2 2
brenthutch

What is a woman?

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, metalslug said:

 

But not a single case in which a man meets the definition of a woman.

Your definition does not really matter. Some people want to live as well as they can as a different gender from the one that comes most naturally with their genes, or in some cases their genes are not arranged in the standard way. Either way, in the most plain terms, it's no skin off your ass. Why does it upset you and Winsor and some others so? At the same time I also am inpatient with those who look for biological arguments to justify it. There is no justification needed. Just let people alone. Why should you care? The world is not going to fall apart into some abyss of gender dysphoria. The social order will not collapse. Boys will still mostly like girls and girls will still mostly like boys. Nothing will change except that some people will feel less oppressed and more free. Move alone now, there's nothing for you to see here.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

... Nothing will change except that some people will feel less oppressed and more free. Move alone now, there's nothing for you to see here.

Well,  that's the problem.

THOSE PEOPLE shouldn't be able to be 'less oppressed' or 'more free'.

They should go back in the closet where they belong.

Where the 'good people' won't have to see them.
Or worry about 'them' corrupting 'the children'.

That's for coaches to do.
And priests.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, metalslug said:

But not a single case in which a man meets the definition of a woman.

You just posted a case in which a (genetic) man meets the definition of a woman.

I will let you take that up with Metalslug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Boys will still mostly like girls and girls will still mostly like boys. 

Is that what you think this is about? Is gay and trans completely synonymous to you or are you attempting a strawman? Many gay people (arguably most gay people) are completely fine with a gender identity matching their biology.

9 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Your definition does not really matter. Some people want to live as well as they can as a different gender from the one that comes most naturally with their genes, or in some cases their genes are not arranged in the standard way. Either way, in the most plain terms, it's no skin off your ass. Why does it upset you and Winsor and some others so? At the same time I also am inpatient with those who look for biological arguments to justify it. There is no justification needed. Just let people alone. Why should you care? The world is not going to fall apart into some abyss of gender dysphoria. The social order will not collapse. Boys will still mostly like girls and girls will still mostly like boys. Nothing will change except that some people will feel less oppressed and more free. Move alone now, there's nothing for you to see here.

Those are not my definitions. In this case they are Merriam-Webster definitions and are much more widely accepted than the fringe opinions of a few on DZ.com and I'm sure you can all relate to that fact. Perhaps a comparison more relatable for you would be an argument that "Great Replacement Theory" is not racist because your definition of it does not matter. Does that sound like a fair argument to you?  Probably not, because if it is racist then it might include ideologies or actions intended to undermine or disadvantage people of colour. Following on from that, many forum members here are not people of colour nor do they identify as Lgbtqi+  and yet they might advocate for the causes of those groups. Fair enough. In the same way myself and winsor might be seen to advocate for feminist causes or to speak against absurd cases of supposed 'hate crime', either via indirect association with an affected person or merely on principle. So; who would be an 'affected person'?  Swimmers who competed against Leah Thomas, for example, or the victims of Karen White, or perhaps some of the 120000+ people registered on the UK's Orwellian NCHI (non-crime hate incidents), where a UK citizen can potentially find themselves listed for something as innocuous as mis-gendering someone (The police only ask that the ‘victim’ reports a ‘perceived’ sense of ‘ill-will’ or ‘dislike’.) Therefore, when you consider the term 'no skin off your arse' then first consider all the causes that you advocate for that are not targeting you directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Therefore, when you consider the term 'no skin off your arse' then first consider all the causes that you advocate for that are not targeting you directly.

A lot of words and still no answer to the question. Why do you care and how is it any of your business?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

A lot of words and still no answer to the question. Why do you care and how is it any of your business?

?? I cannot assist you with reading and comprehension courses. Do those on your own time and dime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Those are not my definitions. In this case they are Merriam-Webster definitions and are much more widely accepted than the fringe opinions of a few on DZ.com . . .

Like yourself?  You yourself have agreed that there are cases where a genetically male person is a woman.

You seem to be twisting logic just as hard as you can to avoid the fact that a woman is not always easy to define.  USUALLY it is easy to define; I can look at someone and be right 95% of the time.  But it is not ALWAYS easy to define.

For me it doesn't matter much.  "How's Rorie doing in school?  Does she like her teacher?"  "Rorie is a he."  "Oh sorry!"  The end.

For some people (like, say, a lawyer or a Supreme Court justice) the answer can matter quite a lot.  You seem to be working just as hard as you can to avoid that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, billvon said:

Like yourself?  You yourself have agreed that there are cases where a genetically male person is a woman.

Another outright lie from you. I said I would address a specific kind(s) of genetically male person as a woman as a practical courtesy to them and then in the very same sentence I also asserted that they do not meet the definition. That's a far reach to your "genetically male person is a woman". Twisting logic is your specialty here.   Similarly; despite what Merriam-Webster has stated; I'll regard freefall jumps from a high altitude balloon as skydiving, but not freefall jumps from a tree, an opinion that is likely to hold a majority view amongst those who know skydiving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Another outright lie from you. I said I would address a specific kind(s) of genetically male person as a woman as a practical courtesy to them and then in the very same sentence I also asserted that they do not meet the definition

Originally I posted an apology, but then I went back through the thread.  You said "I have certainly never stated that women are strictly XX"  - and now you are saying that an XY person cannot be a woman.

I give up.  Perhaps your sophistry will be more effective on others who aren't as familiar with the thread.  It almost worked on me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billvon said:

Originally I posted an apology, but then I went back through the thread.  You said "I have certainly never stated that women are strictly XX"  - and now you are saying that an XY person cannot be a woman.

I give up.  Perhaps your sophistry will be more effective on others who aren't as familiar with the thread.  It almost worked on me.

Consider the entirety of that older post and especially the context of what I was replying to. The older statement had meant to imply 'women' in the context of DSD cases (the 'address them as' exception that I noted) as opposed to arguing a grammatical definition in that post. I concede the way I wrote it could be viewed an inconsistent within the thread, although not intended that way. Don't sweat an apology, that was always going to be a bridge too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, metalslug said:

In this case they are Merriam-Webster definitions and are much more widely accepted than the fringe opinions of a few on DZ.com and I'm sure you can all relate to that fact.

The fact that you're raging here actually shows that it's not as widely accepted as you want it to be. And that number is going down. Times are changing, old white men are raging.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, olofscience said:

The fact that you're raging here actually shows that it's not as widely accepted as you want it to be. And that number is going down. Times are changing, old white men are raging.

An old white man is currently your president, as is the likelihood of your next one if Joe actually finishes his current term. Maybe it's time for this candidate ? Changing times indeed...

mayra-flores-south-texas-congress.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, metalslug said:

An old white man is currently your president

I'm not American, nor am I in the US.

And neither are you, but I'm sure the GOP appreciates your support.

 

So back to the discussion. Why is an authority (Merriam-Webster) and "scientific consensus" only important when it comes to attacking a tiny minority? Why isn't it important when the message is something you disagree with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, metalslug said:

Consider the entirety of that older post and especially the context of what I was replying to. The older statement had meant to imply 'women' in the context of DSD cases (the 'address them as' exception that I noted) as opposed to arguing a grammatical definition in that post. I concede the way I wrote it could be viewed an inconsistent within the thread, although not intended that way. Don't sweat an apology, that was always going to be a bridge too far.

A lot of posts, semantics and specifics required to get to this easy and long established definition that everybody knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, metalslug said:

Consider the entirety of that older post and especially the context of what I was replying to. The older statement had meant to imply 'women' in the context of DSD cases (the 'address them as' exception that I noted) as opposed to arguing a grammatical definition in that post. I concede the way I wrote it could be viewed an inconsistent within the thread, although not intended that way. Don't sweat an apology, that was always going to be a bridge too far.

Why does this matter so much to you?

I am an "old white man" living in the USA and it doesn't matter to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2