TERFs crash London Pride

[caveman1917]

It's not a matter of a better definition, but of acknowledging that the word has more than one meaning. When YOU say women you're talking about adult human females, and when "they" say it, they're referring to the status and social space usually occupied by an adult human female.

Don't you find it funny that those people so intent on redefining "man" and "woman" always end up with definitions with the most reactionary consequences possible? For example, by your definition, all CEO's are men even if they are female and all nurses are women even if they are male, since CEO is a social space usually occupied by males and nurse is a social space usually occupied by females. Or more generally, women can not occupy high social status and men can not occupy low social status, because high social status is usually occupied by males and low social status usually occupied by females, so if a male occupies a low social status he is a woman and if a female occupies a high social status she is a man.

So no, the word does not have more than one meaning, the only thing to acknowledge here is that some people exist who attempt to redefine the words for a political agenda.

 

[Darat]

I don't know what her intent was, but I found it interesting enough to do a scholar search of the author, and who had cited her previous, similar work, and who had cited those works.

The topics of "What is the cause of the increase in minors self-identifying as transgender and seeking medical treatment for it, and what's the best way to treat them?" appears to be a matter of valid, extreme scientific controversy.

Not denying they are interesting, only just skimmed through at the moment, but if someone posts a link and quotes I assume they are trying to make a point or support a claim. But if they won't tell you why they've posted the links and quotes it's hard to know what they expect as a response. Not a good way to have a productive discussion.

 

[kellyb]

Don't you find it funny that those people so intent on redefining "man" and "woman" always end up with definitions with the most reactionary consequences possible? For example, by your definition, all CEO's are men even if they are female and all nurses are women even if they are male, since CEO is a social space usually occupied by males and nurse is a social space usually occupied by females. Or more generally, women can not occupy high social status and men can not occupy low social status, because high social status is usually occupied by males and low social status usually occupied by females, so if a male occupies a low social status he is a woman and if a female occupies a high social status she is a man.

So no, the word does not have more than one meaning, the only thing to acknowledge here is that some people exist who attempt to redefine the words for a political agenda.

No, that just means I gave a bad secondary definition. How about as a second definition: "an intersex person who self-identifies as a woman, or an adult human male whose gender identity is that of a woman."

 

[caveman1917]

No, that just means I gave a bad secondary definition. How about as a second definition: "an intersex person who self-identifies as a woman, or an adult human male whose gender identity is that of a woman."

Those are circular again, you're using the word you're defining (woman) in its own definition.

Rather than pumping out definition after definition, take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Other than the standard definition (in terms of scientific/biological categories of age/reproductive stage, species and sex) you'll have two classes of definitions available:

1. Circular ones. All the ones of the form "A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" and its variations.

2. Social ones. All the ones of the form "A woman is someone with the social status/space usually occupied with an adult human female" and variations thereupon (they're all just variations on "A woman is anyone who is feminine"). This immediately leads to results such as:

- A woman can't be a CEO.
- A man can't be a nurse.
- A man can not wear a dress.
- Men can not have long hair.
- Women can not have short hair.
- Butch lesbians aren't women.
- Effeminate gay men aren't men.
-...and so on.

There's no way to do it without being either meaninglessly circular or blatantly sexist.

 

[kellyb]

Fair enough. How about this?

1) an adult human female 2) a person who self-identifies as having the gender identity of those of female sex

 

[Darat]

Or "who cares", if folk are happy leave them be. If they actually harass/abuse/hurt someone else then do something.

 

[kellyb]

Or "who cares", if folk are happy leave them be. If they actually harass/abuse/hurt someone else then do something.

At some point it starts to matter when you're talking about "women's sports" and the laws about prison inmate housing. I'm fine with letting actual policy makers suss that stuff out, though.

But yeah, in basic, normal conversation, I certainly don't care. "When in doubt, try to be a nice person" is how I try to roll, and I see no need to make an exception in this case.

 

[luchog]

"Welcome to Transgender Trend

This site is for everyone who is concerned about the social and medical ‘transition’ of children, the introduction of ‘gender identity’ teaching into schools and new policies and legislation based on subjective ideas of ‘gender’ rather than the biological reality of sex.

It is for parents or carers who are concerned about their teenager’s sudden identification as ‘transgender’ or worried about the new teaching of ideology as fact and the introduction of mixed-sex toilets and changing-rooms in their child’s school.

It is for feminists and allies who are concerned about the erosion of sex-based rights and protections for women and girls.

It is for lesbian and gay adults who fear for this generation of gay and lesbian children and adolescents encouraged to see themselves as ‘trans’ and straight.

It is for adult trans people who are concerned about the ‘identity politics’ movement and its promotion to children and adolescents.

It is for teachers and professionals who are increasingly concerned about policies which they cannot challenge for fear of being labeled ‘transphobic.’

It is for everyone who questions the medicalisation of childhood feelings, the invasive and life-changing treatment of minors and the aggressive tactics of transgender and LGBT organisations to promote and normalise this medical experiment."

Nice unbiased source, then.

Except for missing references to God and "recruiting", over half of that could have been lifted directly from some evangelical Christian publication.

 

[luchog]

And, of course, Cuban heels and platform shoes were very much in for the boys in teh 1970s.

Oh yeah. Cuban heels are great! And platform shoes are certainly on par with stiletto heels as far as being uncomfortable and risky for your ankles.

Cuban, Western Walking and Western Riding, and Latin Dance heels, along with platforms of various sorts, are still quite popular for men in certain large subcultures, such as Goths. Of course, so is feminine or androgynous fashion incorporating styles of footwear that mainstream culture relegates to women only.

 

[Darat]

At some point it starts to matter when you're talking about "women's sports" and the laws about prison inmate housing. I'm fine with letting actual policy makers suss that stuff out, though.

But yeah, in basic, normal conversation, I certainly don't care. "When in doubt, try to be a nice person" is how I try to roll, and I see no need to make an exception in this case.

Sport is an easy one since they are all "private" organisations so can use any criteria they want, several sporting bodies already have been dealing with this issue. And again if it is a serious issue in prisons (can't see why it would be but some claim it is I'd like to see the statistics that shows it is a problem) then have a separate wing. There is no need to have one single response.

 

[kellyb]

Sport is an easy one since they are all "private" organisations so can use any criteria they want, several sporting bodies already have been dealing with this issue. And again if it is a serious issue in prisons (can't see why it would be but some claim it is I'd like to see the statistics that shows it is a problem) then have a separate wing. There is no need to have one single response.

There aren't any statistics, because males and females have traditionally been housed separately. But there's no way it would not become a problem if people with penises started being housed with people with vaginas.

 

[Aber]

There aren't any statistics, because males and females have traditionally been housed separately. But there's no way it would not become a problem if people with penises started being housed with people with vaginas.

Some UK information on transgender prisoners:

Prisoners' convictions
We submitted Freedom of Information requests to the Ministry of Justice.
It said that 60 of the 125 transgender inmates it counted in England and Wales were serving time for a sexual offence.
This is roughly half - but it's not the full picture.
Remember - those 125 transgender inmates only include people who have had a prison case conference. It won't include transgender people who haven't identified themselves to the prison service or who already have a gender recognition certificate.
Of the 60 serving time for sexual offences:
27 were convicted of rape (plus a further five of attempted rape)
13 were convicted of possessing, distributing or making indecent images of children
13 were convicted of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault
Nine were convicted of causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity
Seven were convicted of sexual activity with a child
Seven were convicted of indecent assault or gross indecency
Those numbers add up to more than 60 because some prisoners are serving time for more than one offence.
We don't know the gender of the victims or perpetrators in these cases.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42221629

 

[Darat]

Some UK information on transgender prisoners:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42221629

That's not got as far as I can see any crimes committed whilst in prison?

 

[sadhatter]

When have you ever been expected to wear heels?

Change expected to ashamed and you are talking of the myriad of products for men to simulate height. Many guys wear them.

 

[kellyb]

Change expected to ashamed and you are talking of the myriad of products for men to simulate height. Many guys wear them.

What simulates height, and do they make your feet deformed over time and cause the many other health problems high heels do?

If you re-read back over the exchange, by the way, you'll see that I arguing that increasing height is not the core reason why women wear high heels.

 

[Aber]

That's not got as far as I can see any crimes committed whilst in prison?

Given there's only 125 that shouldn't be surprising, but:

A transgender prisoner is accused of sexually assaulting four female inmated at a West Yorkshire prison days after she was jailed. The first alleged attack is said to have taken place within a week of her arrival at New Hall jail in Wakefield.

https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/18/transgender-prisoner-sexually-assaulted-female-inmates-days-jailed-7728870/

 

[JihadJane]

Fair enough. How about this?

1) an adult human female 2) a person who self-identifies as having the gender identity of those of female sex

Gender is not the same as sex. Gender, a social construct, is fluid and always changing. For example, pink used to be seen as as masculine colour.

So, please define "gender identity of those of the female sex"? What are the characteristics of this "gender"?

A man who self-identifies as having the gender identity (whatever that is) of those of female sex is still a man (adult human male) so , no, I do not accept this as a valid definition of the word "woman".

 

[JihadJane]

"Welcome to Transgender Trend

This site is for everyone who is concerned about the social and medical ‘transition’ of children, the introduction of ‘gender identity’ teaching into schools and new policies and legislation based on subjective ideas of ‘gender’ rather than the biological reality of sex.

It is for parents or carers who are concerned about their teenager’s sudden identification as ‘transgender’ or worried about the new teaching of ideology as fact and the introduction of mixed-sex toilets and changing-rooms in their child’s school.

It is for feminists and allies who are concerned about the erosion of sex-based rights and protections for women and girls.

It is for lesbian and gay adults who fear for this generation of gay and lesbian children and adolescents encouraged to see themselves as ‘trans’ and straight.

It is for adult trans people who are concerned about the ‘identity politics’ movement and its promotion to children and adolescents.

It is for teachers and professionals who are increasingly concerned about policies which they cannot challenge for fear of being labeled ‘transphobic.’

It is for everyone who questions the medicalisation of childhood feelings, the invasive and life-changing treatment of minors and the aggressive tactics of transgender and LGBT organisations to promote and normalise this medical experiment."

Nice unbiased source, then.

What would you add to or take away from this description of the website's purpose to make it an "unbiased" source of information?




Here's a video of a transman Alex Bertie's head asploding while grappling with the same website:



Here is a critical response to Alex's meltdown:

 

[kellyb]

Gender is not the same as sex.

That's "their" point.

What's your definition of gender?

Gender, a social construct, is fluid and always changing. For example, pink used to be seen as as masculine colour.

Agreed.

So, please define "gender identity of those of the female sex"? What are the characteristics of this "gender"?

I'm not 100% sure, and it would take a small essay for me to describe what I think is going on there with any real accuracy.

The flawed "in a nutshell" version of "gender identity of those of the female sex" is "has a gender identity which is feminine."

A man who self-identifies as having the gender identity (whatever that is) of those of female sex is still a man (adult human male) so , no, I do not accept this as a valid definition of the word "woman".

You're back you just dogmatically asserting that the word "man" = "is a male" again, for the millionth time.

 

[JihadJane]

It's not a matter of a better definition, but of acknowledging that the word has more than one meaning. When YOU say women you're talking about adult human females, and when "they" say it, they're referring to the status and social space usually occupied by an adult human female.

That definition confuses roles with physical human beings.

Look at the wildly different definitions of the word gay:

...

Do you think any one meaning is harmed by acknowledging different uses of the sound and letters in that order to signify a totally different mental concept? The purpose of language is simply to accurately transmit the thoughts of one person into the mind of another or others.

It's works both ways. Language can also be used to tell lies and to manipulate (propaganda).

Besides those who want (and believe it is their right) to include men in the biological sex category "woman", I haven't seen any definition of the word"woman" that changes its meaning from being a human being belonging to the sex that is able to give birth to babies.

As for the word "gay", saying "What a gay day!" now has a different meaning to the one it had before "gay" came to also mean male homosexual.

Redefining "woman" to also mean "man" renders the word "woman" as a signifier for "adult human female" meaningless and redundant. It erases women as a distinct group of humans.

How many participants in this thread do you think reject the fringe "misgendering is literal violence" claim, but would agree with me that calling transwomen men is controversial, insensitive, rude, ignorant, or something like that? Do you really believe I'm the only one? If so, would a poll be useful?

I don't know. 42? I do know you're not the only one.

Yes, a poll could be useful and interesting.

BTW: What's ignorant about calling transwomen men?

What's the point of even posting in these threads if you aren't interested in changing anyone's mind?

To learn and discern what is true and what is false. It's a collective endeavour.

I'm interested in other people changing my mind. I regard this forum as a place to test ideas and beliefs amongst educated and intelligent critical thinkers who will, if possible, debunk beliefs that are not grounded in concrete reality.

If anyone's mind were changed by anything I posted, I would regard that as a million dollar miracle!

One can be an epistemological solipsist without being a dualist who believes in a mind body split, per say. Do you think beliefs aren't even real in people's minds? Like, would you say that concepts don't exist, even within minds?

The core of narcissistic perception is the delusion that feelings are facts: I feel like a woman inside, therefore I am a woman.