2 2
brenthutch

What is a woman?

Recommended Posts

(edited)
13 hours ago, billvon said:

When a new jumper gets their license, starts to jump and gets to about 100 jumps, often they decide they know everything. 

.......

Some skydivers (and some people) get to the point where they realize they don't know everything.  That's an important stage for the more intelligent people out there - to get to the right side of that graph.

 

confidence.JPG

Your thesis above has zero relevance to understanding a woman by definition, in as much as it's also completely superfluous to understanding skydiving by definition. Do you find yourself struggling with the above learning curves for every noun that you learn? .. porcupines, teacups, pineapples... ?   The 'gender fluid' argument reduces the term 'woman' (or 'man') from being a noun to being an adjective; "I feel womanly." and by that logic the Matt Walsh argument appears; "My preferred adjectives are 'handsome and brilliant' and I'll take offence if others don't recognise and address me as such." 

I expect you're also in denial that 'alternate' definitions of a woman are very much a fringe opinion. Barely a decade ago this subject thread would never have existed because the definition has been largely undisputed for millennia. Is this because human biology has evolved over the last decade?  Nope, only the subject activism. You seem to be willing to forgo scientific and grammatical consensus on this issue, or even consensus within the Lgbtqi+ communities that you like to believe you're advocating for. This seems inconsistent with your advocacy on other subjects.

Edited by metalslug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
7 hours ago, metalslug said:

Is this because human biology has evolved over the last decade?

Funny how people who are raging about this know next to nothing about human biology, or even just biology in general.

But then again you think you know better than NASA or NOAA scientists when it comes to climate change, so I guess it's not really that far out of character for you.

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


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

Funny how people who are raging about this know next to nothing about human biology, or even just biology in general.

Agreed. The woke mob have been raging to redefine words since they made this a social issue and have been debunked earlier in this thread already.

25 minutes ago, olofscience said:

But then again you think you know better than NASA or NOAA scientists when it comes to climate change, so I guess it's not really that far out of character for you.

More hot air comments from someone who skipped their homework.   Quite recently I even gave credit to a NASA scientist for their predictions.   ...but you've already demonstrated that you don't follow thread topics here.

Share this post


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

Your thesis above has zero relevance to understanding a woman by definition, in as much as it's also completely superfluous to understanding skydiving by definition. Do you find yourself struggling with the above learning curves for every noun that you learn? .. porcupines, teacups, pineapples... ?   The 'gender fluid' argument reduces the term 'woman' (or 'man') from being a noun to being an adjective; "I feel womanly." and by that logic the Matt Walsh argument appears; "My preferred adjectives are 'handsome and brilliant' and I'll take offence if others don't recognise and address me as such." 

I expect you're also in denial that 'alternate' definitions of a woman are very much a fringe opinion. Barely a decade ago this subject thread would never have existed because the definition has been largely undisputed for millennia. Is this because human biology has evolved over the last decade?  Nope, only the subject activism. You seem to be willing to forgo scientific and grammatical consensus on this issue, or even consensus within the Lgbtqi+ communities that you like to believe you're advocating for. This seems inconsistent with your advocacy on other subjects.

So many words to demonstrate how staggeringly little understanding you have of the entire subject.

Share this post


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

Agreed. The woke mob have been raging to redefine words since they made this a social issue and have been debunked earlier in this thread already.

whoosh.

41 minutes ago, metalslug said:

you've already demonstrated that you don't follow thread topics here.

I'll take that. That's a lot better than people proudly demonstrating their ignorance about the topics they're raging about.

Share this post


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

Your thesis above has zero relevance to understanding a woman by definition, in as much as it's also completely superfluous to understanding skydiving by definition. Do you find yourself struggling with the above learning curves for every noun that you learn? .. porcupines, teacups, pineapples... ?   The 'gender fluid' argument reduces the term 'woman' (or 'man') from being a noun to being an adjective; "I feel womanly." and by that logic the Matt Walsh argument appears; "My preferred adjectives are 'handsome and brilliant' and I'll take offence if others don't recognise and address me as such." 

I expect you're also in denial that 'alternate' definitions of a woman are very much a fringe opinion. Barely a decade ago this subject thread would never have existed because the definition has been largely undisputed for millennia. Is this because human biology has evolved over the last decade?  Nope, only the subject activism. You seem to be willing to forgo scientific and grammatical consensus on this issue, or even consensus within the Lgbtqi+ communities that you like to believe you're advocating for. This seems inconsistent with your advocacy on other subjects.

This reads like it was written by the store-brand Winsor....You should change your screen name to Kirkland

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

... Barely a decade ago this subject thread would never have existed because the definition has been largely undisputed for millennia... 

That's largely because the 'definitions' were set by the majority, no matter what the oppressed minorities (that the words applied to) said.

Now that 'old white guys' aren't in absolute charge, the definitions that THEY insisted on using are no longer absolute.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

You seem to be willing to forgo scientific and grammatical consensus on this issue

Since you willingly forgo scientific consensus on climate change, this is really funny.

Do you even know what scientific consensus is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Now that 'old white guys' aren't in absolute charge, the definitions that THEY insisted on using are no longer absolute.

?? Globally; do you believe that gender identity and gender fluidity are more widely accepted by non-white cultures ?

13 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

What is a woman by definition?

You have about 9 pages of this thread to get through. Have at it.

Share this post


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

You have about 9 pages of this thread to get through. Have at it.

So you throw out stuff like woman by definition and go on how this is all established for such a long time. But then are completely unable to provide a definition. Should be pretty damn easy, since it has been established for so long.

Typical.

Share this post


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

Agreed. The woke mob have been raging to redefine words since they made this a social issue and have been debunked earlier in this thread already.

Do me a favour. The right wing politico-media circus cannot stop screaming about this, hour after hour, day after day but it’s the woke mob who make it an issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jakee said:

Do me a favour. The right wing politico-media circus cannot stop screaming about this, hour after hour, day after day but it’s the woke mob who make it an issue?

Well, the alt-right needs a boogey-man. 

Someone to hate,  someone to blame,  someone to be afraid of. 

Of course,  they refuse to 'live in fear.'

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
9 hours ago, olofscience said:

Since you willingly forgo scientific consensus on climate change, this is really funny.

Do you even know what scientific consensus is?

Scientific consensus = oxymoron 
Consensus is not scientific.  Consensus gave us eugenics, how did that work out?

“No amount of experimentation (consensus) can ever prove me right; a single experiment (or observation) can prove me wrong.”

Albert Einstein 

““Trust the science” is the most anti science statement ever. Questioning science is how you do science”

Linus Van Pelt

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


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

What is a woman by definition?

Ah, there's the rub.

XX chromosomes?  Nope.  There are tens of thousands of XY women in the US who don't know they are XY.

Female genitalia?  Nope.  There are even more women who are not Stage 0 on the Prader scale.

Presenting as female?  There are as many defintions of "presenting" as there are people.

Having a uterus?  (Yes, one republican anti-woke senator said that that was the definition of a woman - thus making millions of American women into men.)

Which is why in a case like this, the people who say 'it's EASY!  If you don't automatically know what a woman is you are a JOKE!" are the truly ignorant.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, billvon said:

Ah, there's the rub.

XX chromosomes?  Nope.  There are tens of thousands of XY women in the US who don't know they are XY.

Female genitalia?  Nope.  There are even more women who are not Stage 0 on the Prader scale.

Presenting as female?  There are as many defintions of "presenting" as there are people.

Having a uterus?  (Yes, one republican anti-woke senator said that that was the definition of a woman - thus making millions of American women into men.)

Which is why in a case like this, the people who say 'it's EASY!  If you don't automatically know what a woman is you are a JOKE!" are the truly ignorant.

Again your own ignorant comments persist. Try this;

Woman:  An adult human female

Female; of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

There has never been an instance of any XY chromosomal person producing ova, not even DSD cases. Certainly there are cases in which XX women have had medical conditions or undergone procedures that affect fertility and/or impact the definitions above , but the intentions of the definitions are typical, for someone presumed to be perfectly healthy remain valid and therefore do not preclude them as women.

Curiously, in my earlier post, nobody seemed to object to the Merriam-Webster skydiving definition , which I intentionally knew was flawed  (it excludes balloon jumps, for example) and yet I'd be fine to regard a balloon jump, with freefall time, as a skydive.  Similarly I've already stated in this thread that I'd be willing to address a XY Swyer syndrome person or full-transitioned transgender as female, as a practical courtesy, even while accepting that they don't meet the definition.  What I would not do is credit a skydiver title to someone who has merely jumped from a tree with a grocery bag above their head or hand my rig to someone who identifies as a skydiver but lacking the required skydiving credentials.

 

Edited by metalslug

Share this post


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

Woman:  An adult human female

Female; of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

OK, so we are back to the "AIS women are not women" thing. 

Quote

Certainly there are cases in which XX women have had medical conditions or undergone procedures that affect fertility

Ah!  So you can't say with certainty what a woman is, not without knowing all the details and exceptions.  Sometimes there are women who do not meet your definition!  Special cases and whatnot.  Thank you for admitting that.

You may now return to mocking KBJ for doing exactly what you just did above.  She just did it with fewer words.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billvon said:

Ah!  So you can't say with certainty what a woman is, 

I just did exactly that. A moth that's lost it's wings is still a moth, despite not meeting the typical definition of a healthy specimen.

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Sometimes there are women who do not meet your definition! 

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

Share this post


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

but the intentions of the definitions are typical

This implies that it's a distribution, and that this definition only locates the mode.

If it doesn't include the outliers, then billvon is correct - it excludes the outliers because it doesn't include them. Mathematical (and legal) language will only allow for a complete definition that includes the outliers, or excludes them, not both.

Share this post


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

 

Which is why in a case like this, the people who say 'it's EASY!  If you don't automatically know what a woman is you are a JOKE!" are the truly ignorant.

Well, right there you have the biggest problem facing this country - the truly ignorant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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

 

Quote

Similarly I've already stated in this thread that I'd be willing to address a XY Swyer syndrome person or full-transitioned transgender as female

You've posted both these statements within a few hours....what is the magic moment where a full-transitioned female becomes 'fully transitioned'?   

 

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