Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[TragicMonkey]

3/4 of the world's population believe an invisible fairy rules the universe.

What people think/claim doesn't make something real.

Indeed. Which also applies to those who get into a tizzy trying to define manhood and womanhood as if those things are absolutely clear scientific realities reflecting only physical operations of matter.

 

[LondonJohn]

And I found it hilarious, foul and brilliant.

And I'm sure various sections of society would have found it equally "hilarious, foul and brilliant" if Gervais had chosen to mock/lampoon other marginalised minorities: "Haha we all know that negroes aren't actually intelligent, and the only ones who've made it into intellectual professions are only there because of affirmative action, hahaha". "Have you seen those weird little midget people walking around? I mean, they can only breed with each other, can't they? Imagine a midget and a normal-sized person trying to have sex ahahahahaha"

After all, it's only jokes, isn't it? Comedy doesn't have to have any barriers or taboos, does it? And if anyone believes that black people or people of restricted growth deserve better than to be mocked in comedy routines, well all they have to do is turn over the TV channel, right?

 

[BobTheCoward]

This is an absurd argument. Gervais punched in EVERY direction in that show. They spent far more time on several other topics, presented in the same fashion. The trans segment was a very short portion of the overall show.

And the TRAs are the only people who are upset about it. It's ridiculous.

My post said I don't like punching down. Which means when he punches in every direction some of those punches go in a direction I do not like.

How is that absurd?

 

[BobTheCoward]

And I'm sure various sections of society would have found it equally "hilarious, foul and brilliant" if Gervais had chosen to mock/lampoon other marginalised minorities: "Haha we all know that negroes aren't actually intelligent, and the only ones who've made it into intellectual professions are only there because of affirmative action, hahaha". "Have you seen those weird little midget people walking around? I mean, they can only breed with each other, can't they? Imagine a midget and a normal-sized person trying to have sex ahahahahaha"

After all, it's only jokes, isn't it? Comedy doesn't have to have any barriers or taboos, does it? And if anyone believes that black people or people of restricted growth deserve better than to be mocked in comedy routines, well all they have to do is turn over the TV channel, right?

Yea....what is wrong with that?

 

[Ziggurat]

Indeed. Which also applies to those who get into a tizzy trying to define manhood and womanhood as if those things are absolutely clear scientific realities reflecting only physical operations of matter.

This is a very odd statement. If you define manhood and womanhood as being purely physical properties, then they are absolutely clear scientific realities. One doesn't have to try to define manhood and womanhood that way, one can quite easily succeed in doing so. It's trivial, actually.

You are free to disagree with such a definition, and prefer one of your own, but it's quite an odd position to claim that someone else cannot use such a definition.

 

[lionking]

And I'm sure various sections of society would have found it equally "hilarious, foul and brilliant" if Gervais had chosen to mock/lampoon other marginalised minorities: "Haha we all know that negroes aren't actually intelligent, and the only ones who've made it into intellectual professions are only there because of affirmative action, hahaha". "Have you seen those weird little midget people walking around? I mean, they can only breed with each other, can't they? Imagine a midget and a normal-sized person trying to have sex ahahahahaha"

After all, it's only jokes, isn't it? Comedy doesn't have to have any barriers or taboos, does it? And if anyone believes that black people or people of restricted growth deserve better than to be mocked in comedy routines, well all they have to do is turn over the TV channel, right?

Be honest. Did you watch it? How much of the show referenced transgendered people?

 

[LondonJohn]

This is a very odd statement. If you define manhood and womanhood as being purely physical properties, then they are absolutely clear scientific realities. One doesn't have to try to define manhood and womanhood that way, one can quite easily succeed in doing so. It's trivial, actually.

You are free to disagree with such a definition, and prefer one of your own, but it's quite an odd position to claim that someone else cannot use such a definition.

No, it's the ring-fencing of definitions that's the problem.

Take the core topic of this thread: the growth in the proportion of young people who do not consider themselves classically heterosexual. In "westernised" societies, from at least the middle ages up until astonishingly recently, it was near-axiomatic that "normal" males were exclusively sexually attracted to females, and vice-versa. Those were the rules and the definitions. Anyone who declared themselves to exist outside those rules and definitions was, in a very real sense, a sick deviant - not just against society but against the very God who held such a dominant position in society (again, until only very recently).

Fortunately, in 2022, there are only small pockets of bigots, denialists and religious fundamentalists who continue to reject the normalcy of sexual identities which differ from classical heterosexuality. This, in itself, is extremely likely to be a significant driver of the growth in reported non-heterosexuality: many such people repressed their true sexuality a few generations ago, because it was such a societal and religious taboo (an evil, in fact); whereas in general, people feel much more confident about publicly declaring their true sexual identity in the current climate.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

And I'm sure various sections of society would have found it equally "hilarious, foul and brilliant" if Gervais had chosen to mock/lampoon other marginalised minorities: "Haha we all know that negroes aren't actually intelligent, and the only ones who've made it into intellectual professions are only there because of affirmative action, hahaha". "Have you seen those weird little midget people walking around? I mean, they can only breed with each other, can't they? Imagine a midget and a normal-sized person trying to have sex ahahahahaha"

After all, it's only jokes, isn't it? Comedy doesn't have to have any barriers or taboos, does it? And if anyone believes that black people or people of restricted growth deserve better than to be mocked in comedy routines, well all they have to do is turn over the TV channel, right?

You didn't even see the special, did you? If you had, you would have realized he had a segment on dwarves.

 

[TragicMonkey]

This is a very odd statement. If you define manhood and womanhood as being purely physical properties, then they are absolutely clear scientific realities. One doesn't have to try to define manhood and womanhood that way, one can quite easily succeed in doing so. It's trivial, actually.

You are free to disagree with such a definition, and prefer one of your own, but it's quite an odd position to claim that someone else cannot use such a definition.

Does anyone define manhood and womanhood as purely physical properties? I've seen biological sex defined so, but not social constructs like manhood and womanhood. How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man? Is your answer "zero, because a man is a man at the moment of conception"? When someone says "how many men are in this room" does your answer include fetuses, babies, toddlers, and boys?

I realize you're an active part of the holy crusade upon That Topic, but not everything relating to sex and gender is an outgrowth of That Topic. I don't know of any culture that has ever existed that didn't have a separate concept of manhood and womanhood from biological sex.

 

[shuttlt]

Is it nature or nurture?

yes

 

[shuttlt]

Does anyone define manhood and womanhood as purely physical properties? I've seen biological sex defined so, but not social constructs like manhood and womanhood. How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man? Is your answer "zero, because a man is a man at the moment of conception"? When someone says "how many men are in this room" does your answer include fetuses, babies, toddlers, and boys?

I realize you're an active part of the holy crusade upon That Topic, but not everything relating to sex and gender is an outgrowth of That Topic. I don't know of any culture that has ever existed that didn't have a separate concept of manhood and womanhood from biological sex.

I think the normal definition would be that a man is an adult human male. There are obviously things that can be said about the social expectations, social significance etc.. that goes with being a man.... but atypical men are still men.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think the normal definition would be that a man is an adult human male. There are obviously things that can be said about the social expectations, social significance etc.. that goes with being a man.... but atypical men are still men.

I agree...but there's already fuzziness introduced. What is adulthood? It's defined differently in different cultures. Some just have to pass a certain age (and there's another issue there--not every culture reckons ages the same way), others have to perform a specific action, others have a ritual, and others judge the passage into adulthood by a collection of responsibilities one acquires. I don't think there's a "scientific", laws-of-physical-universe definition for adulthood any more than there is for manhood or womanhood. Male, female, and physically mature are not the same as man, woman, and adult.

 

[Ziggurat]

Does anyone define manhood and womanhood as purely physical properties?

Some people do, yes.

I realize you're an active part of the holy crusade upon That Topic, but not everything relating to sex and gender is an outgrowth of That Topic. I don't know of any culture that has ever existed that didn't have a separate concept of manhood and womanhood from biological sex.

Arguments about what the typical definition is are very different than arguments about what the definition can be.

 

[ahhell]

I think the normal definition would be that a man is an adult human male. There are obviously things that can be said about the social expectations, social significance etc.. that goes with being a man.... but atypical men are still men.

Throughout my life I have been told that I am not a man because I am a male homosexual.

Questioning ones manhood as an insult, doesn't invalidate the notion that the typical definition is an adult human male.

There are also sort of cultural things associated with manhood of course. I've known a number of homosexual men that I regard as more masculine than my self. Guys that like sports and outdoors and cars and what not.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Some people do, yes.

Okay, then: define them.

Arguments about what the typical definition is are very different than arguments about what the definition can be.

What is your point? You wish to establish a scientific, physical definition for manhood and womanhood and compel the rest of us to agree to abide by it? Good luck with that. I'm sure each of humanity's several hundred cultures will be falling over themselves to buy into your ideas.

 

[EaglePuncher]

Questioning ones manhood as an insult, doesn't invalidate the notion that the typical definition is an adult human male.

Your inability to (react to) change is your problem, not ours.

There are also sort of cultural things associated with manhood of course. I've known a number of homosexual men that I regard as more masculine than my self. Guys that like sports and outdoors and cars and what not.

Cool story, bro.

 

[Ziggurat]

You wish to establish a scientific, physical definition for manhood and womanhood and compel the rest of us to agree to abide by it?

No, I don't wish to do anything of the sort. I have no interest in trying to control the language of others. That's a fetish of the far left.

 

[Brainster]

Be honest. Did you watch it? How much of the show referenced transgendered people?

At this point, I think any comic worth his salt is going to be including a short segment on the transgendered, just because of the free media it attracts. I had never watched a Dave Chappelle comedy special before the uproar about a year ago. I do a bit of googling and guess whose YouTube videos pop up to the top of my recommended list? Ditto with John Mulaney, once I looked him up for his sin of having Chappelle open for him.

 

[theprestige]

I found the material hilarious, but Gervais is preaching to the choir with me. And I think there are limits to how far you can get with saying something offensive, and then following it up with "relax, it's just a joke!" At some point you stop being a comedian and start being a scumbag with a fig leaf. And I can see how Gervais may have reached that point with some of this material.

 

[Robin]

I think the normal definition would be that a man is an adult human male. There are obviously things that can be said about the social expectations, social significance etc.. that goes with being a man.... but atypical men are still men.

When and in what context has that ever been the "typical" definition?

When and where was the term not overloaded with layers of meaning about social roles and expectations and behavioral rules?

Are you prepared to say that every man is, by definition, manly?

Are you prepared to say that, by definition, no man is unmanly?

Otherwise "man" is a social concept which admits of gradations.

So why should people who don't buy into those gender categories not go and pick their own.