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

[Metaphor]

I'll note that it's not a competition "which sex/gender misbehaves less".

Fail right off the bat. Sex and gender are different.

Sex is a biological reality that humans have recognised for millennia. There are two sexes in humans and humans cannot change sex.

"Gender" is a thought in a person's head. There can be an infinite number of genders because there can be an infinite number of thoughts.

"What sex are you?"

"I am a woman."

"But what's in your pants?"

"I only do show me yours I'll show you mine. But I don't wanna play that game with you."

And the genital obsession rolls ever on. Trans activists can't help themselves. They think everybody thinks about genitals as much as they do.

Here's a clue. If the person saying "I am a woman" is answering the question "What is your gender identity", then they are not answering the question that was asked. If they know the person is asking about sex but answers with gender identity and their gender identity is not their sex, then they are lying.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'll note that it's not a competition "which sex/gender misbehaves less".

Fail right off the bat. Sex and gender are different.

Sex is a biological reality that humans have recognised for millennia. There are two sexes in humans and humans cannot change sex.

"Gender" is a thought in a person's head. There can be an infinite number of genders because there can be an infinite number of thoughts.

"What sex are you?"

"I am a woman."

"But what's in your pants?"

"I only do show me yours I'll show you mine. But I don't wanna play that game with you."

And the genital obsession rolls ever on. Trans activists can't help themselves. They think everybody thinks about genitals as much as they do.

Here's a clue. If the person saying "I am a woman" is answering the question "What is your gender identity", then they are not answering the question that was asked. If they know the person is asking about sex but answers with gender identity and their gender identity is not their sex, then they are lying.

You're the one playing "what's in your pants". You claim you play that game every time you use a pronoun.

 

[Metaphor]

I'll note that it's not a competition "which sex/gender misbehaves less".

Fail right off the bat. Sex and gender are different.

Sex is a biological reality that humans have recognised for millennia. There are two sexes in humans and humans cannot change sex.

"Gender" is a thought in a person's head. There can be an infinite number of genders because there can be an infinite number of thoughts.

"What sex are you?"

"I am a woman."

"But what's in your pants?"

"I only do show me yours I'll show you mine. But I don't wanna play that game with you."

And the genital obsession rolls ever on. Trans activists can't help themselves. They think everybody thinks about genitals as much as they do.

Here's a clue. If the person saying "I am a woman" is answering the question "What is your gender identity", then they are not answering the question that was asked. If they know the person is asking about sex but answers with gender identity and their gender identity is not their sex, then they are lying.

You're the one playing "what's in your pants". You claim you play that game every time you use a pronoun.

No, I do not make that claim. I made the claim that when I use pronouns, and for all of human history up until about 5 minutes ago, pronouns were sexed and corresponded to the sex of the human they were used for.

That the only thing you can think of when you think of the sex of a human is their genitals is your own failing. A woman is not a vulva; a man is not a penis.

You also appear to believe that every time parents freely tell people about their son or daughter, they are talking about their children's genitals. That is a sick thing to believe. Own your sick beliefs but stop projecting them on to others.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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...

I don't know about Europe, but it's already happening over here. It's a mess, because of course one's neural net flags Woke Spanish as 'incorrect' intuitively all the time, even if it's for now focused on cases involving the sex of the human. It could get much worse if that spills to other cases (in Spanish, grammatical genders of the nouns are also arbitrary).
The Woke increasingly dominate academia - though probably not yet to the extent as they do in developed countries -, and while lack of compliance is usually not yet usually enforced in colloquial talk, things are going in that direction (as always, in academia; in other social contexts, their impact varies from a lot to nothing afaik).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yes, because reality itself shows them a liar. But there's nothing to "lie about" when you are saying "I am a woman" because "woman" is not clearly definable.

In non-Woke English which is the language I have learned to speak and that a substantial portion of the native English-speaking population of the world speaks, in some dialect or another - , if I say "I am a woman", I lie, since I make a false statement, knowing it is false. The fact that the boundaries of who is a woman and who isn't are fuzzy has nothing to do with it. For that matter, the boundaries between pretty much at least nearly any colloquial term that describes concrete objects are fuzzy - and at most, all such terms, and most non-colloquial ones as well.

But now you say that " there's nothing to "lie about" when you are saying "I am a woman" because "woman" is not clearly definable", so let me get about your position. Do you think that:

1. When some people claim 'trans women are women', are they not making a claim that can be true or false?
2. When some people claim 'trans women are not women', are they not making a claim that can be true or false?
3. When a person claims "I am a woman", that person is not saying something either true or false?
4. Do you think Woke activists are mistaken when they claim that those who say 'trans women are not women' are making false claims?

 

[Jarhyn]

No, I do not make that claim. I made the claim that when I use pronouns, and for all of human history up until about 5 minutes ago, pronouns were sexed and corresponded

...Which you claim is binary and is a discussion of genitals rather than gender. You're not going to be able to just sweep that stinker under the rug.

That the only thing you can think of when you think of the sex of a human is their genitals is your own failing. A woman is not a vulva; a man is not a penis

So quit demanding that we use language in such a way as it is expected to reveal "they have a °°°" as a begged question of pronoun use.

You also appear to believe that every time parents freely tell people about their son or daughter

When they use pronouns the way you do, they are, unavoidably. It IS a sick thing to do, which is why it is such a sick thing to believe that one ought use common terms "man" and "woman" to denote "sex" (gross genital observation at birth).

The game you play pivots on talking about what a baby's genitals looked like which was you point out is fucking sick.

 

[Metaphor]

...Which you claim is binary and is a discussion of genitals rather than gender. You're not going to be able to just sweep that stinker under the rug.

Sex is binary. I did not claim it is a discussion of genitals. It is not 'a stinker' to make either claim. It is, in fact, quite mundane.

So quit demanding that we use language in such a way as it is expected to reveal "they have a °°°" as a begged question of pronoun use.

Your claim is a straw man. I have explained this to you multiple times.

When they use pronouns the way you do, they are, unavoidably. It IS a sick thing to do, which is why it is such a sick thing to believe that one ought use common terms "man" and "woman" to denote "sex" (gross genital observation at birth).

The game you play pivots on talking about what a baby's genitals looked like which was you point out is fucking sick.

Non. Sex is observed and recorded at birth. Sex is not external genitalia. Please try to understand basic biology. Gender cultists lie about what happens, by claiming gender is assigned at birth.

Gender cultists need to stop lying and stop forcing others to repeat their prayers. I do not believe in your gods and your phantoms.

Deal with it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sex is binary

You wish it was, but that does not make it true. It is bimodal.

I did not claim it is a discussion of genitals.

Someone pops out of a parent on their birthday, and the parent looks where exactly before saying "It's a •••"?

Every time that decision made in that way is referenced, it's a reference to exactly what was looked at on that day.

Sex is observed and recorded at birth

By observing external genetalia.

Please quit trying to sweep a turd under the rug. We still see it, we still smell it.

 

[Bomb#20]

And when your neighbor says there are twenty gods or no god, it says to all of society an implication that you who say the One True God revealed Himself to you are a liar or a fake, or a delusional madman, besmirching the validity of what you say about yourself...

Yes, because reality itself shows them a liar.

Do tell. By all means, exhibit the observation that shows there's no God who reveals Himself to some people

I don't need to. Such is an inversion of burden of proof. As per the new guy crowing over in the religion forums, show me the god, show me the creator, and then we'll talk.

Got it. In the Jarhyn alternate reality, failing to meet one's burden of proof for one's claims amounts to "reality itself shows them a liar". Good to know. So you figure any woman who cried "rape" but had no witnesses or physical evidence has been shown by reality to be a liar? Would you flog her based on her confession to non-marital sex, or would you just prosecute her for perjury?

[Jarhyn] decided isolation was a great idea for any man who went into a juvenile female facility[.]

... You <expletive-laden misrepresentational personal attack snipped>

Not sure why you spliced Metaphor's statement into your reply to me, or who you meant by "You", but whatever your issue here is, take it up with Metaphor.

By all means, exhibit the definitions of "God" and "reveal" that are so much clearer than any definition of "woman".

There are other forums for which you may ask that. I don't really think it belongs here.

It belongs where I asked it. If you try to define God in another forum more clearly than a definition of "woman", your failure will be epic, but all the implications for the political claims you made here will go blissfully unnoticed. You have a blatant double standard for whether you regard requesting evidence for unscientific claims as causing the claimant or the requestor to become besmirched.

"has x level of expression of gene for testosterone receptor" is exactly as much a cluster concept as "woman" is.

No, it's a quantitative measurement with a standard, ostensibly one set on the basis of scientific investigation and observation. It's entirely feasible to develop a model and let people argue in front of a court where they belong,

Giving that answer shows you didn't understand the counterargument. The circumstance that it's a quantitative measurement with a standard set on the basis of scientific investigation and observation doesn't stop it from being a cluster concept because the choice of what to quantitatively measure, investigate and observe in the first place was driven by the "woman" cluster concept. So the standard you propose tacitly relies on everything in that cluster.

There are other things too, like the active possibility of pregnancy.

If you don't understand that, then you should probably go back to school.

What the heck are you on about? An awful lot of women have no active possibility of pregnancy.

Androgen receptors have [a lot of mansplaining apparently.]

You'd have to be a woman for it to be mansplaining -- you identifying as a wizard instead of as a man doesn't cut it. I really shouldn't need to fluent-English-speaker-splain this to you.

So, it's cute that you understand some biology. I don't give a ...

The plumage you give don't enter into it -- your argument is stone fallacious. You tried to sell me a dead parrot.

Clearly, the use of "woman" and "man" are oversimplifications.

The point is that you clearly wish to divide people prejudicially on the basis of what you consider to be "sex".

You really shouldn't tell others what they wish -- you can't do it competently. Prejudice means pre-judging -- judging based on preconceptions rather than evidence about a specific case. I post-judge people's sex from individual evidence.

You would then demand everyone across society point and look at "sex".

Quote me. Where have I demanded others do as I do? This is a dispute in which self-perceived trans-allies are the ones making the demands. All I'm doing is pointing out that Americans have a First Amendment right not to submit to leftists' demands for us to self-censor and give lip service to your religious beliefs, and that our choice of which gender pronoun to use in our own speech when we refer to you neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg. If you and some others in our society prefer to point and look at gender identity, good luck with that since it isn't observable, but knock yourselves out. And if you and some others in our society prefer to point and look at self-declared gender identity, or at self-declared sex, or at "scientifically" measured "meaningful" testosterone exposure, or prefer to pick pronouns based on whether an item is flat or long or mechanical or made of paper, please yourselves. Exactly which part of "It's a free country." don't you understand?

You would reject a situation with fewer edge/corner cases WRT insensitivity for a system with more edge cases with respect to Thomas, the 6 foot 230lb mountain of muscle who loves to rape everyone they call "women", who happens to be what Bomb would call a "woman".

Quote me. Where the bejesus am I supposed to have said a bloody thing about where a female criminal who's been taking androgens should be imprisoned?

 

[Metaphor]

Sex is binary

You wish it was, but that does not make it true. It is bimodal.

Non. There are two sexes and humans can't change sex. You've been told this over and over.

I did not claim it is a discussion of genitals.

Someone pops out of a parent on their birthday,

A mother goes into labour and gives birth

and the parent looks where exactly before saying "It's a •••"?

Somebody looks at the external genitalia to observe the sex of the baby. What's your point? The external genitalia are a reliable indicator of sex but they are not 'sex'.

Every time that decision made in that way is referenced, it's a reference to exactly what was looked at on that day.

It's a reference to sex, not to external genitalia.

Sex is observed and recorded at birth

By observing external genetalia.

Please quit trying to sweep a turd under the rug. We still see it, we still smell it.

That you do not wish to acknowledge biological reality does not mean the rest of us ought not.

 

[Jarhyn]

woman who cried "rape" but had no witnesses or physical evidence

You show me the time that has happened and you actually believed her.

I can point to a number of incidents, including one involving a SCOTUS judge where said judge showed a calendar with a clear candidate for the night of the events therein clearly marked out, and a pattern of similar behavior and evasions on the subject and you still didn't believe the person who said a rape was attempted.

It's as if rape in this context is a red herring...

You have a blatant double standard for whether you regard requesting evidence for unscientific claims as causing the claimant or the requestor to become besmirched.

No, I really don't. I can show plenty of people who raped someone and lied about it. It's a low bar to believe a claim of rape, and oftentimes it is satisfied.

Start a topic on "definitions of god", and see how much I care, and whether you will be epically shamed as to how wrong you might be in your declarations as to which concept of language is tighter.

I recall another conversation where some hard determinists have been getting huffy over the topic of useful definitions.

You'd have to be a woman for it to be

No. You just need to be a "man" for it to be such, and lo, you claim "man" therefore when you do it in that way, it is mansplaining.

You really shouldn't tell others what they wish

I'll tell you exactly what it is you tell me you wish, or the implications of your wishes to the wishes that those implications imply.

The thing you pre-judge is everything else about them on the basis of you pre-judging their sex on the basis of your initial assessment of their physical appearance. It's prejudice all the way down, I'm afraid.

You could just ask them and let that be your guide.

But no, you decide to do exactly the thing that people are more and more every day understanding is really a fucked up thing to do: discussing what is in other people's pants.

As it is, we still have @Metaphor stamping up and down and now throwing yet another tantrum exactly over me not using his preferred language and using words that imply genital configurations.

He doesn't understand even the difference between "binary" and "bimodal". He still thinks it's just one or the other when we have a lot of examples of people sitting outside the binary entirely, even, or in places that are more like complicated-curve-case than edge case.

He can't quite operate the transitive property long enough to strong together that if being born with a "penis" makes you a "male" means when you grow up you are a "man", saying someone is a "man" is also, by necessary implication also saying "they were born with a penis" and since that little look at birth is all most people get so as to bin them this way, it's effectively the reality of such uses of language.

I would much rather it not be so, and so would most other people. It is a few extremely vocal assholes who demand this transitive linkage on language that the rest of us understand may instead treat in "gender" terms.

I wonder what the next instance of behavior by a trans person will be used as an excuse to throw inappropriate language at people who aren't participants here so as to report it may be.

The reality is that sexual differentiation is complicated and bimodal, and that puberty is a big part of it, and the thing all that orbits around during those middle years is the presence or absence of testosterone, progesterone, and estrogen, and their ratios.

my solutions would put a snooze button on all this, instead of having a meaningless argument over semantics. Give up the semantics already. All the semantic argument does is make people who argue against giving someone a pronoun out to be assholes

 

[Metaphor]

As it is, we still have @Metaphor stamping up and down and now throwing yet another tantrum exactly over me not using his preferred language and using words that imply genital configurations.

He doesn't understand even the difference between "binary" and "bimodal".

I know the difference. It's simply that you are wrong.

There is no third sex. There is no third gamete that is not a sperm or an ovum. You appear incapable of understanding that sex and sex characteristics are different. Emily Lake has explained it to you far more eloquently than I could, repeatedly.

 

[TomC]

Must this thread get locked again?

Tom the staff

 

[Tigers!]

It makes no sense at all. In fact, I think it probably wouldn't even make sense to most TRAs. I'm not even convinced it actually makes sense to Jarhyn... it's merely part of his overall position that sex is irrelevant and meaningless and should never ever be referenced regardless of the well-documented and observed material differences associated with it. Jarhyn seems to have a very deep investment in pushing the belief that sex is not worth noting.

That is something I do not understand. Why is sex not worth mentioned but gender is?

 

[Emily Lake]

You're the one playing "what's in your pants". You claim you play that game every time you use a pronoun.

Except that for 99.9% of the adults on the planet, their sex is readily apparent from their faces alone.

You keep pretending that there's no difference between males and females, and that it's impossible for anyone to tell without looking in someone's pants... and that's a truly silly argument. It's patently false. There may be some very few people who are either genuinely androgynous or who actually pass very well as the opposite sex... and hey - more power to them. But the vast majority of people who have reached puberty are obviously one sex or the other.

Your fantasy of everyone being some ill-defined nebulous "they" where sex is a total guess is just that - a fantasy.

 

[Emily Lake]

When they use pronouns the way you do, they are, unavoidably. It IS a sick thing to do, which is why it is such a sick thing to believe that one ought use common terms "man" and "woman" to denote "sex" (gross genital observation at birth).

The game you play pivots on talking about what a baby's genitals looked like which was you point out is fucking sick.

Honestly, this is a really bizarre argument.

 

[Emily Lake]

Sex is binary

You wish it was, but that does not make it true. It is bimodal.

I did not claim it is a discussion of genitals.

Someone pops out of a parent on their birthday, and the parent looks where exactly before saying "It's a •••"?

Every time that decision made in that way is referenced, it's a reference to exactly what was looked at on that day.

Sex is observed and recorded at birth

By observing external genetalia.

Please quit trying to sweep a turd under the rug. We still see it, we still smell it.

I'm just gong to throw out here that if the parent of a male infant pretends that they don't know their child's sex, or they refuse to tell it to the babysitter on the grounds that it's "sick" to acknowledge the difference in anatomy... Someone is going to get pee in their face.

Likewise, if it's a female infant and someone plays this pretend game of "oh we can't tell"... they're likely to give their baby girl a urinary tract infection.

 

[Metaphor]

You keep pretending that there's no difference between males and females, and that it's impossible for anyone to tell without looking in someone's pants... and that's a truly silly argument. It's patently false. There may be some very few people who are either genuinely androgynous or who actually pass very well as the opposite sex... and hey - more power to them. But the vast majority of people who have reached puberty are obviously one sex or the other.

Once or twice in my life I've seen someone from a distance and thought "what a cute twink" only to get slightly closer and notice very quickly that it is not a young man but an androgynous young woman. She might have her hair in a style popular with teenage boys in the 1990s, but everything else about her is obviously female: her voice, her posture, her gait, her breasts, her hips.

And I didn't even ask to see what was in her pants to confirm my categorisation.

 

[Jarhyn]

It makes no sense at all. In fact, I think it probably wouldn't even make sense to most TRAs. I'm not even convinced it actually makes sense to Jarhyn... it's merely part of his overall position that sex is irrelevant and meaningless and should never ever be referenced regardless of the well-documented and observed material differences associated with it. Jarhyn seems to have a very deep investment in pushing the belief that sex is not worth noting.

That is something I do not understand. Why is sex not worth mentioned but gender is?

Neither is worth mentioning from a governmental standpoint. Government simply should not be involved in any discussion that includes "sex" or "gender".

It is not that sex is not "with" noting, it's that sex is not appropriate to note. And unlike others, I'm willing to define "appropriate" in the context: "denotations of sex are discussions, in general, of gonadal conformity, and the gonads of others are widely acknowledged as private; people have a right to not having private information discussed except by their consent; it is inappropriate to violate the rights of others against their consent; therefore, discussions of sex are in general inappropriate."

 

[Bomb#20]

I'll address the rest of the nonsense in your post when I have more time, but this takes priority...

woman who cried "rape" but had no witnesses or physical evidence

You show me the time that has happened and you actually believed her.

I can point to a number of incidents, including one involving a SCOTUS judge where said judge showed a calendar with a clear candidate for the night of the events therein clearly marked out, and a pattern of similar behavior and evasions on the subject and you still didn't believe the person who said a rape was attempted.

None of that ever happened. It is a figment of your imagination. You are making false damaging claims about me with malice and with reckless disregard for the truth, because I'm in your outgroup and you reserve moral consideration for your ingroup, so you just don't give a damn whether what you say about me is true or not as long as you think you're putting me in my place. You obviously have me mixed up with some other poster, and you knew when you wrote that garbage about me that you don't care about the individuality of people in your outgroup, so you knew mixing up your opponents is the sort of error you're liable to make, and you still decided not to fact-check what you wrote before you posted it. Shame on you.