• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

UK Labour party can't say what a woman is.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am applying you definition of gender bigot to my behaviour. Of course, I know you didn't call me one. Not directly.
I do apologize for being obscure. I responded to your "I have precise views about biological realities such as sex, and those views are informed by the science. " The basis of your "precise" views misses the point: "woman" is not simply a biological identity but a social one as well.
A woman is a specific kind of female: an adult human female.

The gender cultists wish to change this, so that 'woman' means 'any human who 'identifies' as a woman', and in that case it is a social identity. This might be tolerable, if it did not also come with other demands, such as 'women' competing in girls and women's sports, which were separated by sex for reasons of fairness. It comes with other demands, like 'women' sharing spaces with adult human females, where the spaces were separated by sex for reasons of physical safety and psychological comfort. It comes with other demands, such as 'women' who demand others use a pronoun that conflicts with their obvious and outward sex, on pain of State punishment, livelihood ruination, and social censure, and with total and unrelenting disregard for cultural differences and their painfully indifferent ableism.

If the only demand that gender cultists asked for was the right to say 'I am a woman' (which of course they already have) then I would never think about them again.

EDIT: The above is not an exhaustive list of the demands of the gender cultists. They also believe that there are women brains and men brains, and that the category 'female', not just 'woman', is up for debate (or indeed already means "any human who says they are female").
 
I am applying you definition of gender bigot to my behaviour. Of course, I know you didn't call me one. Not directly.
I do apologize for being obscure. I responded to your "I have precise views about biological realities such as sex, and those views are informed by the science. " The basis of your "precise" views misses the point: "woman" is not simply a biological identity but a social one as well.
A woman is a specific kind of female: an adult human female…….
More narrowness and rigidity, but with added irony.
 
I am applying you definition of gender bigot to my behaviour. Of course, I know you didn't call me one. Not directly.
I do apologize for being obscure. I responded to your "I have precise views about biological realities such as sex, and those views are informed by the science. " The basis of your "precise" views misses the point: "woman" is not simply a biological identity but a social one as well.
A woman is a specific kind of female: an adult human female…….
More narrowness and rigidity, but with added irony.
I'm not an adherent of your religion, laughing dog, and I am not ashamed to believe and repeat biological facts that are true and contra your articles of faith.
 
I'm taking a university class to more properly learn the language of my European parents.

When the trans cultists get to Europe, they have a task ahead of them. They'll be dealing with languages where every noun has a gender (male, female, or neuter), every noun applying to humans has a masculine and feminine declension, and the grammatical gender of the nouns that describe humans relate to the sex of the human.

On the other hand, if the American anglophone gender cultists do manage to conquer with their acts of language and cultural imperialism (Latinx anybody?), they might convert Europe to a gender-affirming paradise, because the entire language changes to suit the gender of the noun. They simply need to make the demand stick that the correct grammatical 'gender' of humans is whatever they say it is.
 
I'm taking a university class to more properly learn the language of my European parents.

When the trans cultists get to Europe, they have a task ahead of them. They'll be dealing with languages where every noun has a gender (male, female, or neuter), every noun applying to humans has a masculine and feminine declension, and the grammatical gender of the nouns that describe humans relate to the sex of the human.

On the other hand, if the American anglophone gender cultists do manage to conquer with their acts of language and cultural imperialism (Latinx anybody?), they might convert Europe to a gender-affirming paradise, because the entire language changes to suit the gender of the noun. They simply need to make the demand stick that the correct grammatical 'gender' of humans is whatever they say it is.

I think laughing dog is right. Labelling everyone else of being a cultist and then pontificating with a style and cadence that would make Jim Jones turn in his grave is all the irony I can take today.
 
I am applying you definition of gender bigot to my behaviour. Of course, I know you didn't call me one. Not directly.
I do apologize for being obscure. I responded to your "I have precise views about biological realities such as sex, and those views are informed by the science. " The basis of your "precise" views misses the point: "woman" is not simply a biological identity but a social one as well.
A woman is a specific kind of female: an adult human female…….
More narrowness and rigidity, but with added irony.
I'm not an adherent of your religion, laughing dog, and I am not ashamed to believe and repeat biological facts that are true and contra your articles of faith.
Even more narrowness, rigidity and irony - you do gender cultists proud.

It is clear you are not interested in actusl discussion but proselytizing a narrow and rigid view.
 
I'm taking a university class to more properly learn the language of my European parents.

When the trans cultists get to Europe, they have a task ahead of them. They'll be dealing with languages where every noun has a gender (male, female, or neuter), every noun applying to humans has a masculine and feminine declension, and the grammatical gender of the nouns that describe humans relate to the sex of the human.

On the other hand, if the American anglophone gender cultists do manage to conquer with their acts of language and cultural imperialism (Latinx anybody?), they might convert Europe to a gender-affirming paradise, because the entire language changes to suit the gender of the noun. They simply need to make the demand stick that the correct grammatical 'gender' of humans is whatever they say it is.

I think laughing dog is right. Labelling everyone else of being a cultist and then pontificating with a style and cadence that would make Jim Jones turn in his grave is all the irony I can take today.
Not everyone else is a cultist. The gender cultists are cultists, though.
 
sharing spaces with adult human females, where the spaces were separated by sex for reasons of physical safety

So you think LGTBQ people are in disguise so they can molest others?
How you can possibly take that from what I wrote I am certain I do not know.

And, as happens shockingly often with gender cultists, your "question" is the exact opposite of the inference you would draw if you were thinking rationally and without prejudice.

First, I said the spaces were separated by sex for the physical safety and psychological comfort of women and girls. If you think that implies LGBTQ people are 'molesters', that is an idiotic inference to make. Separating spaces by sex makes the implication that it is males (not "LGBTQ people") that could disrupt the physical safety and psychological comfort of females.

Second, separating spaces by sex is an implication that lesbians, gays, and bisexual people are not any kind of threat to women and girls. After all, it means putting in lesbian and bisexual women in with other women, and it means putting gay and bisexual men in with other men.

Third, I have no idea what 'in disguise' means. I think trans women are men, because they are.
 
If you are passing legislation about sex, you damn well better know what
It strikes me that legislation should never be passed legally differentiating on the basis of genital or social identity.

To do so is, quite literally sexist.

It strikes me that the law should never once say "man/woman/penis/vagina" just like it should never even once say "marriage", and instead prefer "domestic partnership contract".

I think you probably need penis and vagina in rape laws.

Except that you really don't.

Someone without a penis nor a vagina can still rape someone without a penis or a vagina. All it takes is any phallic object, and a hole that does not want it going in, and a context outside of medical necessity OR the stimulation of any person to orgasm outside their consent to be in that state.
 
This whole thread is about the unwillingness of a politician to define "woman" with mathematical precision while trying to accomplish something else. I totally get that.

But you know what else?
Nobody can define "trans" clearly, not in practical terms. Get past vague abstractions like "experiences gender dysphoria", and there's almost nothing but anecdotal stories. Like Tubbs, a cismale rapist who apparently decided he was trans while being prosecuted for sexually assaulting a 10 y/o girl. On the other hand I know a person who starting in his teens. By the time he was 18, he was in therapy. Started hormone therapy by 19, and by 21 had enough therapy and surgery that she wouldn't raise an eyebrow in the women's shower of a public city swimming pool. She is still cismale, but she's obviously a trans woman. I don't see them as much alike. But they're both trans, according to some people's meaning for the term.

Not mine, some people's.
Tom
 
Last edited:
I'm taking a university class to more properly learn the language of my European parents.
Good for you. Getting it not quite right can lead to embarrassment...

[youtube]

(1:15...)
 
When the trans cultists get to Europe, they have a task ahead of them. They'll be dealing with languages where every noun has a gender (male, female, or neuter), every noun applying to humans has a masculine and feminine declension, and the grammatical gender of the nouns that describe humans relate to the sex of the human.
It's going to be worse than that. Sometimes the grammatical genders of the nouns that describe humans don't even relate to the sex of the human; they're just arbitrary. I don't know if Slavic languages have this issue, but in German, Weib, Madchen and Fraulein (wife, girl, Miss) are all neuter. Plus you have to decline adjectives and articles and pronouns to agree with a noun's grammatical gender, not with its sex if any. They're in for some interesting times...

England used to have one of those languages where every noun has a gender. This died out about 800 years ago, after the French had conquered the place. That wouldn't have been a problem since French was the same way, except that which nouns were which gender was totally different between French and English. The new rulers were willing to learn enough English to order their subjects around, but they couldn't be bothered to relearn the genders of thousands of nouns.
 
This whole thread is about the unwillingness of a politician to define "woman" with mathematical precision while trying to accomplish something else. I totally get that.

But you know what else?
Nobody can define "trans" clearly, not in practical terms. Get past vague abstractions like "experiences gender dysphoria", and there's almost nothing but anecdotal stories. Like Tubbs, a cismale rapist who apparently decided he was trans while being prosecuted for sexually assaulting a 10 y/o girl. On the other hand I know a person who starting in his teens. By the time he was 18, he was in therapy. Started hormone therapy by 19, and by 21 had enough therapy and surgery that she wouldn't raise an eyebrow in the women's shower of a public city swimming pool. She is still cismale, but she's obviously a trans woman. I don't see them as much alike. But they're both trans, according to some people's meaning for the term.

Not mine, some people's.
Tom
I just don't think trying to define "trans" legally is useful either.

It's easy to define a legal term for "exposed to testosterone", and a legal term for "not exposed to testosterone", and "only exposed to a little testosterone" and "hasn't been exposed to testosterone for °°° years".

These can be meaningful delineations in certain legally important contexts.

Everything else is just assholes insisting on particular labels.
 
I just don't think trying to define "trans" legally is useful either.
You say this.
Then add

These can be meaningful delineations in certain legally important contexts.
Which completely contradicts it.

You don't think that trans can be described, for legal purposes, but you also think it can be.
?

Trans gender is a new and different problem for society. For nearly all of human history cis was word. Either you're cismale or cisfemale. Things aren't that simple any more.

Everything else is just assholes insisting on particular labels.
"Everything else" includes you.
Tom
 
I just don't think trying to define "trans" legally is useful either.
You say this.
Then add

These can be meaningful delineations in certain legally important contexts.
Which completely contradicts it.

You don't think that trans can be described, for legal purposes, but you also think it can be.
?

Trans gender is a new and different problem for society. For nearly all of human history cis was word. Either you're cismale or cisfemale. Things aren't that simple any more.

Everything else is just assholes insisting on particular labels.
"Everything else" includes you.
Tom
Those don't define "trans".

People born with a "vagina"? They can be "so exposed", and not socially "trans" (there are few instances of this, but w/e). Most are socially "trans".

People born with a "penis"? They can be "so exposed" and not trans. They can also be "so exposed" and then socially, "trans".

People born with a penis? They can be not-so-exposed, too, and either trans or not.

The law has no reason to declare at all "who is which gender/sex". None.
 
Those don't define "trans".
Who does?
What does?

Go ahead. Define trans.
Tom
I didn't. Mostly because it doesn't matter.

Legally enumerating "trans" is all kinds of dumb just like legally defining "man" or "woman".

Define the one thing legally that matters such that nobody has room to wiggle around it with slippery language, and keep it far away from any acknowledgement of "what that means" in terms of "man", "woman", or "trans".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom