Given that all non-trans men or women do not necessarily meet the definitions that Gen55 would have us all ascribe to as the only definitions for those words, I hardly see how your question is relevant.
I very clearly did provide a definition, complete with a link to resource from which the definition was obtained.
Have you tried a dictionary? I obviously recommend Merriam-Websters:
Merriam-Websters : woman
3: distinctively feminine nature
I am happy to provide that definition for you...
Whether you think it is a good definition or not is irrelevant. Merriam-Websters is a reference which people all over the world use to provide definitions for words in the English language, you are not. If they did not provide good definitions they would not have remained in business for as long...
Take that up with Merriam-Webster.
Whether it makes sense to you, or not, it is an accepted definition of 'man', showing your assertion that "There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female."" is incorrect.
No. My contention is that the definition I linked to from Merriam-Websters shows that Gen55 was incorrect in insisting that the word 'man' has a singular definition. I do not presume to tell others how they should identify with that word.
By my reading of the post to which you are responding, you were not being equated with the victims in those anecdotes. If anything, it seems to read as quite the opposite.
That may all be correct, but you also said "They use the word 'gender' to define 'gender identity'" in response to the question "What's circular about that?".
It is factually incorrect to say that using the word 'gender' to define 'gender identity' is a circular reference.
That's the problem with people today, they fucking misrepresent anything when it suits their idiotic agenda. Case in point, this AP article that says exactly what Trausti says they would not say:
Shooting victim says he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse
If someone who you are inclined to call a man has asked you not to call them a man, and you intentionally call them a man regardless, that is exceedingly rude, and is not "perfectly fine" from the perspective of the person to whom you are being exceedingly rude. It is often considered rude to...
So, apparently now it is censorship not if you are prevented from saying something, but if you aren't paid for saying something. Is there someplace I can go to keep up with what definition the right wing is using for words these days?
I don't believe I made any such statement. Neither did I claim that it is 'perfectly fine', or not, for any one to be referenced by any specific noun. I very clearly stated that such usages would need to be examined on their own merits, and this would include taking into account the context in...
Simple reference to a definition does not in any way imply that usage of that definition is 'perfectly fine' in any given context. Those usages would need to be examined on their own merits.
I will try, let's see how open those ears of yours are. You said "There is simply no way to define man or woman other than "adult human male" or "adult human female.""
That is simply incorrect. Merriam Websters, provides one such definition for man:
Merriam Websters - man
d(1): one possessing...
The word gender was not being defined, the phrase "gender identity" was being defined. It makes sense to reference "gender" when defining a phrase that includes that word, just as it makes sense to reference the word "sex" when defining "sexual orientation", which occurred in the first half of...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.