Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

theprestige said:
Seriously, dude?

But okay, sure: You've been arguing for a year now that "woman" needs to be defined first. So. What's your definition of "woman"? (Nevermind that the gender-critical consensus on this board for more than a year has been "a woman is an adult human female".)
Click to expand...
I don't have a personal Humpty Dumpty definition. The English language has a couple. Your acceptance of only one kinda has you in denial of the rest of English speaking world. Which is okay. I guess.
 
Ziggurat said:
I have consistently said that the proper general definition for "woman" is "adult human female".
Click to expand...
See the above response to theprestige. Breaking down 'adult human female', you don't mean adult, unless you are claiming the women's room is off limits to minors. 'Human' is also silly, as we are not discussing ocelot usage of public facilities. What you are saying is a woman must be a female. While that is true in the overwhelming majority, we have that little tiny crossed wire contingent, that the English speakers consider people too, and you change the language to deny.
 
Thermal said:
I don't have a personal Humpty Dumpty definition. The English language has a couple. Your acceptance of only one kinda has you in denial of the rest of English speaking world. Which is okay. I guess.
Click to expand...
This is part of why I don't take you seriously. You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth. I say we should define terms first, you say you've been arguing for doing so for years, but then you say you haven't done so. Why the ◊◊◊◊ not? You've had years in which to come up with a definition of "woman", which you just admitted is the first thing to do, and you still haven't managed it? It's like you WANT to just hover in this state of indeterminacy, so that you can feel superior to the gender critical folks and call them transphobes without having to actually defend the TRA position. It's intellectual cowardice.

And having your definition is not the same thing as denying that other people use other definitions. Nobody here denies that TRA's don't use "adult human female" as the definition of "woman".
 
Ziggurat said:
This is part of why I don't take you seriously.
Click to expand...
Ya I can see that. Try reading for comprehension instead of your clairvoyant bull ◊◊◊◊.

I don't have a definition. You only acknowledge one that is convenient for your argument. The TRAs want to use whichever works for them at the time. That's why I think we need a formal consensus and hard lined clarity. I believe if the distinction between what is a woman and a female is hammered out unambiguously, the problems largely vanish.
 
Thermal said:
See the above response to theprestige. Breaking down 'adult human female', you don't mean adult, unless you are claiming the women's room is off limits to minors.
Click to expand...
This is attempted pedantry, but pedantry done wrong, because your reading comprehension sucks. Pay closer attention.
Ziggurat said:
I have consistently said that the proper general definition for "woman" is "adult human female".
Click to expand...
See that qualifier I hilighted? I am explicitly stating that this is not a universal definition. It is a general definition. Other context-dependent definitions exist. For example, "women" when used in the context of a bathroom generally extends to children as well. But the "adult" part is relevant in some contexts, and it distinguishes "woman" from "girl" in those contexts.
Thermal said:
'Human' is also silly, as we are not discussing ocelot usage of public facilities.
Click to expand...
Why is that silly? Yes, bathrooms are generally for humans, this is commonly understood, and you don't really need to make it explicit. But there's nothing wrong with making it explicit either. When communicating, we often avoid unnecessary specificity because it usually takes longer to convey and process additional information. But this isn't one of those cases. "Women" is just as easy to interpret on a bathroom door as "female". The "human" component may be unnecessary, strictly speaking, but so the ◊◊◊◊ what? Unless you WANT to admit animals into the bathroom, then why would "female" be preferable to "women"?

You really don't understand how people communicate. Which is perhaps why you're so bad at it.
Thermal said:
What you are saying is a woman must be a female.
Click to expand...
Yes. By definition.
Thermal said:
While that is true in the overwhelming majority
Click to expand...
If the definition is "adult human female", or even "human female", then it's not true of the majority, it's true of all of them. Yes, it's not true of all of them under some other definitions, but why should we adopt those other definitions? You aren't presenting an actual argument for why we should.
Thermal said:
we have that little tiny crossed wire contingent, that the English speakers consider people too, and you change the language to deny.
Click to expand...
You're trying to change the language, not me. And how am I denying trans identifying males? I am not. By calling them women, you are denying that they are male. Now, some of them may WANT us to deny that they are male, but why should I prioritize their desires over reality? Denying their preference does not deny their existence.
 
Ziggurat said:
Murder is already illegal, and yet people want gun control. Why? To reduce risk. And not just risk of rape, but also of harassment and voyeurism.
Click to expand...
Are you in favor of gun control? Specifically, are you in favor of gun control laws similar to those in Japan and/or Australia?
 
Thermal said:
I don't have a definition.
Click to expand...
No ◊◊◊◊. I didn't say you did. In fact, my criticism was specifically how pathetic it was that you still didn't.
Thermal said:
You only acknowledge one that is convenient for your argument.
Click to expand...
No, I only use one myself. I only think one definition works. I have never had any problem acknowledging that other people use other definitions. I have done so regularly and explicitly, including in this current exchange.
Thermal said:
The TRAs want to use whichever works for them at the time. That's why I think we need a formal consensus and hard lined clarity. I believe if the distinction between what is a woman and a female is hammered out unambiguously, the problems largely vanish.
Click to expand...
That is stupid.

Why is it stupid? Because you will never get formal consensus or hard lined clarity. Because the fight is not and has never been about the definitions except as a proxy for what actually matters. The fight is and has always been about access, not words. Because the TRA's want males to be able to enter female spaces, they will never accept a definition that prohibits that access. Because the gender critical folks don't want males given unfettered access to female spaces, they will never accept a definition that allows that access. The only possible way you could get the two sides to agree on a single definition of "woman" is to decouple the definition from the outcome, so that neither side loses the outcome battle because of the definition. But that REQUIRES that the battle over access remains unresolved, and so the problem doesn't vanish at all. And only a fool could ever believe it would.
 
Puppycow said:
Are you in favor of gun control? Specifically, are you in favor of gun control laws similar to those in Japan and/or Australia?
Click to expand...
Not relevant to this thread. The statement was about people's motivations and logic, not about efficacy or cost. If you want to make an argument about the efficacy or cost of sex segregation rules, then make it. But I do not see any challenge to the basic principle that we can make rules to reduce the risk of events that are themselves prohibited. Efficacy and cost can argue against specific risk reduction measures, but not against the category.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not relevant to this thread. The statement was about people's motivations and logic, not about efficacy or cost. If you want to make an argument about the efficacy or cost of sex segregation rules, then make it. But I do not see any challenge to the basic principle that we can make rules to reduce the risk of events that are themselves prohibited. Efficacy and cost can argue against specific risk reduction measures, but not against the category.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that the point you made isn't actually relevant?
 
Puppycow said:
So you're saying that the point you made isn't actually relevant?
Click to expand...
Rule of so. No, that's a stupid and wrong interpretation of what I said.

arth pointed out that rape is illegal, and used that to argue that sex segregation in intimate spaces wasn't justified by the threat of rape. But that is obviously incorrect logic, because we regularly take measures to prohibit things in order to reduce the risk of other things which are already prohibited. To take a less politically charged example, we prohibit speeding. Why? Not because speed itself causes harm, but because it increases the risk of car accidents. Car accidents are already prohibited. But the prohibition on speeding is used to further reduce the risk beyond what the direct prohibition on car accidents themselves accomplishes. Rape is indeed prohibited, but the risk of rape can be further reduced through enforcing sex segregation in intimate spaces.

If you want to argue that sex segregation doesn't work or isn't worth the cost it imposes, go ahead and do so. But you cannot logically argue that it's unjustified because rape is already prohibited. It doesn't work that way. And I don't know why this isn't obvious.
 
Ziggurat said:
Rule of so. No, that's a stupid and wrong interpretation of what I said.

arth pointed out that rape is illegal, and used that to argue that sex segregation in intimate spaces wasn't justified by the threat of rape. But that is obviously incorrect logic, because we regularly take measures to prohibit things in order to reduce the risk of other things which are already prohibited. To take a less politically charged example, we prohibit speeding. Why? Not because speed itself causes harm, but because it increases the risk of car accidents. Car accidents are already prohibited. But the prohibition on speeding is used to further reduce the risk beyond what the direct prohibition on car accidents themselves accomplishes. Rape is indeed prohibited, but the risk of rape can be further reduced through enforcing sex segregation in intimate spaces.

If you want to argue that sex segregation doesn't work or isn't worth the cost it imposes, go ahead and do so. But you cannot logically argue that it's unjustified because rape is already prohibited. It doesn't work that way. And I don't know why this isn't obvious.
Click to expand...
The cost of allowing everyone to own as many guns as they want is that sometimes a crazy teenager with an AR-15 walks into an elementary school and murders a classroom full of kindergartners. Has there ever been anything comparable because of allowing transgender people to use public restrooms?
 
Again, if you want to make an argument about the costs or efficacy of sex segregation, then do so. I'm not going to engage on off-topic issues.
 
Puppycow said:
The cost of allowing everyone to own as many guns as they want is that sometimes a crazy teenager with an AR-15 walks into an elementary school and murders a classroom full of kindergartners. Has there ever been anything comparable because of allowing transgender people to use public restrooms?
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying transgender people cannot use public restrooms.
 
Puppycow said:
The cost of allowing everyone to own as many guns as they want is that sometimes a crazy teenager with an AR-15 walks into an elementary school and murders a classroom full of kindergartners. Has there ever been anything comparable because of allowing transgender people to use public restrooms?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Has anything comparable happened by requiring trans identifying males to use the men's restrooms?
 
Thermal said:
See the above response to theprestige. Breaking down 'adult human female', you don't mean adult, unless you are claiming the women's room is off limits to minors. 'Human' is also silly, as we are not discussing ocelot usage of public facilities. What you are saying is a woman must be a female. While that is true in the overwhelming majority, we have that little tiny crossed wire contingent, that the English speakers consider people too, and you change the language to deny.
Click to expand...
The tiny crossed wire contingent being males who believe they should be adult human females, and that they should be entitled to move through society as if they were adult human females.

That's an unambiguous definition, and you're right that if you use it, the problem largely goes away.
 
Aber said:
New Zealand news

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/govt-taking-precautionary-approach-puberty-blockers
Click to expand...
Read this last night.

Its a step in the right direction and a further turning of the tide away from the madness and towards reality

In other "NZ Gender Debate" news, the "New Zealand Breakers" and ANBL Basketball team have refused to wear the progressive Pride Insignia on their uniforms during Pride Round.

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz www.stuff.co.nz
​
The club said it was a collective decision to not wear the logo as part of the round that recognises the LGBTQIA+ community.​
"In line with the league's voluntary participation policy to wear the patch, the players discussed the matter as a team," the club said. "Some players raised religious and cultural concerns about wearing the insignia.​
"To protect individual players from being singled out for their beliefs, the team collectively decided they would either all wear the insignia or none would.​
​
"The club respects the human rights of all individuals, including their right to freedom of expression."​

As predictable as ever TRA heads have exploded in rage, firing hatred and invective at the team. The usual behaviour we have come to expect from them.
 
Thermal said:
See the above response to theprestige. Breaking down 'adult human female', you don't mean adult, unless you are claiming the women's room is off limits to minors.
Click to expand...
This is about as stupid as it gets. Women are adults... female minors are called "Girls".

And I am intelligent enough and sufficiently well versed in the biological sciences to know that I don't need a definition of "woman" in order to understand that what you choose to call a "transwoman" is not a woman, its a man - a transgender identified male.

However, if I you held my feet to the fire, and demanded I define the two sexes.....

Woman: The common or socially constructed term for a sexually mature female member of the human species whose body is arranged to produce large immotile gametes.

Man: The common or socially constructed term for a sexually mature male member of the human species whose body is arranged to produce small motile gametes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom