Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[mumblethrax]

Why exclude non-binary adult females like Quinn?

Like I said, just for the sake of argument.

But if you want an inclusive policy, cisgendered women; and transmen, transwomen, and non-binary and intersex people who perform in the same range as cisgendered women.

But why does this matter? Nobody objects to the words "adult", "human" or "female" in isolation. They object to the lexeme when used as an intentional provocation.

 

[Aber]

I've never met a living soul who thinks laws that protect people from sex-discrimination should be abolished and replaced with laws that protect people from discrimination on the basis of gender identity. If such people exist, I expect they are a tiny minority, even among the most obnoxious activists.

So what's your view on changing the definition of homosexual to

describe someone who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards someone of the same gender

?

 

[mgidm86]

There are so many "new" words, terms, acronyms, abbreviations* and names in this thread (many probably made up) that I can't make sense of it anymore. It is too ******* hard to read. I need a glossary on my second monitor. I'm not joking.

For Trump supporters:

An abbreviation is a shortened version of a word or phrase - example: KKK

 

[mumblethrax]

So what's your view on changing the definition of homosexual to?

I would first say "language doesn't really work that way." I would then say a better definition would be something like "Someone who has a romantic or sexual attraction towards someone of the same sex or gender."

 

[Ziggurat]

But why does this matter? Nobody objects to the words "adult", "human" or "female" in isolation. They object to the lexeme when used as an intentional provocation.

Why is the traditional definition suddenly offensive? I don’t accept that this can be made offensive by the dictates of a radical minority, and the rest of us have to tiptoe around it and avoid using the traditional definition out of deference. Especially when they can’t even come up with an alternative.

 

[mumblethrax]

Why is the traditional definition suddenly offensive?

Do you not understand what "when used as an intentional provocation means?"

Honestly, the feigned stupidity in this thread is off the charts.

Especially when they can’t even come up with an alternative.

Trust me: if there's one thing "they" are good at, it's coming up with alternatives.

 

[Aber]

I would first say "language doesn't really work that way." I would then say a better definition would be something like "Someone who has a romantic or sexual attraction towards someone of the same sex or gender."

Which, in the case of laws preventing discrimination of grounds of sexual orientation, meets your definition

laws that protect people from sex-discrimination should be abolished and replaced with laws that protect people from discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

 

[mumblethrax]

Which, in the case of laws preventing discrimination of grounds of sexual orientation, meets your definition

How does "sex or gender" abolish sex? And no, changing the definition of sexual orientation would not abolish sex as a protected class and replace it with gender identity. Not that either sexual orientation or gender identity are protected classes at the federal level in the US in the first place.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you not understand what "when used as an intentional provocation means?"

I don’t accept what you consider as “provocation” is actually provocation. I don’t accept that wanting to keep a traditional definition is somehow an act of aggression. It’s not a matter of not understanding, it’s a matter of you don’t get to decide my intent for me. And if you get offended by reasonable statements, that’s your problem, not mine.

Trust me: if there's one thing "they" are good at, it's coming up with alternatives.

No, they aren’t. Trans activists actively avoid giving a definition for “woman”. People on the left often aren’t allowed to give a definition (see the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings, or Matt Walsh’s movie). Hell, the easiest way to refute me would have been to provide such a definition from the radicals, but you didn’t. You might have your own personal definition, but I doubt you can provide me one which the radicals can accept.

 

[d4m10n]

Five percent of young adults identify as trans or nonbinary

https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1534907510204813312

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/08/pew-research-trans-nonbinary-young-adults/

 

[mumblethrax]

I don’t accept what you consider as “provocation” is actually provocation.

Since I didn't tell you what I consider to be provocation, I don't see how this is even possible.

I don’t accept that wanting to keep a traditional definition is somehow an act of aggression.

Since I didn't tell you that keeping a traditional definition is somehow an act of aggression, this is irrelevant.

It’s not a matter of not understanding, it’s a matter of you don’t get to decide my intent for me. And if you get offended by reasonable statements, that’s your problem, not mine.

It must be a matter of not understanding, since I did not say I get to decide your intent for you. I also didn't say that I find "adult human female" objectionable.

No, they aren’t. Trans activists actively avoid giving a definition for “woman”.

I don't think they do. They just give an operational definition. A woman is someone who answers the question "Are you a woman?" with "Yes."

People on the left often aren’t allowed to give a definition (see the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings, or Matt Walsh’s movie).

"People on the left"

But it turns out those same Republicans on the Judiciary Committee don’t agree on how to define a woman, and some wouldn’t ― or couldn’t ― give a definition when HuffPost asked Tuesday.

“I don’t have anything for you on that,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.).

“I’m not going to indulge you,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

Politicians being cagey is nothing new.

And Matt Walsh? No thanks.

Hell, the easiest way to refute me would have been to provide such a definition from the radicals, but you didn’t.

Because you didn't ask me to.

 

[d4m10n]

But if you want an inclusive policy, cisgendered women; and transmen, transwomen, and non-binary and intersex people who perform in the same range as cisgendered women.

Now I'm curious as to why you're excluding cisgendered men who perform in the same range.

They object to the lexeme when used as an intentional provocation.

Those who find a dictionary definition unduly provocative need to reexamine their own stance, especially in an argument about delimiting concepts and defining terms.

 

[mumblethrax]

Now I'm curious as to why you're excluding cisgendered men who perform in the same range.

In order to avoid overwhelming the division with cisgendered men.

Those who find dictionary definitions provocative need to reexamine their own stance

Another person who does not understand what "when used as an intentional provocation" means.

 

[theprestige]

https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1534907510204813312

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/08/pew-research-trans-nonbinary-young-adults/

Self ID is pretty much meaningless and irrelevant, as we have seen. What we really need is much more attention paid to the number of young adults who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and the number of young adults who have been diagnosed with autogynaephilia. Then we can talk about "interesting new data".

 

[mumblethrax]

Self ID is pretty much meaningless and irrelevant, as we have seen. What we really need is much more attention paid to the number of young adults who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and the number of young adults who have been diagnosed with autogynaephilia. Then we can talk about "interesting new data".

Yes, that would be a better use of resources. But I feel I should point out that autogynephilia is putatively a kind of gender dyphoria--there's no separate diagnosis.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think they do. They just give an operational definition. A woman is someone who answers the question "Are you a woman?" with "Yes."

That is not an honest definition, and they don't even believe it themselves.

Politicians being cagey is nothing new.

Sure. But being cagey about this particular subject is. What politicians are cagey about tells you something.

And Matt Walsh? No thanks.

Of course. But here's the thing: what's interesting isn't what he says. What's interesting is what the people he interviewed said or often didn't say.

Because you didn't ask me to.

Ok, I'm asking you now. Provide a real, non-circular definition. Your above one isn't.

 

[Olmstead]

I don't think they do. They just give an operational definition. A woman is someone who answers the question "Are you a woman?" with "Yes."

Operational what now? The word you're looking for is circular.

 

[mumblethrax]

That is not an honest definition, and they don't even believe it themselves.

It is an honest definition. And they do believe it, although they often don't do a good job of defining it. It's what gender identity is.

Sure. But being cagey about this particular subject is. What politicians are cagey about tells you something.

Nothing I didn't already know. But what happened to "people on the left"?

Of course. But here's the thing: what's interesting isn't what he says. What's interesting is what the people he interviewed said or often didn't say.

No, that's not particularly interesting. At least not interesting enough to delve into the Daily Wire sewer.

Ok, I'm asking you now. Provide a real, non-circular definition. Your above one isn't.

It isn't circular, if you understand what an operational definition is.

My definition would be something like:

1. an adult human female
2. an adult human who identifies as a woman1

(and then a bunch of other definitions of woman that no one's really interested in)

 

[mumblethrax]

Operational what now? The word you're looking for is circular.

Operational definition. No, it's not circular.

 

[Olmstead]

It isn't circular, if you understand what an operational definition is.

My definition would be something like:

1. an adult human female
2. an adult human who identifies as a woman1

A woman2 is an adult human who identifies as an adult human female?

Fun. Next question, how can you identify as something you're not?