• 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.

Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

Status
Not open for further replies.

In fairness, I think Emily's Cat uses "Penis Haver" as kind of a parody response to the term "cervix haver" in order to illustrate to males how the terminology can be degrading.

I'm not sure she's been successful, possibly due to the historical power imbalance between the sexes and the societal history of valuing females largely for their reproductive capacity.
 
Who is they?

Bear in mind that:
  1. The seperation of sex and gender into seperate concepts

  1. The language may be new, but the usage of terms like "male" and "female" to refer to social categories built on top of biological sex and assumed to have obligations to present and behave in certain ways is very, very old.

    In fact someone was complaining that some of my examples were dated.
 
In fairness, I think Emily's Cat uses "Penis Haver" as kind of a parody response to the term "cervix haver" in order to illustrate to males how the terminology can be degrading.

I'm not sure she's been successful, possibly due to the historical power imbalance between the sexes and the societal history of valuing females largely for their reproductive capacity.
Actually if someone called me a penis haver I don't think I would be offended. I might think the term rather odd, but not offensive.
 
The language may be new, but the usage of terms like "male" and "female" to refer to social categories built on top of biological sex and assumed to have obligations to present and behave in certain ways is very, very old.

In fact someone was complaining that some of my examples were dated.

Your failure to recognise the difference between the terms “biological sex” and “gender” is making it impossible to communicate with you. Maybe this is your intention..
 
More offensive is the implication that being a johnson-haver automatically mandates that I should be lumped into a social category with all the other johnson-havers.
 
You are missing the mark because I didn't say they said I was female. I said they said I was a sissy.

Different thing.

You need to rewrite your statement based on that clarification.

I "need" do no such thing.

You're the one who is making the leap from "sissy" to "woman" and then conflating the figurative sense of woman with the literal sense of woman.

I'm not going to rewrite my post to cater to your unique interpretation, when I think your interpretation makes very little sense and is also irrelevant.
 
More offensive is the implication that being a johnson-haver automatically mandates that I should be lumped into a social category with all the other johnson-havers.
"Male" is not a social category for our purposes here. No one here has been attempting to argue that males must adopt masculine virtues.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 
Your failure to recognise the difference between the terms “biological sex” and “gender” is making it impossible to communicate with you. Maybe this is your intention..

Your failure to recognise, despite all the evidence, that the general usage does not refer to simply biological sex or to even acknowledge the argument I am.making makes it impossible to discuss it with you..

Think for a moment. If I wanted to know what gender I was, how would I go about it?
 
Last edited:
There is no objective fact of the matter about what words mean.

Words are defined by usage. Does anyone disagree?

Moreover the meaning of words and phrases is not a simple thing. There are layers of meaning and overtones.

It is my position that the general usage of words like "sex", "male", "female", "man" and "woman" does not refer purely to biological sex, but rather to a social category built on top of biological sex which includes expectations and obligations to present and act in a certain way.

This presentation and behaviour that is expected is more or less arbitrary, differing from place to place and time to time.

You can make up whatever meaning you want to for common terms, and use them however you want to. I'm not the boss of your mind.

That said, however, if you insist upon using words in the way you want to, and ignoring the general sense that they're being used in this thread, you're not going to make any headway at all in understanding. You'll pretty much be left yelling at a wall and being baffled as to why the wall isn't answering you.

I take it that the position of those who disagree with me is that, in general usage words like "sex", "male", "female", "man" and "woman" refer to biological sex and nothing besides.

If you think I am misrepresenting your position, please say so.

You keep trying to force ALL of the terms to be either strictly

Once again... take a moment and give some though to the difference between figurative language and literal language.

You keep trying to force the terms to be ALL strictly figurative, or to be ALL strictly literal... and you're making the false assumption that everyone else is doing the same thing.

Generally speaking, most of the posters in this thread use "sex", "male", and "female" as literal language, referring to the reproductive configuration of our bodies.

Most of the posters use "gender", "man", and "woman" as figurative language, referring to social roles and presentations.

There are a very few exceptions... which makes communication difficult. Rolfe, for example, uses the terms "man" and "woman" as synonymous to "male" and "female", and uses them ALL in a literal sense. Rolfe gives exactly zero ***** about social roles and presentations. (I agree with Rolfe, but I have gone a different direction and instead of trying to fight that particular battle, I've simply opted out of it completely and refuse to use figurative language unless I'm being very, very clear that it is figurative).

A few others, like London John, use the terms interchangeably, but they also consistently conflate the literal and the figurative senses... making the entire discussion a bit of bait and switch game.

Pick how you want to use them, be explicit about how you're using them, and be consistent.
 
"Male" is not a social category for our purposes here.
I thought our purpose here was to establish what the general everyday usage was. If Rowling's comments referred only to specialised usage of the term then it wouldn't make sense.
 
Last edited:
Your failure to recognise, despite all the evidence, that the general usage does not refer to simply biological sex or to even acknowledge the argument I am.making makes it impossible to discuss it with you..

Think for a moment. If I wanted to know what gender I was, how would I go about it?

The general usage of what?

And if you do not know what gender you identify with at any given time, nobody can help you.

Are you trying to engage in good faith or not?
 
Last edited:
What have I been doing for the last few pages? Just that.

When I, as a young child, played with dolls houses, took ballet lessons and read Anne of Green Gables and Black Beauty I was called a sissy

Did anyone ever call you female? Did anyone ever actually say that you were not male?

Stop substituting words and pretending they're the same when they clearly are not conveying the same information.
 
And yet you define "woman" entirely as nothing more thann a set of bodily functions.
I do not.

First off, I don't define "woman" at all, I define "female". Secondly, I don't define it as a set of bodily functions. I define it as a bodily configuration based on reproductive roles within our species.

Why isn't that offensive?
Calling a female horse a female horse doesn't rob the horse of any inherent horsiness.

Calling a female horse a "gestational body" does.
 
.
That said, however, if you insist upon using words in the way you want to, and ignoring the general sense that they're being used in this thread, ...
Again, were discussing the general sense the terms are used in everyday life.

If you are discussing something else then you're comments are irrelevant to what I am saying.
 
Last edited:
I do not.

First off, I don't define "woman" at all, I define "female". Secondly, I don't define it as a set of bodily functions. I define it as a bodily configuration based on reproductive roles within our species.
That is a rather abstruse distinction.
 
Incidentally saying something about an abstract concept doesn't make the statement figurative.

Saying you owe $100,000 to the bank is not a figurative statement it is a literal one. Saying that you can't park on a freeway is not a figurative statement it is a literal one.

A figurative statement is something like "he wears his heart on his sleeve"

The literal/figurative point is way way off base.
 
Last edited:
Did anyone ever call you female? Did anyone ever actually say that you were not male?

Stop substituting words and pretending they're the same when they clearly are not conveying the same information.
At least read what I say before you comment on it.

It just wastes time when you tell me to stop doing what I very obviously haven't done.
 
Last edited:
That is a rather abstruse distinction.
Abstruse or not, it is useful because it distinguishes some terms without which confusion will reign because distinctions that crucial to differences in opinions are obscured.
 
When I am making a point about the general usage of the word, my point is not negated by people saying that they are not using the word that way in this context.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom