that person self-identifies as a girl or woman, then we are told that regardless of anatomy or behavior, that person must be treated as a girl or woman. Moreover, they are told that if they are uncomfortable sharing that female only space with someone whose only female attribute is self-identification, they are close minded bigots.

And I don't disagree with that. I just didn't want the scare mongering "Trans peeping tom" argument to be introduced and send this discussion down a hate filled 30 page hijack.

Questions of "comfortability" are going to be very, very hard to suss out our notions of sexuality and gender change and evolve and unlike other people I'm not hiding behind "complex" as a way to just go "So just stop talking about and agree with me."

To what degree a person has the... right I guess you'd call it to just not want to be around someone is not going to be an easy question to answer and sadly like most progressive arguments the biggest lead is going to be to people who build the most powerful "I'm a victim" argument.

 

[William Parcher]

Moreover, they are told that if they are uncomfortable sharing that female only space with someone whose only female attribute is self-identification, they are close minded bigots.

It's nuts.

Those women should just keep the penis men out of their locker room and if somebody calls them bigots they should just respond by saying, "whatever!"

Life includes stupid crap like somebody calling you a bigot. You've got to just keep on keeping on and just say, "whatever!"

 

[Meadmaker]

Those women should just keep the penis men out of their locker room and if somebody calls them bigots they should just respond by saying, "whatever!"

Life includes stupid crap like somebody calling you a bigot. You've got to just keep on keeping on and just say, "whatever!"

I agree, but the accusation of bigotry is just icing on the cake. Meanwhile, if the school board says that the "penis men" have a right to be there, there is not a lot that the high school girls can do about it. Boycotts. Walkouts. Skip gym class. That's about it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Those women should just keep the penis men out of their locker room and if somebody calls them bigots they should just respond by saying, "whatever!"

Life includes stupid crap like somebody calling you a bigot. You've got to just keep on keeping on and just say, "whatever!"

Well someone of us would like to reach some sort of understand so we can improve society in a way that's best for everybody.

A "Oh well I guess I'm just a bigot then fiddledy-dee" reaction is sometimes unavoidable when dealing the Grand Lord Cause, Causiest of the Cause, Gatekeeper of the One True Cause crowd, but it should not be the goal.

 

[qayak]

You provided no evidence whatsoever. Would it have been that painful to simply make a short explanation? The only bit of info you provided makes no sense. I asked you to clarify, you didn't, and now you're miffed that I called you on your tactics of dodging points and arguments in favour of personalisations. If you want to make personalisations, at least have the good will to do it as an addendum to a post with actual content.

Why didn't you say you wanted me to buy the book, read it to you, and then explain what it all means to you?

Of course my answer would have been the same, do your own research, but at least we could have avoided this nonsense.

 

[shuttlt]

You are all bigots, the lot of you.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well someone of us would like to reach some sort of understand so we can improve society in a way that's best for everybody.

A "Oh well I guess I'm just a bigot then fiddledy-dee" reaction is sometimes unavoidable when dealing the Grand Lord Cause, Causiest of the Cause, Gatekeeper of the One True Cause crowd, but it should not be the goal.

The other thing about the charge of bigotry is that it is the thing that guides the policies. In every case of controversy I have seen that involved one trans-girl who wanted to use the women's facilities, the owners of said facilities were willing to provide a private space to the transgirl, but that was deemed unacceptable, because it would make her feel different from all the other girls....ya know, the ones that did not have penises.

 

[Belz...]

I was countering the idea Qayak is building his case on that
A) Linguistically "Woman" is a subcategory of "Man"

Qayak is essentially making the same argument that hard-liner feminists make when they claim that the word "manufacture" is sexist.