p0lka
Illuminator
If I think you are confused and you think I am confused and you've ruled out nobody is confused then one or both of us is confused?
Last edited:
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,643
I don't accept the premise that "women" is a gender label and not a sex label. Some people use it to mean gender, but I feel no compulsion to abide by their preferences, or to use it the same way they do.
Transwomen are not women. That is a rational statement. Is that answer clear enough for you?
Rolfe
Adult human female
I've been in more McDonald's recently than I'd probably have chosen, because I was road-tripping in an electric car and they tend to have good chargers beside them. I don't remember Male and Female, I think they used the little silhouettes with the skirt-figure and the trousered-figure. And, strange to relate, women in trousers used the one with the skirt-silhouette and men in kilts used the one with the trousers-silhouette. Nobody was confused.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Or one of us is being inexplicably disingenuous for some reason. I know it isn't me. I've been very blunt and very clear on this subject for years, now. You're the one acting confused about sex vs gender, not me.
Thermal
August Member
It can be. It can also be rationally false, using common English language dictionary definitions. That's pretty much the topic here?
p0lka
Illuminator
Yeah sorry, the post you replied to was a joke, I was messing around.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Well, I'm being serious. And I stand by my position that nobody is as confused as you purport to be, about the meaning of "man" and "woman" in various contexts.
p0lka
Illuminator
Ok fair enough.
People in society are using gender labels to describe themselves quite apart from their sex though? It's a factual thing that has been happening?
I agree with you that Transwomen are not female. The gender labels add to the non specific terms that society uses and introduces vagueness though.
p0lka
Illuminator
Ok I'll be serious Where is my confusion? what do you think I'm confused about?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,643
Some people use language differently than I do, yes. That happens. What's your point?
That's not what I said. I said trans women are not women. You do NOT agree with me about that.
None of this debate has anything to do with anyone being confused. The conflict is about different desired outcomes. And no one is under any illusion about what those different outcomes actually are, regardless of what labels they stick on them. You are continuing to be dishonest about this.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
To be clear: I don't think you're confused about anything. I think you're purporting to be confused about waht woman means in the context of sex segregation.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,643
Sort of. The real question is actually whether transwomen get to transcend sex segregation, for which the title question of the thread is basically a proxy.
But we need not even settle that question here. We need not agree on which definition to use. For now, it is enough to note that many people use "women" to indicate sex and not gender, and that even were we to adopt "female" as the label for bathrooms etc, it would do nothing to resolve the conflict.
p0lka
Illuminator
Just that language changes over time.
Ok, I think I understand your position. In my opinion they're not female but they can put on whatever gender label they want as society has allowed that to happen.
Doing the personal dig again Ziggurat? it's rather cute.
People in this thread seem to be treating this whole topic as a zero sum war game with an imagined enemy, wow.
I don't see it.
Thermal
August Member
Well, that's the thread, right? 50 years ago, no one would argue with you. But the times, they are a-changing, as are the concepts of men and women.
As I've said, I never found rest rooms to be strictly sex segregated. Not much by way of law or penalties for being in the "wrong" one, just an oft-trampled guideline more than anything else.
I think it would do wonders, and am still curious about the conservative resistance on this point. If an area was formally deemed sex segregated, like a locker room or shower, it wouldn't matter anymore what that small fringe of "I totally am too a bio female" thinks. We wouldn't be relying on ambiguous terminology; innie or outie is fairly non negotiable.
Eta: and by that, I would include any male who went through the formal slice and dice to qualify as "close enough for government work" as a woman.
Last edited:
p0lka
Illuminator
Look, I'm not intentionally being an annoying twat. I am genuinely confused why society uses a gender label when they want to segregate sex, then problems arise and no one sees the stupidity of using one label to mean a different label. This seem genuinely stupid to me?
Thermal
August Member
Honestly, it's probably just habit. We said Men and Women normally, meaning guys and gals, and there wasn't much ado about it. Now, it sounds oddly clinical/sterile/ artificial to say Male and Female on a lousy rest room door. Further, it sounds like "taking sides" to abruptly change your signage after decades to wording that has become politically charged. Businesses want everyone's money, not be a leper to a large percentage in either direction.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Because the gender label has always been synonymous with the sex label, in the context of sex segregation.
Nobody ever thought the women's room was open to any man who said they were a woman.
Some people wanted it to be that way, and worked very hard to foist that notion on the rest of us. But nobody on either side of that debate was ever truly confused about what was really going on. That's my position.
The two labels are synonymous in the context of sex segregation. They always have been. Everyone understands this. There is nothing stupid about it. You're heavily invested in a confusion that doesn't actually exist.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,643
It would do nothing at all.
It's not so much that I think it should not be done, but that it will make no difference.
And what does it mean to formally deem a space as sex segregated?
It consists of specifying the rules as such. Not the label. Change the label and not the rules, and nothing changes. Change the rules but leave the label, and it does change. The rules are what matter, not the label. The rules are not the label, and the label is not the rules. Do you understand the distinction?
This is an example of confusing labels for rules. Which is the error p0lka also seems to make.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,643
For one thing, because not everyone agrees that it is a gender label and not a sex label. The TRA's push back so hard on the "woman = adult human female" precisely because the gender definition is NOT universally accepted (or even, to be frank, coherent). There's even an entire movie about it.
Thermal
August Member
What the hell are you talking about? I *am* saying clearly and unambiguously to change the rules.
The current rule is that there really is no rule, only a "I kinda feel that my interpretation is what was always meant by everybody". I'm saying lock down the definitions to remove the ambiguity exploitation, and set the goddamned rule in stone.