• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
p0lka said:
This thread has become spaghettified,

The op is 'Discussion: Transwomen are not women'

In my opinion transwoman are women if they want to be, they aren't female though.
Click to expand...

That's still debasing the language. Women are adult human females, so transwomen are neither women nor females. Let's keep it real, here.

That doesn't mean they can't live as women and ask for courtesy pronouns, but it doesn't change objective reality.
 
p0lka said:
The op is 'Discussion: Transwomen are not women'
Click to expand...
As you may recall, the non-binary thread was shut down b/c it touched on trans issues. So long as it's taboo to spawn threads in the near vicinity of this one, the remit here must be at least broad enough to include those topics.
 
p0lka said:
This thread has become spaghettified,

The op is 'Discussion: Transwomen are not women'

In my opinion transwoman are women if they want to be, they aren't female though.
Click to expand...

The "Discussion" was an editorial change after the fact. It does not reflect the author's intent.

Also, by this point it's pretty clear that being a woman only has concrete, practical meaning where it means being treated as female. The distinction you're making is a red herring.

It's also incoherent. What does "being a woman" even mean to you? I bet you can't articulate a coherent explanation of the term. Not without resorting to gender stereotypes you don't actually believe in or support. Or without falling back on a definition of female.
 
theprestige said:
The "Discussion" was an editorial change after the fact. It does not reflect the author's intent.

Also, by this point it's pretty clear that being a woman only has concrete, practical meaning where it means being treated as female. The distinction you're making is a red herring.

It's also incoherent. What does "being a woman" even mean to you? I bet you can't articulate a coherent explanation of the term. Not without resorting to gender stereotypes you don't actually believe in or support. Or without falling back on a definition of female.
Click to expand...
Ah sorry, I wasn't aware of any editorial change or anything.

re "being a woman"?
I've stated my position numerous times in this thread already.
Gender is a variable, if people want to be a woman then they are literally fitting in to a stereotype. What are you on about?
 
p0lka said:
Ah sorry, I wasn't aware of any editorial change or anything.

re "being a woman"?
I've stated my position numerous times in this thread already.
Gender is a variable, if people want to be a woman then they are literally fitting in to a stereotype. What are you on about?
Click to expand...
I'm on about female. The only thing that matters is the one thing you keep ignoring
 
theprestige said:
I'm on about female. The only thing that matters is the one thing you keep ignoring
Click to expand...
you said
theprestige said:
It's also incoherent. What does "being a woman" even mean to you? I bet you can't articulate a coherent explanation of the term. Not without resorting to gender stereotypes you don't actually believe in or support. Or without falling back on a definition of female.
Click to expand...
which indicates to me that you are missing the point, but whatever.
I answered your question,
could you answer your own question?
What does 'being a woman' mean to you?
 
p0lka said:
you said

which indicates to me that you are missing the point, but whatever.
I answered your question,
could you answer your own question?
What does 'being a woman' mean to you?
Click to expand...

Nothing. Being a woman is meaningless to me.

Someone tells me they want to be a woman, I figure they're a naive teenager and cut them some slack. Or some kind of dishonest scumbag.
 
Ron Obvious said:
That's still debasing the language. Women are adult human females, so transwomen are neither women nor females. Let's keep it real, here.

That doesn't mean they can't live as women and ask for courtesy pronouns, but it doesn't change objective reality.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is where the disagreement is for me,
you are mixing women and female together in a sentence as if they are equivalent. I don't think that works. Gender and sex aren't in the same category. Sex is a constant and gender is....not?
 
theprestige said:
Nothing. Being a woman is meaningless to me.

Someone tells me they want to be a woman, I figure they're a naive teenager and cut them some slack. Or some kind of dishonest scumbag.
Click to expand...


Does it bother or discomfit you to know that mainstream medical thinking, and legislation in progressive nations, disagrees with your assessment? Does it give you pause for thought at all? Does it make you even in the slightest question a) your own point of view, and/or b) your capacity to form a properly-informed point of view?


(Because if it were me in that position, I'd say yes to all of the above. That's just me though, obviously. You do you.)
 
theprestige said:
I suspect that many of them are well aware of the purpose of academia as knowledge production, and the value of public trust of the knowledge produced.
Click to expand...

Sure, but not the whole necessity of freedom and proper methods of handling disagreements. That's the part that seems particularly lacking even (especially?) within academia itself.
 
Ron Obvious said:
That's still debasing the language. Women are adult human females, so transwomen are neither women nor females. Let's keep it real, here.
Click to expand...


Ahh, straight out of the playbook. Lovely stuff!

As for the rest of what you wrote above: it's sweet and reactionary that you think language and the definitions of words are fixed and immutable. But it's just not true. Otherwise, for example, a word such as "fantastic" would mean nothing more than "the product of fantasy; entirely made up".



That doesn't mean they can't live as women and ask for courtesy pronouns, but it doesn't change objective reality.
Click to expand...


Noted. May I humbly recommend a few media outlets which should serve to validate and bolster your point of view on this matter:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

https://www.foxnews.com/

https://parler.com/main.php
 
Elaedith said:
You are apparently completely clueless about the purpose of academia as a knowledge production industry, the role of academic freedom in ensuring we can trust the knowledge produced, and the appropriate ways for academics to address disagreements over controversial issues (by producing verbal and written critiques of arguments). This doesn't surprise me.
Click to expand...


I see. Thanks for your critique of my understanding of academia*. You won't be able to guess just how valid, accurate and valuable I found it to be.

So.....

Do you think academics should have the freedom to, for example, argue that black people are inherently stupid and lazy?

(A simple yes or no answer is preferable - but I doubt I'll get one.)


* And by the way, your entire post here was completely beside the point wrt my post to which you were responding. Mine was about unpleasant and objectionable work colleagues - something which is precisely as relevant in academia as it is in any other profession or walk of life.
 
Oh and I guess a large chunk of academia wasn't playing by your portentous rulebook either, when they collectively disowned David Starkey over the views he professed in an interview with Darren Grimes around 18 months ago.

Surely Starkey was (in your view) simply engaging with his fellow academics, who should have (in your view) "addressed (their) disagreements over controversial issues (here, Starkey's racist statements) by producing verbal and written critiques of Starkey's arguments". Starkey was (in your view, presumably) doing nothing whatsoever wrong in an academic sense, and he should have been embraced and challenged academically over his views rather than shunned. Right?

I guess all those many academics, academic institutions, and academic award-givers neglected to read your portentous memo on what academia is "really" like, huh?

:rolleyes:
 
LondonJohn said:
Ahh, straight out of the playbook. Lovely stuff!
Click to expand...

Straight out of the dictionary or any first-year biology textbook, I think you'll find. Remember that reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it. It's really not controversial in the real world.

Feel free to believe yourself anything you'd like to think yourself to be, such as a Poodle for all I care, it doesn't actually change reality or confer an obligation on the rest of us to play along.

And with that, I'll drop out of this ridiculous circular discussion again for a while because it's a boring waste of my time.
 
The Atheist said:
How tedious.

After all this time, you still don't get why that's idiotic. You can't choose to be black.

Whether or not the majority feel they have no choice about which gender they think they are, it is certain some of them choose to be trans.



:dl:

Mead, quick! Someone stole your login!

After 17 years, you can't really be surprised, can you?
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised that people ignore questions, but I'm frequently surprised by which questions they ignore.

I really was curious how my last one would be answered. I was surprised to find that it wouldn't be.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ahh, straight out of the playbook. Lovely stuff!

As for the rest of what you wrote above: it's sweet and reactionary that you think language and the definitions of words are fixed and immutable. But it's just not true. Otherwise, for example, a word such as "fantastic" would mean nothing more than "the product of fantasy; entirely made up".
Click to expand...

Language may be unfixed and mutable but Ron Obvious, obviously, wasn't talking about language, but the real, actual world which language describes. That's not quite as unfixed and mutable.
 
The problem isn't that "woman" was originally defined as "adult human female" and people want to redefine it in some way. The problem is that the new definition is both useless and incoherent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom