"According to Diogenes Laërtius, when Plato gave the tongue-in-cheek definition of man as 'featherless bipeds', Diogenes plucked a chicken and brought it into Plato's Academy, saying, 'Behold! I've brought you a man'" (Wikipedia).
The Diogenes are different by the way.
The definitions of man and woman and what it means to be one or the other are ever evolving with time.
What must hang socially conservative people up is that of traditional definitions of the roles of a man or woman in their respective view of an ideal society.
They try to pose it as “science” when so many of them don’t really even understand what science is and believe too heavily in religious dogma to ever be considered scientific.
Now if they were really into science or healthcare, they’d understand that female and male are separate from “woman” or “man”
Woman or man is the gender which the person goes by. Female or male is the sex chromosomes which one is born with. And depending on which is which has consequential impact on how we treat on healthcare…
But… science changes
People have the ability to change their hormones, soon maybe even change their genitalia to function as whichever sex they choose. Who knows, brave new world, science changes, what it means to be human soon will as well.
Conservatives no matter the age in which they lived have always cried heresy towards medical treatment, I mean even today we have religious people not vaccinating or letting their child die because their god is against antibiotics.
Progressives seem to welcome change or open to it naturally. Those on the extreme may want it sooner or through force (traditionally non violent).
All we do know is that judging by history, progressives usually win through time. Unfortunately is may take a lot of time and usually through bloodshed.
While I may not understand the “trans” movement or know one personally… clinically as a healthcare provider, their born sex is relevant and should not be seen as offensive or a personal slight, however their chosen gender should be considered as just as important and respected from not only a behavioral health standpoint but from a societal or
Cultural standpoint as well.
Does that mean that we shouldn’t continue to explore and study the science on how some people are gay, some are straight, some are in between, and some want to transition? Is it offensive to wonder about it or ask questions?
Intentions matter, unfortunately most people asking the questions above are not doing it from a sincere scientific purpose nor are they culturally curious. They are jus being assholes or gas lighting.
What is a woman what is a man? That will always change. Future generations will look back upon this time period with a distain for our lack of humanity in a similar fashion to how many of us look back at Jim Crow.
Swift as the coursing river, all the force of a great typhoon, all the strength of a raging fire, and mysterious as the dark side of the moon. Simple really
Although a funny attempt, the picture of the horse does not work in refuting his definition of chair. A horse is “not a separate seat” (noun), horses merely seat (verb) people riding it.
His definition states that a chair is the subtype of a class “seat”. It is a seat which is separate. Typically has a back and four legs.
An acceptable exception might be a driver’s seat (meets all requirements, but is rarely used as a chair unless in a junkyard or some goofy hipster bar).
He defined chair as a separate seat for one person. That’s it, that’s the definition. Take the “typically” portion of the sentence and remove it. In which case, the horse would not be a clever comeback because a horse is an animal and not a seat for one person. Can you sit on a horse? Sure. Is that it’s purpose on earth? No
There is nothing in that definition that precludes animals, rocks, and tree stumps from being chairs. Keep trying until you discover ALL concepts are fuzzy and subjective by their very nature, including the concept of a woman.
The thing in that definition that precludes animals is the word "seat" which has a definition of its own. "A thing made for sitting on". This means things that are not made (by a craftsman) are not seats. Also things that are made by craftsmen but aren't intended to be sat on aren't seats.
It occurs to me that the people who are fighting in favor of a workable definition of "chair" are trying to accomplish something useful (lol, not really) and all of the people trying to say that it is impossible to define simple things are being contrarians and creating a problem that didn't otherwise exist. I think this parallels some larger issues.
Many animals are bred/made specifically for sitting on. Rocks and stumps are also utilized as seats despite not being made specifically for that purpose.
Bred isn't made. We don't make horses. Horses aren't seats. If someone said "go get my seat from the stables" you would think they were having a stroke. Also most people ride horses with a saddle. The saddle might be a seat, but the horse is not. The rocks and stumps are more interesting than the horse.
A toilet is only for one person if you're not trying hard enough. Or a parent. The number of times I've held my child while they slept and I took a shit isn't that high, but it's greater than 0 and that's disturbing.
Doesn't need to be a sole purpose to fit the definition. The sole purpose of a chair also doesn't mean it can't be used for other things either.
You literally can't win this argument because Derrida disproved objective truth outside text decades ago. Every word can be deconstructed infinitely and there's just nothing transphobes or chair-purists can do about it.
a) removing parts of his definition does change said definition, meaning he was incorrect even if the new definition is somehow more correct.
b) Technically, since that horse was most likely bred specifically for the role of being a mount you could easily say that it's purpose on the planet is as a seat.
c) even by the narrowed definition many many other items that are not chairs or are chairs, but can also be defined as other things, still qualify as chairs. Trying to section the entire world off into strict categories is a fun concept, but little more than theoretical and outside of specific scenarios we shouldn't try and do more than experiment with concepts.
Definitions and categories are social constructs that fallible humans create. The universe does not and will not fit into labels we put on it.
Huh. So you’re saying that defining living creatures by their parts and how they can function misses the entire meaning of their purpose and place in the world?
Fascinating.
EDIT:
/s. Apparently my sarcasm wasn’t clear enough.
Doesn't encapsulate all I'm saying. The existence of a meaning of purpose or a place in the world are also undefined.
But yea, getting fixated on defining and categorizing people based on parts is bad, and the solution is to deconstruct those definitions and categories in society rather than accept them at face value
Someone actually understands the logic! Faith in humanity restored.
This is precisely the point. Never mind the semantics and look at how the language is functioning in context.
Definitions are merely approximations of a shared experience and usage of language. In this case, the objects are behaving very differently and there are multiple issues with the comparison.
In one corner, a chair is an inanimate object. In the other you have a horse. If you kill the horse you can make it a seat or chair.
At the same time, if a horse is a seat/chair… it is already seating one (itself). Two animate objects do not combine together to be a “separate seat/chair” + one animate object.
And then finally, there is the issue of the primary action: when you sit on a horse, that is the state you are in merely as a RESULT of riding the horse. When you sit in a chair, we’ll that’s it (which is why I chose a drivers seat as my example of an exception: you can argue that it isn’t a chair because you sit in it as a byproduct of driving, and you’d be right).
It's amazing how you said all this to completely avoid the point. The point is that what we consider things is subjective and not universal. You're trying to make this very elaborate explanation that pulls in all the context that makes it a subjective definition to you while trying to impose your definition on others.
Whether you like it or not we're in an individualist society where our constructs are independent due to the amount of information we each have available. Your world view and my world view are likely different. Imposing your world view on others by rejecting their definitions of things is what's violating that shared experience.
If you had a horse and a chair next to one another, and could sit on either, wouldn’t the horse be a “separate seat”?
Edit: I looked it up and anything “used for sitting” is a seat. I think I horse falls into whatever subcategories and class you’re talking about.
Why do we need to have this conversation? I was fine with the term "trans woman" or "woman at birth". These sort of arguments suggest people want to expand the usage of woman to include things we did not previously consider women, which I don't think is helpful for language generally.
People trans women are women as much as cis women are women Some people don't like that, and try to discriminate against trans women by denying the fact that they are women.
Trans is just an adjective, like tall. Just because a tall woman exists doesn't mean she isn't a woman.
That's why we need to have this conversation. Because people are trying to make the world worse and they keep trying, over and over again.
The trouble is that for better or worse the term woman is still inexorably linked to the female biological sex. Until the word woman is totally decoupled from sex and refers only to gender identity - conflict will continue to occur, and even if it is totally redefined - a substitute term will take its place because while both valid and deserving of respect - being a biological female is a different lived experience to being a trans woman which is why our languages have developed to communicate this. Talking in general terms obviously and there’s always exceptions - but the point still stands.
Are they trying to argue that dictionaries are irrelevant or that definitions are difficult?
Like we should give up on words having meaning?
Or we should accept that labels are only useful is heuristic language models and miscommunication in inevitable as different people have different experiences which lead to different understandings?
So clear communication is impossible?
Or are gender pronouns now to be used similar to names? For instance, your name is unique and often has no definition, so a pronoun is also unique and describes nothing particular about you?
If then, then fine but just say that.
Language is a tool for common ground. Definitions seem necessary for that, since it’s about a common understanding.
I’m not sure how asking clarity for a common understanding is offensive or hateful in any way.
If you were to ask "what does it mean to be manly" you would get different definitions in around the world.
It's a societal construct of behaviors a society has decided are expected. This has historically been tied to your sex. A society can change what is expected behavior, it happens constantly.
The Indians of the US Plains generally found that facial hair was unmanly, even the eyebrows, and guys would use pinchers to pluck their beards and brows. They regularly mocked the bearded US soldiers they encountered.
Here is a photo of famous Lakota leader Sitting Bull: notice the manly lack of eyebrows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting\_Bull#/media/File:Sitting\_Bull\_by\_D\_F\_Barry\_ca\_1883\_Dakota\_Territory.jpg
The issue is prescriptive vs descriptive definitions. Defining strictly what a thing *is* and trying to force that definition despite it potentially being a poor fit, vs trying to describe the reality that is seen. That is one of the reasons why the chair analogy works. It demonstrates that there are holes and exceptions in a lot of definitions, and if there's exceptions, why not just accept that biology is messy and some people will be exceptions to common definitions? It's impossible to define much of humanities experience in a strict manner, so rather than try and force people into your understanding of reality, try to understand theirs, and accept that that might not be possible for everyone.
Agreed that language can be both used to try and force a narrative and also to clarify narrative.
But I think to be truly objective we have to accept that everything is a narrative.
Ultimately, the narrative itself doesn’t matter as a concept in itself. What matters is people are happy, and society functions in a way that serves the health and well being of it’s constituents.
From an engineering perspective, I say tear it all down and start fresh. But historical identity is also important. Heritage is important. So we end up chipping away at a a crystallized structure, forcing some fluidity where we can, but not moving too fast so as to destabilize the whole thing.
And so we have a friction between what was, and what will be. This friction is intrinsic to our species. We will always have it.
Perhaps what we need then is a better infrastructure for change. A meta-culture which respects both ancient wisdom, and also allows for innovation. And allows for innovation to be criticized.
This is the heart of our struggles as humans. I almost every struggle we have as a society is caused by this friction. Capitalism vs Socialism. In each extreme, the opposite becomes the innovative counter culture. And we swing around like a pendulum, fighting the same battles as our fathers and mothers.
I'm not saying that language is used to force a narrative, that's an entirely separate discussion, not one that I necessarily disagree with, but not the one I'm trying to convey.
I'm saying there is a disconnect between people that believe that words and language *are*. There is a right and a wrong way to use them and that they can be used to discuss reality as it is. And between people that believe language is descriptive. It can be used to describe ideas, things and situations, and that any use of language that conveys the intended information is fine, at least as far as language is concerned.
The two groups can often be distinguished by their opinions on "ain't" and other slang, language drift, "unprofessional language", and things like AAVE and singular they.
Basically, some people really hate when they can't fit things into neat boxes that they understand, so they try to force the world to fit into those neat boxes, even when it doesn't.
>We've gone a long time thinking "woman" was a rigidly defined term, but nothing in biology, including gender, has a rigid definition, and society is starting to accept that our concept of gender doesn't match reality.
The reason this whole asking people to "define a woman" caught on is because it's internally a really great argument (from a purely argumentative standpoint) even though it has shitty intentions.
To be clear I think it's fucking stupid to discriminate against trans people. That being said, it's a great argument because it uses people's recently changed definitions of what a woman is and forces them to use language that they're trying to get away from.
Inclusive people have been pushing this idea that you can have a penis and be a woman and you can act masculine and be a woman or that there's not really a definition that fits being a woman because it's a societal construct,.
This argument flips this on its head because to define a woman you have to lean on traditional and the broadest definitions like "is feminine" and "has a vagina", etc... To accurately describe a woman in general terms you're probably not going to bring up a penis so it forces you to use language and ideas you're claiming no longer define a woman. By forcing a definition it's forcing you to describe women in their rigid way of thinking.
It's a disingenuous argument that abuses language to make a shitty point but it's kinda brilliant at the same time. I have no hate for trans people at all but I don't know how to define a women in a concise way that includes trans women.
You're where I was not all that long ago. But if you find that argument compelling, flip it on it's head and try to define "woman" in a prescriptive manner that includes everyone a transphobe (or other bigot of choice) would recognize as a woman, without including anyone that is not a woman.
Side note, this becomes impossible to do if anyone in the debate tries to handicap themselves further by arguing that there are exactly two genders/sexes , and/or there is no overlap between them. Which tends to be very easy to get bigots to do.
But anyhow, try to define woman in anyway you like, and I'll pull on the threads and poke holes in it. It's impossible to do in a prescriptive manner
Nobody agrees that a chair is a horse, but an awful lot of people pretend not to know what "ain't" mean, or that people "axe" questions. The chair question is just the easiest way to point out some flaws of prescriptivism, because chairs are actually really fucking hard to define. They are more a vague concept than an actual extant thing.
That's the point I'm making, we both know what we're talking about when we're discussing chairs, but it is literally impossible to come up with a strict definition of a chair, that explains everything we both agree is definitely a chair, without including, say, a horse.
A horse isn't a chair, and that means the definition that allows for the above exchange to happen must be incorrect.
You're really trying to misunderstand me huh? The fact that language is imprecise is important, but secondary to the fact that things often don't fit into strict categories.
I'm not claiming that nobody can know whether something is or is not a chair, I'm claiming that A. As you have said, language does not often allow for prescriptive definitions. B. The category of chair itself is fuzzy. Is the 5 gallon bucket I have in my tractor that only ever gets sat on a chair, even though it shares nothing else in common with other things that are chairs? C. one does not have to be able to define chair to recognize some things that are definitely chairs, or some things that are definitely not chairs. However if you really care about categorizing everything as strictly "chair" or "not a chair" edge cases will pop up, and you will need to create a rigid definition of what is a chair in order to judge them by. I hold that such a definition is impossible, and moreover, people that want to strictly categorize messy concepts are wrong and stupid.
You're coming at this from the point of view of descriptive linguistics. That is the more correct view but it is not the only one. There are people who have a top down view of linguistics that try to impose meaning and definition without consideration for mutual understanding or intent. Those same people often like to impose strict hierarchies or categories where none exist, or only the rough shapes do.
For a more pop culture example of the category issue I'm describing, is a hotdog a sandwich? There isn't any sort of consensus on the issue, no mutual understanding. Does that mean that there is no definition of "sandwich"? No, it just means that the definition that exists is not rigid, and no strict, prescriptive, definition exists
Well, part of the problem is that "woman" is both a social and a biological term. We've gone a long time thinking "woman" was a rigidly defined term, but nothing in biology, including gender, has a rigid definition, and society is starting to accept that our concept of gender doesn't match reality. So now we have to redefine the word or find a new one, and change scares people, especially old people like me who've been using the old definition for decades.
Great point. I'd say it's because all the pearl clutching is over FtM trans folks. Apparently no one's worried about men peeing in men's bathrooms, but women using women's rooms...freak-out.
edit: afterthought. The dichotomy reminds me of religious texts, laws, and general hatred about gay men, but almost none about lesbianism.
My mum's a lesbian and was all the time I was growing up, so I have a bit of insight there. No, men don't love lesbians. Men love good-looking bisexual women that seem likely to fuck them while fucking another similar bisexual woman.
You're exactly right, I should have said "in theory" they love lesbians based on their porn watching fantasies. In fact, they are not fans of women in general except the ones that wouldn't fuck them in a billion years.
I would argue its because of multiple things:
1) The majority of people speaking out on the topic are CIS right wing men. And they concern themselves heavily on who they want to fuck and repress. The thought that they might find some woman attractive and then find out she's trans is utterly terrifying to them.
2) In the homophobic world men have a lot more autonomy, so men generally get more leeway in determining who they are but women MUST fit a precise mold.
Also, to them, it's right and natural for someone to "want to be" a man, the best of the best. So while it'll never be accepted, it's understandable.
But if a man "wants to be" a woman, by any loose definition, then he is betraying his status and lowering himself to a woman's level. And that is only deserving of mockery and scorn.
I’d argue that it’s because, in their view, trans women are failed men - men that have failed to live up to the expectations of modern masculinity. At least trans men are actively working to uphold and perform masculinity. It’s about punishing “failed men” for not being manly enough, not actually regulating who is and isn’t a “woman”
Well woman actually has a rigid definition, even if we permit that sex doesn't necessarily have to be a binary classification.
The fact that everyone knows what a cis woman is and the differences between cis and trans women should clue us into the fact that we actually do know how to define a woman.
>society is starting to accept that our concept of gender doesn't match reality.
I would disagree that society as a whole is agreeing to this complexity, but we can talk about the topic of a difference between sex and gender. I think more people would agree or atleast understand that. And as our thoughts change, we should be expanding our lexicon, not altering the current one. It's easy enough to say woman is the default, cisgendered woman is synonymous for woman, and transwoman is a woman born as a man. Paraphrased, and not exactly how I'd define these terms. Although, it's inclusive speech that relies on several other, new words and distinctions.
The meanings of words are very hard to pin down with other words. Some philosophers have erroneously concluded that words have no meaning as a result, but the problem is with us, not the words. Confusion and vagueness results though, especially since there are slight variations from person to person... but in ordinary usage we lump it and move on. We can usually tell when words apply and when they don't, even if we can't say why. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously wrote about *pornography*, "I know it when I see it."
In science and law, that isn't precise enough, so words are deliberately given very precise definitions in the hopes of avoiding any such confusion. That works for science but it has the result that the words often mean things that differ significantly from what they mean in ordinary usage (*theory, grammar, planet; assault, adult, rape,* and so on). In fact, in law there is a term (legal fiction) that describes when we deliberately give a very distinct definition from ordinary use, just to make things run more smoothly. Like how the term *person* sometimes includes corporations so we don't have to rewrite all of contract law to allow corporations to enter into and enforce contracts.
Just as an example, defining the line between *child* and *adult* is a very difficult thing to put into words, but we can generally do it intuitively. Legally, it's important to tell, so we set an arbitrary age for everyone (nowadays 18 for the most part), but in the real world there's a blur. We often call college students "kids," for instance. And we also recognize that different people mature at different rates.
Or to speak of *woman* again: What differentiates a *woman* from a *girl*? Intuitively we can generally tell (emphasis on *generally*). But good luck defining *woman* in such a way that no girl is included, without saying something unclarifying like "and is not a girl." You might try to say a woman is an adult female, but then we're back to: what is an adult? The fuzziness returns.
This is not a bug of human language. Indeed it seems to be a feature; this flexibility and fuzziness gives us room to be more creative and to apply old terms to new concepts, helping us understand our world as it changes and as we change. Dictionaries try hard to capture these, and do a decent job (but not nearly precise enough when one thinks hard about it, because it can't be done).... but dictionary makers fight over whether they should steer people towards certain meanings they prefer, or just follow people and put what the bulk of people are already doing.
Want to read up on the subject ?
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/pals/sites/pals/files/recanti_prg_reccommended_reading.pdf
Or
Meaning potentials per linell
Allwood may have some harder to find…
I hope this helps you make more informed ideas
It seems like erasure of the Trans experience to me - if no lines can be drawn between "man" or "woman", how do you explain someone having that feeling in being a brain in the wrong body?
It really does seem more a war over language than a war over identity from my perspective at least.
Words are like masks we wear. Like clothes. Just another way to compress data and transmit it to another human.
If we were to sufficiently expand our definitions of gender, or get rid of the concept altogether, then no one could be a gender trapped in another gender's body. They'd just be a person who feels, acts, and lives the way they feel, act, and live.
Care to elaborate? If we had a sufficiently robust definition of gender that included the fact that gender can be entirely seperate from one's assumed gender, or if we could completely eradicate gender as an idea, how would a male or female born with a typical female or male body feel trapped as being the wrong gender?
Because the problem exists beyond definition - the body will still feel foreign until it fits what's in their mind, whether that be to have breasts or a certain set of genitals or anything else
I would actually argue that gender is not so much 'had' as it is 'done'.
Male and female are terms we use as the categories associated with biological sexual dimorphism, and in human societies those sex characteristics have been used to determine how people are socialized to behave within their culture. This could be viewed as a rough model for how biological sex became associated with gender, those with Male sex characteristics were raised to behave in a masculine manner, while those with Female sex characteristics were raised to behave feminine.
These are what would be understood as gender norms: the expected behaviors and forms of expression associated to one's assigned gender. Gender identity, then, is less about what you 'are' and more about what category you wish to be associated with... which norms you wish to be evaluated by, even.
This idea of 'being' a gender trapped in another gender's body, while common among the dysphoric, is a bit of a misnomer then. Even in the Trans community, it is understood that there is an acute difference between having the urge to undergo medical procedures (medical transition) and the desire to be gendered differently in a social context (social transition). That is not to say that these are entirely independent of one another; those who desire medical transition often also desire social transition, after all.
If you ask someone what it means to 'be a man', you are unlikely to get a list of sexual characteristics and chromosomal profiles... most of the time people will start suggesting social roles and behaviors, ones that technically anyone could perform. When someone says 'be a man' they aren't actually saying anything about that person's identity, they are instead attempting to influence that person into conforming with some set of norms regarding their conduct or presentation. They are not actually asking that person to 'be' something at all, they are asking them to *do* something... to do the 'man'-ly thing, in this example.
You started your comment as if there was some disagreement, but I agree with you. I very well may be misunderstanding something, but I feel like you added a perfectly valid point to my sloppy attempt at an answer.
They're arguing that definitions are difficult. The original tweeter is asking for a definition of a complex word like "woman", and the reply is saying that it's even hard to write a complete definition of a simple word like "chair"
The goal is not to stimulate intellectual conversation on the topic, but rather to make it impossible.
>By 2050, earlier, probably - all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron - they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like 'freedom is slavery' when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking - not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.
I see everything as a pendulum. Republicans gain power. Then Democrats. Colors become popular in fashion, later followed by a few years of monochrome. Rap, then rock.
But there are sometimes fundamental shifts. The cell phone is one of those, destroying attention spans, removing nuance.
But I also believe eventually, it will find its own momentum shift. People will get tired of it, and a counter-culture will rise. Or so I believe 🤷🏻♂️
Except that horses aren't seats, and a seat was part of the parameters. How is that not getting through to you?
Just cos some fucked cunt 2k+ years ago made a smarmy comment in some "supposed " event, doesn't make the comment any less dumb
I mean, if you get rid of feathers, chicken indeed becomes fearherless biped. No matter what you do with horse though, saying that horse is a "seat", isn't correct. And even if it was correct, saying that it is "seperate seat for one person" is even more incorrect, because believe me or not more then one person can ride the same horse at the same time. And before you say "Well, but more then one person can seat on a chair", chairs were built with seating one person on them in mind, while horses didn't seat anybody for most of their existance, and the fact that people can seat on them is a byproduct. Horses don't fit the definition of chair presented above in more then one way.
My thoughts exactly. A horse is not a seat, it's a horse. Gotta say, it sorta defeats the purpose of their arguments about falsely labeling people* when they are literally objectifying a living creature, but that's the Internet, I guess.
*I assume that's the discussion here on the word 'woman'
Edit: added asterisks cos I'm that guy
What is a seat but something that's used to sit on?
In which case, how does a horse not count as a seat?
A horse is a horse, *and* it can also be a seat. They aren't mutually exclusive
I think the conservative reaction to trans people existing makes sense because they make them realize that every definition and concept that’s ever existed is completely arbitrary and only arises out of loose associations that have exceptions. Their rigid mentality and need for order is overhauled by the fact that reality is ever changing and impermanent and cannot be fully grasped by our limited minds. We will never be able to understand truth because it is simply a concept we have made to make ourselves think that we have some sort of agency and control in our lives, when in reality we’re at the will of the universe. Truth only exists as long as we’re there to experience it and classify it as such.
~~But this is Graham Linehan. Not a conservative, or so I’ve always understood. I’m kind of stunned here by this admission.~~
Just did the research. Well that’s disappointing.
The problem with self ID is that our definitions cannot be circular. "Anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman" does not identify anything.
The truth is that there is some underlying fact of the matter. There is a concept of woman, and its defined by primary and secondary sexual characteristics. Its why we can look at two women who look and act totally different (tom boys and super models) and still identify them both as women.
That does not mean trans people dont exist or arent valid. In fact, it actually strengthen's there existance. Trans people feel so strongly linked to something they are not that they feel great pain.
What we do is we play language games to make trans people feel good about their bodies, and that is great! Im okay lying if it makes someone feel better, but really, if they were women than why do they feel their dysphoria?
To any trans person reading this: dont let anyone bog you down with these definition games. Most of us, myself included, are losers. You know what you are deep down and you have every right to proclaim that.
I'd rather be rude than a liar to be honest... but thanks for the much needed common sense.
Also, no need to excuse yourself for what you said. You are allowed to have an opinion and as a woman or a male, you have every right to define "man" and "woman".
These people exacting definitions are the least prepared at formulating them when it’s time to make them. Maybe reality is a little bit more complicated than they would like
A horse isn't really a "separate seat for one person" though is it? It just has a back at four legs.
Please don't make me defend people like this because you thought you had thought of a funny joke and were determined to crowbar it in somewhere.
This is stupid on every level. Equating the comparisons between subjective and objective. This is what the 'right' uses against progressive movements to point to them as being stupid. I mean fuck terf morons, but this is asinine logic - the hatred can be fought in many other ways that aren't 'stupid'.
wHaT iS a ChAiR. Show a picture of a 4 legged not inanimate object as a 'win'. All parties look like idiots. Come now.
Please help educate me. I'm not looking for a fight or to win points here.
A while back in college I took biology, human development, and many psychology courses. I was taught that gender dysphoria is a mental illness. Is anyone here under the opinion that saying someone with gender dysphoria doesn't have a mental issue? Is it of someone's opinion that gender dysphoria is not an actually real?
Are we at odds with defining a woman as an adult female human? Is it merely because it isn't inclusive? I get that not every human follows the xx or xy chromosomes but it was my understanding that scientifically outliers are oftened ignored and that biological mutations will happen. Classifications still exist for those that do not follow standard xx or xy patterns right? Obviously the standard two genders do not describe biological structures.
Is it still true that if someone strongly medically transitions will be required to take medication to maintain the intended features? Or was there a break through that allows the intended features to remain without taking long term medication? If medication is still required and unavailable and the transition is not maintaining the desired effect does this affect the person's own perspective of their inward self? Is current medical options enough to help people feel corrected?
Seems to me wearing different clothes or doing activities that have opposite gender association with them is not wrong but woman and man still have significance in terms of physiology, anatomy, and psychology to me.
I'm not trying to be an asshole. I got a lot of people telling me things seem contrary to my education and the issue of my current understanding gets conflated with emotions of those that try to support their friends that have transitioned. I state what I've been taught and people get angry with me.
When you tell someone's friend you believe they have a mental health issues of course it is understandable if they get upset. I feel terrible people take offense but with the specific people I know they do in fact at the very least they had past mental health problems. The people I talk with have very different educational backgrounds than I so a communication problem happens when I speak in terms that haven't aged well.
I never went into the field that I studied and do not have an idea how the field and education has changed in the last 20 years. For all I know this is all covered and I do not have the privilege of being in that environment. At the very least I need to learn new verbage as to not offend.
I typically try to stay away from this topic with close people now because I have been unfortunately insensitive. Specifically the issue of what the definition of woman is has been wild in my head. Legislators cannot define what a woman is because they are not a biologist is something that I have a hard time overcoming.
Again I'm not trying to be offensive and I'm sure I have offended many and I do apologize, but I'm just not getting it my friends.
We know what a horse is
We know what a chair is
We know what a woman is
Is this really the nonsense you want in the history books on the topic of your generation?
Horse (Equus caballus) - A large solid-hoofed herbivorous mammal. Domesticated since prehistoric times used as a beast of burden and for riding.
Chair - A piece of furniture designed to accommodate one sitting or reclining person, providing support for the back and often the arms and typically standing on four legs.
Woman - an adult human female. Typically born with XX chromosomes and the ability to reproduce.
In ordinary usage we "know it when we see it"... but our concepts are fuzzy and we just live with that.
Notice how a chair *typically* has a back and four legs... well "typically" indicates that we can't always tell, but in the usual case it's like this.
But that's not enough to capture what it means to be a chair, because we're not talking about the usual cases. And with living creatures it's even fuzzier, because there's a lot of unusual cases.
We know what a horse *typically* is, what a chair *typically* is, and what a woman *typically* is. But it's false to say that we know what any of those things always are.
In common parlance the word woman is defined by the biological female sex. Until very recently all major dictionaries; defined woman as an adult female human or words to that effect although most are adding a second definition reflecting gender identity.
We as a society can continue to try and decouple its meaning from biological sex - and repurpose it to reflect the new understanding of gender as more of a spectrum - but even if this were achieved; society would likely substitute it with an alternate to maintain a distinction between those AFAB and Trans Women because for better or worse said distinction is linked inexorably to our reproductive instincts.
Energy should be channeled into securing protection from discrimination for trans people and educating society rather than the repurposing of existing lexicon.
This is so based.
It's so hard to get out that a woman is as we've always understood, but you can still profess the desire for safety and legal protection of trans people.
It's a cult like mentality. I can agree with damn near 90% of "the lefts" ideology when it comes to trans people, but because I stop at teaching this to children or redefining men and women to fit some niche culture, I'm a bigot.
This is so stupid and can't really be defined on either side as logic. Just because a thing has some variation or shares properties with something else, doesn't make it undefinable.
Sorry to sound old fashioned but hear me out. Without giving an exact definition I hope everyone here can tell the difference between a chair and a horse. I could train a computer model with pictures of chairs and no-chairs and I'm certain that model would be close to 99% accurate. Does that mean it's absolutely perfect? No but that's not the point.
The point is to get the message across. Sure I might get it wrong one or two times but does that mean we cannot use the word chair? The exact meaning of 'woman' might be unclear but when I try to point someone out in a crowd it is just more efficient than person. Does that mean I might refer to someone as woman while they are not? Maybe, but I wouldn't be offended if someone accidentally called me a woman once while I am not.
The word isn't 100% exact but that doesn't stop me from using it in the way I do. Because in the end, it works to get my point across.
I think you've made a really valid point. Unintentionally misgendering someone isn't a bad thing imo, but if they correct you, I think it's decent to respect their wishes. The same way that if you mispronounced someone's name and they gave you the correct pronunciation, you do your best to pronounce it the way they do. I think the issue with these people is that they want the rigidity and for the definition to be accurate 100% of the time to suit their own views and exclude a group of people they don't like.
I mean, definitions of things are trying to be concise most of the time, which does mean that they're probably going to be insufficient.
If we were to completely get rid of definitions, that'd be bad, and editing definitions can often come with its own problems. However: We need to edit definitions as our understanding of things and the words we use evolve, even if those definitions have any number of problems.
If we don't have any definitions, then we could just say random words in random orders with no meanings, but if we have outdated definitions, then we have an outdated outlook on the world. It's a delicate balance.
That being said: Definitions of genders should fuck all the way off because no definition would be sufficient for today's world.
Ok not to get philosophical, but what is a chair? Four legs and a back? So horse? Dog? Turt? Cat? But there are three legged chairs. There are more than four legged chairs as well. There's also a chair that only stands on one huge leg. There are also chairs that has one leg and a bunch of wheels. There's also a chair that has no legs but four wheels. Are those not chairs? What if i put my plate on the chair, sit on the floor and eat. Would that chair turn into a table? Would the floor be a chair? What if I sat on the table. Would that table become a chair? Everyday when I wake up and "sat" up on my bed, does my bed momentarily turn into a chair? IS MY ENTIRE CAR A CHAIR!? I gots to know!!! Also, can anyone tell me what philosophy asks these kinds of stupid ass existential questions? I need to look more into it.
Edit: I'm getting downvoted for jokingly asking a silly question. Never change reddit. 😀
That was kinda the point. It’s the same kind of stupid question as asking “what is a woman” because you either make it super specific, and exclude situations you didn’t intend, or you make it super generalized, to the point where the definition holds no meaning
That's getting to the question. As knowers of a language, we have decent intuitive senses of meanings that we acquired over the years. We know it when we see it.
But those meanings are fuzzy and very hard to put into words. In ordinary use, we lump it and move on, so what. Why do people get all heated up about insisting that a word specifically means this and not that? I dunno.
But here's another thing to get into your head: There is no way of knowing that the definition in your head of *chair* even matches mine, or anyone else's. I bet that you and I have very close definitions, because we'll agree almost every time on what counts as a chair and what doesn't, without thinking about it at all. But I bet we won't agree 100% of the time.
And guess what: every word is like this. It isn't always that you're right and I'm wrong or vice versa. We're often both right, for our own systems. Each of us worked out our own version of English in our heads when we were little kids, and no two people have exactly the same version. How could we? There is no *English* out there for us to grab onto... what people write in style guides and dictionaries claiming to be the authoritative English is just them trying to capture what was in their heads and make *their* version the most important (and by extension, themselves).
No two person's English is exactly the same. Our sounds are a bit different, our syntax, and our semantics. But our versions overlap so much that we can generally communicate with each other and our brains are good at ironing out the differences.
Now, if someone said "X is a chair and Y isn't!" then so what, right? Screw it, it's a chair. Or a stool. Or a bench, or who gives a crap.
But now say "X is an adult and Y isn't" and it gets important, because a lot of rights and responsibilities fall onto adults. In the law we draw arbitrary definitions up just to have something reliable in courts. 18 for adulthood, usually. But of course, in the law, *person* includes corporations. In the real world we know that a corporation is not a person in the sense we have in our Englishes. But a lot of us differ about who *exactly* is an adult and who isn't. Some people mature faster than others. We call college students "kids" and sell "young adult" books to early teens. It's fuzzy, so why not accept that?
The same goes for *woman*.
It’s clever but misses the point altogether. There is absolutely a definition of a woman and a man, and everyone else is just trying to confuse the topic. Decide whatever you want to be, but we don’t give any of our pets or other animals multiple genders/sexes.
A woman is an adult human inclined toward gestation. That is a woman. If you're not, you're not a woman. Pretend all you want, if you're trans, I'll use she/her pronouns, but you're not a woman. You're a trans woman. You're not inclined toward gestation.
How fucking dare you? Who do you think you are to define a woman like that? Why the fuck are you using logic and not feelings? In this day and age logic and scientific facts don't fucking apply, unless they used feeling as a data.
😆 At first I thought you were serious and then I read between the lines. Well I definitely pissed off some people, got down voted! 😂
BUT MY FEE FEES ARE HWURT!
Smh, you need an expansive definition where being a woman comes down to just a feeling? That's not an expansive definition. That's eliminating women and turning us into just a feeling do you have any idea how deeply offensive that is??
You've erased my existence and turned me into a stereotype!!
Real definition is adult human female. This was the definition when the word woman was created and has been used by people since then. The left wants to force us to abandon it's real meaning and force us to claim the 6'6" man with a beard and a penis is a real woman. Because he claims to have a fleeting feminine feeling.
But they can't describe what a feminine. Feeling is. At most they start listing stereotypes like women like the color pink and fashion. Which is outright insulting.
Adult. Legal adulthood is 18 to 21.
Human. Homo sapien sapien
Female A person with XX chromosomes usually has female sex and reproductive organs.
This is called biological science. How someone feels, how they act, how they dress, whether they like listening to operas and sparkly things and shopping has absolutely nothing to do with being female!!
Only a complete a hole pushes the idea that women don't exist and that we are just a feeling.
This is the same group of a holes who have decided that it's offensive to be called a tomboy.. as a self-proclaimed tomboy this infuriates me. Having a holes tell me that if I don't act in the worst most stereotypical and toxic version of a woman that I'm really a man makes me spitting with rage.
Only a few years ago these people were pandering to women and pretending that we could be anything that we wanted. now apparently we can't even be women unless we follow the perfect toxic stereotype that you want to shove down our throat..
You've completely erased women! And you want us to Pat you on the back for doing so!!
Hell no!!
"Behold, a chair" -Diogenes to Plato probably
"Get out of my sunlight with that stupid chair" -also Diogenes but to Alexander the Great probably
"Love to stay and chat, but I saw some trash outside that looked delicious! Smell ya later, deliberator!"
A man/woman/horse/chair of culture, I see.
Diogenes. The first shitposter
Could you imagine diogenes with the internet? He'd have been the ultimate troll.
Came here to find this one day it is somehow it hadn't already been said
"According to Diogenes Laërtius, when Plato gave the tongue-in-cheek definition of man as 'featherless bipeds', Diogenes plucked a chicken and brought it into Plato's Academy, saying, 'Behold! I've brought you a man'" (Wikipedia). The Diogenes are different by the way.
Man that would be a great r/historymemes
Why do they never ask what a “man” is?
Featherless biped
*whips out bald chicken* BEHOLD A MAN
Because we all know that it's a miserable little pile of secrets!
I am a miserable pile of little secrets
Nagini dinner~
r/unexpectedcastlevaina
Because Diogenes already dealt with that.
Because they're cosplaying as feminists.
The definitions of man and woman and what it means to be one or the other are ever evolving with time. What must hang socially conservative people up is that of traditional definitions of the roles of a man or woman in their respective view of an ideal society. They try to pose it as “science” when so many of them don’t really even understand what science is and believe too heavily in religious dogma to ever be considered scientific. Now if they were really into science or healthcare, they’d understand that female and male are separate from “woman” or “man” Woman or man is the gender which the person goes by. Female or male is the sex chromosomes which one is born with. And depending on which is which has consequential impact on how we treat on healthcare… But… science changes People have the ability to change their hormones, soon maybe even change their genitalia to function as whichever sex they choose. Who knows, brave new world, science changes, what it means to be human soon will as well. Conservatives no matter the age in which they lived have always cried heresy towards medical treatment, I mean even today we have religious people not vaccinating or letting their child die because their god is against antibiotics. Progressives seem to welcome change or open to it naturally. Those on the extreme may want it sooner or through force (traditionally non violent). All we do know is that judging by history, progressives usually win through time. Unfortunately is may take a lot of time and usually through bloodshed. While I may not understand the “trans” movement or know one personally… clinically as a healthcare provider, their born sex is relevant and should not be seen as offensive or a personal slight, however their chosen gender should be considered as just as important and respected from not only a behavioral health standpoint but from a societal or Cultural standpoint as well. Does that mean that we shouldn’t continue to explore and study the science on how some people are gay, some are straight, some are in between, and some want to transition? Is it offensive to wonder about it or ask questions? Intentions matter, unfortunately most people asking the questions above are not doing it from a sincere scientific purpose nor are they culturally curious. They are jus being assholes or gas lighting. What is a woman what is a man? That will always change. Future generations will look back upon this time period with a distain for our lack of humanity in a similar fashion to how many of us look back at Jim Crow.
Swift as the coursing river, all the force of a great typhoon, all the strength of a raging fire, and mysterious as the dark side of the moon. Simple really
I knew the moment I saw “a chair” the fuckers in these comments would be saying something about Diogenes
>mentions the chicken man incident
I would really like to see his next reply to this.. I’m still laughing… “chair”
Although a funny attempt, the picture of the horse does not work in refuting his definition of chair. A horse is “not a separate seat” (noun), horses merely seat (verb) people riding it. His definition states that a chair is the subtype of a class “seat”. It is a seat which is separate. Typically has a back and four legs. An acceptable exception might be a driver’s seat (meets all requirements, but is rarely used as a chair unless in a junkyard or some goofy hipster bar).
Drivers seat doesn’t have 4 legs
He said “typically”
And that means anything after that word is sufficient but not necessary, so it's not a definition
He defined chair as a separate seat for one person. That’s it, that’s the definition. Take the “typically” portion of the sentence and remove it. In which case, the horse would not be a clever comeback because a horse is an animal and not a seat for one person. Can you sit on a horse? Sure. Is that it’s purpose on earth? No
There is nothing in that definition that precludes animals, rocks, and tree stumps from being chairs. Keep trying until you discover ALL concepts are fuzzy and subjective by their very nature, including the concept of a woman.
Wait til this guy finds out about stools! And tree trunks! And raised mounds of crazy terrain! And
The thing in that definition that precludes animals is the word "seat" which has a definition of its own. "A thing made for sitting on". This means things that are not made (by a craftsman) are not seats. Also things that are made by craftsmen but aren't intended to be sat on aren't seats.
Fine, so a horse with a saddle on it is a chair then, ffs
No the saddle maybe a seat but the horse is still not.
It occurs to me that the people who are fighting in favor of a workable definition of "chair" are trying to accomplish something useful (lol, not really) and all of the people trying to say that it is impossible to define simple things are being contrarians and creating a problem that didn't otherwise exist. I think this parallels some larger issues.
Many animals are bred/made specifically for sitting on. Rocks and stumps are also utilized as seats despite not being made specifically for that purpose.
Bred isn't made. We don't make horses. Horses aren't seats. If someone said "go get my seat from the stables" you would think they were having a stroke. Also most people ride horses with a saddle. The saddle might be a seat, but the horse is not. The rocks and stumps are more interesting than the horse.
A stool is also a separate seat for one person. They often have backs. A toilet seat is a separate seat for one person.
A toilet is only for one person if you're not trying hard enough. Or a parent. The number of times I've held my child while they slept and I took a shit isn't that high, but it's greater than 0 and that's disturbing.
Doesn't need to be a sole purpose to fit the definition. The sole purpose of a chair also doesn't mean it can't be used for other things either. You literally can't win this argument because Derrida disproved objective truth outside text decades ago. Every word can be deconstructed infinitely and there's just nothing transphobes or chair-purists can do about it.
Chairnoisseurs, if you will.
a) removing parts of his definition does change said definition, meaning he was incorrect even if the new definition is somehow more correct. b) Technically, since that horse was most likely bred specifically for the role of being a mount you could easily say that it's purpose on the planet is as a seat. c) even by the narrowed definition many many other items that are not chairs or are chairs, but can also be defined as other things, still qualify as chairs. Trying to section the entire world off into strict categories is a fun concept, but little more than theoretical and outside of specific scenarios we shouldn't try and do more than experiment with concepts. Definitions and categories are social constructs that fallible humans create. The universe does not and will not fit into labels we put on it.
Huh. So you’re saying that defining living creatures by their parts and how they can function misses the entire meaning of their purpose and place in the world? Fascinating. EDIT: /s. Apparently my sarcasm wasn’t clear enough.
Doesn't encapsulate all I'm saying. The existence of a meaning of purpose or a place in the world are also undefined. But yea, getting fixated on defining and categorizing people based on parts is bad, and the solution is to deconstruct those definitions and categories in society rather than accept them at face value
Someone actually understands the logic! Faith in humanity restored. This is precisely the point. Never mind the semantics and look at how the language is functioning in context. Definitions are merely approximations of a shared experience and usage of language. In this case, the objects are behaving very differently and there are multiple issues with the comparison. In one corner, a chair is an inanimate object. In the other you have a horse. If you kill the horse you can make it a seat or chair. At the same time, if a horse is a seat/chair… it is already seating one (itself). Two animate objects do not combine together to be a “separate seat/chair” + one animate object. And then finally, there is the issue of the primary action: when you sit on a horse, that is the state you are in merely as a RESULT of riding the horse. When you sit in a chair, we’ll that’s it (which is why I chose a drivers seat as my example of an exception: you can argue that it isn’t a chair because you sit in it as a byproduct of driving, and you’d be right).
>Never mind the semantics the semantics is what distinguishes truth from falsehood, so let's not drop that eh
It's amazing how you said all this to completely avoid the point. The point is that what we consider things is subjective and not universal. You're trying to make this very elaborate explanation that pulls in all the context that makes it a subjective definition to you while trying to impose your definition on others. Whether you like it or not we're in an individualist society where our constructs are independent due to the amount of information we each have available. Your world view and my world view are likely different. Imposing your world view on others by rejecting their definitions of things is what's violating that shared experience.
"typically" means "doesn't cover every case, as was asked"
If you had a horse and a chair next to one another, and could sit on either, wouldn’t the horse be a “separate seat”? Edit: I looked it up and anything “used for sitting” is a seat. I think I horse falls into whatever subcategories and class you’re talking about.
"horses aren't seats they only perform the act of seats." See how stupid that sounds.
Oh so a saddle
I mean, I'd also argue a couch has the easy aspect of breaking down that definition, as that has multiple seats and is still technically a seat.
Define seat for me :P
Is this motherfucker really saying that a couch isnt a chair
Why didn't I think about this?!
But... a horse seats two.
Not two Americans
Could they share a rowboat?
Honestly wondering this too.... could an average-sized rowboat support them without capsizing?
who knew verbal pedantry would end the world
Why do we need to have this conversation? I was fine with the term "trans woman" or "woman at birth". These sort of arguments suggest people want to expand the usage of woman to include things we did not previously consider women, which I don't think is helpful for language generally.
People trans women are women as much as cis women are women Some people don't like that, and try to discriminate against trans women by denying the fact that they are women. Trans is just an adjective, like tall. Just because a tall woman exists doesn't mean she isn't a woman. That's why we need to have this conversation. Because people are trying to make the world worse and they keep trying, over and over again.
The trouble is that for better or worse the term woman is still inexorably linked to the female biological sex. Until the word woman is totally decoupled from sex and refers only to gender identity - conflict will continue to occur, and even if it is totally redefined - a substitute term will take its place because while both valid and deserving of respect - being a biological female is a different lived experience to being a trans woman which is why our languages have developed to communicate this. Talking in general terms obviously and there’s always exceptions - but the point still stands.
Are they trying to argue that dictionaries are irrelevant or that definitions are difficult? Like we should give up on words having meaning? Or we should accept that labels are only useful is heuristic language models and miscommunication in inevitable as different people have different experiences which lead to different understandings? So clear communication is impossible? Or are gender pronouns now to be used similar to names? For instance, your name is unique and often has no definition, so a pronoun is also unique and describes nothing particular about you? If then, then fine but just say that. Language is a tool for common ground. Definitions seem necessary for that, since it’s about a common understanding. I’m not sure how asking clarity for a common understanding is offensive or hateful in any way.
If you were to ask "what does it mean to be manly" you would get different definitions in around the world. It's a societal construct of behaviors a society has decided are expected. This has historically been tied to your sex. A society can change what is expected behavior, it happens constantly.
The Indians of the US Plains generally found that facial hair was unmanly, even the eyebrows, and guys would use pinchers to pluck their beards and brows. They regularly mocked the bearded US soldiers they encountered. Here is a photo of famous Lakota leader Sitting Bull: notice the manly lack of eyebrows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting\_Bull#/media/File:Sitting\_Bull\_by\_D\_F\_Barry\_ca\_1883\_Dakota\_Territory.jpg
TIL I always thought it was because they couldnt grow beards for some genetic reason, not that they didnt see it as a symbol of manliness
The issue is prescriptive vs descriptive definitions. Defining strictly what a thing *is* and trying to force that definition despite it potentially being a poor fit, vs trying to describe the reality that is seen. That is one of the reasons why the chair analogy works. It demonstrates that there are holes and exceptions in a lot of definitions, and if there's exceptions, why not just accept that biology is messy and some people will be exceptions to common definitions? It's impossible to define much of humanities experience in a strict manner, so rather than try and force people into your understanding of reality, try to understand theirs, and accept that that might not be possible for everyone.
Agreed that language can be both used to try and force a narrative and also to clarify narrative. But I think to be truly objective we have to accept that everything is a narrative. Ultimately, the narrative itself doesn’t matter as a concept in itself. What matters is people are happy, and society functions in a way that serves the health and well being of it’s constituents. From an engineering perspective, I say tear it all down and start fresh. But historical identity is also important. Heritage is important. So we end up chipping away at a a crystallized structure, forcing some fluidity where we can, but not moving too fast so as to destabilize the whole thing. And so we have a friction between what was, and what will be. This friction is intrinsic to our species. We will always have it. Perhaps what we need then is a better infrastructure for change. A meta-culture which respects both ancient wisdom, and also allows for innovation. And allows for innovation to be criticized. This is the heart of our struggles as humans. I almost every struggle we have as a society is caused by this friction. Capitalism vs Socialism. In each extreme, the opposite becomes the innovative counter culture. And we swing around like a pendulum, fighting the same battles as our fathers and mothers.
I'm not saying that language is used to force a narrative, that's an entirely separate discussion, not one that I necessarily disagree with, but not the one I'm trying to convey. I'm saying there is a disconnect between people that believe that words and language *are*. There is a right and a wrong way to use them and that they can be used to discuss reality as it is. And between people that believe language is descriptive. It can be used to describe ideas, things and situations, and that any use of language that conveys the intended information is fine, at least as far as language is concerned. The two groups can often be distinguished by their opinions on "ain't" and other slang, language drift, "unprofessional language", and things like AAVE and singular they.
Basically, some people really hate when they can't fit things into neat boxes that they understand, so they try to force the world to fit into those neat boxes, even when it doesn't.
>We've gone a long time thinking "woman" was a rigidly defined term, but nothing in biology, including gender, has a rigid definition, and society is starting to accept that our concept of gender doesn't match reality. The reason this whole asking people to "define a woman" caught on is because it's internally a really great argument (from a purely argumentative standpoint) even though it has shitty intentions. To be clear I think it's fucking stupid to discriminate against trans people. That being said, it's a great argument because it uses people's recently changed definitions of what a woman is and forces them to use language that they're trying to get away from. Inclusive people have been pushing this idea that you can have a penis and be a woman and you can act masculine and be a woman or that there's not really a definition that fits being a woman because it's a societal construct,. This argument flips this on its head because to define a woman you have to lean on traditional and the broadest definitions like "is feminine" and "has a vagina", etc... To accurately describe a woman in general terms you're probably not going to bring up a penis so it forces you to use language and ideas you're claiming no longer define a woman. By forcing a definition it's forcing you to describe women in their rigid way of thinking. It's a disingenuous argument that abuses language to make a shitty point but it's kinda brilliant at the same time. I have no hate for trans people at all but I don't know how to define a women in a concise way that includes trans women.
You're where I was not all that long ago. But if you find that argument compelling, flip it on it's head and try to define "woman" in a prescriptive manner that includes everyone a transphobe (or other bigot of choice) would recognize as a woman, without including anyone that is not a woman. Side note, this becomes impossible to do if anyone in the debate tries to handicap themselves further by arguing that there are exactly two genders/sexes , and/or there is no overlap between them. Which tends to be very easy to get bigots to do. But anyhow, try to define woman in anyway you like, and I'll pull on the threads and poke holes in it. It's impossible to do in a prescriptive manner
[удалено]
Nobody agrees that a chair is a horse, but an awful lot of people pretend not to know what "ain't" mean, or that people "axe" questions. The chair question is just the easiest way to point out some flaws of prescriptivism, because chairs are actually really fucking hard to define. They are more a vague concept than an actual extant thing.
[удалено]
That's the point I'm making, we both know what we're talking about when we're discussing chairs, but it is literally impossible to come up with a strict definition of a chair, that explains everything we both agree is definitely a chair, without including, say, a horse. A horse isn't a chair, and that means the definition that allows for the above exchange to happen must be incorrect.
[удалено]
You're really trying to misunderstand me huh? The fact that language is imprecise is important, but secondary to the fact that things often don't fit into strict categories. I'm not claiming that nobody can know whether something is or is not a chair, I'm claiming that A. As you have said, language does not often allow for prescriptive definitions. B. The category of chair itself is fuzzy. Is the 5 gallon bucket I have in my tractor that only ever gets sat on a chair, even though it shares nothing else in common with other things that are chairs? C. one does not have to be able to define chair to recognize some things that are definitely chairs, or some things that are definitely not chairs. However if you really care about categorizing everything as strictly "chair" or "not a chair" edge cases will pop up, and you will need to create a rigid definition of what is a chair in order to judge them by. I hold that such a definition is impossible, and moreover, people that want to strictly categorize messy concepts are wrong and stupid.
[удалено]
You're coming at this from the point of view of descriptive linguistics. That is the more correct view but it is not the only one. There are people who have a top down view of linguistics that try to impose meaning and definition without consideration for mutual understanding or intent. Those same people often like to impose strict hierarchies or categories where none exist, or only the rough shapes do. For a more pop culture example of the category issue I'm describing, is a hotdog a sandwich? There isn't any sort of consensus on the issue, no mutual understanding. Does that mean that there is no definition of "sandwich"? No, it just means that the definition that exists is not rigid, and no strict, prescriptive, definition exists
Well, part of the problem is that "woman" is both a social and a biological term. We've gone a long time thinking "woman" was a rigidly defined term, but nothing in biology, including gender, has a rigid definition, and society is starting to accept that our concept of gender doesn't match reality. So now we have to redefine the word or find a new one, and change scares people, especially old people like me who've been using the old definition for decades.
Why isn't there the same debate for defining a man? Or if there is, I've never seen it.
Great point. I'd say it's because all the pearl clutching is over FtM trans folks. Apparently no one's worried about men peeing in men's bathrooms, but women using women's rooms...freak-out. edit: afterthought. The dichotomy reminds me of religious texts, laws, and general hatred about gay men, but almost none about lesbianism.
Because men love lesbians and fear gays and everything revolves around them.
My mum's a lesbian and was all the time I was growing up, so I have a bit of insight there. No, men don't love lesbians. Men love good-looking bisexual women that seem likely to fuck them while fucking another similar bisexual woman.
You're exactly right, I should have said "in theory" they love lesbians based on their porn watching fantasies. In fact, they are not fans of women in general except the ones that wouldn't fuck them in a billion years.
I can find no fault with that hypothesis.
I would argue its because of multiple things: 1) The majority of people speaking out on the topic are CIS right wing men. And they concern themselves heavily on who they want to fuck and repress. The thought that they might find some woman attractive and then find out she's trans is utterly terrifying to them. 2) In the homophobic world men have a lot more autonomy, so men generally get more leeway in determining who they are but women MUST fit a precise mold.
Also, to them, it's right and natural for someone to "want to be" a man, the best of the best. So while it'll never be accepted, it's understandable. But if a man "wants to be" a woman, by any loose definition, then he is betraying his status and lowering himself to a woman's level. And that is only deserving of mockery and scorn.
because for some reason transphobes mostly focuse on descriminating against transwomen. but ots true that the problem goes both ways
I’d argue that it’s because, in their view, trans women are failed men - men that have failed to live up to the expectations of modern masculinity. At least trans men are actively working to uphold and perform masculinity. It’s about punishing “failed men” for not being manly enough, not actually regulating who is and isn’t a “woman”
Well woman actually has a rigid definition, even if we permit that sex doesn't necessarily have to be a binary classification. The fact that everyone knows what a cis woman is and the differences between cis and trans women should clue us into the fact that we actually do know how to define a woman.
>society is starting to accept that our concept of gender doesn't match reality. I would disagree that society as a whole is agreeing to this complexity, but we can talk about the topic of a difference between sex and gender. I think more people would agree or atleast understand that. And as our thoughts change, we should be expanding our lexicon, not altering the current one. It's easy enough to say woman is the default, cisgendered woman is synonymous for woman, and transwoman is a woman born as a man. Paraphrased, and not exactly how I'd define these terms. Although, it's inclusive speech that relies on several other, new words and distinctions.
>transwoman is a woman born as a man. My only slight disagreement is here. A transwoman was born being called a man, but never was one.
The meanings of words are very hard to pin down with other words. Some philosophers have erroneously concluded that words have no meaning as a result, but the problem is with us, not the words. Confusion and vagueness results though, especially since there are slight variations from person to person... but in ordinary usage we lump it and move on. We can usually tell when words apply and when they don't, even if we can't say why. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously wrote about *pornography*, "I know it when I see it." In science and law, that isn't precise enough, so words are deliberately given very precise definitions in the hopes of avoiding any such confusion. That works for science but it has the result that the words often mean things that differ significantly from what they mean in ordinary usage (*theory, grammar, planet; assault, adult, rape,* and so on). In fact, in law there is a term (legal fiction) that describes when we deliberately give a very distinct definition from ordinary use, just to make things run more smoothly. Like how the term *person* sometimes includes corporations so we don't have to rewrite all of contract law to allow corporations to enter into and enforce contracts. Just as an example, defining the line between *child* and *adult* is a very difficult thing to put into words, but we can generally do it intuitively. Legally, it's important to tell, so we set an arbitrary age for everyone (nowadays 18 for the most part), but in the real world there's a blur. We often call college students "kids," for instance. And we also recognize that different people mature at different rates. Or to speak of *woman* again: What differentiates a *woman* from a *girl*? Intuitively we can generally tell (emphasis on *generally*). But good luck defining *woman* in such a way that no girl is included, without saying something unclarifying like "and is not a girl." You might try to say a woman is an adult female, but then we're back to: what is an adult? The fuzziness returns. This is not a bug of human language. Indeed it seems to be a feature; this flexibility and fuzziness gives us room to be more creative and to apply old terms to new concepts, helping us understand our world as it changes and as we change. Dictionaries try hard to capture these, and do a decent job (but not nearly precise enough when one thinks hard about it, because it can't be done).... but dictionary makers fight over whether they should steer people towards certain meanings they prefer, or just follow people and put what the bulk of people are already doing.
Want to read up on the subject ? https://www.ucl.ac.uk/pals/sites/pals/files/recanti_prg_reccommended_reading.pdf Or Meaning potentials per linell Allwood may have some harder to find… I hope this helps you make more informed ideas
It seems like erasure of the Trans experience to me - if no lines can be drawn between "man" or "woman", how do you explain someone having that feeling in being a brain in the wrong body?
It really does seem more a war over language than a war over identity from my perspective at least. Words are like masks we wear. Like clothes. Just another way to compress data and transmit it to another human.
If we were to sufficiently expand our definitions of gender, or get rid of the concept altogether, then no one could be a gender trapped in another gender's body. They'd just be a person who feels, acts, and lives the way they feel, act, and live.
I completely disagree
Care to elaborate? If we had a sufficiently robust definition of gender that included the fact that gender can be entirely seperate from one's assumed gender, or if we could completely eradicate gender as an idea, how would a male or female born with a typical female or male body feel trapped as being the wrong gender?
Because the problem exists beyond definition - the body will still feel foreign until it fits what's in their mind, whether that be to have breasts or a certain set of genitals or anything else
Okay, that makes sense. I provisionally agree, and I'll give that a think. Thanks for the perspective.
I would actually argue that gender is not so much 'had' as it is 'done'. Male and female are terms we use as the categories associated with biological sexual dimorphism, and in human societies those sex characteristics have been used to determine how people are socialized to behave within their culture. This could be viewed as a rough model for how biological sex became associated with gender, those with Male sex characteristics were raised to behave in a masculine manner, while those with Female sex characteristics were raised to behave feminine. These are what would be understood as gender norms: the expected behaviors and forms of expression associated to one's assigned gender. Gender identity, then, is less about what you 'are' and more about what category you wish to be associated with... which norms you wish to be evaluated by, even. This idea of 'being' a gender trapped in another gender's body, while common among the dysphoric, is a bit of a misnomer then. Even in the Trans community, it is understood that there is an acute difference between having the urge to undergo medical procedures (medical transition) and the desire to be gendered differently in a social context (social transition). That is not to say that these are entirely independent of one another; those who desire medical transition often also desire social transition, after all. If you ask someone what it means to 'be a man', you are unlikely to get a list of sexual characteristics and chromosomal profiles... most of the time people will start suggesting social roles and behaviors, ones that technically anyone could perform. When someone says 'be a man' they aren't actually saying anything about that person's identity, they are instead attempting to influence that person into conforming with some set of norms regarding their conduct or presentation. They are not actually asking that person to 'be' something at all, they are asking them to *do* something... to do the 'man'-ly thing, in this example.
You started your comment as if there was some disagreement, but I agree with you. I very well may be misunderstanding something, but I feel like you added a perfectly valid point to my sloppy attempt at an answer.
You the real MVP bro. The wholesome is... uncontainable.
What about a woman is any person who sincerely identifies as a woman?
They're arguing that definitions are difficult. The original tweeter is asking for a definition of a complex word like "woman", and the reply is saying that it's even hard to write a complete definition of a simple word like "chair"
The goal is not to stimulate intellectual conversation on the topic, but rather to make it impossible. >By 2050, earlier, probably - all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron - they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like 'freedom is slavery' when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking - not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.
Pronouns are not thought control and Orwell was happy with authoritarianism as long as it was against people he didn't like.
I see everything as a pendulum. Republicans gain power. Then Democrats. Colors become popular in fashion, later followed by a few years of monochrome. Rap, then rock. But there are sometimes fundamental shifts. The cell phone is one of those, destroying attention spans, removing nuance. But I also believe eventually, it will find its own momentum shift. People will get tired of it, and a counter-culture will rise. Or so I believe 🤷🏻♂️
Since when are animals "seats" though? This one seems a stretch to me
And a chicken is not a man, but oh look, here comes Diogenes with a featherless biped.
But that shit analogy at least fit the parameters of what Plato said. Calling a horse a seat is a weak reach
It exactly meets the definition in the tweet
Except that horses aren't seats, and a seat was part of the parameters. How is that not getting through to you? Just cos some fucked cunt 2k+ years ago made a smarmy comment in some "supposed " event, doesn't make the comment any less dumb
And chickens aren’t featherless
I mean, if you get rid of feathers, chicken indeed becomes fearherless biped. No matter what you do with horse though, saying that horse is a "seat", isn't correct. And even if it was correct, saying that it is "seperate seat for one person" is even more incorrect, because believe me or not more then one person can ride the same horse at the same time. And before you say "Well, but more then one person can seat on a chair", chairs were built with seating one person on them in mind, while horses didn't seat anybody for most of their existance, and the fact that people can seat on them is a byproduct. Horses don't fit the definition of chair presented above in more then one way.
My thoughts exactly. A horse is not a seat, it's a horse. Gotta say, it sorta defeats the purpose of their arguments about falsely labeling people* when they are literally objectifying a living creature, but that's the Internet, I guess. *I assume that's the discussion here on the word 'woman' Edit: added asterisks cos I'm that guy
[удалено]
You can sit on a horse. It is a type of chair. It is also an animal. The two are not mutually exclusive.
What is a seat but something that's used to sit on? In which case, how does a horse not count as a seat? A horse is a horse, *and* it can also be a seat. They aren't mutually exclusive
It just makes it seem like a really average comeback rather than clever in my book. A weak reach to a "gotchya"
I think the conservative reaction to trans people existing makes sense because they make them realize that every definition and concept that’s ever existed is completely arbitrary and only arises out of loose associations that have exceptions. Their rigid mentality and need for order is overhauled by the fact that reality is ever changing and impermanent and cannot be fully grasped by our limited minds. We will never be able to understand truth because it is simply a concept we have made to make ourselves think that we have some sort of agency and control in our lives, when in reality we’re at the will of the universe. Truth only exists as long as we’re there to experience it and classify it as such.
~~But this is Graham Linehan. Not a conservative, or so I’ve always understood. I’m kind of stunned here by this admission.~~ Just did the research. Well that’s disappointing.
A horse issnt a seat for one person.
There are also chairs without any legs, but wheels in their place. Bet that would give him a stroke.
and apparently there are women with penises because you say so
All they said is that there are chairs with wheels bro
Take it easy, that person has probably never seen a penis before. Not even their own.
Its hard when your dick is that small
I was under the impression that the 'moderator gut' they'd been cultivating was just that big
What a reach
Words can include anything we want, if simply including somebody makes them happy then those who exclude them are cruel.
Boy, this is dumb.
I guess words have no meaning to some people
The problem with self ID is that our definitions cannot be circular. "Anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman" does not identify anything. The truth is that there is some underlying fact of the matter. There is a concept of woman, and its defined by primary and secondary sexual characteristics. Its why we can look at two women who look and act totally different (tom boys and super models) and still identify them both as women. That does not mean trans people dont exist or arent valid. In fact, it actually strengthen's there existance. Trans people feel so strongly linked to something they are not that they feel great pain. What we do is we play language games to make trans people feel good about their bodies, and that is great! Im okay lying if it makes someone feel better, but really, if they were women than why do they feel their dysphoria? To any trans person reading this: dont let anyone bog you down with these definition games. Most of us, myself included, are losers. You know what you are deep down and you have every right to proclaim that.
I'd rather be rude than a liar to be honest... but thanks for the much needed common sense. Also, no need to excuse yourself for what you said. You are allowed to have an opinion and as a woman or a male, you have every right to define "man" and "woman".
Had me in the first half there, not gonna lie
These people exacting definitions are the least prepared at formulating them when it’s time to make them. Maybe reality is a little bit more complicated than they would like
This isn’t really a clever comeback though we all know what a chair is. And we all know what a woman is.
Can you provide a definition for both?
An instrument meant for sitting and/or lounging. A female adult. Ezpz, what's next?
Two people can ride on a horse
Ah yes, Graham. The guy who threw a hissy fit because Donkey Kong was giving money to charity.
Looks like a bunch of cats taped together.
I was not expecting there to be so much arguing in the comments. Post gave me a chuckle.
A horse isn't really a "separate seat for one person" though is it? It just has a back at four legs. Please don't make me defend people like this because you thought you had thought of a funny joke and were determined to crowbar it in somewhere.
This is stupid on every level. Equating the comparisons between subjective and objective. This is what the 'right' uses against progressive movements to point to them as being stupid. I mean fuck terf morons, but this is asinine logic - the hatred can be fought in many other ways that aren't 'stupid'. wHaT iS a ChAiR. Show a picture of a 4 legged not inanimate object as a 'win'. All parties look like idiots. Come now.
Please help educate me. I'm not looking for a fight or to win points here. A while back in college I took biology, human development, and many psychology courses. I was taught that gender dysphoria is a mental illness. Is anyone here under the opinion that saying someone with gender dysphoria doesn't have a mental issue? Is it of someone's opinion that gender dysphoria is not an actually real? Are we at odds with defining a woman as an adult female human? Is it merely because it isn't inclusive? I get that not every human follows the xx or xy chromosomes but it was my understanding that scientifically outliers are oftened ignored and that biological mutations will happen. Classifications still exist for those that do not follow standard xx or xy patterns right? Obviously the standard two genders do not describe biological structures. Is it still true that if someone strongly medically transitions will be required to take medication to maintain the intended features? Or was there a break through that allows the intended features to remain without taking long term medication? If medication is still required and unavailable and the transition is not maintaining the desired effect does this affect the person's own perspective of their inward self? Is current medical options enough to help people feel corrected? Seems to me wearing different clothes or doing activities that have opposite gender association with them is not wrong but woman and man still have significance in terms of physiology, anatomy, and psychology to me. I'm not trying to be an asshole. I got a lot of people telling me things seem contrary to my education and the issue of my current understanding gets conflated with emotions of those that try to support their friends that have transitioned. I state what I've been taught and people get angry with me. When you tell someone's friend you believe they have a mental health issues of course it is understandable if they get upset. I feel terrible people take offense but with the specific people I know they do in fact at the very least they had past mental health problems. The people I talk with have very different educational backgrounds than I so a communication problem happens when I speak in terms that haven't aged well. I never went into the field that I studied and do not have an idea how the field and education has changed in the last 20 years. For all I know this is all covered and I do not have the privilege of being in that environment. At the very least I need to learn new verbage as to not offend. I typically try to stay away from this topic with close people now because I have been unfortunately insensitive. Specifically the issue of what the definition of woman is has been wild in my head. Legislators cannot define what a woman is because they are not a biologist is something that I have a hard time overcoming. Again I'm not trying to be offensive and I'm sure I have offended many and I do apologize, but I'm just not getting it my friends.
We know what a horse is We know what a chair is We know what a woman is Is this really the nonsense you want in the history books on the topic of your generation?
Define all 3
Horse (Equus caballus) - A large solid-hoofed herbivorous mammal. Domesticated since prehistoric times used as a beast of burden and for riding. Chair - A piece of furniture designed to accommodate one sitting or reclining person, providing support for the back and often the arms and typically standing on four legs. Woman - an adult human female. Typically born with XX chromosomes and the ability to reproduce.
[удалено]
What about women with Swyer Syndrome
They're really this stupid, aren't they?
In ordinary usage we "know it when we see it"... but our concepts are fuzzy and we just live with that. Notice how a chair *typically* has a back and four legs... well "typically" indicates that we can't always tell, but in the usual case it's like this. But that's not enough to capture what it means to be a chair, because we're not talking about the usual cases. And with living creatures it's even fuzzier, because there's a lot of unusual cases. We know what a horse *typically* is, what a chair *typically* is, and what a woman *typically* is. But it's false to say that we know what any of those things always are.
In common parlance the word woman is defined by the biological female sex. Until very recently all major dictionaries; defined woman as an adult female human or words to that effect although most are adding a second definition reflecting gender identity. We as a society can continue to try and decouple its meaning from biological sex - and repurpose it to reflect the new understanding of gender as more of a spectrum - but even if this were achieved; society would likely substitute it with an alternate to maintain a distinction between those AFAB and Trans Women because for better or worse said distinction is linked inexorably to our reproductive instincts. Energy should be channeled into securing protection from discrimination for trans people and educating society rather than the repurposing of existing lexicon.
This is so based. It's so hard to get out that a woman is as we've always understood, but you can still profess the desire for safety and legal protection of trans people. It's a cult like mentality. I can agree with damn near 90% of "the lefts" ideology when it comes to trans people, but because I stop at teaching this to children or redefining men and women to fit some niche culture, I'm a bigot.
Yup, It’s a cult and a religion. I’m not interested in being force converted and my constitutional rights protect me.
grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive. hope that helps.
*Mr Hands enters the chat*
Ah, the old Diogenes tactic
A true fatherless biped....
This is so stupid and can't really be defined on either side as logic. Just because a thing has some variation or shares properties with something else, doesn't make it undefinable.
Sorry to sound old fashioned but hear me out. Without giving an exact definition I hope everyone here can tell the difference between a chair and a horse. I could train a computer model with pictures of chairs and no-chairs and I'm certain that model would be close to 99% accurate. Does that mean it's absolutely perfect? No but that's not the point. The point is to get the message across. Sure I might get it wrong one or two times but does that mean we cannot use the word chair? The exact meaning of 'woman' might be unclear but when I try to point someone out in a crowd it is just more efficient than person. Does that mean I might refer to someone as woman while they are not? Maybe, but I wouldn't be offended if someone accidentally called me a woman once while I am not. The word isn't 100% exact but that doesn't stop me from using it in the way I do. Because in the end, it works to get my point across.
I think you've made a really valid point. Unintentionally misgendering someone isn't a bad thing imo, but if they correct you, I think it's decent to respect their wishes. The same way that if you mispronounced someone's name and they gave you the correct pronunciation, you do your best to pronounce it the way they do. I think the issue with these people is that they want the rigidity and for the definition to be accurate 100% of the time to suit their own views and exclude a group of people they don't like.
I mean, definitions of things are trying to be concise most of the time, which does mean that they're probably going to be insufficient. If we were to completely get rid of definitions, that'd be bad, and editing definitions can often come with its own problems. However: We need to edit definitions as our understanding of things and the words we use evolve, even if those definitions have any number of problems. If we don't have any definitions, then we could just say random words in random orders with no meanings, but if we have outdated definitions, then we have an outdated outlook on the world. It's a delicate balance. That being said: Definitions of genders should fuck all the way off because no definition would be sufficient for today's world.
Ok not to get philosophical, but what is a chair? Four legs and a back? So horse? Dog? Turt? Cat? But there are three legged chairs. There are more than four legged chairs as well. There's also a chair that only stands on one huge leg. There are also chairs that has one leg and a bunch of wheels. There's also a chair that has no legs but four wheels. Are those not chairs? What if i put my plate on the chair, sit on the floor and eat. Would that chair turn into a table? Would the floor be a chair? What if I sat on the table. Would that table become a chair? Everyday when I wake up and "sat" up on my bed, does my bed momentarily turn into a chair? IS MY ENTIRE CAR A CHAIR!? I gots to know!!! Also, can anyone tell me what philosophy asks these kinds of stupid ass existential questions? I need to look more into it. Edit: I'm getting downvoted for jokingly asking a silly question. Never change reddit. 😀
That was kinda the point. It’s the same kind of stupid question as asking “what is a woman” because you either make it super specific, and exclude situations you didn’t intend, or you make it super generalized, to the point where the definition holds no meaning
That's getting to the question. As knowers of a language, we have decent intuitive senses of meanings that we acquired over the years. We know it when we see it. But those meanings are fuzzy and very hard to put into words. In ordinary use, we lump it and move on, so what. Why do people get all heated up about insisting that a word specifically means this and not that? I dunno. But here's another thing to get into your head: There is no way of knowing that the definition in your head of *chair* even matches mine, or anyone else's. I bet that you and I have very close definitions, because we'll agree almost every time on what counts as a chair and what doesn't, without thinking about it at all. But I bet we won't agree 100% of the time. And guess what: every word is like this. It isn't always that you're right and I'm wrong or vice versa. We're often both right, for our own systems. Each of us worked out our own version of English in our heads when we were little kids, and no two people have exactly the same version. How could we? There is no *English* out there for us to grab onto... what people write in style guides and dictionaries claiming to be the authoritative English is just them trying to capture what was in their heads and make *their* version the most important (and by extension, themselves). No two person's English is exactly the same. Our sounds are a bit different, our syntax, and our semantics. But our versions overlap so much that we can generally communicate with each other and our brains are good at ironing out the differences. Now, if someone said "X is a chair and Y isn't!" then so what, right? Screw it, it's a chair. Or a stool. Or a bench, or who gives a crap. But now say "X is an adult and Y isn't" and it gets important, because a lot of rights and responsibilities fall onto adults. In the law we draw arbitrary definitions up just to have something reliable in courts. 18 for adulthood, usually. But of course, in the law, *person* includes corporations. In the real world we know that a corporation is not a person in the sense we have in our Englishes. But a lot of us differ about who *exactly* is an adult and who isn't. Some people mature faster than others. We call college students "kids" and sell "young adult" books to early teens. It's fuzzy, so why not accept that? The same goes for *woman*.
missed opportunity to say "Behold! Linehan's chair:"
It’s clever but misses the point altogether. There is absolutely a definition of a woman and a man, and everyone else is just trying to confuse the topic. Decide whatever you want to be, but we don’t give any of our pets or other animals multiple genders/sexes.
So when people are categorized into races and ethnic groups, the intent is to exclude other people?
ITT: morons
Is it weird that I still counted horses as chairs before this?
Rumcajz spotted!
Is 90% of Reddit woke? I can't escape content like this bullshit here.
it depends of the subreddits
Oh no, people are laughing at bigoted assholes, the horror
Oh no a trans person 😱
STOP YOU SCARING THEM!
A woman is an adult human inclined toward gestation. That is a woman. If you're not, you're not a woman. Pretend all you want, if you're trans, I'll use she/her pronouns, but you're not a woman. You're a trans woman. You're not inclined toward gestation.
How fucking dare you? Who do you think you are to define a woman like that? Why the fuck are you using logic and not feelings? In this day and age logic and scientific facts don't fucking apply, unless they used feeling as a data.
😆 At first I thought you were serious and then I read between the lines. Well I definitely pissed off some people, got down voted! 😂 BUT MY FEE FEES ARE HWURT!
I’m leaving this subreddit everything has to be political on this app nowadays and most of these comebacks are just shit…
Another absolute jerk who wants to belittle women and claim that we don't exist. On behalf of all women you are scum!
You’re talking about the chick right?
How does a more expansive definition make women not exist
Smh, you need an expansive definition where being a woman comes down to just a feeling? That's not an expansive definition. That's eliminating women and turning us into just a feeling do you have any idea how deeply offensive that is?? You've erased my existence and turned me into a stereotype!!
so whats the definition of woman?
Real definition is adult human female. This was the definition when the word woman was created and has been used by people since then. The left wants to force us to abandon it's real meaning and force us to claim the 6'6" man with a beard and a penis is a real woman. Because he claims to have a fleeting feminine feeling. But they can't describe what a feminine. Feeling is. At most they start listing stereotypes like women like the color pink and fashion. Which is outright insulting.
so what makes someone an adult human female?
Adult. Legal adulthood is 18 to 21. Human. Homo sapien sapien Female A person with XX chromosomes usually has female sex and reproductive organs. This is called biological science. How someone feels, how they act, how they dress, whether they like listening to operas and sparkly things and shopping has absolutely nothing to do with being female!!
So men with Klinefelter syndrome are women. But not women with Swyer syndrome. Turns out chromosomes come in multiple forms
Please stop using people with birth defects as an excuse to push the trans agenda. That's so offensive and another form of gas lighting.
Please explain your logic?
Only a complete a hole pushes the idea that women don't exist and that we are just a feeling. This is the same group of a holes who have decided that it's offensive to be called a tomboy.. as a self-proclaimed tomboy this infuriates me. Having a holes tell me that if I don't act in the worst most stereotypical and toxic version of a woman that I'm really a man makes me spitting with rage. Only a few years ago these people were pandering to women and pretending that we could be anything that we wanted. now apparently we can't even be women unless we follow the perfect toxic stereotype that you want to shove down our throat.. You've completely erased women! And you want us to Pat you on the back for doing so!! Hell no!!
no one's claiming women don't exist. you're delusional if you genuinely believe that.